{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_558","title":"Principal selection process, questionnaires","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, questionnaires"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/558"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["116 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nGIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATlOf MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) interviews. A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Polett  501-376-2423 3tE7/15/94 01:32 PM  3/5 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polen  SO1-376-2423 107/15/94 01:33 PM  4/5 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss, ZaehPolen a 501-376-2423 ^S7/1S/94 01:33 PM D5/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES CARVER - 4 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? The superintendents office secretary called - she had been at the school a long time. Called May 27 (about a weeks notice). Received a written reminder of appointment and that team would be asking candidates questions Does not know why she was selected. Received a note in her box from Ms. Mathis requesting that serve on the committee. No written or oral role descriptions provided prior to the day of the interview. Was told to inform EM if she couldnt serve\nassumed that more than two other staff members would also be serving on the team. Asked the departing principal to allow her to be on the committee. No information provided prior to the interviews. As co-PTA president, he and the other president decided who would represent the parents. Upon discovering that the principal was leaving, the two presidents initiated telephone communication about the replacement process. The only information from the district was that the interview team was to be racially balanced. Committee members were selected around May 10\nfirst interviews were June 6, and re-interviews occurred well into July. During the first round of interviews, the committee did not receive any oral or written role description or what was to occur. They did receive a copy of \"Interview Protocols\" at the second round of interviews. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? The committee would ask questions\neach applicant would be assigned a score on a 0-4 scale. Sheets were tallied and given to M. Gremillion or her appointee. The superintendent would look over the files with the scoring sheets included and personally interview the top 2 or 3 applicants. These instructions were given orally on the day of the interviews. Team members had about 30 minutes to look over the questions and the scoring procedures. Team members divided the questions with each member having 1 or 2 questions. They were allowed to take notes, but no scoring in front of the candidate. After the interview, there was time to think about a score, but there was no discussion among team members. They looked over their notes, went to the next candidate and at the end of the process, turned over the file to MG. Was told that staff would have input, but her role was not explained. No written instructions received. Received oral instructions upon arriving at the school. They were told they would be rating the candidates, asking previously prepared questions, and told that Dr. Williams would make the ultimate decision. She felt he would be there. Team members would be provided with candidates, interview and rate them on a scale of 4-1 and tally the results. Present the superintendent with the top candidates and he would make the decision. Received written questions and oral instructions on the day of the interviews. Did not have any. Called downtown for information but didnt get any. They wanted to know names of applicants and what questions would be asked,but werent told. For the first round of interviews the committee members didnt learn anything until they walked through the door. At that time, they were given oral instructions along with a list of candidates and a list of 10 questions they were required to ask. They also received a score sheet, some resumes, or other background information on each candidate. The committee did not have sufficient time to look over the information, only 20 minutes. The responded did inquire if the committees input would be taken into serious consideration or if they were \"down here playing games.\" M. Gremillion gave them instructions and assured them they were being taken seriously, but Dr. Williams had the final say. Copies of the Interview Protocol was handed out at the second round of interview. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Some parents met prior to the interviews\nthe whole committee never could do so. At the time of the interviews some members had prepared questions. The districts prepared questions were broad and general. Team members could ask some of their own questions in order to go a little deeper or to probe. The team had about 30 minutes before the meeting to get acclimated. The job posting was available for review. The committee didnt prepare questions\nthey didnt know who was on the committee. The staff wasnt truly represented. Information was received late, no opportunity to contact teachers to find out what they wanted in a principal. The counselor was the only staff representative. Teachers had no time to voice concerns or expectations. The team reviewed applicant files just before the interviews. Did not see job description. Met prior to the process and prepared questions and determine the expectations of the type of principal needed. This meeting was with parents. Team members looked at the questions and stated that they wanted to ask their own questions. Doesnt remember if any of the teams questions were asked. Did not look at job description. They met for about one and a half hours and reviewed the job posting\nthey prepared a list of 30 interview questions, and tried to get the names and information on each candidate, but couldnt. They were never told what the selection criteria would be. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. The applicant came in\nteam members introduced themselves and asked the applicant questions. Team members took notes and probed with some of their own questions, then terminated the interview. Each member privately assigned points to each candidate and recorded the points on a scoring sheet. The next candidate would enter and the process would start again. Each candidate had a folder that had been prepared in advance.Team members looked at the files\nread over 10 questions and were asked to decide which ones they would ask. The interview process and the rating scale was explained. Members took notes and rated the candidates between interviews. After the interviews, team was told the results would go back to Ms. Mathis and then to the superintendent. He would review the top three and select from the. A parent asked - 'What if the committee decided to reject all applicants and reopen the interviews.\" The district representative said they could call and the district would facilitate. Team members were told the rules\nthey divided and assigned the 10 prepared questions. Members took notes\ntallied scores and interviewed the next applicant. The district representative tallied all of the results and submitted them to the superintendent. During the first round of interviews, they interviewed five candidate for about 30 minutes or less each. The brief time between interviews did not allow for meaningful discussion. Margaret encouraged them to rate each candidate after each interview. They did not ask additional questions because they were told that all candidates had to be asked the same questions. The rating sheets were handed in with no discussion, and there was no consensus on the best candidate. The respondent felt that the only acceptable candidate (the schools white female assistant principal) would lose out because of E. Mathiss bias against her. Gremillion told them to call the next day for the interview tallies\nthey did, and were told the assistant principal was rated way above the others. After two weeks and no decision, the co-PTA presidents met with Estelle and Dr. Williams and were told that the assistant principal did not have enough building experience. The co-presidents pointed out that she met the requirements outlined in the job posting and should get the job. Estelle stated she wanted the best possible person, and Hank wanted a strong principal. The assistant principal had to reapply for the second round of interviews in J uly. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Was surprised there were only five. No mention made of interviewing more. All of the applicants were at the assistant principal level, except one who had experience as a principal in a rural district. Would have liked to have seen more. Respondent relayed this concern to the interview chairperson. Some members felt the job was advertised. Does not feel that the team reached consensus on the candidate. Yes. The majority of applicants were knowledgeable and provided in-depth answers to the questions. None were adequate. None of the applicants met the respondents standard. The PTA president felt they were adequate, however the respondent feels the candidates were lacking in experience for a school like Carver. The first time only one candidate was acceptable\nthe second time, yes\nthey were given seven candidates (one no show).6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams. M. Gremillion explained how the processed worked. The team would make recommendations, but the superintendent had the final say. Told up front the superintendent would make the final selection. Dr. Williams would be presented with a list and he would make the decision. Dr. Williams would make the final selection based on their input in the form of their top candidates, ranked in order. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Difficult to say\nthe process is not over.... the process is reopened and the team will be interviewing more applicants today. Wondered at first, but apparently the committee had influence since some felt (the respondent didnt) that the pool of applicants wasnt adequate. Felt her input was given weight. During the first round, input was ignored. The second time they were unanimous with the final selection and the administration agreed. (Note: the candidate declined the position and the assistant principal wound up serving as Acting Principal) 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Wished the process was speedier, not dragged out. The school still doesnt have a principal but they will begin again the following Monday. The preparation of the questions by the administrators, the flexibility to probe, and the organization of each applicants file worked well. The timeliness of the process needs work. The team, parent, school personnel process is unsettling. Not very satisfied with the process\nit was rushed and respondent did not understand expectations until the morning of the interviews. Need to have advance notice to the staff and allow time for teachers to provide input to their representatives on the committee. If there are three parents on the committee, there should be three teachers. Cant determine what worked well\nthe district planned well in terms of process\nthey just didnt provide participants with prior knowledge. Complied with the process, but not satisfied with it. Felt that since it was their school, they should have been able to ask their questions. The actual interviews worked well, but overall all none of the process worked well. The questions need improvement\ntheyre vague and not individualized for the situation. Understood that Williams would choose.Not satisfied with anything the first round. Things improved the second time, including the quality of the candidates. None of the process worked well the first time, leaving the committee members frustrated and angry. Improvement would be if the district has a clear definition of the interview process and what happens afterward\ngive the committee time lines for the process and decision\nhave clear understanding of what questions will be posed and be open with information about the candidates so they can research and prepare for the interviews in advance. The district should have specific job qualifications, and candidates on the interview list should meet the qualifications. All members should have equal weight and the full (and same) interview team should participate in all interviews, including reinterviews. Understood that Dr. Williams would reveal his decision, but they had to work to get it and then they had to bug Estelle for information on the second round of interviews. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? No. No. I feel Ive shared everything. Nothing else. Has never participated in principal selection, but has helped interview and select an assistant principal. Felt the first set of interviews were a wasted day, because he had to take off from work not knowing how long the process would take. Didnt get a letter of appreciation, but a verbal thanks from Estelle.ODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: Cloverdale 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Asked as a second choice by Estelle Matthis office - Asked by Dennis Glasgow at a curriculum revision meeting - Asked as VIPS chair - president of the PT A recommended When were you selected? - Two days prior to the interviews Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - No - Letter of confirmation from Estelle Matthis - Received letter from LRSD - role explained at the interview site What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Committee would be able to ask questions based on what we wanted to know. - Didnt have a good understanding when receiving the confirmation letter What written or oral intructions did you receive? When did you receive these instructions? - Estelle Matthis explained orally at the time of the interviews. - Oral instructions on the day of interviews - Oral instructions on the day of the interviews What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Were given questions - no period of planning - did get to add questions - No advance preparation or knowledge of other committee members - Looked at question the morning of the interviews. Prepared interview questions - We used the prepared questions, but were allowed to add more. - Added more at the time - Got to add questionsReview applicant files - No - No - One applicant brought in a resume Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - A) Interviewed candidates. B) Had ranking scale explained C) Ranked the candidates D) Ended up with two top candidates. E) Estelle said that the choices would be passed on to the superintendent to make a final decision. If he wasnt happy with the choices the committee could be called back. - A) Interviewed B) Tallied individually 3) Discussed applicants 4) Voted - had a dead heat between two candidates 5) Submitted the top two, but Estelle told the committee that they could interview other candidates if they desired. - A) Interviews, questions asked in turn as agreed. B) Rating individually after each applicant. C) After the interviews, the committee discussed the candidates and totaled points. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why not? - Yes it was adequate - The one chosen made it adequate. The other four were not. As a restructured school, we need some specific things which most of the candidates lacked. - Yes, the number and qualifications were adequate 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Estelle would take recommendations to the board to make the final decision. - Dr. Williams - Committee would vote and the decision would ultimately be made by the superintendent7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Believe it had a great impact on the decision - Dont think it made that much difference. The one that got the position was so much more qualified, that anyone would have picked her. - I think we got lucky and picked the one he wanted 8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Satisfied - Couldnt think of a better way to do it - Satisfied somewhat What parts worked well? - I liked having teachers and parents there - Liked the prepared questions and the ones the committee generated What needs improvement? - If the process worked like it should have, there should have been better parent representation. Committee should have more weight. - Nothing needs improvement - If parents had more input it would alleviate some problems at school and increase involvement. Parents should be invited to participate 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Appreciated it and would serve if asked again. Mrs. Estelle sent a note of appreciation and coonfirmation that I would serve - We did not want the other principal to leave. About 70-74 teachers signed a petition to keep her - NoODM Parent Involvement Survey Compilation School: JA. Fair 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Participates in PT A - Received a call from Mrs. Matthis office through the school secretary to serve. - No idea how selected. Received a call from Estelle Matthis office. - No idea - a parent called and asked if I would serve - needed racial balance. When were you selected? - Sometime in May - About a week before semester exams - About 5-7 days before the interviews. Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received a confirmation notice - Received a letter of confirmation - Received no written role description, only a letter thanking her for serving and indicating the interview date, time, and place. Letter did not indicate an amount of time the task would require. - No 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Team would ask certain questions, rate according to a given scale, add up ratings, and give the name of the highest ranking candidates. - Just from the confirmation letter, that members would be responsible for nominating a principal for Fair. - Interviewing candidates for principal of J.A Fair and then collaborate and make recommendations. - Had no idea of the process. What written or oral instructions did you receive? When received? - None - Received no written instructions, oral instructions were given at the time of the interviews. - Set of questions and a rating sheet given out the day of the interviews. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview?- Nothing, had no information upon which to act. - As a committee, nothing before the day of the interview. On the day of the interviews, was given a packet of questions, rating sheets, and list of applicants. - Nothing, was late arriving, the committee was already interviewing the first candidate. - Nothing prior to the day of interviews - never met. Prepared interview questions? - LRSD provided pre-selected questions. Had some flexibility to ask other questions following the \"canned\" questions, but had to ask all applicant the same ones. - Divided up questions among the committee. After asking questions on the sheet, were allowed to ask individual questions. Could be spontaneous. - The committee did not meet to formulate questions, but Ruthie developed some she and other staff members thought were important. - The interview team did get to incorporate questions of their own. The teachers were able to contribute questions, but the parents werent prepared to. Reviewed applicant files? - Were given no resumes or other written information about the candidates from Estelle. However, one or two candidates brought vitae and another brought a couple of letters of recommendation. - Did not view applicant files. Some applicants brought in resumes or recommendations. - One applicant had a resume. Estelle said the applications were available for review if they wanted to do so. Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the decision? - No job description - Saw no job description or criteria, nor was there any discussion of criteria - No job description 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. - Met downtown. Estelle spent about ten minutes describing the process. One of the teachers spoke at that time about the staffs support for Vernon Smith, the Asst. Principal. Estelle shook her head that the comments were inappropriate. The committee interviewed five candidates, spending approximately 20 min. with each. Estelle did not ask questions, but facilitated the process and filled out rating sheets. After the interviews, Estelle asked each team member their first choice. Next, they went around for a second choice. There was a brief discussion but the group did not reach concensus on rankings or the best person for the job. The team was asked whether they were satisfied with the quality of the applicants. Everyone agreed they were. - On each question, rated applicants from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Tallied scores while waiting for next applicant. After last applicant, discudded the applicants - did anyone feel the need to start over? All felt the applicants were qualified. Same people asked the same questions of each candidate during the process - Ms Matthis acted as chair. Some of the \"canned\" questions were wordy - could have been more specific. - Estelle introduced applicants 2) Started asking previously assigned questions in order. 3) Applicants asked questions or madestatements to the team. 4) Applicant left room 5) Team rated individually, tallied scores and ranked the applicants. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes - Had pretty good candidates and a sufficient number. - Had one person on the list who did not interview (someone within the school district). Heard that she would continue in current position, since that time found out that she was on medical leave. Had six applicants (not including the no-show). - Yes - Yes 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection? - Estelle said Dr. Williams would make the final selection. She said she would give him the committees recommendations. Ruthie understood that Estelle would submit the committees first and second choices in rank order. - Understood that the superintendent would make the final selection from the top three names. - Superintendent would make the final selection. Hopefully he would choose the #1 recommendation. - The superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Had a lot - As a committee - moot question. The person selected was the #1 choice of the committee. - She believes their input didnt carry much weight\nthat the administration had already decided beforehand tha they could name Broadnax, who interviewed well, but was \"too slick\" and did not seem to be a \"good fit\" for J.A. Fair. - The applicant the interviwee chose was already assigned to Mabelvale. She wondered why they were applying at Fair when already assigned. Committee was \"weighted\" by administrators. Interviewee did not know that Estelle would vote - thought she was only running the show and would not vote.8. How satisfied were you with the process? - Not at all satisfied with the process - Process was very good as far as actual objective. - On a scale of 1-10, a 4 1/2 - Other than having administrators there to weight the committee, it was fine. What parts of the process worked well? - Each candidate brought a different perspective to the job. Liked the opportunity for input into the selection. - Adequate number of committee members and good mixture - especially having administrators and parents. - \"Not much\". - Rating score sheet. What needs improvement? - Would liked to have added more questions specific to the needs at Fair. Need prior knowledge of who the applicants are, and other pertinent background information. Allow team members to express opinions on what qualities are important in the principal for the particular school and who the staff believes would make a good principal. Dr. Williams had discouraged writing letters of contacting school board members about preferences. The asst. prin. at Fair felt that Estelle didnt like him and that writing letters of support would ultimately make things worse for him. Need a seating arrangement which assures that the candidate cant see the rating sheets being coompleted by individuals. The interviews need to be longer. The interviews were only 20 min. long with only 5 min. between them. - More information on applicants beforehand. Would like to have had time to get to know other team members better. - Committee could have used more flexibility. Disliked \"canned\" questions. - Teachers felt intimidated by Estelle. The administrators tended to \"weight\" the committee. What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process? - That Estelle would give the rankings to the superintendent with the first and second choices of the committee in rank order. About a month to six weeks later Ruthie received a letter from Hank Williams announcing Broadnax as principal and thanking her for her participation. - Estelle was very clear about who was the 1st, etc. choice and that the superintendent would make the final choice. If the superintendent feels we need more applicants, then certainly more applicants could be taken (if the superintendent was not satisfied with the teams choice).9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Would like another opportunity to participate in the process. - Pleased to see the process including parents and teachers. Could use some refinement, especially allowing committee members prior access to resumes and job descriptions. Would have liked to ttdk to someone who had experience with dealing with the admnistrators in a school. Thought process was good. - In the LRSD, in her opinion, there are a very few people who weild a disproportionate amount of power. If you cross people, you will not get anywhere. She said she was really talking about Estelle Matthis. She mentioned several people who have gotten \"crosswise\" of Estelle and \"thats that\". \"Estelle is keeping a of good people out of jobs for which they are well qualified. Fairs assistant principal is one of them. Ruthie believes that Estelle is costing the district many good people.School: Forest Heights Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - Dont know what the selection process was. Contacted by Estelle Matthis by phone - Wondered how he was chosen. Told by Estelle that she was looking for respected, experienced teachers to serve. When were you selected? - Near the end of school Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Received no advance information 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - a) Assign questions b) Interview applicants c) Rate applicants d) Rank applicants - Prior to the day of the interviews, had no information. Knew that applicants would be interviewed and that recommendation would probably go to Dr. Williams. What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Only received a confirmation letter - no instructions - Questions, rating sheets When did you receive these instructions? - 15 min. before the interviews were to start 3.What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - a) Received instructions b) Reviewed and assigned questions c) Discussed qualifications - Received rating sheets and a set of 10 questions Prepared interview questions - Received prepared questions from the district person Previewed applicant files - One applicant brought a resume- Committee didnt review applicant files Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - Talked about qualifications, but did not review the job description. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Committee reviewed a list of prepared questions b) Each applicant asked the same questions by the same people, c) After all interviews, each member rated the answers and tallied the scores, d) The committee members revealed their highest ranking applicants, e) Only the top 2 were discussed, f) Committee reached concensus on the top two. f) Two recommendations would be sent to Dr. Williams for final approval. - a) Questions asked of all candidates in round-robin fashion. Candidates could elaborate on an answer b) At the end, candidates could pose question of the committee c) Rated applicants S. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? -Yes. Interviewed six, all were qualified - Yes. The applicants represented a broad spectrum. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? - Before interviews, Estelle informed the group that the supt. would have the final say - could accept choices or send it back to the committee with another pool of applicants. - Dr. Williams 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Personal input was equal to that of others, no one person had more influence on the committee. - Initially, felt that influence was significant as a teacher at the school. However, in the final analysis felt the input was not important after the recommendation was made. 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - At the start, okay - at the conclusion, not well. Listened to six applicants. One applicant was absent, but someone (district spec. ed. person) was there to speak on his behalf. The candidates resume was also passed out to the comittee. The committee was told that this person had interviewed with the superintendent and had been a candidate for the principalship of Central. This applicant was the #1 choice of the other members (not the teachers) of the committee. The Dep. Supt. continually told the committee \"The superintendent is impressed with this person.\" - Well satisfied What parts worked well? - Equal say by all in the process - All parts until the absent candidate was considered What needs improvement? - Committee members should be involved in the preparation of questions - Dont consider absent applicants 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - Unhappy that one applicant was not in attendance - Input significant at first, but \"they knew who they wanted all along.\"LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES FRANKLIN - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Was a member of the regular staffing committee. There was no written or oral description of her role. Joshua received a letter from LRSD requesting a representative on the principals selection committee\nMr. Walker sends whoever is available. The request came in well within time to allow him to participate. There were no written or oral instructions. 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? Committee members were to ask the questions and choose the best one. Sterling Ingram explained the interview committee Committee members would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD (Good, Excellent, Adequate, etc.). The committee would use a numerical scoring system. Sterling lead the discussions. The committee could decide which questions each member would ask. They were told that the three highest rated people would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the three top choices and make his recommendations to the school board. The questions were written beforehand by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing, no, no, no. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire\nthey could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. When the committee got together we saw the questions provided. Members went through the questions in order\nawarded points\ngot point totals and took the top three. Nothing prior to day of interview. On the day of the interview, committee members got acquainted with each other. Looked to see what questions they wanted to ask. Members were extended the curtesy of adding wording to a prepared questionnaire\nthey could also do a little prodding. There were no files, resumes, etc. All information was gathered during the interview. There was no real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yeah. Yes, however he questioned why the applicant from Dunbar who had never been a principal or an assistant principal was referred. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Dr. Williams The superintendent. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Not a bunch. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin,but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed. The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? 50/50 satisfied. The process worked well, cant pinpoint why. They need to improve the questions\nthey were too \"textbook\". Disliked that committee could not add to the questions or change them. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD, starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews\nno problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board.9. Is there any thing else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? I did not realize how important the scoring was. The people from downtown scored people they didnt like rock bottom.. For example the spread between district personnel scores ranged from 15 to 40 (with 40 being a perfect score). The range between the other committee members was between 5-7 points. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think '7 know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school.\" That would be teacher bias. Some may give \"friends\" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Gibbs Responses Information gathered from a total of five interviews with committee members: two teachers, two parents, one observer. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? After Donna Davis decided to retire, she sent a letter to all Gibbs parents, informing them of her decision. The PTA Board knew that parents at other elementary schools had been involved in the principal selection process. In anticipation of the process, the PTA held a school-wide meeting to discuss the hiring process with all the parents and to talk about parent appointees for the interview committee. The Gibbs parents selected five representatives to serve on the interview committee. Zack Pollett, on of the five named to represent the parents, contacted Larry Robertson to express the parents desire to be included in the hiring process. Larry Robertson referred Pollett to Estelle Matthis. The district did not allow all five parents to serve on the interview committee. The LRSD indicated that only three parents would be used on the interview team. The Gibbs parents sent the three allowed and the other two parents attended the interviews as observers. The observers did not vote. Neither of the teachers interviewed were sure how they were selected for the committee. One teacher member actively lobbied for appointment, but she spoke to some many individuals about it that she had no idea \"what worked\". 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None of the parent or teacher members of the committee were not given any advance information. Some parents contacted LRSD administrators (Matthis, Gremillion, and Robertson), but they received nothing. On the day of the interviews, the committee received a brief orientation from Margaret Gremillion and Larry Robertson. Some parents who served on the Gibbs interview team had extensive experience with personnel matters. As the result of their own experience in hiring, these team members expected to be full participants in the hiring process. They wanted to have a list, well in advance of the interviews, of all applicants who requested Gibbs\nto review the applications and resumes filed by each candidate\nto be able to recruit candidates for interviews\nand to have an active role in determining the candidates to be interviewed by the full committee. None of the parents expectations were met. District officials refused to release the names of candidates or any information about them. A Gibbs parent who is an attorney (but not one of the committee members) filed an FOI request in order to obtain the names of the job seekers. The district waited the maximum three days before responding, and then tried to mail the information rather than have it ready for pick-up, as requested. It took the threat of prosecution for Hurley to turn the names over to the parent. The committee then obtained the list of 27-28 names from the author of the FOI request.Despite the problems surrounding information requests regarding the applicants, all the parents had a good understanding of their role in the actual hiring process. They all said that they knew that their committee was to pick three top candidates, based on their numerical ranking. The superintendent would then chose one of the top three as the next principal. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? The parent and teacher representatives met before the interviews to prepare questions, review the applicants names gained through FOI, and make plans to contact individuals who would have knowledge of the various applicants professional work . The parents did not include the administrative members of the committee because they did not know, in advance, who those representatives would be. During the advance meeting, the Gibbs group prepared a list of ten questions they wanted asked at the interviews, and included the list of questions in a memo mailed to Estelle Matthis and Hank Williams on 6/4/94. Also in the 6/4/94 memo, the committee again asked for names of the applicants, and they indicated five candidates they would like to interview. The LRSD selected five candidates to be interviewed for Gibbs\nonly one of the five LRSD selected also appeared among the names the Gibbs patrons requested. The Gibbs group also recommended procedures for the interview process. As part of the list of proposed procedures, the committee made it clear that they would not be prepared to make recommendation for the principal immediately after the interviews. They asked for another meeting to evaluate the candidates and make recommendations. The procedures section of the memo also stated that the parents had talked with Estelle Matthis and she assured them that the position would remain open for some time. After Estelles assurances, the parents clearly stated (in their memo) that they expected the district to keep seeking new candidates. 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As committee members arrived for the interviews, each received a packet of materials that contained the names of all committee members, the interview questions, the rating sheets, and the names of the candidates to be interviewed. Despite the fact that the Gibbs committee members sent a copy of their ten questions to Estelle and Hank, the questions contained in the packet had been developed by LRSD administrators without parent input. Margaret Gremillion, who seemed to coordinate the Gibbs interview, seemed unfamiliar with the earlier correspondence and questions sent by the Gibbs patrons. After some discussion, the committee incorporated four of their original questions into the LRSD questions. While the Gibbs questions were added to the preset items, the scoring sheets did not include any items except those written by the administration. After the committee interviewed all candidates, They began to discuss the various applicants and the consensus was that none of those interviewed had the right qualifications for Gibbs. All the teacher and parent representatives were in agreement that they would like to interview more applicants. Margaret Gremillion asked the committee members to go ahead and fill out the districts rating forms to document that they had completed the interviews. Margaret stated that she understood that the committee was making no recommendation and she agreed to schedule more interviews. It was agreed that Zack Pollett would contact Margaret at home to find out about the additional interviews. One committee member (Easter Tucker) agreed to complete the rating form only after she was assured the scores would not be construed as a recommendation. When Zack Pollett contacted Margaret Gremillion about the additional interviews, she told him that the superintendent had decided that no more interviews would be conducted. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for you consideration adequate? No! Most of the candidates had limited experience. Only Ed Jackson was an experienced principal. Committee members were also concerned because they were told that all five persons they interviewed had expressed an interest in Gibbs. Committee members later learned that at least two of the five interviewed had not asked for Gibbs, and several individuals who applied for Gibbs were not given interviews. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? We understood that the committee would submit the top three ranked candidates and the superintendent would nominate one of those individuals for the position. The LRSD Board of Directors would then approve or disapprove the decision. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given? None of the Gibbs parents, teachers, or observers believed that they had any meaningful involvement in the principal selection process. The following quotations represent the depth of their frustration. \"0.\" \"None. It was a fake. They wasted our time.\" \"We understand it was all (the principal decision) preordained. Parent involvement was superficial.\" 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Generally the Gibbs group was not satisfied with any of the districts actions. Some parents had praise for the method the Gibbs PTA used to select parent representatives. The schoolwide meeting that the PT A held to select parent representatives was, by far, the most inclusive method of selection used at any school. Some suggestions offered were: Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training\nProvide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each\nAllow the committee to submit names of individuals they would like to interview\nBegin the process earlier in the year to avoid a time crunch and loss of good candidates to other jobs\nAllow more time for interviews\nthirty minutes is not enough. Never again schedule interviews on the final day of the school year. The teachers members missed most of their last day with their classes, and applicants who are currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well. 9) .. Anything else? After the Gibbs committee learned that they would not be given any more candidates to interview, they scheduled an appointment with Dr. Williams to discuss the process. About fifteen parents from Gibbs attended the meeting, during which the superintendent indicated that although he had not yet interviewed any applicants he had someone in mind for the job. During the meeting the superintendent said that he had the rankings that the committee developed. The parents took issue with that and explained that they had made no recommendations, and they wanted to interview more people. Dr. Williams clearly stated that they would interview no more candidates. Later in the moth. Dr. Williams selected Ed Jackson as the next principal of Gibbs. Many Gibbs parents attended the Board meeting that month and several spoke in protest, explaining their perception of the process. After the Board voted to support of Dr. Williams, the Gibbs parents continued to meet and work to reopen the process. The parents secured over 50 signatures on a petition calling for a special meeting of the Board of Directors. The meeting was held on July 7,1994. At the special meeting, the superintendent announced that the district planned to reopen the interviews for the Gibbs principal. As a result, Ed Jackson remains unassigned. At the beginning of this same meeting, the superintendent made a statement regarding the importance of parent involvement. He offered this statement to contradict the impression left by the media when they \"misquoted\" his earlier statement about numerous studies showing that schools worked very well without parent involvement. The original statement caused much consternation at the meeting with Gibbs parents, and caused a mini-furor when it was later reported in the local newspaper. The second round of interviews is set to begin on July 25, 1994. Some Gibbs parents have expressed concern because so many potential candidates have been placed in other positions. They fear that no one will be left to hire. On July 13 or 14, 1994 the district placed Ed Jackson at Gibbs to \"open the school year\". Many parents were upset because he immediately began to walk, talk, and act like the Gibbs principal. Some parents and teachers reported that he discussed major changes in the schools curricular focus, saga continues .. . The 7/29/94 Late breaking update: Marjorie Bassa of PRE selected as Gibbs principal.LRSD PRINCIPAL SURVEY RESPONSES MITCHELL - 2 Responses 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? Not real sure\nI try to be involved with my kids school activities. Was selected approximately two weeks before the actual interviews. There were no oral or written descriptions. Received a confirmation letter. Notified by letter from the LRSD\nthinks it came from Hank or Sterling - not sure. Joshua sends whoever is available at the time. The letter requesting Joshuas presence can well in time to allow Joshua to participate in the interviews, descriptions. There were no written or oral 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? None,. Was told she would be a part of the interviewing committee to select a principal. Received oral instructions on the day of the interviews. The committee would score candidates based on a formula provided by the LRSD. Numbered ratings would represent good, excellent, adequate, etc. Sterling lead the discussion. He let the committee decide on which questions they would ask. Committee was told that the three highest ranked candidates would be recommended to the superintendent. The superintendent would interview the top three and make his recommendation to the school board. The questions were prepared by the LRSD. 3. What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Nothing while she was there. The school secretary (who served as a parent representative) got there just as the interviews were starting. The committee members selected the questions they would ask. She asked one of ten questions. Each applicant was asked the same question each time. Committee was told they could ask follow-up or clarification questions. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other\nlooked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question\ncould do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews\nno real preparation. 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. As the process went on, the respondent could not determine what the questions were designed to discover. The questions contained too much educational jargon and the applicants used language unfamiliar to the lay-person. It also seemed that some of the applicants did not understand the questions. After the first few applicants completed their interviews the survey participant said she felt more familiar and could look the applicants in the eye. Committee members tallied responses by points. Members could make comments concerning selection of an applicant. Nothing prior to day of the interview. Committee members got acquainted with each other\nlooked to see what questions they wanted to ask. They were extended the courtesy of adding wording to a prepared question\ncould do a little prodding. There were no file, resumes, et. All info gathered during the interviews\nno real preparation. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? Yes, some seemed too qualified. Yes. Had no problem, except wondered why on one school interview a candidate from Dunbar was allowed to apply since she had never been a principal or an assistant principal. The LRSD defended her application because she had previously been a supervisor. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent would make the final decision. The committee submitted their top three choices. The recommendations would be considered but not necessarily chosen. The superintendent would interview the committees top three candidates and make his recommendation to the school board. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Some - since the superintendent chose one of the committees top three. Satisfied with the choice. None. There were certain candidates who got higher scores who werent even considered. For example J. J. Lacey scored relatively high at Franklin and Mitchell, but was not given any weight with regards to referrals to principal jobs. Dont believe he was even interviewed (by the superintendent). The district was just going through the motions. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Satisfied with the process because she did not have to develop the questions. Did not feel qualified to design questions for a principal. Would have liked more time prior to the interviews to review the questions - understand the terminology - understand what the questions were designed to elicit from the applicants. The process is fine if they actually followed it. However, the LRSD starts throwing curves. Committee members are not given any instructions on what they are really looking for, what the goal is. Applicants are scored on charisma, mannerisms and voice. Questions should be discussed beforehand in order to determine what information the questions are supposed to elicit. The deputy superintendent of elementary schools (Larry R.) sat in on the interviews: no problem with that, but district administrators should not score the applicants. They are too biased. Doesnt remember if the LRSD said the superintendent would interview all three candidates. The committee knew who the top three candidates were. Sterling made every effort to be above board. 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Was interesting - glad to have done it. While recognizing that peers can be helpful, bias may interfere with the scoring process. For example a teacher may know an applicant from another school and think \"I know he is a hard principal, I dont want him at my school.\" That would be teacher bias. Some may give \"friends\" inflated scores. Sterling also asked questions of the applicants and scored them. This committee member specifically remembers that one applicant (Julie Davenport) did not score in the top, however, she wound up as the principal at Franklin. However, when the principal list was published, Davenport was listed as a transfer. If that was the case, she should not have been interviewed. Feels the interview process the districts principals use for hiring new staff members is fairer. In the case of the principals teachers get communications prior to the interviews which is unfair.Summary of Rightsell Responses Information from interviews with five committee members: three teachers, one parent, and one representative of Joshua. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview conunittee? For the most part, the Rightsell committee consisted of the same individuals who serve on the schools regular staffing committee. One teacher, a white female, said that she was not a member of the staffing committee and she assumed her appointment to the interview to resulted from a need for racial diversity on the committee. None of the committee members received written or oral information on their role prior to the interviews. Committee members received written notice of their appointment about a week prior to the interviews. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All candidates reported that they received oral instructions about the interview process just prior to conducting the interviews. Margaret Gremillion and Sterling Ingram both provided instructions during the orientation. During the orientation Sterling emphasized that all candidates must be asked the same questions (each committee member interviewed at any school emphasized this requirement). After the orientation, all committee members reported understanding that they would interview the candidates and select the top three contenders. Committee members understood that their choices would be forwarded to the superintendent, who would make the final selection. 3) What did your conunittee do in advance to prepare for the interviews? The Rightsell committee was able to add some clarifying questions to those prepared by the LRSD. Committee members did not meet in advance, nor did they review any applicant files or job descriptions. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The interview session began with the orientation. During that time, the committee divided the interview questions among the members. Each candidate also received an orientation and then was interviewed in turn. Committee members took turns asking their assigned interview questions. Each individual developed his/her own system for ranking the candidates. Some scored candidates after each interview. Others waited until the end of all the interviews and then assigned scores to the various candidates, the participants used a 0-4 point rating scale. After committee members completed their scoring, they spent some time discussing the merits of various candidates.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? Four of the five committee members interviewed responded, \"Yes.\" The fifth team member, a parent, said that he was not sure that the number was adequate. In his opinion two of the five interviewees were \"just tossed in\", and were not interested in the job. This parent characterized the process as simply \"going through the motions.\" 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Four of the five respondents believed that their input received adequate weight in the final selection. The fifth said that the district administrators \"scored the people they wanted high and they werent the ones the committee wanted.\" The individual who reported this went on to say that he did not believe that the committees input had any bearing on the final selection. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Four of the five committee members were quite satisfied with the process and made no recommendations for process changes. The fifth member reported dissatisfaction with the general process, but did feel that the interview questions had merit. Some suggestions were: Have earlier team input into individuals to be interviewed Hold the interviews in a more relaxed area (they were held in the LRSD Board room) Suggest adding a question or two regarding how the principal would select other staff members 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? All the team members interviewed said that they enjoyed their experience. Several commented about the friendly and cordial relations between committee members. One committee member said that he would be happy to serve on such committee if he knew that his input was meaningful. This respondent said that he did not want to waste his time, if a decision had already been made. At the time of the interview, the district had not provided feedback to the committee members regarding the ultimate decision.School: Southwest Jr. High 1. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - School secretary told her that the superintendents office called and asked if she would serve on the committee - The preseident of the PTA called since she and her husband were active in PTA - Active in PTA - Estelles office called When were you selected? - End of the school year - Last week in May. The interviews were June 9 - About oe week before the actual meeting Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? - Got a confirmation from Matthis - No written or oral - No. Received a written note thanking me for being on the committee - no \"how to\" 2. What was your understanding of the principal selection process? -No understanding - Didnt know anything - Interview and rank candidates and supt. would make the final selection What written or oral instructions did you receive? - Oral instructions regarding the selection process - and received written questions - None - None When did you receive these instructions? - On the day of the interviews - Just before starting on the day of the interviews 3.What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Nothing prior - Nothing - Introduced to each otherPrepared interview questions - Reviewed and assigned questions - no additional questions added - Looked at questions Previewed applicant files - No - Didnt review files. Some applicant brought resumes Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection - No 4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee. - a) Leader introduced everyone b) Questions assigned c) Interviews d) Each member chose top 3 in order of preference e) Form used to rank order the candidates - a) Dr. Mayo reviewed questions b) Asked volunteers to ask questions c) Clarified that all applicants must be asked the same quetions, although you could ask a followup or clarification question - a) Gadberry (actually Mayo) gave instruction on how the process would go b) Questions were already prepared c) Each interviewer was asked to ask 1-2 questions d) Had to rank from highest to lowest and score each candidate, e) At the end, told to rank f) Went around the table to rank 1,23- g) Told the supt. would pick from these three. The administrators rushed the process - told the committee that they had to go to a board meeting. Done so fast, the team couldnt understand how it was done. The committee never rached concensus on candidates or ranking - not done by scale at all. Committee told that they couldnt keep the scoring or ranking papers - that they may be pulled for court. 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? - Only one person brought in a resume. There wasno prepared or written information on the candidates. One candidate did not show up because of miscommunication. (The committee member talked later to this candidate, who is a friend of hers) The candidate said that she did not receive an invitation to be interviewed - although Estelle Matthis said she did. - More than adequate - Dont know. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?- Superintendent - Dr. Williams - Superintendent 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? - Selected their #1 choice. Would like to think he put faith in their selection. Really think he chose who he wanted - Apparently a lot - the committees choice was also the superintendents - No earthly idea 8 How satisfied were you with the process? - Not satisfied at all with final ranking and scoring. - Satisfied with the process Not very What parts worked well? - Interviews - Having questions prepared. THe process itself worked well - Diversity of the committee. Asking set questions of all candidates. Selection of candidates. What needs improvement? - Would like to have been informed of how the rankings would be done - that caused some confusion - Would like to preview applicants and check qualifications. Would like to have screened applicants for interviews. More time. Would like to have developed te questions. - Scoring process should be clarified beforehand 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? - It was different - not saying it was good or bad. -No - appreciate the opportunity to participate - No - Dr. Mayo said the committee would be informed of the selection before it was published. Found out first in the newspaper and received written notification from the district a week later.Summary of Williams Responses The following summary is based on interviews with four committee members: three parents, and one teacher. 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? As usual, the teacher representative had no idea how she was chosen to participate, and the PTA leadership selected the parent members of the committee. All committee members reported receiving a written confirmation of their appointment from the LRSD about a week before the interviews were scheduled. None of the participants received a written description of his/her role. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? All interview team members reported receiving and oral orientation given by Sterling Ingram immediately before the interviews began. Until the time of this orientation, participants knew little other than that they would be interviewing candidates for the principals job. The orientation took about five minutes, during which the committee members received their interview packets which included the prepared questions. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? In response to this question, most parents explained the orientation period provided at the beginning of the interview session. Other than that preparation, on the day of the interview, the committee undertook no advance work of any type. One committee member, who is an attorney, wrote to Estelle requesting copies of the applications and resumes for the Williams applicants. Estelle responded that the information requested was confidential and that it was not the practice of the district to share this information. The packet the district provided to the Williams committee included: the names for each candidate with the time of his/her interview, the list of questions to be asked, the ratings forms, and a list of the committee members. The list of pre-written questions was amended to include a couple of question parents were concerned about adding. The committee did not receive written information about any applicants, nor did they see a job description. 4) Briefly describe the interview process. The session began with the aforementioned orientation, during which the committee members finalized their questions and divided them among the members. That accomplished the first applicant entered the room, was introduced by Margaret Gremillion, and then interviewed according to the standard process. Committee members used their own system to keep up with a candidates scores. Some members ranked each individual as he/she completed the interview\nother took notes during the interviews and completed their ranking after all interviews were finished. After each individual completed his/her personal evaluation of the candidates Sterling Ingram and Mabel Donaldson totaled the scores for each candidate. None of the committee members voice any dissent with the top three at the time of the interviews. One of the LRSD administrators thanked the members for their participation, and then their work was done. Members reported receiving a thank you note from the superintendent. 5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicant provided for your consideration adequate? Two of the four respondents replied that both the number and quality of applicants was adequate or better. The other two respondents felt that the number of applicants was sufficient, but that several of the interviewees did not have adequate knowledge of magnet schools. 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? The superintendent with the Boards approval. 7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? Most participants agreed it was given some weight. Some parents expressed the opinion that parental input was not given that much weight due to an earlier meeting the parents had with Dr. Williams regarding Ed Jacksons removal. Dr. Williams made it clear that no amount of parent support would change his mind that Jackson needed to be reassigned. 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? Responses to this question varied widely from the opinion expressed by one parent who seemed truly pleased with every aspect of the process and would use the same procedures in the future to the opinion expressed by others that felt that the process was superficial and parent involvement was not meaningful. Some suggested improvements were: Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection Provide more advance preparation. Committee members need more time to look at resumes of like material and time to become familiar with the questions and develop their own questions.Improve the advance planning for the interviews. Some parents felt that the district contacted them at the last minute to serve on the interview team in an effort to placate vocal parent groups. 9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? One parent closed with two question he said he had been trying to get answered since the change in principals assignments began. These questions were: 1. What school district goal is met by mass reassignment of the principals? 2. What desegregation goal is served by these reassignments? The parent asking these questions stated that parents fear nothing more than instability and upheaval. He fears that the instability caused by the reassignment of so many principals will scare some parents away from LRSD. This parent also commented that if the district wanted to give the parents opinion serious weight, the parents should have been involved in screening the applicants and deciding who to interview for their school.4. Briefly describe the interview process followed by your conunittee. The majority of parent and teacher respondents described an interview process which consisted of the following components: Orientation: According to all respondents, at each school the districts designated committee leader provided a brief orientation on the day of the interviews minutes prior to beginning the first interview. Respondents described these sessions as having been 10-15 minutes long. The leaders began orientations by having committee members introduce themselves. Committee members then received packets containing prepared questions and rating sheets. Question Review: Committee leaders gave parent and teacher representatives an opportunity to read the districts prepared questions. At some schools, participants were permitted to discuss and add questions to the list. Each committee member chose the question(s) they wanted to ask the interviewees. Survey results indicate that the district representatives at all of the schools strongly advised the committee members to ask the same questions of all candidates in the same way. Interviews: Survey results indicate that individual interviews ranged in time from 20 to 30 minutes. Candidates were introduced to the interview committee by the district administrator coordinating the process. Each committee member in turn asked previously assigned questions of the candidate. Respondents from each school indicated that individual committee members could ask followup questions. Although candidate information such as applications and resumes were not viewed by the committees prior to the interviews, candidates at several schools brought and distributed resumes to the committees during their interviews. At each school, at the end of the interview the committee gave each candidate the opportunity to ask questions or provide additional pertinent information. Rating and Ranking: Most survey respondents generally mentioned using a zero to four point scale to rate candidates on each question. Parent respondents from one school stated that although the district allowed them to develop and ask additional questions, the only ones candidates were rated on were the ones provided by the district. Survey responses indicate that individual committee members used varied methods in rating candidates. For example, some committee members provided point ratings as they listened to responses to the questions during the interviews. Other committee members made notes during the interviews and provided point totals for responses after each individual interview or after all interviews were completed. Upon completion of the interviews, varied methods of ranking were described to the monitors by parents and teachers. At some schools, point totals were taken by the process coordinator and a straight ranking by points determined the top three candidates in order. Another option described involved the committee members individually ranking candidates based on their point totals, followed by determining the number of firsts, second, and third place rankings of each candidate.Survey responses indicate that committee discussions after the interviews generally dealt with not only determining the top three candidates, but also whether the committee was satisfied with their choices and the range of applicants they had interviewed. 8. How satisfied were you with the process? Most parents and teachers on school committees expressed general satisfaction with the district hiring process, although they also admitted that there were areas needing improvement. More specifically, although some respondents had no problems with the process, they felt that their participation represented no more than a feint of parental involvement by the district. It was these individuals, who more often felt that some hiring decisions had already been made by the district prior to the interviews. The following aspects of the district hiring process were most frequently identified by parents and teachers as having worked well.  The size and diversity of the interview committees  Having questions prepared in advance  Having parent, teacher and administrator representation on the interview committees  The methods individual PTA groups used to recruit and choose parents for the interview committees. The following suggestions represent a composite of the ones most frequently offered by parents and teachers to improve the district hiring process. The suggestions are categorized according to aspects of the interview process. Parent Recruitment and Contact  Improve advance preparation as it relates to contacting parents to participate. Many committee members were contacted on extremely short notice. This lead to some parents expressing the opinion that their involvement was only \"window dressing\" to placate vocal parent groups. Screening  Have earlier team input into choosing the individuals to be interviewed.Timing of Interviews  Avoid holding interviews during the last week(s) of the school year. Some teachers on the committee missed the last day of classes, and applicants currently working in schools need to be in their schools on the final day as well.  Begin the entire process earlier in the year to avoid crunch time and the loss of good candidates to other jobs. Setting  Hold interviews in a more relaxed setting rather the LRSD Board Room. Orientation  Provide more specific instructions to committee members regarding the goals of the process and what they should be looking for in a candidate.  Provide more advance preparation such as reviewing resumes, becoming more familiar with the prepared questions, and developing additional ones.  Have the full committee meet prior to the interviews for comprehensive training. Information About Applicants  Ensure that factors in addition to the interview are considered in the final selection.  Provide committee members with the names of candidates in advance so that they may research the professional accomplishments of each. Interview Questions  Add questions regarding how the potential principal would select other staff members  Allow the committee more time to develop additional questions which are more specific to the individual school. Actual Interviews  The interview committees should not consider candidates who fail to show up for the interview.  Individual interviews need to be longer\nthirty minutes is not enough. The period of time provided the committee between individual interviewees should also be lengthened.Rating and Ranking  A better job needs to be done of explaining the rating and ranking process prior to the interviews. A lack of understanding brought about confusion.  Evaluate the weighting of the rating system. Extremely low ratings by a district administrator on the committee could completely offset high ratings by other committee members and cause a candidate to receive an overall lower final rank.SURVEY RESPONSES Q 5, 6, 7 5. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate: If not, why? A vast majority of the respondents felt that an adequate number of applicants interviewed for the positions, the exceptions being Gibbs and Carver, where most of the interview team members expressed dissatisfaction with the number of applicants provided. On the other hand, results were mixed with regard to the quality of the applicants. Some committee members expressed dissatisfaction with applicants who did not have experience as principals or who had no experience with magnet schools or programs. Candidate interviews were limited in time and scope and not all candidates provided resumes. For the most part, interview teams did not object to the number of applicants. However, several team members felt that the administration \"stacked the deck\" by referring unqualified or poorly qualified applicants along with one candidate who was clearly better qualified professionally, but who was not necessarily temperamentally suitable for the school in question. 6. What was your understanding of who would make the Unai selection of the principal? Responses fell into two main categories. One body of respondents understood that Dr. Williams would make the final selection based upon the committeess top three choices, and while the superintendent may not select their top choice, he would select one of the top three choices. Another group of respondents recognized that Dr. Williams would give their recommendations serious consideration, it was possible that he would not accept any of their recommendations. Additionally, there were a few respondents among both groups who understood that the Board of Directors had the ultimate say in the selection process. Perhaps because LRSD officials did not have an inservice for the selection committees, there was some misunderstanding of the final selection process. Many committee members expressed frustration with the short orientation period provided just before the interviews began. It is easy to see that a lack of adequate preparation time leaves room for miscommunication or poor communication. There was no time for district personnel to get an adequate reading of the committee members understanding of the selection process. 7. What weight do you believe your input was given? Responses ranged from \"none\" to \"a lot\", depending on whether the respondents candidate was selected or not. Several committee members expressed a belief that the superintendent had preselected who he wanted and the interview process was a sham. The administrators were permitted to vote on the candidates also, which lead some of the committee members to feel that the administrators actually determined the top candidate. Some of the members revealed that administrators scored some candidates far too high and others were scored far too low.For the most part committee members did not believe that really selected their principal. Their responses reveal a pattern of accepting that although they provided input during the selection process, unless they selected the person that the superintendent wanted, it made no difference who they wanted for the job. Despite believing that they had no actual control over the selection process, many of the interview team members said they enjoyed being a part of the team.Trends Noted in Responses to ODM Survey of Parents and Teachers 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? At the incentive schools, the interview committees consisted of the same people who serve on the schools regular staffing committees. In some cases, an additional person might have been added to the committee for racial balance purposes. At the other schools, the PTAs were the agents responsible for appointing the parent members to the committees. Despite the PTA involvement, monitors noted that quite a few of the parents who served on committees were also LRSD employees. None of the teacher members knew how they were selected to serve on a committee, but selection of the teachers did not involve the LRCTA. Nearly all the committee members reported being selected about a week before the interviews and receiving a letter of confirmation from the district that also gave the date and time of the interviews. SfTmnT7|-ynnfl Conclusions: While the process used to appoint committee members was not written, it was pretty consistent from school to school. The incentive schools were the anomaly, since they used the regular staffing committees. The incentive school staffing committees included a Joshua representative, but the district sought no participation from Joshua on any of the magnet, area, or secondary school committees. It seems particularly inconsistent to exclude Joshua from the magnet school committees, since a Joshua representative serves on the MRC, just a representative of each of the districts serves on that body. It also seems odd that the district went to the PTA leadership to appoint the parent members, but bypassed the LRCTA membership in the appointment of teachers to the committees. In the past, the union has been asked to provide the names of the teacher appointees to interview committees. A sizable portion of the parent representatives who served on the interview committees were also LRSD employees. While district employees have a great deal of knowledge about how schools operate, the presence of so many teachers and support staff members among the ranks of the parents looks suspect. Individuals who are employed by the district may be more reticent to speak out or question the process followed by the LRSD, than a \"civilian\" would be. 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? While many committee members reported a pretty fair understanding of the process, most explained that this was the understanding they had based upon the orientation delivered by LRSD administrators, just minutes before they began to interview candidates. This orientation constituted the sum total of information imparted to committee members. According to the respondents, the district did not furnish any written description of the role of committee members, nor did the district provide any advance written or oral information regarding the candidates identities or qualifications. The Gibbs committee did obtain some information about candidates identities through a FOI request lodged by a parent from outside the committees membership. Many individuals who served on committees said they had no idea what their role would be until they showed up and heard the orientation. In some other instances, notably Gibbs, parents had some awareness of the process because they talked to other parents who had served on interview committees in earlier years. Some of these previous committees had been very active and recruited candidates for interviews. As a result of the consultations with members of prior committees and personnel experience with hiring decisions, some committee members developed very high expectations for meaningful involvement in the process. inclusions: It seems clear that a lot of the misunderstandings and hard feelings generated by the principal hiring process could have been avoided if the LRSD had clearly defined the role of the interview committees at the start. Luckily for the district, many committee members seemed to construe their notification of appointment to an interview committee as no more than a nice opportunity to serve the district and their childs school. These people were content to wait until the day of the interviews for further instructions. A significant minority of the participants took their charge much more seriously. This second group of individuals expected to be full partners in the hirings and took a great deal of time and trouble to prepare questions, conduct background checks, and generally try to become well-informed, active committee members. This dedication to task caused certain parents to expend a great deal of effort as they tried to fulfill their role, as they imagined it should be. If the district had made its intentions clear from the beginning, perhaps the parents would not have felt that they had been mislead and taken advantage of. 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? With the exception of the Gibbs committee and one member of the Williams committee, none of the school committees did anything in advance to prepare for the interviews. The parents and teachers who served on the Gibbs committee met in advance and spent a great deal of time developing interview questions and defining what they expected from the process. The Gibbs group forwarded the material they generated to both the superintendent and the deputy superintendent. According to respondents from Gibbs, none of the administrators serving on their committee seemed to have any knowledge of the information previously provided to the LRSD leadership. The members of the Williams interview committee did not meet in advance of the interviews, but one member of the committee reported engaging in correspondence with Estelle Matthis, in an attempt to gain some information to help him prepare for the interviews. This individual and some others reported developing interview questions that they wanted included in the process. While the district used pre-determined questions at every interview, most committee members reported that the committee was able to amend the districts questions, to a certain extent. . JjUUUlUM^^St Conclusions: Advance preparation was nonexistent. If the district had engaged in more advance planning for the interviews, there would have been adequate time to conduct an orientation well in advance of the interview dates. Such advance preparation could have headed off some of the misunderstandings that cropped up at several schools. The commitment of time and effort required to properly train the committee members would be one indication that the district truly valued the committees efforts, and wanted to make the process meaningful. The minimal orientation prior to the interviews may have helped create the widespread impression that much of the process was a front for predetermined decisions.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_650","title":"Principal selection process, Gibbs Elementary School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-05/1994-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Gibbs Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School principals","Parents' and teachers' associations"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, Gibbs Elementary School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/650"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nGibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 May 18,1994 Ms. Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: The Gibbs School PTA convened yesterday evening for the special purpose of considering how to best engage parents and patrons in the important decision of choosing a new principal for Gibbs Elementary School. Enclosed to this letter are the nomination of five parents of Gibbs students who we believe would positively contribute to the selection decision. We are submitting five names for several reasons. First, we wish to assure a true representation and cross section of Gibbs parents and student needs. You will notice our nominations are balanced among mothers and fathers, black and white parents, and across grade levels. Second, we are aware that one year ago, somewhat larger selection committees were successful in choosing principals for other LRSD schools. At Pulaski Heights Elementary, for example, the larger committee interviewed all applicants, ranked their top three preferences among the candidates,. and the LRSD administration made the final choice from these three. This process seems to capture the right balance of participation and decision-making between parents and the LRSD. Finally, two other suggestions were adopted at our meeting. The PTA wishes to recommend that the Gibbs faculty have the prerogative to appoint five faculty members to the selection committee. Also, Ms. Marie McNeal, the Social Studies Supervisor for the LRSD, is viewed as very knowledgeable of Gibbs since its inception as an International Magnet School since 1988-89. Ms. McNeal has been instrumental in thedevelopment of Gibbs international studies curriculum and theme, hope she also will find a place on the selection committee. We We are very interested in hearing from you about proceeding with the selection of a new Gibbs principal, numbers and address indicated. We can be reached at the telephone Best Regards. \\ MAA Dorothy D. Rhodes Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work (morning only) 324-2330 im Lynch Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work 569-8572 Enclosure: Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations cc: Executive Board Members, Gibbs PTA Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 May 18,1994 Telephone 324-2490 RSCE?'*'^?) Ms. Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MAY 2 0 1994 eiiiiSe Qt D3scgrsoai\non \u0026gt; Dear Ms. Matthis: The Gibbs School PTA convened yesterday evening for the special purpose of considering how to best engage parents and patrons in the important decision of choosing a new principal for Gibbs Elementary School. Enclosed to this letter are the nomination of five parents of Gibbs students who we believe would positively contribute to the selection decision. We are submitting five names for several reasons. First, we wish to assure a true representation and cross section of Gibbs parents and student needs. You will notice our nominations are balanced among mothers and fathers, black and white parents, and across grade levels. Second, we are aware that one year ago, somewhat larger selection committees were successful in choosing principals for other LRSD schools. At Pulaski Heights Elementary, for example, the larger committee interviewed all applicants, ranked their top three preferences among the candidates, and the LRSD administration made the final choice from these three. This process seems to capture the right balance of participation and decision-making between parents and the LRSD. Finally, two other suggestions were adopted at our meeting. The PTA wishes to recommend that the Gibbs faculty have the prerogative to appoint five faculty members to the selection committee. Also, Ms. Marie McNeal, the Social Studies Supervisor for the LRSD, is viewed as very knowledgeable of Gibbs since its inception as an International Magnet School since 1988-89. Ms. McNeal has been instrumental in the . ..J.ingdevelopment of Gibbs international studies curriculum and theme, hope she also will find a place on the selection committee. We We are very interested in hearing from you about proceeding with the selection of a new Gibbs principal, numbers and address indicated. We can be reached at the telephone Best Regards. Dorothy D. Rhodes Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work (morning only) 324-2330 im Lynch Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work 569-8572 Enclosure: Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations cc: Executive Board Members, Gibbs PTA Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Mr. Willie Jones Black Male 5th Grade Mr. Dotie Angulo White Male 1st Grade Ms. Easter Tucker Black Female 3rd Grade Ms. Ann Cashion White Female 4th \u0026amp; 6th Grade Mr. Zachary Polett White Male 1st GradeGibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 'T^ (aJoaa^C'C/ 7^ //s^' s H.ja '^\u0026gt;'f'^*'\u0026lt;' \"rkt i z:/\" /)lptt^^ lMA5 , ,' X^SiMVl ^1,1^ /jMi^i^ y /j/\u0026lt;6 l/Jdi kM/^  I I \u0026lt; 1 (aaA aa. C/ Ia\\^Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 May 25, 1994 Ms. Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: As we informed you in our letter of May 18, we have selected five parents to represent the Gibbs parents in the principal selection process. However, while respecting your and Dr. Williams request for only three parent nominations, the following parents are offered: Mr. Willie Jones 1022 West 11th Street Little Rock, Ark. 72202 Work 374-5472 Home 374-2193 Ms. Easter Tucker 9510 Vanderbilt Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Home 227-9870 Mr. Zachary Polctt 614 North Taylor Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Work 376-7151 Home 664-9259 We also request that the following two persons be added as non-voting alternates with the opportunity to observe the committees working sessions:Zach Polen  501-376-2423 3E 7/17/94 6:42PM 22/4 Mary Virginia Mayeux 614 N. Taylor Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 June 26, 1994 Honorable Susan Weber Wright Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing as a concerned parent of two children at Gibbs Elementary Magnet School concerning the process by which the Little Rock School District administration is attempting to appoint Dr. Ed Jackson as the principal of our school. In May, when our previous principal announced her early retirement (under pressure from the district administration to move to another school), a Gibbs PTA representative contacted assistant superintendent Larry Robertson and deputy superintendent Estelle Matthis about what role, if any, parents would play in the selection of a new principal to fill this vacancy. We were told that we would follow the same procedure that has been in place in the district for several years in which a committee of parents, teachers and district administrators interview a number of candidates for the position and select their top three preferences, in rank order. The superintendent then chooses one from among these three and recommends that choice to the school board. The district administration appointed such a committee, the Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee, and included on it three Gibbs parents, two Gibbs faculty, and three district administrators. Prior to the interviews, the parents and teachers on the committee requested from the administration a list of all applicants for the position and those from that list selected by the administration to be interviewed by the committee. This information was denied to them by Dr. Richard Hurley, the custodian of the records, Estelle Matthis and the office of Dr. Williams. This denial was made even after the district had supplied a copy of this list to an Arkansas citizen not on the committee who hadZach Polett  501-376-2423 3117/17/94 3:42 PM  3/4 filed an FOI request. Subsequently, the parent and teacher members of the comittee were able to obtain the list from this citizen, and prepared a letter to Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis asking to interview five of the applicants. This letter was hand-delivered by a member of the selection committee to the offices of Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis the day before the interviews were to be conducted. The letter was never responded to and the request was eventually effectively denied. This selection committee met on June 7 and interviewed five candidates (selected by district administrators with no input from Gibbs parents or the selection committee). The committee unanimously, by consensus, decided not to recommend to the superintendent any candidates from those interviews, and was assured by the administration-appointed chair of the committee, an assistant superintendent, that the committee would be able to interview additional candidates within a few days. On June 9, this assistant superintendent informed us that Dr. Williams had refused to honor this commitment and that the selection committee portion of the process was over. Thus, the committee met and interviewed, but emphatically consideration as Gibbs principal. did not select three candidates for Despite many subsequent conversations with administrators and board members and a group meeting with Dr. Williams on June 1 5 in which we made clear the committee's decision that it needed additional interviews. Dr. Williams proceeded to name Ed Jackson as Gibbs principal and to claim that the committee participated in that selection. The problems which have resulted form this procedure are numerous and serious, including: (1) Parents have lost all confidence in district administrators to speak to them truthfully. (2) Parents are shocked and angered that they have been directly and emphatically told on two occasions by Dr. Williams that their participation in their children's education is not needed. (3) A principal whose strengths are in basic skills and discipline has been appointed, against his will, to a school where the emphasis is on international studies, as reflected in reading, writing, art, music, andZach Polett  501-376-2423 3E 7/17/94 08:43 PM 24/4 languages. We believe that this is an inappropriate mismatch of principal and school theme and could endanger the vital distinct magnet program. ive character of our Prior to the present controversy, Gibbs parents and students loved the warm supportive atmosphere and positive learning environment of our school and had spoken so highly of it to many others that there was a surge in applications for the school this spring resulting in lengthy waiting lists for admission, longer than Carver and other historically popular magnet programs. However, in a few short weeks the Little Rock School District administration has endangered what has taken years of hard work by principal, teachers and parents to create -- a successfully integrated, very popular school located in an old building in the middle of central Little Rock. Parents are distressed and angry about being shut out of any meaningful input in deciding the school's future. The prospect of losing a large number of middle class black, white and Asian students from the school is very real. Instead of attracting students and parents as magnet schools are supposed to do, the Little Rock School District is apparently trying to repel them. Please consider directing the Little Rock School District administration to allow the district's Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee to complete its work by interviewing a group of five (or so) additional suitable candidates and recommending three of them to Dr. Williams so that he can select an appropriate principal to recommend to the school board for the school we love so much. Sincerely, Mary Mayeux P. S.: You may enjoy the enclosed picture of my son and his two best friends, all of whom are Gibbs students. Enclosure++ I: / /o t 7 7 /3(X\u0026gt;\u0026gt;U. / - '\"f (Xot\u0026gt;u/i/t\u0026gt;\u0026lt;v\u0026lt;4 Uj- iAiti/tx\u0026gt;i^' Bli l^'^ + 3:e\u0026gt;c) 6cje^  6i\u0026gt;i/i 1/ Jt) r O n 4 \u0026lt;/ /1C\u0026lt;^ '^T'^xJL. C^a 1^ ^:\u0026lt;i^ Zach Poieff  501-376-2423 37/15/94 1'32 PM 22/5 GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATlOf MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) interviews. A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Attachment:Zach Poiett-'  501-376-2423 117/15/94 G1 32 PM 23/5 Partiai List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain v\nhy this lesson worked well. Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10') What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children? rZac^i Poietf 0'501-376-2423 ai 7/15/94 01:31 PM ZS1/5 DATE: TO: Friday. July 15, 1994 MEMO \u0026lt; LL FAX: FROM: Melissa Ripling. Office of Desegretation Mnnitorinn 371-0100 Here is the memo you requested for your study Zach Polett PAGES: 5 Zah Pelen\" S 501-376-2423 Jl7/15/94 G 1:33 PM 24/5 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday. June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussZach 05'6'.!  501-376-2423 3t 7/15/94 G 1:33 PM 25/5 Proposed Procedijres for Interview Proce: 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.Ct- . GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATlOf TO: FROM: RE: Meeting MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 REC aEj.5 Jbl 1 5 19941 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superinten^^l^j Desegregation Monitonna Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion on Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) interviews. A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview proce: ^2. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your a: istance with these matters. Attachments Zach Poiett  501-376-2423 327/15/94 01:32 PM C3/5 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 1 0) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polett  501-376-2423 3C7/15/94 01:33 PM 24/5 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussZach Polett  501-376-2423 aa 7/15/94 01:33 PM  5/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 S' GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO\nDr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE\nMeeting Preparation for Gibbs Prindpai Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsJUN-28-94 TUE 14:15 ' 4201 ruitfu SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. Z) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficient^ in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) matters? In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?JUN-28-94 TUE 14:15 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 Partial List of Applicants We Would I Ike tn Interview on Tupsday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussJUN-28-94 TUE 14:16 4acn roien SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 13 I Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open, if after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working dosely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible prindpal for Gibbs Elementary.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:14 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 09 TO: GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Oonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Follow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1994 As members of theLRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee, we again respectfully request to interview the following people for the principalship of Gibbs at the earliest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedie Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feasible. ThanK you in advance for your assistance in this matter.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.07 GIBBS elementary - teacher association PARENT .CHAi^SRS OF SUSAN WR?SH'r JUN 2 0 1994 U. S. DfSTS/GT J!JOGE June 17, 1994 Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Henry Williams following out committee's meeting with him on June 15, 1994 . This letter is being provided to each of you so that you will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administration which was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. We believe that it is important for each of you to know that the parent-teacher members of the committee unanimously believe that the process was inherently and fatally flawed, if for no other reason than it substantially eliminated any significant and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any names to Dr. Williams for consideration for the principal position at Gibbs.. JUN\n28-94 TUE 14:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs principal. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Cojnmittee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY\nA AFAjt/jc Enclosure 3861d JUN-28-94 TUE 14:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 02 PARENT GIBBS ELEMENTARY ' - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P, Williams superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: OF SUSA'-Z WFQP.F-R y.'.RjCHT JUN 2 0 19S4 U. S. DfSTHtCT JIJDGE HAND DELIVERED Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr, Williams: Again, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your time in discussing the selection process with us. think we can all agree that an important component to this I successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As patents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place to date. You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the Recognizing that you will be involved in principal's position. other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994, Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. has been stated by the administration that this particular Although it procedure had worked\" in prior applications, it has been our experience that the process in this instance is inherently and fatally flawed.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:11 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 Dr. Henry P, Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved Subsequently, we undertook efforts to in the selection process, determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the At no time were we ever given specific or accurate process. . _ . information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent role would be. Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district We also requested requesting involvement in the process. information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Dpon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, 11 a list This of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. we asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on We are now told their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. by you that that was \"misinformation*. It was not until the interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure Both before the for selection of the principal would be. interview process and at the conclusion of the interviews, inquired of the administrative representatives whether, in the event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants we interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. In response to our inquiries,we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could not come to a consensus on the applicants to be recommended to you, the process would remain open and we would be able toJUN-28-94 TUE 14:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 04 Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were \"misinformed*. The parent and faculty members of the selection committee also expressed serious reservations about the utilization of the Our concerns were the lack of prior input evaluation forms. into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. we were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on There was substantial reluctance on the simple mathematics. part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that wecould recommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to position. . . submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to document the fact that the committee had interviewed the five Additionally, several members of the committee. applicants. committee, expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr. williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 05 Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY: A^red^. Angulo, Jz. AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. BOX 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203JUN-28-94 TUE 14:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Owa Jacovelli 6622 Gold court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. BOX 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Donna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860dAAai^_^mocrat :^(^azctte FRIDAY, JUNE 24. 1994 a ijtQa Rock Newaoaoen. ine. Parents input LRSD unnecessary, Williams says BY CHRIS REINOLDS Oemocrai-Gazene Staff Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams angered a roomful of parents Thursday night by suggesting that their involvement wasnt necessary in running a successful school system. That remark followed an angry exchange over parents insistence on being involved in the selection of a new principal at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school. Ive read a great deal of literature that suggests schools can be successful without parental involvement, Williams told the parents. I just want you to tell it like it is. The audience reacted with an exclamation of disbelief at that comment. He was responding to a complaint by a parent, Alfred Angulo Jr., that he and other parents met with Dr. Williams and. were told schools can run without parental involvement. Williams has decided to reassign 17 elementary and junior high principals for the 1994-95 school year, saying he recommended the moves to.improve See LRSD, Page 13A  Continued from Page 1A and revitalize the schools involved. The reassignments were presented to the Little Rock School Board for action Thursday, according to the agenda for the meeting. At Gibbs. Williams assembled a committee of parents, staff and district officials to interview candidates and recommend one for the principals position. The committee interviewed five candidates but decided against recommending any of them for the vacancy caused by Donna Davis retirement. Parents said they asked to interview more candidates but were denied. If we did not see an appropriate candidate, then the process should remain open, Angulo told board members. Why go through the sham _ and pretense of involving us in Angulo asked a process? 9 Williams. We are asking for meaningful participation. Angulos remarks prompted a deafening standing ovation from the packed room of more than 65 people. Theyre asking to make the decision on who the principal should be, Williams said, referring to the parents. I would not put people in positions that would not improve the schools, he said. After that exchange, the board approved several agenda items, then brought up the issue of approving the 17 principal transfers. When Williams said Ed Jack- son, principal of Williams Elementary, would be reassigned to Gibbs, a cry of protest sounded from the audience members with children in the magnet school. Patricia Gee, a board member, made a motion that Gibbs parents be allowed the opportunity to continue interviewing candidates for principal. The motion failed 3-3. Gee, T. Kevin OMalley and O.G. Jacovelli voted for the motion, while Katherine Mitchell, Dorsey Jackson and John A. Riggs IV voted against it. Linda Pondexter had become ill and left the meeting. We ask for parental involvement, and we shouldnt slam the door in their face,\" Gee said. The board then swiftly moved into executive session. Gee and Jacovelli voted against that move. Both agreed that parents should have a say about the assignment of a principal to Gibbs. When the board returned from behind closed doors and resumed business less than five minutes later, members noted that the reassignments had been completed and a vote was unnecessary, despite the matters inclusion on the board agenda. That left no doubt Jacksorr'is now the principal at Gibbs Elementary. Another issue that has spurred controversy during the past two months was apparently put to rest earlier Thursday. The board voted 4-3 against using a private company to run the districts school buses. A cheer resounded from bus drivers and others when the board took that action. Gee, Jacovelli, Pondexter and Mitchell cast the majority vote. The board also voted 4-3 to hire a staff attorney at a salary of $60,000 to deal with routine legal matters. The district will still retain the Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm, which has been representing it in the Pulaski County desegregation lawsuit ,,jGibbs School PTA RECEJ^fSO 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 SUSAN Wi JUN 27 1934 U. S. CStSTftlCT JUDGE kftx'Lru^L\u0026lt; zc + cbM-^ -a-^- ' du. PnA u?-K\u0026lt; .cbL(LkJ^ J-, s\u0026gt; I 5^eAyU\u0026gt;^ I ) 5^\u0026gt;ut\u0026gt;^ L/U^^ r\\ )\u0026lt;u 0)^ \"^wo^ ^UlWii\u0026gt; U\u0026gt;-^ (_,4- 5 ^^Az\\ C^tO'^ JWax ,,j\ni,J), \u0026lt;cu2j 'Vz^sRa -ta u\u0026gt;Pui^^sc^X\u0026lt;, Sxj-WBBRRIffWW Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 t/AAh ttu '^y^D(X^c^ (2X^xj(Ta,\u0026lt;:cJ^ -tn-O tAJAXM: (\nt^ ti-Ukh^.^ (zO~t(K  n, wwA ^r hJi[/CM it luhb^'^^ U\u0026gt;1 w~\u0026gt; ,l/un\u0026gt;^ ZpA A. ' ^i) [M- (AH- y) [/^^ I (/H WA- 1}J^ f lit \u0026lt;7^^  XAp-^ .2 -i.^^\u0026lt;T' r 5 Zach Poien W 501-376-2423 3B7/17/94 06:42 PM 2/4 Mary Virginia Mayeux 614 N. Taylor Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 June 26, 1994 Honorable Susan Weber Wright Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing as a concerned parent of two children at Gibbs Elementary Magnet School concerning the process by which the Little Rock School District administration is attempting to appoint Dr. Ed Jackson as the principal of our school. In May, when our previous principal announced her early retirement (under pressure from the district administration to move to another school), a Gibbs PTA representative contacted assistant superintendent Larry Robertson and deputy superintendent Estelle Matthis about what role, if any, parents would play in the selection of a new principal to fill this vacancy. We were told that we would follow the same procedure that has been in place in the district for several years in which a committee of parents, teachers and district administrators interview a number of candidates for the position and select their top three preferences, in rank order. The superintendent then chooses one from among these three and recommends that choice to the school board. The district administration appointed such a committee, the Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee, and included on it three Gibbs parents, two Gibbs faculty, and three district administrators. Prior to the interviews, the parents and teachers on the committee requested from the administration a list of all applicants for the position and those from that list selected by the administration to be interviewed by the committee. This information was denied to them by Dr. Richard Hurley, the custodian of the records, Estelle Matthis and the office of Dr. Williams. This denial was made even after the district had supplied a copy of this list to an Arkansas citizen not on the committee who hadZach Polen  501-376-2423 3E7/17/94 0:42 PM 23/4 filed an FOI request. Subsequently, the parent and teacher members of the comittee were able to obtain the list from this citizen, and prepared a letter to Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis asking to interview five of the applicants. This letter was hand-delivered by a member of the selection committee to the offices of Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis the day before the interviews were to be conducted. The letter was never responded to and the request was eventually effectively denied. This selection committee met on June 7 and interviewed five candidates (selected by district administrators with no input from Gibbs parents or the selection committee). The committee unanimously, by consensus, decided not to recommend to the superintendent any candidates from those interviews, and was assured by the administration-appointed chair of the committee, an assistant superintendent, that the committee would be able to interview additional candidates within a few days. On June 9, this assistant superintendent informed us that Dr. Williams had refused to honor this commitment and that the selection committee portion of the process was over. Thus, the committee met and interviewed, but emphatically consideration as Gibbs principal. did not select three candidates for Despite many subsequent conversations with administrators and board members and a group meeting with Dr. Williams on June 15 in which we made clear the committee's decision that it needed additional interviews. Dr. Williams proceeded to name Ed Jackson as Gibbs principal and to claim that the committee participated in that selection. The problems which have resulted form this procedure are numerous and serious, including\n(1) Parents have lost all confidence in district administrators to speak to them truthfully. (2) Parents are shocked and angered that they have been directly and emphatically told on two occasions by Dr. Williams that their participation in their children's education is not needed. (3) A principal whose strengths are in basic skills and discipline has been appointed, against his will, to a school where the emphasis is on international studies, as reflected in reading, writing, art, music, andZach Poiett tt 501-376-2423 307/17/94 08:43 PM D4/4 languages. We believe that this is an inappropriate mismatch of principal and school theme and could endanger the vital distinct magnet program. ive character of our Prior to the present controversy, Gibbs parents and students loved the warm supportive atmosphere and positive learning environment of our school and had spoken so highly of it to many others that there was a surge in applications for the school this spring resulting in lengthy waiting lists for admission, longer than Carver and other historically popular magnet programs. However, in a few short weeks the Little Rock School District administration has endangered what has taken years of hard work by principal, teachers and parents to create -- a successfully integrated, very popular school located in an old building in the middle of central Little Rock. Parents are distressed and angry about being shut out of any meaningful input in deciding the school's future. The prospect of losing a large number of middle class black, white and Asian students from the school is very real. Instead of attracting students and parents as magnet schools are supposed to do, the Little Rock School District is apparently trying to repel them. Please consider directing the Little Rock School District administration to allow the district's Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee to complete its work by interviewing a group of five (or so) additional suitable candidates and recommending three of them to Dr. Williams so that he can select an appropriate principal to recommend to the school board for the school we love so much. Sincerely, Mary Mayeux P. S.: You may enjoy the enclosed picture of my son and his two best friends, all of whom are Gibbs students. EnclosureJUN-27,-94 MON 10:26 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 June 26, 1994 CHA SUSAN Vr i ''.mGHT District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JUN 27 ldS4 s, n(STir?!CT JLIDGE Dear Judge Wright, I am the mother of a second grader, Jake Tull, at Gibbs Magnet School and am writing to you about some recent events regarding this school that I find very troubling. Let me preface my concerns, however, with praise and positive feedback for this wonderful school. Gibbs has been a perfect environment for my child, and one in which he is very happy. The faculty is outstanding and the curriculum is well suited to his need for more than a basic skills track. He has been enriched by Gibbs excellent art, music, language, and science programs, especially the Dunbar Garden\". As a tactile, kinesthetic child with diagnosed learning differences Jake has blossomed in the two years at this school. More importantly, he has learned respect for individuals of race and religion other than his own, and has been given respect himself. As a parent, I have also been enriched by the association with the children, faculty, and parents of Gibbs school. It is the most amazing and cooperative collection of multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multireligious persons that I have ever had the pleasure to be around. I am very concerned for several reasons. First of all, I am distraught with the so-called selection process of a new principal in which I have been involved. This process was misrepresented to us from the very beginning and we were sand-bagged\" every step of the way by Dr. Williams and his immediate staff. Our only intent as parents in this process was to have some input regarding the person whom we thought most appropriate to maintain the level of excellence and professionalism at Gibbs School that we have enjoyed. We by no means wanted complete control over the determination of the new principal. I find it inexcusable that we had to threaten the Little Rock School District with a Freedom of Information lawsuit in order to obtain information regarding principal applicants. Furthermore, I find it appalling that only one out of seven of our requested applicants was present on June 7th to interview. We were not under any circumstances allowed to interview the candidates that we had wanted to and did not submit three names to Dr. Williams for contention in-JUN-27-94 MON 10:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 the Gibbs School principal position. As far as we were concerned we had not seen the \"right\" person for the job and were promised that the selection process would remain open. This did not happen and it became apparent that we had been set-up\". Secondly, I find it inconceivable that the superintendent of the Little Rock School district would even allude to the fact that parental involvement is unnecessary for strength within the district and individual schools, much less quote this thought three times and have studies to prove it. He obviously needs a history lesson regarding the Little Rock public schools. As far as I am concerned, the parents rank third behind both the students and the faculty in providing strength to a school. 1 have held PTA positions, been a room parent, and tutored individual students at Gibbs school for two years. Nothing, with the exception of my family, holds greater importance to me. Thirdly, I find Dr. Williams' arbitrary and \"fruit basket turnover approach of transferring principals very unsettling. If his purpose is to stabilize the school district, he is accomplishing just the opposite. In all honesty, I cannot find the rationale for transferring Dr. Jackson from a strong magnet school\" to another strong magnet school\" with a totally different curriculum and philosophy. 1 think highly of Dr. Jackson and feel that perhaps he is just a pawn in Dr. Williams power play\na game in which everyone loses. I am asking you to review these matters and counsel the Gibbs PTA on our next step. We are in the public schools because we believe in them and feel that they provided the best education for Jake. Please continue your efforts in making them the best environment for our children. Thank you. Sincerely, Sue Tull, Gibbs PTA Treasurer and concerned parentZach Poiett W 501-376-2423 36:7/17/94 6:42PM  2/4 Mary Virginia Mayeux 614 N. Taylor Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 June 26, 1994 Honorable Susan Weber Wright Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing as a concerned parent of two children at Gibbs Elementary Magnet School concerning the process by which the Little Rock School District administration is attempting to appoint Dr. Ed Jackson as the principal of our school. In May, when our previous principal announced her early retirement (under pressure from the district administration to move to another school), a Gibbs PTA representative contacted assistant superintendent Larry Robertson and deputy superintendent Estelle Matthis about what role, if any, parents would play in the selection of a new principal to fill this vacancy. We were told that we would follow the same procedure that has been in place in the district for several years in which a committee of parents, teachers and district administrators interview a number of candidates for the position and select their top three preferences, in rank order. The superintendent then chooses one from among these three and recommends that choice to the school board. The district administration appointed such a committee, the Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee, and included on it three Gibbs parents, two Gibbs faculty, and three district administrators. Prior to the interviews, the parents and teachers on the committee requested from the administration a list of all applicants for the position and those from that list selected by the administration to be interviewed by the committee. This information was denied to them by Dr. Richard Hurley, the custodian of the records, Estelle Matthis and the office of Dr. Williams. This denial was made even after the district had supplied a copy of this list to an Arkansas citizen not on the committee who hadZach Polen  501-376-2423 237/17/94 (Sfl:42PM  3/4 filed an FOI request. ubsequently, the parent and teacher members of the comittee were able to obtain the list from this citizen, and prepared a letter to Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis asking to interview five of the applicants. This letter was hand-delivered by a member of the selection committee to the offices of Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis the day before the interviews were to be conducted. The letter was never responded to and the request was eventually effectively denied. This selection committee met on June 7 and interviewed five candidates (selected by district administrators with no input from Gibbs parents or the selection committee). The committee unanimously, by consensus, decided not to recommend to the superintendent any candidates from those interviews, and was assured by the administration-appointed chair of the committee, an assistant superintendent, that the committee would be able to interview additional candidates within a few days. On June 9, this assistant superintendent informed us that Dr. Williams had refused to honor this commitment and that the selection committee portion of the process was over. Thus, the committee met and interviewed, but emphatically consideration as Gibbs principal. did not select three candidates for Despite many subsequent conversations with administrators and board members and a group meeting with Dr. Williams on June 1 5 in which we made clear the committee's decision that it needed additional interviews. Dr. Williams proceeded to name Ed Jackson as Gibbs principal and to claim that the committee participated in that selection. The problems which have resulted form this procedure are numerous and serious, including: (1) Parents have lost all confidence in district administrators to speak to them truthfully. (2) Parents are shocked and angered that they have been directly and emphatically told on two occasions by Dr. Williams that their participation in their children's education is not needed. (3) A principal whose strengths are in basic skills and discipline has been appointed, against his will, to a school where the emphasis is on international studies, as reflected in reading, writing, art, music, andZach Polett  SOI-376-2423 S: 7/17/94 0:43PM  4/4 languages. We believe that this is an inappropriate mismatch of principal and school theme and could endanger the vital distinct magnet program. ive character of our Prior to the present controversy, Gibbs parents and students loved the warm supportive atmosphere and positive learning environment of our school and had spoken so highly of it to many others that there was a surge in applications for the school this spring resulting in lengthy waiting lists for admission, longer than Carver and other historically popular magnet programs. However, in a few short weeks the Little Rock School District administration has endangered what has taken years of hard work by principal, teachers and parents to create - a successfully integrated, very popular school located in an old building in the middle of central Little Rock. Parents are distressed and angry about being shut out of any meaningful input in deciding the school's future. The prospect of losing a large number of middle class black, white and Asian students from the school is very real. Instead of attracting students and parents as magnet schools are supposed to do, the Little Rock School District is apparently trying to repel them. Please consider directing the Little Rock School District administration to allow the district's Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee to complete its work by interviewing a group of five (or so) additional suitable candidates and recommending three of them to Dr. Williams so that he can select an appropriate principal to recommend to the school board for the school we love so much. Sincerely, Mary Mayeux P. S.: You may enjoy the enclosed picture of my son and his two best friends, all of whom are Gibbs students. Enclosure JUL-21-94 THU 15:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE: July 21, 1994 TO: Ms. Ann Brown F.Y.I, FROM: Judge Susan Webber Wriaht NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 7JUL-21-94 THU 15:52 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 i6\u0026lt;h P, 02 V cf-i.'-r-iv/i'i?' SIJSAM V.S-T' \" l.i, JU I 2 I !U04 Dif^HIGT JUf:2GE /L Atvidi ... oC^aMa f AaA li, m(^ .............. I *6, L. 'p 1 Xe\u0026gt; .A. . -/- /7,  'y^C X ./-/^ . -/ '2'kf AL, . . ! r. yi\u0026gt; f   / a. ^tC'T^\u0026lt;^'\u0026lt;JC zd) A A.. ^ctATJuAbA A'V ypAhbcAA ' \" / - / JUL-21-94 THU 15:52 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 /^ '! } 7 / tti-cA /C-7-^ ^^''A'y'ie^edL ,7ac^bL^\u0026gt;/:Z(r^^ 'ZuoiT^ \"'a' 1 / ! / /cAj-ChJ^ r ^-CC^ aZ.\u0026amp;^\u0026lt;auj-^ AA\\^tj^''L/t '(JyjJ-^'^ f AU'AT.i^AitJL L / .. '7 A 'iU^d  i. A \"'L AW- TvA^I - '2Ual. JUL-21-94 THU 15:53 .3\u0026gt;.................................... SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 04 7 /OO /KrUJ ^0 \u0026amp;7. /\u0026amp;:) /t , J /OyAzTiyi-  I'Uyj2^.(.^^'^\u0026lt;^ \" '.------------- ^c \u0026lt;' /^ ^-G \u0026lt;^^6L-2-^yi:CL\u0026lt;yc^ , y.T 7 'U 7 fy '^Lx' 1 A ^-t ' ,  n ' ' ''7V9 C6h:. d) Z^'LCj^yd^y A .9 4 y /^ '^\u0026lt;J2,. tTL. /'o .-7 ,(\u0026gt; i-^ A-^ c\u0026lt;L^\"^ JUL-21-94 THU 15:53 4 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 05 y^/-^ yziid^ t. /^ Ul '/Coy cy( ^ Cd ( y-i .7^ 4 tc^yi^^L 1 CC^C ,1 dd/y) \u0026lt; L.- ^'^/yy uL 'i '^CQ/ /.1,-^J/ci /dd\u0026gt; //^'d /^ C-CjC d^ccA'i 4 Cil^ J ,\u0026lt;? / y^nunyt^} CcfJZ) -U^'-J. ') (5 ----_ ---------. ^p\u0026lt;$^Ctyz\u0026lt;C //iy A-C'Cl'^Z ^'Xeyj-TK^U--^ C^'7^ ) -^^0 ydd /Cy y , t \"Adji. (y . yi'.,. J ,4 r dC^''-~iS:^^/\\J 4^?-lZi't4 JUL-21-94 THU 15:54 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 06 /U\\^- aI /6Lc dii Mjl ./3cAffv^ /(^}tJ6c.j^. 6 /6ci . ,CC-}U.a, //y 7) 63) ^6c 't:c. Z' w r'J fi /? / Ccc^i 3 i^- c L' CCAi 'tXc. /tcz^'6 \u0026gt;1 0, -1 ./r\u0026gt;vle. ^6'  /) *  ..3bi.o^3^UNAyCi:^ ^'^)e^ctun^ .. ..^\u0026amp;CC6 .d^K -.^-^ \u0026lt; /W^y,. 0 /. /Ca~cdL - 4'/ ' . liJx. .\u0026lt;3A^ } L /UCAa^ ' JUL-21-94 THU 15:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 //\n^iC^ 'J a /' -^i ,sW tJAZnu *7- 1'^k( Skip Rutherford 5604 Hawthorne Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 June 24, 1994 Mr. Dorsey Jackson KPMG 1400 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 dUH 2 7 1994 Dear Dorsey: Office of In all my years of supporting public education never have 1 seen sucli outrageous and insensitive public statements as the ones made by Dr. Henry Williams regarding parental involvement in the school (clipping attaclred). His actions also completely contradict both the intent and the spirit of the desegregation plan which calls for parental involvement. Dr. Wilhams' continuing actions are comparable to the insensitive public attitudes of former superintendent Ed Kelly. Dr. Kelly's \"controlled choice\" plan and his actions blindly \"rubber stamped\" by a majority of the school board forced over 1,000 students to leave the district and many families to leave the city. Tlrere is a rapidly growing feeling  particularly among those with children in the public schools - that Dr. Williams is taking the district and tire city in the same disastrous direction. Perhaps, however. Dr. Williams' uncaring and arrogant attitude regarding the public does explain why he \"job-hopped\" so much before coming to Little Rock for a lucrative contract with a \"pension for pals\" provision. With tlrat kind of sweetheart deal, he doesn't need the public even thou^r he is head of a public school system. Someday though the district will need to go back to the public for a vote of support and to the Federal Court to explain why it is directly violating the court-approved plan. Good luck. Sincerely, Skip Rutherford SR:sw Enclosure cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown v Ms. Pat Gee Ms. O.G. Jacovelli Dr. Katherine Mitcliell Arkansas Democrat \"O' (Oazell ARKANSAS NEWSPAPER Copyright  1994, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LITTLE ROCK, JUNE 24,1994 108 PAGES 10 SECTIONS Parents input unnecessary, Williams says BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Little Rock Superintendent Ileniy Williams angered a roomful of parents Thursday night by suggesting that their involvement wasnt necessary in running a successful school system. That remark followed an angry exchange over parents insistence on being involved in the selection of a new principal at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school. I've read a great deal of literature that suggests schools can be successful without parental involvement, Williams told the parents. 1 just want you to tell it like it is. The audience reacted with an exclamation of disbelief at that comment. He was responding to a complaint by a parent, Alfred Angulo Jr., that he and other parents met with Dr. Williams and were told schools can run without parental involvement. Williams has decided to reassign 17 elementary and junior high principals for the 1994-95 school year, saying he recommended the moves to improve See LRSD,- Page 13A and revitalize the schools involved. The reassignments were presented to the Little Rock School Board for action Thursday, according to the agenda for the meeting. At Gibbs, Williams assembled a committee of parents, staff and district officials to interview candidates and recommend one for the principals position. The committee interviewed five candidates but decided against recommending any of them for the vacancy caused by Donna Davis retirement. Parents said they asked to interview more candidates but were denied. If we did not see an appropriate candidate, then the process should remain open, Angulo told board members. Why go through the sham and pretense of involving us in a process? Angulo asked Williams. We are asking for meaningful participation. Angulos remarks prompted a deafening standing ovation from the packed room of more than 65 people. Theyre asking to make the decision on who the principal should be, Williams said, referring to the parents. I would not put people in positions that would not improve the schools, he said. After that exchange, the board approved several agenda items, then brought up the issue of approving the 17 principal transfers. When Williams said Ed Jack- son, principal of Williams Elementary, would be reassigned to Gibbs, a cry of protest sounded from the audience members with children in the magnet school. Patricia Gee, a board member, made a motion that Gibbs parents be allowed the opportunity to continue interviewing candidates for principal. The motion failed 3-3. Gee, T. Kevin OMalley and O.G. Jacovelli voted for the motion, while Katherine Mitchell, Dorsey Jackson and John A. Riggs IV voted against it. Linda Pondexter had become ill and left the meeting. We ask for parental involvement, and we shouldnt slam the door in their face, Gee said. The board then swiftly moved into executive session. Gee and Jacovelli voted against that move. Both agreed that parents should have a say about the assignment of a principal to Gibbs. When the board returned from behind closed doors and resumed business less than five minutes later, members noted that the reassignments had been completed and a vote was unnecessary, despite the matter.s inclusion on the board agenda. That left no doubt: Jackson is now the principal at Gibb.s Elementary. Another issue that has spurred controversy during the past two months was apparently put to rest earlier Thursday. The board voted 4-3 against using a private company to run the district's school buses. A cheer resounded from bus drivers and others when the board took that action. Gee, Jacovelli, Pondexter and Mitchell cast the majority vote. The board also voted 4-3 to hire a staff attorney at a salary of $60,000 to deal with routine legal matters. The district will still retain the Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm, which has been representing it in the Pulaski County desegregation lawsuit.CTfl iUwxm I I/CO S't-jV'' fbv uAaa?X^ ^'fT^ U^ (J^ i (D-tt (/U4^ r/o ^d~ \\cha  f X.JUN-17-94 FRI 14:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 May 18,1994 Ms. Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis\nThe Gibbs School PTA convened yesterday evening for the special purpose of considering how to best engage parents and patrons in the important decision of choosing a new principal for Gibbs Elementary School. Enclosed to this letter are the nomination of five parents of Gibbs students who we believe would positively contribute to the selection decision. We are submitting five names for several reasons. First, we wish to assure a true needs. representation and cross section of Gibbs parents and student You will notice our nominations are balanced among mothers and fathers, black and white parents, and across grade levels. Second, we are aware that one year ago, somewhat larger selection committees were successful in choosing principals for other LRSD schools. At Pulaski Heights Elementary, for example, the larger committee interviewed all applicants, ranked their top three preferences among the candidates,, and the LRSD administration made the final choice from these three. This process seems to capture the right balance of participation and decision-making between parents and the LRSD. Finally', two other suggestions were adopted at our meeting. The PTA wishes to recommend that the Gibbs faculty have the prerogative to appoint five faculty members to the selection committee. Also, Ms. Marie McNeal, the Social Studies Supervisor for the LRSD, is viewed as very knowledgeable of Gibbs since its inception as an International Magnet School since 1988-89. Ms. McNeal has been instrumental in theJUN-17-94 FRI 14:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 development of Gibbs international studies curriculum and theme, hope she also will find a place on the selection committee. We We arc very interested in hearing from you about proceeding with the selection of a new Gibbs principal, numbers and address indicated. We can be reached at the telephone Best Regards. Dorothy D. Rhodes Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work (morning only) 324-2330 Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work 569-8572 Enclosure\nGibbs PTA Parent Nominations cc\nExecutive Board Members, Gibbs PTA JUN-17-94 FRI 14:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Mr. Willie Jones Black Male Sth Grade Mr. Dotie Angulo White Male 1st Grade Ms. Easter Tucker Black Female 3rd Grade Ms. Ann Cashion White Female 4th \u0026amp; 6th Grade Mr. Zachary Poiett White Male 1st GradeGibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 ,^}a\u0026gt;^e.d y^U do n  \"'v I i^iki i/k /^.^sb (//AS hoLc \\ MtvCk / IM/[S (if ''yl/^^C II 'flit' \u0026gt; ! I t X^SMAIA JlJt- A:l,lf ^1 /)/t.i- l^- iO t t t e  d\u0026gt;Md (aaA 4/I.C,t^JUN-17-g4 FRI 14:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 RECEIVED SUSAN CHAMBERS OF IN - -norr^ WRIGHT Gibbs School PTA MAY 20 1994 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas lZl22.(12S1 RiCT JUDGE Telephone 324-2490 My /II 0 tx/tl % i/ZA P^^Siix^UT' PVh Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 May 18,1994 Telephone 324-2490 receiwo Ms. Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MAY 2 0 1994 Qfi'iM ot Desegregaiion u. Dear Ms. Matthis: The Gibbs School PTA convened yesterday evening for the special purpose of considering how to best engage parents and patrons in the important decision of choosing a new principal for Gibbs Elementary School. Enclosed to this letter are the nomination of five parents of Gibbs students who we believe would positively contribute to the selection decision. We are submitting five names for several reasons. First, we wish to assure a true representation and cross sectionof Gibbs \"parents and student j\u0026lt;oL's3 needs. You will notice our nominations are balanced among mothers and fathers, black and white parents, and across grade levels. .cV. Second, we are aware that one year ago, somewhat larger selection committees were successful in choosing principals for other LRSD schools. At Pulaski Heights Elementary, for example, the larger committee interviewed all applicants, ranked their top three preferences among the candidates, and the LRSD administration made the final choice from these three. This process seems to capture the right balance of participation and decision-making between parents and the LRSD. Finally, two other suggestions were adopted at our meeting. The PTA wishes to recommend that the Gibbs faculty have the prerogative to appoint five faculty members to the selection committee. Also, Ms. Marie McNeal, the Social Studies Supervisor for the LRSD, is viewed as very knowledgeable of Gibbs since its inception as an International Magnet School since 1988-89. Ms. McNeal has been instrumental in the 331-. X7O ...-ifingdevelopment of Gibbs international studies curriculum and theme, hope she also will find a place on the selection committee. We We are very interested in hearing from you about proceeding with the selection of a new Gibbs principal, numbers and address indicated. We can be reached at the telephone Best Regards. Dorothy D. Rhodes Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work (morning only) 324-2330 \\ im Lynch Co-President Gibbs PTA 16 Lenon Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Home 661-0406 Work 569-8572 X\n V ^7  jw odw j oj diiw av/  o! iiffUfi evil 3PIt -516 'sW Enclosure: Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations /O Ef'E .,iSOfr\\ TOitSJ.Tri\n-If tfi '' '!C  :U'I s cc: Executive Board Members, Gibbs PTA - - p n i { Gibbs PTA Parent Nominations for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Mr. Willie Jones Black Male Sth Grade Mr, Dotie Angulo White Male 1st Grade Ms. Easter Tucker Black Female 3rd Grade Ms. Ann Cashion White Female 4th \u0026amp; 6th Grade Mr. Zachary Polett White Male 1st GradeODM Interoffice Communication Log Date: To: ilkUi From:' (3^ y.' Attachment Subject: kc/p VvLt Jb (jbx . Qa^ZcavI^ , CXto oJiiJLJ u^ST) (fo lA/Ui c k L I'l r Please com, by Date: Attachment Comments on action or results: Cd C/c^- X)//zca^'inMAY-10-94 THU 14:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 .-af- .4 0(3 (T\u0026gt; U/VA*/ n - I \u0026lt;-{ t\nAV.c5 0^ a'\nC May 17, 1994 Hon. Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 t. W/iy ig *.u' VV\n^334 S. Cl,'='f''iri'x^,! Cr Dear Judge Wright, I am writing today, net only as an involved parent of Williams Magnet, but also of the Little Rock School District. As the individual with the final authority in all district staffing changes, I am addressing my concerns to you. I am concerned about the transfer of Dr. Ed Jackson from Williams Magnet to another school. This is a concern shared by what I feel is a majority of the parents, teachers, staff at the school. elementary enrolling because schools. My wife both public and and I investigated our of oldest child at Williams. private, prior and many to We chose Williams its discipline, accomplishments. reputation. and the presence and influence of Dr. strict Jackson. I truly believe that his role in the success of Williams Magnet can't be overated. When news of his transfer reached the school, there was an immediate outcry not to do this. The issue was brought to the attention of Dr. Williams, and he met with a group of parents to discuss the change. Dr. Williams prefaced the meeting by explaining that he was moving Dr. Jackson so that his He expertise also made could be used to strengthen a weaker school. justify, s tand-it perfectly in his opinion. clear that unless we could As a business decision another district. changing that decision. it would person, I can understand Dr. Williams to try and use Dr. school. not He is just williams. his seeming indifference. the legitimate at williams. Jacksons abilities to improve superintendent of the entire What I do not understand is and condescending attitude toward concerns of the parents. teachers and staff If Dr. Williams truly feels that the transfer of Dr. Jackson is in the best interest of the district and you and However, the Magnet Review Committee agree, so be it. how can he make that decision without knowing who the replacement will be? I feel we have a right to know. cont. MAY-13-94 THU 14:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 page .2 Hon. Susan Webber Wright It ' decisions would ! and help their if he would be more hesitant to explain justification. Dr. open about his Williams seemed parents of the the changes in detail/ schools involved have a Part rounds. of the problem Some are the rumors say that this Dr. Jackson and some of his superiors. which I believe right to know. that are making the is a personal problem between Another is that this is an attempt to get Dr. Jackson to retire/ thus saving the district his salary which is said to be the highest of any elementary school principal. The most moving Dr. disturbing rumor is that Dr. williams is friend/ a Jackson in order to replace him with a personal These rumors/ neighbor in f act / from outside the district. and Dr. Williams reluctance to either confirm or dispel them, are basic to the conflict. Cne final thought. I Williams as support for keeping Dr. attended the meeting with Dr. Jackson. I could tell from his opening remarks that the decision was made, with no chance However, of reversal/ another Williams decision. so I had decided to remain parent in attendance/ made the were trying to keep Dr. Jackson, quiet. a supporter of Dr. statement that he thought we not for his abilities, but to prevent the placement of a black person as principal. He felt it was all racially motived. I then felt compelled to speak, making it clear that I don't care about the race of a principal, only in the education of my children. I can't speak for all the parents and staff there, but I personally was offended and angry. get two children into Williams, I have camped-out to and I'm planning to do the same for my third, all the while living in a predominately white is, elementary district. Race is not the issue. If it then I suggest making assistant Mitchel the new principal. principal Deborah She is experienced in the Magnet School system, .she knows the Williams Magnet philosophy, and she is respected by the parents. teachers, and staff. We just want some assurance that this change is best interests of the students and not truly in the personal conflicts. I don' t believe this move 1 s based on Standards, but on petty politics. I believe educational it is Dr. Williams flexing his muscles to show the district who's the boas / and he will never change his mind for fear of appearing weak. school board. My wife wrote all of these concerns to the and one member called her at home to let her know she was correct in her nothing that member could do. do. assumptions, but there was There is something you can cont.MAY-19-94 THU 14:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.07 page 3 Hon. Susan Webber Wright This is that these important to the district. staff changes/ especially Dr. Please make Jackson's/ sure will benefit William's Magnet as well as the district. Don't let a staring contest between administrators, waiting to see who will blink first/ model to tear down Williams's Magnet. schools. copy/ not a source of material to Make it the patch other Thank you very much for your time. As a taxpayer and a parent/ I believe that it is not only my right but ray duty to question decisions that affect my children. I am a firm believer in the saying and so are my children\"/ decision. \"My heart is in the public schools/ and I want to feel safe in that Sincerely/ 'c Kenny Clark 6 Calais Court Little Rock, AR 72211 (501)821-2983 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 27, 1994 Kenny Clark 6 Calais Court Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Mr. Clark: I am responding to your letter on behalf of Judge Susan Webber Wright. Although she is sensitive to the concerns community members have about desegregation and other educational issues, as a matter of policy. Judge Wright does not correspond directly with citizens. Instead she relies on us in her Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to discuss school matters with individuals and organizations. I am one of the associate monitors working at ODM. As Im sure your aware, the LRSD Board of Directors voted on June 23,1994 to assign Dr. Ed Jackson to iBbs and Ms. Mary Menking to Williams. I understand that the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) intends to discuss the issue of principal assignments at a meeting this afternoon. On several occasions in the past, the MRC has successfully advocated for the magnet schools. While we at ODM are very concerned about all the schools in Pulaski County, we have no direct authority over school operations. Each school district continues to be responsible for their own operations. One of the districts responsibilities is adherence to the court-approved desegregation plans. If we find evidence that a district is not complying with their desegregation obligations, we will bring that situation to the attention of the court. The desegregation plans address staffing issues in a broad general fashion. The plans do not outline requirements for staff transfers. We will continue to monitor staffing changes throughout the summer, looking closely at the process by which staff members are hired or assigned. Thank you for taking the time to convey your concerns to the court. We appreciate your willingness to work for quality education in Pulaski County. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorJUN-28-94 TUE 14:10 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE\nTO\n5tI-oIoo FROM: NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 15 JUN-28-94 TUE 14:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 PARENT GIBBS ELEMENTARY ' - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: recssvsd OF SUSAN WEBRFR WW'GiNT JUN 2 0 19S4 U. S OfSTH'C'T JIJDQS HAND DELIVERED Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams\nAgain, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your time in discussing the selection process with us. think we can all agree that an important component to this I successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As patents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place to data. You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the principal's position. Recognizing that you will be involved in other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. has been stated by the administration that this particular Although it procedure had worked\" in prior applications, it has been our experience that the process in this instance is inherently and fatally flawed.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:11 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PT.A met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the At no time were we ever given specific or accurate process. information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our role would be. Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district requesting involvement in the process. We also requested information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. Eowever, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. we asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told It was not until the by you that that was misinformation*, interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure for selection of the principal would be. Both before the interview process and at the conclusion of the interviews, we inquired of the administrative representatives whether, in the event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. In response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could not come to a consensus on the applicants to be recommended to you. the process would remain open and we would be able toJUN-28-94 TUE 14:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 04 Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were 'misinformed*. The parent and faculty members of the selection committee also expressed serious reservations about the utilization of the evaluation forms. Our concerns were the lack of prior input into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on simple mathematics. There was substantial reluctance on the part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we could recommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to position. submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to document the fact that the committee had interviewed the five applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute i nterview. Dr. williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee,JUN-28-94 TUE 14:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Dt. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucket Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY\nAngulo, Jr, AfAjr/jc cc: Dt. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suita 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A, Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203JUN-28-94 TUE 14:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Owa Jacovelli 6622 Gold court Little Rock, AR 72209 V The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3315 Little Rock, AR 72203 Donna Cceer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860dJUN-28-94 TUE 14:13 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 GIBBS ELEMENTARY - TEACHER ASSOCIATION PARENT C-IAHS^S OF SUSAN .VR?SHT JUN 2 0 1334 U. S. DfS-m/CT JfJDGE June 17, 1994 Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Or. Henty Williams following out committee's meeting with him on June 15, 1994 . This letter is being provided to each of you so that you will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administration which was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. We believe that it is important for each of you to know that the parent-teacher members of the committee unanimously believe that the process was inherently and fatally flawed, if for no other reason than it substantially eliminated any significant and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any names to Dr. Williams for consideration for the principal position at Gibbs.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Tsacher Principal Selection committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Poiett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY: A AFAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d JUN-28-94 TUE 14:14 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 09 TO*. GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT \u0026gt; TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Easter TucKer Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Oonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Follow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1994 As members of the LRSO's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee, we again respectfully request to Interview the following people for the principalship of Gibbs at the earliest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedie Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feasible. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.JUN-28-94 TUE 14:14 \u0026amp;AUI rwivu SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 10 GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO\nDr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE\nMeeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials\n1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesdays interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsJUN-28-94 TUE 14:15 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) 6) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) matters? In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?JUN-28-94 TUE 14:15 r zacn roieu SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 12 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday, June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussJUN-28-94 TUE 14:16  4acn rwen SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX HO. 5013246576 P. 13 Propcsed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with EsteJie Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next prindpai of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible prindpai for Gibbs Elementary.JUN-27-94 MON 10:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 fcU-l44t n-l-q*! P.Ol UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE\nJune 27, 1994 TO: Ms. Ann Brow FAX: 371-0100 FROM\nJudge Susan Webber Wright.. JUK-27-94 MON 10:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 June 26. 1994 SUSAN WTiSSWi Vf^G/iT District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JUN 27 1924 U. SDfSTRfCT JUDGE Dear Judge Wright, I am the mother of a second grader, Jake Tull, at Gibbs Magnet School and am writing to you about some recent events regarding this school that 1 find very troubling. Let me preface my concerns, however, with praise and positive feedback for this wonderful school. Gibbs has been a perfect environment for my child, and one in which he is very happy. The faculty is outstanding and the curriculum is well suited to his need for more than a \"basic skills\" track. He has been enriched by Gibbs excellent art, music, language, and science programs, especially the Dunbar Garden\". As a tactile, kinesthetic child with diagnosed learning differences Jake has blossomed in the two years at this school. More importantly, he has learned respect for individuals of race and religion other than his own, and has been given respect himself. As a parent, I have also been enriched by the association with the children, faculty, and parents of Gibbs school. It is the most amazing and cooperative collection of multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multireligious persons that I have ever had the pleasure to be around. 1 am very concerned for several reasons. First of all, I am distraught with the so-called selection process of a new principal in which I have been involved. This process was misrepresented to us from the very beginning and we were sand-bagged\" every step of the way by Dr. Williams and his immediate staff. Our only intent as parents in this process was to have some input regarding the person whom we thought most appropriate to maintain the level of excellence and professionalism at Gibbs School that we have enjoyed. We by no means wanted complete control over the determination of the new principal. I find it inexcusable that we had to threaten the Little Rock School District with a Freedom of Information lawsuit in order to obtain information regarding principal applicants. Furthermore, I find it appalling that only one out of seven of our requested applicants was present on June 7th to interview. We were not under any circuipstances allowed to interview the candidates that we had wanted to and did not submit three names to Dr. Williams for contention inJUN.-27-94 MON 10:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 the Gibbs School principal position. As far as we were concerned we had not seen the right person for the job and were promised that the selection process would remain open. This did not happen and it became apparent that we had been set-up\". Secondly, I find it inconceivable that the superintendent of the Little Rock School district would even allude to the fact that parental involvement is unnecessary for strength within the district and individual schools, much less quote this thought three times and have studies to prove it. He obviously needs a history lesson regarding the Little Rock public schools. As far as I am concerned, the parents rank third behind both the students and the faculty in providing strength to a school, 1 have held PTA positions, been a room parent, and tutored individual students at Gibbs school for two years. Nothing, with the exception of my family, holds greater importance to me. Thirdly, I find Dr. Williams arbitrary and fruit basket turnover\" approach of transferring principals very unsettling. If his purpose is to stabilize the school district, he is accomplishing just the opposite. In all honesty, I cannot find the rationale for transferring Dr. Jackson from a strong magnet school\" to another strong magnet school\" with a totally different curriculum and philosophy. 1 think highly of Dr. Jackson and feel that perhaps he is just a pawn in Dr. Williams \"power play\na game in which everyone loses. I am asking you to review these matters and counsel the Gibbs PTA on our next step. We are in the public schools because we believe in them and feel that they provided the best education for Jake. Please continue your efforts in making them the best environment for our children. Thank you. Sincerely, Sue Tull, Gibbs PTA Treasurer and concerned parenti : in iivi I u Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 '(^ZaAF (Xt\u0026lt;z\u0026gt;( cjjjJiAPX iA.iXuz\u0026lt; Kz-\u0026lt;-^x. R)x tejxxii (vr\"^ hJil/CM U^Ji ^C-' ,(A(n\u0026gt;^ d ZZ  ' '^1) IZA w I (/X -f{_ UA' 5  ''\"'''jkj!^^ ^^jrUAyRECEJ^/Szi Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 SUSAN Vi!i JUN 27 1334 u. s, DiSTSiCT JUDGE PtA .cbL(U\u0026lt;-J^ HA- -wj ' , i ^i/QoJl  TW.(3WM p I jy } \u0026lt;^(jCilUx.cJi CA lA I 0ZU)Ci^^ '^wotA- '- J^-UuZ^ b^'^ J. 5 C^tO'^ t4uc.^-t\u0026lt;as^5 irp^JLha ^p SWJlCi- I I'AU' -^ q-tus CAi-\u0026lt; f \u0026lt;JV\u0026lt;1 i F t s i  h' V r: L .' * \"V k -'* * V t l * 4 \\-  \u0026gt; 1 . J t 1 r . 7  J .  J\" 1  ai! *- X^5^S 1 T|? b\n\u0026gt;-o (S*^ 7 '.*1 F^ .-\u0026lt; 1* u A *\"^^j4SJLl *34 WED 11:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.Ol UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 DATE: July 13, 1994 TO: Ms. Ann Brown F.y.l. FROM: Judge Susan Webber Wright NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET lor Tr^JaS?^: - v' ^2- *- \u0026gt;~^z*\u0026lt;',  r. JUL-13-94 WED 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 SUSAfe* Hontsrcib/^ Ct Ub^ba*^ U\nJU,\\' /'Tlu Ili\u0026lt;sb?c2n^ c^/t^l( 'T^ /ia,t\u0026gt;\u0026lt; t r J^art,c -i^t^ ^'T/I t\u0026gt;/ ($/bbj: Scb^)/ -y/^c ko^ 4c see '^Ue^ttaM^ noi^ -Tc ajj ^7 ! t i- r 'll f J 7 ckn/efre^ e^^ttca^kea ^thhr, IaJ^. C^Pesj- kou^ co^bk -/. _l7 a^ a. fat y -n ei skrf^^ l^te^rcsk t't^ S6- - ' C(r\u0026gt;U.,r^^J -ho O^ffKUtty -^ho. , 7lAtcA\u0026lt;^ rhe^s/ta^ej fr,c,f,^. -7-^ tS'/U^ ^l\u0026lt;^c//cn 'ra^ -fi^^ \u0026lt;^1^ ^,4/, ~PanC'/(tS\u0026gt;tt^ r:,/ f 'J C)Cf~D ^\u0026lt;J7M/ytC L J / -7%^ J2i^ n Dct^ 'H^ -fojSty a.'tf^r.^B-fg^ -6 g,'i^ 2i-. ce^ f /4t.AeLM-13-94 WED 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 As . (jJi? \u0026amp;uy) \u0026lt;::Sh-t 'iz. z \u0026gt;^1JUL-13-94 WED 11:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 04 Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16Lh Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 ifC'l'i.. 'H (^U-yLi. cC 1 :) a^bC' 'ZCuu ^jJCCCc. / cTc^Ct'^ ^^Cc-fi^i-^ /L't''-LLCC'^^' . b Ly {/ b'C'' .C^. RSCE^VL^O SUSAN CHAMiA^j r t\u0026gt;' ESUb. fi: WRU.\u0026gt;IT JUN 28 WIM LL S. DISTRICT JUDGE cC t..\u0026lt;^i \u0026lt;L,C.^^' Z6 r* -7 . c M-13-94 wed 11:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 05 HAND DELIVERED Gibbs School PTA 1115 West 16th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone 324-2490 Juns 28, 1994 TO! Judge Susan Weber Wright From: Chuck and Nancy Hamilton, Co-Presidents/Gibbs PTA Subject: Principal Changes in the Little Rock School District In a school district that must continually be sensitive to the need for stability, why is the LRSD changing principals in more than 25 of its schools, including 4 elementary magnet schools? This question has been repeatedly asked of the administration with contradictory responses being given. responsible or accountable for this decision? Is no one holding the district Patrons are worried, anxious. This leads to instability. and confused. This leads to distrust. The LRSD cannot afford to lose the faith and trust of its patrons. History has proven that parental support brings stability. Please ask the question \"why\", Judge Wright, and expect a responsible answer. Respectfully -mcH ent? Chuck and Nancy Hamilton or -?S t3S4 s. 'OGeJUL-13-94 WED 11:28 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 Mary Virginia Mayeux 614 N. Taylor Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 June 26. 15S4 Honorable Susan Weber V/right Federal Building 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SUS,AN WScstJcR WRJGHT JJN 271394 Dear Judge Wright: L'. S. DISTRICT JUDG^ I am writing as a concerned parent of two children at Gibbs Elementary Magnet School concerning the process by which the Little RocK School District administration is attempting to appoint Dr. Ed Jackson as the principal of our school.\"\" * In May, when our previous principal announced her early retirement (under pressure from the district administration to move to another school), a Gibbs PTA representative contacted assistant superintendent Larry Robertson and deputy superintendent Estelle Matthis about what role, if any, parents would play in the selection of a new principal to f Hi this vacancy. We were told that we would follow the same procedure that has been in place in the district for several years in which a committee of parents, teachers and district administrators interview a number of candidates for the position and select their top three preferences, in rank order. The superintendent then chooses one from among these three and recommends that choice to the school board. The district administration appointed such a committee, the Gibbs Elementary Schoo! Principal Selection Committee, and included on it three Gibbs parents, two Gibbs faculty, and three district administrators. Prior to the interviews, the parents and teachers on the committee requested from the administration a list of all applicants for the position and those from that list selected by the administration to be interviewed by the committee. This information was denied to them by Dr. Richard Hurley, the custodian of the records, Estelle Matthis and the office of Dr, Williams, This denial was made even after the district had supplied a copy of this list to an Arkansas citizen not on the committee who hadJUL-13-94 WED 11:29 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 07 filed an FO! request. Subsequently, the parent and teacher members of the comittee were able to obtain the list from this citizen, and prepared a letter to Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis asking to interview five of the applicants. This letter was hand-delivered by a member of the selection committee to the offices of Dr. Williams and Ms. Matthis the day before the interviews were to be conducted. The letter was never responded to and the request was eventually effectively denied. This selection committee met on June 7 and interviewed five candidates (selected by district administrators with no input from Gibbs parents or the selection committee). The committee unanimously, by consensus, decided not to recommend to the superintendent any candidates from those interviews, and was assured by the administration-appointed chair of the committee, an assistant superintendent, that the committee would be able to interview additional candidates within a few days. On June 9, this assistant superintendent informed us that Dr, Williams had refused to honor this commitment and that the selection committee portion of the process was over. Thus, the committee met and interviewed, but emphatically iid.nat.select three candidates for consideration as Gibbs principal. Despite many subsequent conversations with administrators and board members and a group meeting with Dr. Williams on June 1 5 in which we made clear the committee's decision that it needed additional interviews, Dr. Williams proceeded to name Ed Jackson as Gibbs principal and to claim that the committee participated in that selection. The problems which have resulted form this procedure are numerous and serious, including: (1) Parents have lost al! confidence in district administrators to speak to them truthfully. Parents are shocked and angered that they have been directly (2) and emphatically told on two occasions by Dr. Williams that their participation in their childrens education is not needed. (3) A principal whose strengths are in basic skills and discipline has been appointed, against his will, to a school where ths emphasis is on international studies, as reflected in reading, writing, art, music, andJUL-13-34 WED 11:30 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 languages. We believe that this is an inappropriate mismatch of principal and school theme and could endanger the vital distinctive character of our magnet program. Prior to the present controversy, Gibbs parents and students loved the warm supportive atmosphere and positive learning environment of our school and had spoken so highly of it to many others that there was a surge in applications for the school this spring resulting in lengthy waiting lists for admission, longer than Carver and other historically popular magnet programs. However, in a few short weeks the Little Rock School District administration has endangered what has taken years of hard work by principal, teachers and parents to create  a successfully integrated, very popular school located in an old building in the middle of central Little Rock. Parents are distressed and angry about being shut out of any meaningful input in deciding the school's future. The prospect of losing a large number of middle class black, white and Asian students from the school is very real. Instead of attracting students and parents as magnet schools are supposed to do, the Little Rock School District is apparently trying to repel them. Please consider directing the Little Rock School District administration to allow the district's Gibbs Elementary School Principal Selection Committee to complete its work by interviewing a group of five (or so) additional suitable candidates and recommending three of them to Dr. Williams so that he can select an appropriate principal to recommend to the school board for the school we love so much. Sincerely, Mary Mayeux P. S.: You may enjoy the enclosed picture of my son and his two best friends, all of whom are Gibbs students. EnclosureJOL-13-^4 WED 11:30 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 09 GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION SCREENING COMMITTEE June 27, 1994 SUS/fW' lAi '- .J O- .VPJCHT JUN 23 1994 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR u, s. District judg\nRE: 122(^3 Principal Selection process Little Rock School District Dear Judge Wright: I just learned some disturbing news regarding the principal selection process employed by the Little Rock School District. It is my understanding that on this date the Magnet Review Committee met in special session to discuss the process by which principals are being reassigned in light of the mRC guidelines. It is my further understanding that the Magnet Review Committee determined that the school district had not complied with those guidelines which require consultation prior to implementing such changes. However, based on the erroneous representations made by district representatives and without any input from our group, the Committee determined that the selection process was followed with integrity and did function as designed. This conclusion was premised, in part, on the assertion by district representatives that the Gibbs' selection committee (consisting of three administrative representatives, two members of the Gibbs' faculty, and three Gibbs' parents) recommended three names to the Superintendent as candidates for the Gibbs principal position. That is simply not true. At the conclusion of the interviews conducted on June 7, the only concensus the selection committee reached was that it could not and would not recommend any names to the superintendent and that the process should continue so that additional candidates could be interviewed. Our group is gravely concerned that the Magnet Review committee has not been given accurate information and that it's determinations are not based on true and complete facts.JUL-13-94 WED 11:31 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 * The Honorable Susan Webber Wright June 27, 1994 Page Two would welcome the opportunity to provide the Court with additional information if the Court deems it appropriate. sincerely, Gibbs Elementary Parent Teacher Association Screening Committee BY: 57 Jr'. Aj/f'red Fz Angal6 ,'~jf. cc: Zach polett Willie Jones Easter Tucker Ann Cashion 3961d 11    et   t Wo  y/^/^Y 0). JO. 0)^ 1 '( /9 If 5015698576 APfiC 288 P01 JUL 18 94 14:54 Date: .FROM: RE- FAX COVER SHEET FAX No. G100 (zWV ___ FAX No. Numb.er of Pages (Including Cover Sheet) Message:5015698576 APAC 288 P03 JUL 18 94 14:56 Dr. Henry Wiiiiams 7/e/94 Make sure that the position is advertised QN: Wilt you let us have a list of the names of the candidates who have applied for elementary principal positions? not give you a list of anything. (shouting) 1 will not give you a list with Jesus Christs name on it. You're being irrational about this. I'm the person who is ultimately responsible for what happens in th* ' building. I 4 I r f H e'-' r 1 V 3 -fU (6 U'P J, i\\A5015698576 APAC 288 P02 JUL 18 94 14:55 Memorandum for the Record July 18. 1994 Re: Availability of Resumes for Gibbs Principal Applicants and Status of Gibbs Principals Position from Deputy Superintendent Estelle Mathis at approximately 1:40 pm and I inquired of her what was meant by the sign inside the Gibbs School door that said was gone and would not be at the school on Monday or Tuesday, the sign was probably prepared by Ed Jackson who although her understanding was that he was still the Principal She said Mathis said she understood was in the building unassigned. Ms. my concern (I already had said that Gibbs School had no principal that I knew about) but that was just Ed Jacksons way. I also said that the Gibbs PTA was requesting the full list and resumes of all applicants for the principals job at Gibbs. LRSD Superintendent, had told another Gibbs I said that Dr. Williams, the information would not be publicly available. parent filing a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) parent 10 days ago that such I noted the necessity of a iuuig a ivuuAi rreeaom or iniormation (FOI) request several weeks ago during the first sequence of screening interviews to obtain applicant resumes. I noted that such resumes were considered a routine part of the public file. She said she would work with Gibbs on this oroblem. The telephone call was concluded. on this problem. The At 1.55 pm., Ms, Mathis called my office a second time and said she had spoken to the Superintendent and that he had agreed that the would be available after the closing of the application date which was Friday, July 22nd. I thanked her for smoothing out this exchange of information and said that r '  resumes someone from Gibbs would be contacting her on Monday, July 25th, to obtain copies of the information. indicated her agreement with this arrangement. The telephone call was concluded. arrangement. Ms. Mathis lAAA, dm Lyn^ jibbs Ele tary School PTAX X X X X X X X LENDER 14:4f o01669oo!O P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT JUL-18-94 MON 14:49 1 RX TIME PAGES 1' p\nc:.\" 1 00 3 RECE I TYPE NOTE  1 I r. OK )K X X X X X X X XXlx,. f\u0026lt;. M:xxt**Umonxl\nii!\nixii(ilUXX)knx*OXO'XX)|(ti.t|)k':i\n.|ii(XOOI*!i:*.\u0026gt;if.j|!OO*m*)|(**O)i:il#**nxilx*n5015698576 APAC 288 P01 JUL 18 94 14:54 FAX COVER SHEET Date: ! !Ti TO: __fax No. .FROM: J t4A\u0026lt; i YA^C-H________ RE: Number of Pages (Including Cover Sheet) Message:5015698576 APAC 238 P03 JUL 18 94 14:56 Dr. Henry Witiiams 7/8/94 Make sure that the position is adv/ertised QN\nWill you let us have applied for elementary principal positions'^* a list ot the names of the candidates who hsv^ 9ve you a list of anything. (shouting) I will not give you a list with Jesus Christs name on it. being irrational about this. Pson who is ultimately responsible for what happens in th^^t  hili Hinn building. I ... 'I pc ,1 I L  * r rh''\nj f. I , j}-( CH H, I \\ 'A V'-^ i' A' V ..A5 0^ V,.* J, I 01 M A-^5015698576 APAC 288 P02 JUL IS 94 14:55 Memorandum for the Record July 18. 1994 Re: Availability of Resumes for Gibbs Principal Applicants and Status of Gibbs Principals Position Today I received a return telephone call from Deputy Superintendent Estelle Mathis at approximately 1:40 pm and I inquired of her what meant by the sign inside the Gibbs School door that said the was Principal was gone and would not be at the school on Monday or Tuesday. the sign was probably prepared by Ed Jackson who was in the building although her understanding was that he was still unassigned. Mathis said she understood She said Ms. my concern (I already had said that Gibbs School had no principal that I knew about) but that was just Ed Jacksons way. I also said that the Gibbs PTA was requesting the full list and resumes of all applicants lor the principals job at Gibbs. I said that Dr. Williams the (fV LRSD Superintendent, had told another Gibbs parent 10 days aeo thatsuch y information would not be publicly available. parent filing a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) parent 10 days ago that such I noted the necessity of a request several weeks ago during the first sequence of screening interviews to obtain applicant Z resumes. I noted that such resumes were considered a routine part of the public 1,-nrV c-ibbs on this problem. The telephone call was concluded. . file. She said she would work with Gibbs At 1:55 pm., Ms. Mathis called rny office a second time and said she had spoken to the Superintendent and that he had agreed that the would be available after the cIosins resumes of the application date which ---- -J. J-_______ W3S Friday, July 22nd. 1 thanked her for smoothing out this exchange of c* information and said that someone from Gibbs would be contacting her on Monday, July 25th, to obtain copies of the information. indicated her agreement with this arrangement. The telephone call was concluded. arrangement. Ms. Mathis dm Lyn^ jibbs Ele- tary School PTAJuly 18, 1994 Members of the Little Rock School Board 800 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Little Rock School Board Members: JUL 1 8 1991 Office of Desegrogaiion Monitoring My name is Sera Vena and I am a parent of children at Gibbs Magnet School. I am active in the Gibbs PTA and I am following the events to screen and choose and new principal for Gibbs. I wish to inform you as our elected representatives that despite your assurances to us on July 7th that the Gibbs selection process would remain open and everyone would try their best for a successful result, the following has happened, much to our sadness and disappointment. First, Mr. Ed Jackson has been housed at Gibbs School and is working out of the Gibbs school building. This decision undermines what we had hoped would be a climate of cooperation between parents and administrators. The process apparently is not open but rather tilted very heavily toward Mr. Jackson. He is already discussing Gibbs plans for next year. There is a sign today at Gibbs School referring to the Gibbs principal which was prepared by Mr. Jackson. Second, the presence of Mr. Jackson unfairly pressures the faculty members of Gibbs who serve on the screening committee and presents a clear ethical and professional conflict of interest. How can any screening process be objective and open when faculty representatives brazenly are confronted by a principals candidate who already is occupying an office at their school building? Other elementary buildings in the District require summer supervision and Mr. Jackson easily could have been assigned to any such school. His assignment to Gibbs was deliberate and can only be interpreted as yet another high-pressure tactic to discourage genuine participation by the screening committee.Third, on July 13th parents from Gibbs met with the Superintendent to discuss the steps of the re-opened screening process. Upon specific inquiry, we were told by the Superintendent that a Central Office Administrator would oversee Gibbs for this interim period. Never were we told that Ed Jackson was the Central Office Administrator. So much for honesty and openess. How would each of you feel if you learned that a previously-rejected principal candidate was being given interim authority over the school under discussion? Gibbs parents have never asked for anything more than a chance to recommend three names from the field of candidates. Yet at every turn we are confronted with pressure, half-truths and outright manipulation. As our elected representatives, we ask you to put the process back on a fair, solid footing. Mr. Jacksons presence at Gibbs is not necessary and undermines your decision of July 7th. Would you please assure us the pressure will stop, the ethical and professional conflicts-of-interest will stop, and parents and community can participate as reasonable, well-motivated persons who care a great deal about quality education in Little Rock? Thank you. Best Regard Sera Vena 3011 Echo ValleyDrive Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 223-9602 July 18, 1994 Members of the Little Rock School Board 800 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Little Rock School Board Members: RECEIV^^ JUL 1 8 1994 Office of Dosegrogation Monitoring My name is Sera Vena and 1 am a parent of children at Gibbs Magnet School. I am active in the Gibbs PTA and 1 am following the events to screen and choose and new principal for Gibbs. 1 wish to inform you as our elected representatives that despite your assurances to us on July 7th that the Gibbs selection process would remain open and everyone would try their best for a successful result, the following has happened, much to our sadness and disappointment. First, Mr. Ed Jackson has been housed at Gibbs School and is working out of the Gibbs school building. This decision undermines what we had hoped would be a climate of cooperation between parents and administrators. The process apparently is not open but rather tilted very heavily toward Mr. Jackson. He is already discussing Gibbs plans for next year. There is a sign today at Gibbs School referring to the Gibbs principal which was prepared by Mr. Jackson. Second, the presence of Mr. Jackson unfairly pressures the faculty^ members of Gibbs who serve on the screening committee and presents a clear ethical and professional conflict of interest. How can any screening process be objective and open when faculty representatives brazenly are confronted by a principals candidate who already is occupying an office at their school building? Other elementary buildings in the District require summer supervision and Mr. Jackson easily could have been assigned to any such school. His assignment to Gibbs was deliberate and can only be interpreted as yet another high-pressure tactic to discourage genuine participation by the screening committee.Third, on July 13th parents from Gibbs met with the Superintendent to discuss the steps of the re-opened screening process. Upon specific inquiry, we were told by the Superintendent that a Central Office Administrator would oversee Gibbs for this interim period. Never were we told that Ed Jackson was the Central Office Administrator. So much for honesty and openess. How would each of you feel if you learned that a previously-rejected principal candidate was being given interim authority over the school under discussion? Gibbs parents have never asked for anything more than a chance to recommend three names from the field of candidates. Yet at every turn we are confronted with pressure, half-truths and outright manipulation. As our elected representatives, we ask you to put the process back on a fair, solid footing. Mr. Jacksons presence at Gibbs is not necessary and undermines your decision of July 7th. Would you please assure us the pressure will stop, the ethical and professional conflicts-of-interest will stop, and parents and community can participate as reasonable, well-motivated persons who care a great deal about quality education in Little Rock? Thank you. Best Regard Sera Vena 3011 Echo ValleyDrive Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 223-9602 July 19, 1994 Angelo Coppola 1940 Waterside Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 receives Mr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District JUL 2 0 1994 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Office of Desegregaiioii Dear Mr. Hurley: I am writing requesting consideration for the position of principal at Gibbs Magnet School.  ' administrative experience. I have over 15 years of 4-4.  J- - ------ member of the Magnet Review Committee for four years\nI organized the Bi-racial Committee . superintendent of schools at Marked Tree\nand I am a certified trainer in teacher evaluations, PET, Effective Schools classroom management. as TESA, and This along with my many other experiences qualifies me for the position. \u0026gt; R^pectfull Angelo Coppola, Ed.D. AC/lfh Enclosure: Current Vita Resume' Dr. Angelo G. Coppola, Sr. Personal Data Home Address: Business Address: 1940 Waterside Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Home Phone: (501) 758-3738 Business Phone: (501) 682-4358 Educational Background Doctor of Education Public School Administration 1987 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas Master of Social Studies University of Mississippi 1973 Oxford, Mississippi Master of Education Secondary Education 1969 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas Bachelor of Science Secondary Education 1966 Arkansas State University Jonesboro, Arkansas Associate of Arts Arkansas State University - Beebe 1964 Beebe, Arkansas Professional Experiences 1992 - Present Arkansas State Department of Education Division of Instruction Responsible for 72 individual schools in the areas of teacher certification, annual school reports. North Central Accreditation, Restnictured Schools, Diamond Schools. Break-the-Mold Schools, Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE), finances - budget process, school improvement team, and staff development.1990 - 1992 Superintendent of Schools Marked Tree Public Schools Marked Tree, Arkansas Passed a 7.5 Millage which was used to build a new science, physics, chemistry, music and socialstudies complex. With the interest earned from the 1 million dollar bond (S75,000), all remaining structures at both the high school and elementary school were totally renovated. With good fiscal management of school funds including total renovations, the district operating fund balance grew from 580,000 to 5275,000 in just two years. There was also a 593,000 balance in the special funds account. I was able to do the above by utilizing Quality Circles and the Effective Schools Model. An extensive drug abuse program was implemented along with a very effective Parent .Xdvisor Council. 1986- 1990 Arkansas State Depanment of Education Division of Planning and Development Developed the process for evaluating Certified Personnel in Arkansas and Co-authored a book with Dr. Schoppmeyer on the model. The book is being used to train all public school administrators in the State. I also provided all the research and documentation on Magnet Schools for the State of Arkansas in defense of the law suit brought against the State by the Little Rock School District. 1985 - 1986 Graduate Assistant to Dr. Martin Schoppmeyer Doctoral Program University of Arkansas While a graduate assistant I taught classes in public school administration, supervision and finances. I also taught three cycles of the Program for Effective Teaching (PET), Classroom Management. Assertive Discipline and TESA (Teacher Expectation - Student Achievement) 1978 - 1985 Director of Federal Programs North Little Rock Public Schools I was responsible for all state and federal programs for th^ entire school district. I had a budget of 2.1 million dollars. I managed Chapter I, Chapter IL Title VI-B. 89:313. Pass Through Funds, and the State Special Education Funds. 1973 -1978 Principal/Supervisor of Instruction Oxford, Mississippi 1970 - 1973 Graduate Fellow - History Department University of .Mississippi University, Mississippi 1968 - 1970 Assistant Principal/Supervisor of Instruction Des Arc Public Schools De.s Arc, Arkansas1967 - 196S Social Studies Teacher Alternative School Fayetteville Public Schools Fayetteville, Arkansas 1966 - 1967 Social Studies Teacher Junior and Senior High School Des Arc Public Schools Des -Arc, Arkansas Other Educational Experiences 1988 Adjunct Assistant Professor. History -Arkansas State University - Beebe Beebe, Arkansas 1987 -Adjunct Assistant Professor Graduate School University of Arkansa-s Fayetteville, Arkansas 1989 - Present State Advisory Board - Program for Effective Teaching (PET) 1986 - Present Reader for Arkansas State Depanment of Education recognition programs for teachers and students 1992 - Coordinator for Hearst Foundation Youth Senate Program 1991 Selection committee for Milkens Family Foundation Award for four teachers each year to receive a cash award of S30,000. Professional Organizations American -Association of School Administrators -Arkanstis -Association of School Administrators -Arkansa-s -Association\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_587","title":"Principal selection process, Williams Magnet School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-05/1994-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Williams Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School principals","Educational statistics","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, Williams Magnet School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/587"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["126 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n^ricansasDe: HURSDAY, MAY 5,1994 Magnet panel goes to bat for principal BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The chairman of the committee overseeing Little Rocks magnet schools threatened Wednesday to ask a federal judge to prevent Superintendent Henry Williams from unseating the principal at a magnet school. Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee, backed off after Williams assured him that he would go before the committee first  as required by a court order. The matter, though, doesnt appear to be over. We are still concerned about whos going to be in our u magnet schools, Altom said. No question about that. .Any time you change leadership or the appearance of leadership at a school, people loyal to that school become concerned. The days developments between the superintendent and the court-created committee unfolded quickly as talk spread about widespread reshuffling of principals across the Little Rock School District. More than a dozen schools could have new faces in the principals office next school g year. Five principals, includin\nDr. Ed Jackson of Williams Magnet Elementary School, got See PRINCIPALS, Page 11A Principals _ Continued from Page 1A letters from the district saying that because the superinten- ' dent was uncertain about their .positions next year, their contracts as principals would not be renewed. Instead, they would be re- hired for the next school year as unassigned. That would leave them employed at their existing salaries, but would allow the district to .either keep them in their cur- . rent posts or move them elsewhere. . Richard Hurley, the districts personnel director, confirmed the five principals names and schools:  Jackson at Williams Magnet .  Walter Marshaleck at Ma- belvale Junior High.  Gayle Bradford at\nCloverdale Junior High.  Levanna Wilson at Bale El-\n ementary.  Charity Smith at Southwest Junior High. : It was the letter to Jackson .that prompted the threat from  Altom to take the matter to fed- eral court. '\nWilliams and Altom said another principal, Donna Davis, who heads Gibbs Magnet Ele-\nmentary School, is resigning and taking early retirement. Davis\ndeclined to comment Wednes- ^day.  Hurley said the superinten- dent is negotiating with another\nprincipal, .Mary Jane Cheatham :at Baseline Elementary, about other jobs in the district. The status of more than a dozen principals may change next year in the 52-school district. The district is under federal court supervision as part of the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The committee was set up to oversee ma^et schools, which offer academic themes to attract more white students into the district.  U.S. District Judge Susan - Webber Wright said in a Nov. 5, 1992, order that the district must consult with the Magnet Review Committee and seek permission from the court before making any staffing changes at the magnet schools. Williams said in an interview Wednesday that he is assessing leadership and trying to find people to fill various slots in the district. No principal works for a school, Williams said. Every principal works for the school district and serves in the district in whatever capacity we need. We dont own the buildings\nwe work in the buildings. Our responsibility is to the district. Katherine Mitchell, a Little Rock School Board member, said she supports Williams decisions to make any changes he deems necessary. She said Williams has spent a lot of time in the districts schools. I think the changes will bring about positive results, Mitchell said. Change for change is one thing, but when youre making changes for reasons, it can be quite productive.FRIDAY, MAY 6.1994 Parents, staff lobby to keep principal : We want stability is one reaction to transfer from Williams Magnet  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer . About 60 parents and staff .members from Williams Magnet\nElementary School praised\ntheir principal Thursday and asked Superintendent Henry 4Williams to reconsider his de- Icision to move Dr. Ed Jackson elsewhere. d A Parent Richard Kalkbrenner called Williams the flagship -Jschool in Pulaski County. The A ,school has the highest test scores in the area and only a rimThimum of discipline prob- Iletfis, he said. He attributed its Success, in part, to Jackson. \nIn the South we have an ex- ^ pression, Kalkbrenner told the Iriew superintendent. Youve /.[Irobably heard it: If it aint l}roke, dont fix it.  y \u0026lt; Williams met with the par- ients and staff members Thurs- .Iday afternoon at their request. J ' .The Arkansas Democrat- Gazette reported Wednesday Uliat Jackson, principal at Williams the last six years, has been rehired but not yet assigned to any school for the 1994-95 school year. More than a dozen principals in the districts 52 schools are expected to change next year because of retirements and involuntary transfers of principals. Williams did not name a new principal for the school, but said he hoped to make recommendations to the school board by late next week. He said he was awaiting retirement decisions from some people. He also said he hadnt ruled out the possibility of hiring one or more principals from outside the district. Parents and staff told Williams they feared a new principal wouldnt be as strong a disciplinarian or as good an influence on the pupils. Others said they feared an exodus of the current school staff and a period of instability as teachers and a new principal develop a working relationship. Others expressed a sense of betrayal, having selected Williams as their childs school based on the belief that Jackson would be the principal. Not all parents at the meeting Thursday expressed opposition to the change. Jerry Bradley objected to the schools PTA leaders taking a position on the principal and said he felt some racism was involved. The superintendent is black. Jackson and many of his supporters at the meeting are white. Bradley said that while he supported the Williams Magnet School concept, he has had extreme difficulty working with Jackson. Williams tried to assure parents and staff that he would not weaken the magnet school or place someone in the building who would destroy the program. As superintendent, his decisions must be based on what is best for the entire school district, not just one school, he said. The superintendent said he had detected some complacency in district schools and that sometimes when you stir the pot, good things at the bottom come to the top. That remark prompted one mother to say she didnt want the pot stirred. We want stability in the schools. We dont like scrambling, she said. Williams empathized with the parents and told of his own experience after being assigned the principals job at the worst school in Rochester, N.Y. The school led the league in the number of slashed tires, broken windows and Inexperienced teachers, he said. After the school became one of the top 10 in New York, Williams was assigned to an- ,other building against his wishes and those of the students parents. Williams moved to Virginia, ( but the Rochester school remained strong and was later visited by a U.S. president because of its record.C a/- May 16, 1994 Editor Arkansas Democrat Gazette East Capitol \u0026amp; Scott Little Rock, AR 72201 MAY 1 7 1994 Dear Editor: Office of Desegregation Monitoring The gross mishandling of the transfer of principals, especially Dr. Edwin Jackson, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the past month has prompted me to write this letter. I have enclosed the Little Rock School District's 1993 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores that have published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. not (to my knowledge) been The high scores made by students in Williams Magnet School makes a powerful case for keeping Dr. Jackson in the most successful school in the city! In other words, \"If it ain't broke, why fix it? Does it not surprise you that prominent Little Rock citizens. Governor Jim Guy T'ucker, Senator Jim Keet, and Arkansas Democrat Gazette Owner Walter Hussman, do not have their own children enrolled in Little Rock School District?! One can surely not blame them for enrolling their children in private schools with Little Rock School District's extremely low SAT scores as a clear indication of what is not being taught and/or learned in LRSD! If I have the correct information. Dr. Jackson has over 30 years administrative experience in the Little Rock School District, him the most tenured school administrator in the district. This makes He has been acknowledged by his peers in Arkansas and the nation as a National Distinguished Principal. When I had the pleasure of visiting Williams Magnet School I noticed pictures of Dr. Jackson being honored and recognized for his leadership by then governor, President Bill Clinton\nby former Secretaries of Education, Terrell Bell and William Bennett\nand by former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, that can boast these recognitions. I know of no other school administrator Dr. Jackson appears to be the one bright and shining star in the ranks of school administrators in not only this city but the state and nation. Obviously, Superintendent Williams, has complimented him by saying, \"I'm moving my successful principals to schools that desperately need help. \u0026gt;1 I ask you to look at the SAT test scores of the schools on the list who have unassigned principals. I certainly \"did not fall off the last turnip truck out of town.\" Just check the low scores of these schools - Bale, Baseline, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale - with unassigned principals. Dr. Jackson, according to Little Rock School District files, is 62 years old. It has been rumored that he plans to retire at 65. Why would a school district take the most tenured, successful principal in the most successful school and notify him that he would not be recommended for a principal's position in 1994 and that he would be unassigned? I don't know the answer to this guestion because it is so incomprehensable. Please, LRSD Board Members and Patrons, let Supt. Williams know that the community the superintendent' s boss and you have a voice in school district's future. our Sincerely, A Concerned, Taxpaying CitizenFUTURE PRINCIPAL SCHOOL LAST TYPE NAME FIRST NAME ASSIGNED SCHOOL 1993 SAT, COMPLETE BATTERY PR SCORES ..................GRADES-................. 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH 6TH 71H 8TH 9TH 1 VAC 2 HEINS 3 VAC BALE BASELINE FAIR PARK ELE ELE ELE 4 DAVENPORT fRANKLlH INCENTIVE ELE 5 WARD 6 VAC 7 ZEIGLER 8 VAC 9 DAVIS MABELVALE RCMINE INTERDIST WASHINGTON MAGNET WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE WILSON CHEATHAM HEINS DAVIS DAVENPORT WARD BUCHANAN JACKSON ZEIGLER 10 VAC 11 VAC 12 BUCHANAN 13 VAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CLOVERDALE FOREST HEIGHTS 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 HENDERSON MAGNET MABELVALE OTTER CREEK TERRY BOOKER MAGNET FOREST PARK MCDERMOTT JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE BADGETT RIGHTSELL CARVER MAGNET GIBBS STEPHENS JR HI BRADFORD JR HI MAPLE JR HI WATTS LAVANNA PR MARY J BARBARA FRANKLIN JULIE LIONEL KAREN ED GWEN GAYLE RICHARD CLELL UNASSIGNED UNASSIGNED BASELINE WILSON ELE ELE FRANKLIN INCENTIVE? ELE MA3ELVALE HENDERSON MAGNET UNASSIGNED WASHINGTON MAGNET ELE JR. HIGH ELE 41 VAC FULBRIGHT WATSON WESTERN HILLS BRADY ISH GARLAND CHICOT WOODRUFF DOOD WAKEFIELD ROCKEFELLER MITCHELL PULASKI HEIGHTS MEAD OUCL IFF GEYER SPRINGS METROPOLITAN 38 28 13 39 27 34 34 33 33 31 25 29 46 12 40 30 44 35 35 54 29 38 55 27 27 34 39 43 31 45 48 29 34 57 42 57 47 48 49 53 49 56 84 83 69 81 73 80 80 43 49 4 7 34 39 JR HI KARSHALECK WALTER ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE UNASSIGNED EXPECT RETIREHT RETIRING UNASSIGNED 30 44 43 36 31 45 42 36 36 43 43 36 ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE VOC DILLAHUNTY OOYLE RETIRING 40 66 60 68 59 66 68 55 51 70 4 7 68 41 44 40 55 67 59 71 79 66 79 62 61 60 75 59 62 50 64 46 72 61 70 65 69 45 74 48 59 44 81 17 33 47 22 29 31 43 65 35 41 31 40 76 72 69 74 64 72 41 71 70 76 61 74 46 22 28 33 25 40 46 54 60 64 58 59 27 31 33 39 42 48 44 53 51 55 46 49 38 31 40 32 33 49 14 45 44 41 56 47 23 48 16 30 32 45 23 23 27 49 31 46 30 40 52 45 42 46 19 16 35 37 41 55 28 20 39 34 37 33 40 42 45 34 31 44 29 24 24 38 34 44 54 47 61 64 46 49 21 47 39 41 46 52 20 26 45 44 34 54Editor Arkansas Democrat Gazette East Capitol \u0026amp; Scott Little Rock, AR 72201 May 16, 1994 MAY 1 7 1994 Dear Editor: Office of Desegregation Monitoring The gross mishandling of the transfer of principals, especially Dr. Edwin Jackson, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the past month has prompted me to write this letter. I have enclosed the Little Rock School District's 1993 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores that have published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. not (to my knowledge) been The high scores made by students in Williams Magnet School makes a powerful case for keeping Dr. Jackson in the most successful school in the city! ain't broke, why fix it?\" In other words, \"If it Does it not surprise you that prominent Little Rock citizens. Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Senator Jim Keet, and Arkansas Democrat Gazette Owner Walter Hussman, do not have their own children enrolled in Little Rock School District?! One can surely not blame them for enrolling their children in private schools with Little Rock School District's extremely low SAT scores as a clear indication of what is not being taught and/or learned in LRSD! If 'I have the correct information. Dr. Jackson has over 30 years administrative experience in the Little Rock School District, him the most tenured school administrator in the district. This makes He has been acknowledged by his peers in Arkansas and the nation as National Distinguished Principal. Magnet School I When I had the pleasure of visiting Williams noticed pictures of Dr. Jackson being honored and recognized for his leadership by then governor. President Bill Clinton\nby former Secretaries of Education, Terrell Bell and William Bennett\nand by former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, that can boast these recognitions. I know of no other school administrator a Dr. Jackson appears to be the one bright and shining star in the ranks of school administrators in not only this city but the state and nation. Obviously, Superintendent Williams, has complimented him by saying. It I'm I moving my successful principals to schools that desperately need help.\" ask you to look at the SAT test scores of the schools on the list who have unassigned principals. out of town.\" I certainly \"did not fall off the last turnip truck Just check the low scores of these schools - Bale, Baseline, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale - with unassigned principals. Dr. Jackson, according to Little Rock School District files, is 62 years old. It has been rumored that he plans to retire at 6S. Why would a school district take the most tenured, successful principal in the most successful school and notify him that he would not be recommended for a principal's position in 1994 and that he would be unassigned? I don't know the answer to this guestion because it is so incomprehensable. Please, LRSD Board Members and Patrons, let Supt. Williams know that the community i^ the superintendent's boss and you have school district's future. voice in our a Sincerely, A Concerned, Taxpaying CitizenFUTURE PRINCIPAL SCHOOL LAST TYPE NAME FIRST NAME ASSIGNED SCHOOL 1995 SAT, COMPLETE BATTERY PR SCORES ..................GRADES.................- 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH 6TH 71H 8T1I 9TH 1 VAC BALE ELE UI LSON LA VAN NA UNASSIGNED 38 2 HEINS 3 VAC BASELINE FAIR PARK ELE ELE A DAVENPORT FRANKLIN INCENTIVE ELE CHEATHAM HEINS DAVIS 5 WARD 6 VAC Z ZEIGLER MABELVALE ROMINE INTEROIST WASHINGTON MAGNET ELE ELE ELE 8 VAC WILLIAMS MAGNET ELE 9 DAVIS WILSON ELE 10 VAC CLOVERDALE 1 1 VAC FOREST HEIGHTS DAVENPORT WARD BUCHANAN PR MARY J BARBARA FRANKLIN JULIE LIONEL KAREN UNASSIGNED BASELINE WILSON ELE ELE FRANKLIN INCENTIVE? ELE MABELVALE ELE JACKSON ZEIGLER ED GWEN HENDERSON MAGNET UNASSIGNED WASHINGTON MAGNET JR. HIGH ELE 13 27 34 33 48 47 84 80 28 39 34 33 31 29 48 83 43 25 40 29 35 A6 29 12 27 39 A3 34 57 A9 53 69 81 49 47 30 35 38 27 31 42 49 73 34 44 54 55 34 45 57 56 80 39 12 BUCHANAN 13 VAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HENDERSON MAGNET MABELVALE JR HI BRADFORD JR HI MAPLE JR HI WATTS GAYLE RICHARD CLELL OTTER CREEK TERRY BOOKER MAGNET FOREST PARK MCDERMOTT JEFFERSON CLOVERDALE BADGETT RIGHTSELL CARVER MAGNET 2A 25 GIBBS STEPHENS 26 27 28 FULBRIGHT WATSON WESTERN HILLS 29 30 31 32 33 BRADY ISH GARLAND CHICOT WOODRUFF JR HI MARSHALECK WALTER ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE UNASSIGNED EXPECT RETIREHT RETIRING UNASSIGNED 30 44 43 36 31 45 42 36 36 43 43 36 ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE 34 35 36 37 38 39 AO 0000 WAKEFIELD ROCKEFELLER MITCHELL PULASKI HEIGHTS MEADOUCLIFF GEYER SPRINGS Al VAC METROPOLITAN ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE ELE VOC DILLAHUNTY OOYLE RETIRING 40 68 41 71 60 46 45 17 43 76 41 46 A6 27 AA 38 14 23 23 30 19 28 40 29 54 21 20 66 55 44 79 75 72 74 33 65 72 71 22 54 31 53 31 45 48 23 40 16 20 42 24 47 47 26 60 68 51 70 40 55 66 79 59 62 61 70 48 59 47 22 35 41 69 74 70 76 28 33 60 64 33 39 51 55 40 32 44 41 16 30 27 49 52 45 35 37 39 34 45 34 24 38 61 64 39 41 45 44 59 47 67 62 50 65 44 29 31 64 61 25 58 42 46 33 56 32 31 42 41 37 31 34 66 68 59 61 64 69 81 31 40 72 74 40 59 48 49 49 47 45 46 46 55 33 44 44 46 49 46 52 34 54* MAY-18-94 THU 14:26 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX-NO. 5013246576 /7A rV/ P. 05 - 20 ^'Vj May 17/ 1994 Hon. Susan Webber Wright United states District Judge 600 West Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 ^AY 19 S WSTSi ''? C?-' \u0026gt;-'y. 1334 Dear Judge Wright/ I am writing today. net only as an involved parent of Williams Magnet, but also of the Little Rock School District. As the individual staffing changes. with the final authority in all district I am addressing my concerns to you. I am concerned about the transfer of Dr. Ed Jackson from Williams Magnet to another school. This is a concern shared by what I feel is a majority of the parents, teachers. staff at the school. elementary enrolling because schools. My wife both public and and I investigated our oldest child at Williams. private. prior and many to We Ghose Williams of its discipline, accomplishments, reputation, strict I truly believe that and the presence and influence of Dr. Jackson. his role in the success of Williams Magnet can't be overated. When news of his transfer reached the school. there was an immediate outcry not to do this. The issue was brought to the attention of Dr. Williams, and he met with a group of parents to discuss the change. Dr. Williams prefaced the meeting by explaining that he was moving Dr. Jackson so that his Ke expertise also made could be used to strengthen a weaker school. justify, stand. it perfectly in his opinion, clear that unless we could changing that decision. it would As a business person, decision to try and use Dr. I can understand Dr. Williams another district, school. He is Jacksons abilities to improve not just williams. superintendent of the entire What I do not understand is his seeming indifference, and condescending attitude toward the legitimate at williams. concerns of the parents. teachers and staff If Dr. Williams truly feels that the transfer of Dr. Jackson is in the best interest of the district and you and However, the Magnet Review Committee agree, so be it. how can he make that decision without knowing who the replacement will be? I feel we have a right to know. cont.HAY-19-94 THU 14:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 06 page 2 Hon. Susan Webber Wright It ' decisions would 1 and help their if he would be hesitant to explain justification. more Dr. open about his Williams seemed patents of the the changes in details schools involved have a Part rounds. of the problem are the Some say that this is a rumors that which I believe right to know. are making the Dr. Jackson and some of his superiors. personal problem between Another is that this is an attempt to get Dr. Jackson to retire, thus saving the district his salary which is said to be the highest of any elementary school principal. The most moving Dr. disturbing rumor is that Dr. Williams is friend, a These Jackson in order to replace him with a personal neighbor in fact/ from outside the district. rumors, and Dr. Williams reluctance to either confirm or dispel them, are basic to the conflict. One Williams final thought. as I attended the meeting with Dr. support for keeping Dr. Jackson. I could tell from his opening remarks that the decision was made, with no chance However, of reversal, another Williams decision. so I had decided to remain parent in attendance, quiet. made the statement a supporter of Dr. were trying to keep Dr. Jackson, that he thought we not for his abilities, but to prevent the placement of a black person as principal. He felt it was all racially motived. I then felt compelled to speak, making it clear that I don't care about the race of a principal, only in the education of my children. I can't speak for all the parents and staff there, but I personally was offended and angry. get two children into Williams, I have camped-out to and I'm planning to do the same for my third, all the while living in a predominately white is, elementary district. Race is not the issue. If it then I suggest making assistant Mitchel ths new principal. principal Deborah She is experienced in the Magnet School system,.she knows the Williams Magnet philosophy, and she is respected by the parents. teachers, and staff. We just want some assurance that this change is best interests of the students and not truly in the personal conflicts. I don' t believe this move IS standards, but on petty politics. based on I believe educational it is Dr. Williams flexing his muscles to show the district who's the boss / and he will never appearing weak. chanae     his mind for fear of My wife wrote all of these concerns to the school board, and one member called her at home to let her know she was correct in her nothing that member could do. do. assumptions, but there was There is something you can cont- MAY'-19-94 THU 14:27 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 page 3 Hon. Susan Webber Wright This ia that these important to the district. staff changes/ especially Dr. benefit William's Magnet as well as the district. Please make Jackson's, sure will Don't let a staring contest between administrators/ waiting to see who will blink first/ model schools. to copy/ tear down Williams's Magnet. Make it the not a source of material to patch other Thank you very much for your time. As a taxpayer and a parent/ I believe that it is not only my right but ray duty to question decisions that affect my children. believer in the saying I am a firm and so are my children\"/ decision. \"My heart is in the public schools/ and I want to feel safe in that S incerely/ Kenny Clark 6 Calais Court Little Rock, AR 72211 (501)821-2983July 11, 1994 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director 1920 North Main North Little Rock, Ark. Dear Ms. Creer, RECEIVE JUL 1 3 1994 Office of Desegregation moi ...a Concerned parents of Williams Magnet School request a meeting of the Magnet Review Committee to address the selection process for the Principal at Will lams Magnet. Parents were represented on the Interview Team and, at the completion of the Principal interviews, submitted the names of the top three candidates. In comparison of these three candidates, the credentials and qualifications for assignment to a Magnet School would not rank Mary Menking at the top of the list. However, she was assigned to Williams Magnet. Concerned parents woiiLd like to know how the selection process was finalized. What criteria were used to select the new Principal? Our concerns as parents are the following about Ms. Menking: *has experience as an area school Principal ONLY. *has very limited familiarity with the Magnet School Program. *is unfamiliar with the philosophy and tradition of Williams Magnet School. *as Principal of Brady Elementary, was accountable for standardized test ranking substantially less than the 80th percentile of Williams Magnet School. *is unfamiliar with the planned expansion process. The assignment of a Principal should be for the benefit of the magnet program. The parents of Williams Magnet need answers as to how this assignment can truly benefit the magnet program. The future of OCR CHILDREN is at stake! Should one interview be the deciding factor for Principal assignment? Concerned parents do not think so! The individual's credentials, track record\", qualifications, character, and overall personnel file should be reviewed. If they were, in this case, we would like to know how Mary Menking was selected over the other two candidates.At a meeting Williams Magnet parents had with Henry Williams two months ago, he \"assured us that a Principal of equal or better caliber would be assigned to Wi 111ams Magnet.\" We ask, as concerned parents, to evaluate the selection process used and determine if the most appropriate individual was chosen. An overall 90% satisfaction in Principal assignment was NOT achieved, as Dr. Williams had previously indicated. Please inform us when a meeting can be scheduled to discuss our concerns, for your support. Thank you Jebnnie Price Williams Magnet School Parents Representative 1412 Nicole Drive North Little Rock, Ark. 72118-2951 771-1654 cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Aim Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_621","title":"'Preliminary Business Cases''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-04-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Finance","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["'Preliminary Business Cases''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/621"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 3 I r 1 PRELIMINARY BUSINESS CASES APRIL 22,1994 COURT HEARINGLITTLE ROCK DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 3 I i PRELIMINARY BUSINESS CASES APRIL 22, 1994 COURT HEARING Io- S\u0026lt;Jz3/Ti.-7i^z3 ASSIGNMENTS FOR BUSINESS CASE REVIEW April 22 Hearing I S-P, - 3 1 Proposed Funding of Business Cases.................................................... Student Assignment Office Reorganization.......................................... Theme Specialist, Romine........................................................................ Multimedia Technology, Phase II, Garland.......................................... Computer Science Theme Infusion, Rockefeller.................................... Executive Assistant for Associate Superintendent for Desegregation . Dialogues (District and Community).................................................... English as a Second Language (ESL) Program.................................... Language Arts and Mathematics........................................................... Applied Biology and Chemistry.............................................................. Science Program..................................................................................... Science Curriculum Revision................................................................. Bob . Melissa and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob Horace and Bob - Connie . Connie Horace and Melissa . Melissa and Horace Horace and Margie Horace and Melissa Horace and Melissa I Secretarial Position, Social Studies Department. Foreign Languages K-12 Curriculum Articulation . Horace and Melissa . . Melissa and Horace Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program, 1 st Grade Pilot Project .... Melissa and Horace 1 i4 Spanish Program, Franklin . Spanish Program, Rightsell Stephens Mitchell Garland Rockefeller Melissa and Horace Melissa and Horace 1 i! Communications Technology Theme, Franklin . . . Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme, Rightsell Alternative Room Specialist, Rockefeller................ Alternative Room Specialist, Rightsell................... Alternative Room Specialist, Stephens................... Alternative Room Specialist, Franklin....................... Alternative Specialist, Garland................................. Horace Horace iii i! Margie Margie Margie Margie Margie J I RECEIVED APR 51994 Office of Desegregation h^onuoring t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS I March 31, 1994 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Henr 1 intendent SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases i, ( 21 Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994, 4 I 1 I I BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS \u0026lt; (Required - Double Funding) a SCHOOL ITEM AMOUNT a 1. Franklin Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 a 2. Rockefeller 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 3. Rightsell .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 1 3 4. Mitchell .5 Spanish teacher 12,500 5. Garland .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 6. Stephens .5 Spanish teacher 12,500 I. No impact on Incentive School Budget. I ll I. ji, 1I BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY II - DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE I (Required - Need Funding) fl DEPARTMENT ITEM AMOUNT a 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. * English Math/Lang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science Total $ 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 25,000 $139,480 Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) J I3 i i I r 3 I 9 fl fl fl BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE (Not Required-But Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL ITEM AMOUNT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Science/Math (K-3) Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language Science/Math Reading $ 18,000 Foreign Lang. K-12 Revision (UALR) Secretary Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 $ 54,000 GRAND TOTAL $193,480 I I I JDate: April 18, 1994 MEMORANDUM From: Connie To: Ann \"a Subject: April 15, 1994 LRSD Court Submission Attached you will find the updated business case for the Executive Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The only change is the addition of a cover page (164) that identifies the level of funding at $16,000, and conflicts with the business case total of $48,750 on pages 166 and 171. J I \u0026lt; 1 Additionally, the district proposed a $100,000 reduction to New Futures, but it did not submit a business case for this budget cut. (pg. 208) The district states that the reduction is justified because the program expenditures have been less than the amount budgeted, (pg. 214) I J 1 fl I * I\nJ i I .1 fl fl I J s I RECEIVEO 1 APR 51994 'i 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office Reorganization 4 Business Case Ri 3 ill H 1 Assignment i  OJfice of Vtfansportation V Desegregation Involvement Qualityf Equity Service, \u0026amp; Understanding I Communications H I January, 1994 i C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendentv Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Table of Contents 1 3 4 I Analysis of Alternatives 4 Recommendation 7 1 Objective 7 I Impact Analysis 8 fl Resources Analysis 10 ,4 t Force Field Analysis 11 General Information Plan, 11 Attachment 1 1 13 Attachment 2 14 fl Attachment 3 15 fl M JI Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case Executive Summary The purpose of the Student Assignment Office (SAO) is to assist students and parents in understanding and making their school choices while ensuring racial balance in each school. For many good and bad reasons, poor public relations and inadequate service have plagued the SAO. This research was done with the help of business people, parents, and SAO staff. The problem is that the Student Assignment Office does not provide courteous, and knowledgeable service to the public in an efficient way and thereby creates a negative image of the Little Rock School District. This makes the public less cooperative in the desegregation process. Personnel, the Telephone System, Furniture, and Data Management are interdependent areas basic to the solution. Data Management requirements are beyond the scope of this proposal. The solution is as follows: J 1  Personnel (Attachment 1)  Five positions will be dedicated to serving the public by receiving calls and walk-in traffic. This will increase by 150% the number of positions dedicated to serving public inquiries without adding any positions to the budget. Two positions must be upgraded and one redefined at an annual cost of $3,000.  Telephone System (Attachment 2)  The telephone system proposed will allow these five people to manage the load of approximately 10 people, save personnel costs, and improve service. It provides a limited menu, holds in \"queue\" up to eight calls, permits supervision through daily supervisory reports, records conversations for supervision and training, empowers student assignors to be receptionists as well as assignors, and reduces to one the number of people the public must speak to when calling. This is a one time cost of approximately $24,000 to $30,000. Bidding will be necessary. I I Consultants working with us have suggested that both prices may be as much as 20% lower when put through the bidding process.  Furniture (Attachment 3)  Each of five work stations will be equipped with a terminal, a headset and special phone, lighting, a desk, dividers, shelving, a chair for serving walk-in \"customers\", and wiring for the terminal, lighting, and telephone. These stations will be clustered to reduce wiring costs and in increase convenience for the team of student assignors. It includes stand-up viewing of the office area and other student assignors as well as sit-down privacy with the \"customers\" whether or not he/she is a walk-in or a caller. This will improve the appearance of the outer office seen by the public when they first enter SAO. This is a one time cost of approximately $13,000. Bidding will be necessary. This solution will address obligations relating to student assignment, marketing, and recruitment under our desegregation plan. It will permit assignment of students within twenty-four working hours, reduce patrons' travel to and from SAO, permit ongoing monitoring and training of student assignors. I JStudent Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 2 improve racial balance by consistent application of procedures, permit prompt answering of calls, improve accuracy on I Most of these benefits will occur SAO forms, and reduce complaints, within three months of complete I implementation. The change in racial balance may take up to one year. Time is important SAO's work intensifies with February pre-registration, the process continues until August when it becomes overwhelming. By August, students become more curious about which school they are to attend with school opening soon. Our staff estimates that 40% of our students wait imtil then to register. Therefore, the solution must be in place by August 1. Time for bidding the telephone system, the furniture, and training personnel should take no more than four months to complete once this proposal is approved. Approval will be necessary no later than April 1. By this business case, I am requesting that this project be included in the 1994-95 budget The following are milestones for implementing this proposal: I I I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with finance person about source of revenue Present Business Case to SAO staff___________ Present Business Case to the Superintendent Present Business Case to the Council__________ Revise as suggested________________________ Resubmit 7. Decision for inciusion in the budget 8. Let blds on furniture and telephone system 9. Open bids for furniture and telephone system 10. Order terminal for stations___________________ 11. Schedule installation of wiring \u0026amp; equipment_____ 12. Schedule training on telephone equip.__________ 13. Plan training for student assignors ___________ 14. Install wiring \u0026amp; equipment____________________ 15. Schedule training sessions for student assignors 16. Complete training for student assignors_________ 17. Complete telephone training for student assignors Date 01/04/93 01/04/93 01/07/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/18/94 81/34/94 02/08/94 02/22/94 02/28/94 02/28/94 03/05/94 03/15/94 03/20/94 03/20/94 05/31/94 05/31/94 Person Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Supt Neal Neal Info. Serv. Mayo Mayo SAO Info. Serv. SAO SAO Vendor I t Timely consideration of this proposal is respectfully requested. 1 I C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation January, 1994 S\u0026lt;Munad by Rum Mayo. tef D(lyUuii 01/03/94 II I Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 3 IbocI^ivu^ I The Student Assignment Office (SAO) was established to supervise racial balance under our desegregation plan. SAO is to provide service to patrons. SAO assists students and parents in imderstanding and making their school choices while monitoring racial balance in each school. Exciting programs and opportunities coupled with early, vigorous, and sustained recruitment are expected to inform and intrigue students. In turn, voluntary desegregation ccc\". This theory is not perfect in the best of circumstances. occurs. Student assignment offices have inherent problems with timely processing of students because of numerous, complex stipulations in their plans. Insuring compliance creates a student assignment bottleneck (Figure 1). Guarding against those who would circumvent the criteria demands strict supervision. requires diplomatic skills and refined coordination to Strict supervision frustration. Our SAO has been ease potential public unsuccess! I I I I 3 I Student Assignment Assignment Bottleneck ' WuwMr Those to Register Lr Mng PlifMWNa 1 ________ IWtttig j ' Itefwfwrttfton ( u studant Assignmant Office EnrolM A Assigned *w - chooli - RacM SDfW I Figure 1 jfrustratinn. Unfortunately, afti already complex process has been aggravated by poor coordination and weak diplomacy. The customary conflict between theory and reality has been worsened by insensitivity and attitude. This has compromised both image and credibility for SAO and our district In defense of student assigrunent personnel, they have been plagued by circumstances beyond their control. The lack of continuity in leadership over the past few years, limited personnel, and inappropriate equipment has dampened their enthusiasm. This problem is common knowledge. Statistical evidence does not exist because records are not kept of the number of busy phone Unes, unretumed calls, rings before answering the phone, minutes waiting in the lobby for assistance, incorrectly completed SAO forms, and irate patrons. I am aware of the problem through district personnel, area Realtors, business people, and personal observation. Taking time to do formal surveys of the community and district personnel would tell us what we already know and delay the solution. The solution will not come quickly or inexpensively. It must come, however, or we will continue to lose a significant portion of our population. This business case offers a solution. SuMtitd Rum Uijn, ^MCUKSupvinlwtMrl terPMUii^nion Ol/m/H 8C2.SAOI Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 4 I I Problem Definition I The Student Assignment Office (SAO) does not provide quick, courteous, and knowledgeable service to the public in an efficient way and thereby creates a negative image of the Little Rock School District. SAO affects every student and principal in the district More often than not, new patrons to our district are referred to SAO for assistance with registration, school assignment, and choices available. This contact is a critical moment in the publics' already sensitive relationship with the district For many, it is the beginning of an adjustment to our assignment process. If this is poorly done, a negative image is perpetuated. The contact with SAO must be as courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable as possible. The public must feel that we want to help and that getting help is not time consuming, confusing, or hopeless. Analysis of Alternatives 3 II I1 I1 I i Solutions have been discussed with business people, parents, and SAO Approximate costs of staff, these solutions were studied by SAO staff members with the assistance of the business community. Upon careful study, four dependent parts (Figure 2) emerged as fundamental to the solution. Addressing one or two and not all four seriously compromises an Data Management ' Service Components effective solution. They are Telephone System Personnel Figure 2  Furniture Personnel, Telephone System, Furniture, and Data Management All are inadequate at this time. Our poor data management process has had dramatic impact on efficiency and good public relations. For example, the number of students assigned to a school is not updated on SAO's terminals as it happens. Therefore, SAO may direct a patron to a school to complete the process of assignment and have the patron learn from the school that there is no room for another student and be sent back to SAO. With immediate update of computer information, time is saved and embarrassment is avoid. Recommendations for improving this problem are beyond the scope of this proposal. Inherent in all of the following alternatives is the assumption that continuous monitoring and training of office staff is essential. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 4 Subnultad by Run Maro. AaacutcSupenniandant \u0026gt;erDM(ri|ttofi Ba_sx) I I Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 5 I 1. Change nothing. This will perpetuate the problem by creating more phone calls, walk-in traffic, upset patrons, and overworked personnel at a time when people are exp\u0026gt;ecting improvement in the district\n2. Provide adequate staff to serve the public by realigning responsibilities of existing personnel, purchasing an adequate telephone system, and purchasing furniture appropriate to the needs of \"customers\" and general supervision of the office. 'Z Personnel (Figure 3 \u0026amp; Attachment 1)  Five positions will be dedicated to serving the public by phone or as walk-in traffic. TTiis will increase by 150%'O 1 the number of positions dedicated Office of Desegregation Organizatumal Chart Aocial Superintendent  I toc.At\u0026lt;K I OMtfor al ' TrupaMIwi abcinf Mi I AHt9OTM\u0026lt; ProcMMm  Caatralr Cwenevr t\u0026gt;M9gMtonFaeaMBr . (8Rwi* CaHuaunn DaaOafUMrt CtiaiOnaai  (*I ,  wr { FlOtfMWHWr I ffi Mdwtf AwtgwwwAwHtortt I Student Assignment Figure 3 I I to serving public inquiries without adding any positions. This alternative will require upgrading two positions and redefining one existing position.  Telephone System (Figure 4 \u0026amp; Attachment 2) - Purchase a telephone system that wiU allow these five people to manage the load of II approximately 10 people and save personnel costs while improving service to the public. Such a phone system provides a limited menu of commonly asked answers which can be chosen by the caller from a touch tone phone. It holds in \"queue\" up to eight calls while giving the waiting caller I information about the student assignment process. When a student I  I I Student Assignment Telephone Ser^'ice  Manu options  WMcoioa to Little Roch  Waiting List Inquiry  Ci^ncbr M syrsnts, tiocumsnis nscssssry IO rsfpatsr, athsro to rsgisior, stc,  Quouoing  Suporvision * ca//nocfM  numbor of rings to snssfor  csitroconhng  District omployoo by~pass Figure 4 assignor hangs up his/her line the next person in the H',queue\" rings in at that station. The system permits supervision of service by producing daily reports to a supervisor on the number of calls received, the number of rings before the call was answered, the number of minutes each caller waited in the \"queue\", which student assignor handled the most calls, etc. Further, it records the conversations between the public and the student assignor so better service may be provided through supervision and training. If a question arises about who mistreated whom, the call can be replayed for better ways to handle the difficult caller. This system empowers all student assignors SubmittedRumMif. AMeeulSupVMMtl(orD^Tir\u0026gt;tMr Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 6 p to be receptionists as well as assignors and minimizes the number of people the public must speak to for services. The first person to answer will be trained to assign, give information about waiting lists, and answer questions about programs. District personnel will be able to reach SAO a separate line and miss the heavy flow of traffic. on Z Furniture (Figure and Attachment 3)  Equip each of five work stations with terminal, \u0026amp; headset and special phone, lighting, a desk, dividers, and shelving, a chair for waiting on walk-in \"customers\", and wiring for the terminal, lighting. and telephone. These statioiis will be grouped to reduce wiring costs and in increase cooperation for the team of assignors. It includes stand-up viewing of the office area and Student Assignment Layout 6 Algnment Stetlons  Student AMionnwnt Aniatant  Tenninal  Spacial Phona  Appropriate Furniture Sm. StMk\u0026gt;n Crc. Counter PsUttK Entranc* Figure 5 other student assignors. While seated, privacy will be maintained with the \"customer\" whether or not he/ she is a walk-in or a caller. 5 a r      I I I L 3. Realign responsibilities of current personnel without additional positions, change the current telephone system so calls enter through a switchboard, and work with our warehouse to get adequate furniture to prooide services for walk-in and telephone \"customers while allowing general supervision of the office. Personnel  Considering that the SAO is understaffed, no increase in 3 I  personnel will place stress on existing personnel as _ . more is required to eliminate the stated problem. The variety of functions, i.e. assigning students, data entry, assisting the public in completing forms, answering questions for the public, typing, filing, and general secretarial work creates a problem of division of labor. Telephone System  Though the cost is considerably less, using a telephone system with a switchboard encumbers one person and prevents flexibility in responsibilities and movement Further, the \"customer\" has to be passed-off with each call. This system gives none of the services in #2 above. Furniture  Our warehouse does not have furniture in storage to accommodate our needs. I 4. Change no personnel, telephone system, or furniture and provide training in people skills. Though this may be attractive from a cost point of view, training alone will not solve a problem of this magnitude. Sutautiad ^Rum Mayo. AMOoatcSupvwivtd** tf Oi/(0/4 Bcz.s*:'Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 7 5. Move current personnel in these student assignment positions to other areas of the district to bring in new people, use the current telephone system, use the current furniture, and provide training in people skills. Certainly, new personnel could have a positive impact on the solution. It is unlikely that it would be enough. This is a very short term solution. Eventually, these folks would be overwhelmed. From a cost point of view, this is attractive but appropriate tools are lacking to solve a problem of this magnitude and greater personnel costs are in the offing. Recommendation 1 Alternative 2 is recommended. 2. Provide adequate staff to serve the public by realigning responsibilities of existing personnel, purchasing an adequate telephone system, and purchasing furniture appropriate to the needs of \"customers\" and general supervision of the office.  This will permit reasonable coverage of all office functions (excepting secretarial help for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation) and service to the public, i.e., clerical, receptionist, data entry, and student assignment services to the public, our office staff, and district personnel. This will reduce busy phone lines, unretumed calls, too many rings before answering the phone, waiting in the lobby for assistance, disengaged people going through the motions, and the lack of attention to explaining SAO forms and the assignment process. Some I problems will exist still during January, February, August, and September when large numbers of patrons are making requests. We cannot justify maintaining a I staff for twelve months that could handle four months of rush. Temporary help will be considered during these months. I 9 Objective 1 I I r Upon implementation of Recommendation 2, the Student Assignment Office (SAO) will be able to provide quick, courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable service to the public in an efficient and \" user friendly\" way and thereby create a positive image for the Little Rock School District. Solving this problem will address obhgations under the LRSD and s Interdistrict Plans relating to student assignment, marketing, and obligations. recruitment The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is being solved when this solution is implemented: bwbauRd\u0026amp;y KuvUtyo. AaaeutcSupanntvMnt lor UM^raptiorI Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 8 I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Students are properly assigned to the correct school within a twenty-four working period (except January, February, August, and September)\nPatrons are referred to the appropriate school or to SAO by a school no more than once\nI Training in people skills will be plaimed, scheduled, and provided based on statistical feedback from telephone use\nDirections and help to \"customers\" will be given in polite and courteous tones, i.e., may I help you, how may I help you, please, thank you, help me understand your concern, help me understand your question, etc.\nAssignments will be consistent with our plan and SAO regulations resulting in racial balance wherever possible\nThe telephone will be answered in no more than three rings\nI Forms completed at SAO will be completed properly\nI E The number of complaints about individuals in the SAO will decrease\nand. Letters of appreciation will be received from the public for the courtesy shown and the help given. 1 p Most of these benefits will occur within three months of complete implementation of Alternative 2. The change in racial balance may take up to one year. Desegregation Plan goals should be met, the public response should be positive as reflected in an increase in the student population, and SAO personnel overtime and concerns will decrease. s i Impact Analysis I p Negatives 1. The budget will be impacted primarily for one-time costs\nand. I I 2. Personnel currently in these five positions may not respond positively to retraining and realignment of position responsibilities, because they wiU be asked to do more than they are doing now. Positives 1. This solution will permit reasonable coverage of all office functions (except secretarial help for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation) and SMbnitld Aaoe\u0026gt;altSupini4*il lor ui/uj/x Kx:\u0026gt;oStudent Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 9 service functions to the public and district personnel. This will eliminate the public perception of busy phone lines, unretumed calls, too many rings before answering the phone, waiting in the lobby for assistance, disengaged people going through the motions, and the lack of attention to explaining SAO forms and the assignment process. Some problems will exist still during January, February, August, and September when large numbers of patrons are making requests. We cannot justify maintaining a staff for twelve months that could handle four months of rush. Temporary help will be considered during these months. 2. Implementation will address obligations under the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans relating to student assignment, marketing, and recruitment obligations. 3. Students will be properly assigned to the correct school within a twenty-four working period (except January, February, August, and September)\n4. Patrons will be referred to the appropriate school or to SAO by a school no more than once\n3 I 5. Tools will be available to evaluate training for student assignors\nI a 6. 1 Directions and offers of help to a \"customer\" will be given in polite and courteous tones\nI 7. Assignments wiU be consistent with in racial balance wherever possible\nour plan and SAO regulations resulting 4 J F I F I 8. 9. The telephone will be answered in no more than three rings\nForms completed at SAO will be completed properly\n10. Complaints about individuals in the SAO will decrease\nand. 11. Letters of appreciation will be received from the public for the courtesy shown and the help given. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued loss of district population, increasing complaints, continuous non-compliance with marketing plan obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image. our The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for sp\u0026gt;ending money from the budget, the perception of favoritism toward SAO, and the SuMninal br Rum Wafa AMoaatcSupvinttMnt torDoa^npiior 01/03/94 Ba_SAOStudent Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 10 possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly anticipated. as Tuning The February to September registration period is the time to address the problem. Though registration and assignment are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues until August when it becomes overwhelming. By August, students begin to think about where they will go to school. Our staff estimates that 40% of our students wait until August to register. Time for bidding the telephone system, the furniture, and training personnel will be necessary. This should take strongly encouraged during no more than four months to complete once approval is given. To prepare for the August rush, approval will be necessary later than April 1. no I Resources Analysis  a Personnel 1 No additional positions are I .s 4 requested by this proposal. However, one of the people who is a student assignor is being used as secretary to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The request for filling or adding an administrative assistant position wiU appear in another business case. 1 i I I A total of five Student Assignment Assistant positions will be dedicated to responding to the public under this proposal. Two of these positions already exist One existing positions will be realigned to serve as student assignor. Two data entry clerk positions must be upgraded in salary. They will rotate with others to cover the data entry needs in addition to doing student assignments. Retraining will be provided by the staff at SAO and others in the district Thus, no additional positions are requested by this proposal. Financial The only recurring annual costs \u0026gt;will be $3,000 per year upgrade for twd, data entry clerks and minimal maintenance of the computer terminals Tor the five student assignment stations. With future pay raises, the upgrade amount could increase proportionallv to the raise. SubmitMd frr Rum Mtfo. Aanoait SupmnlwxMnt tor Eimhi'hiiwh oj/ca/M IStudent Assigiunent Office Reorganization Business Case 11 Calculation for Upgrade to Student Assignment Assistant From To Position Upgrade Data Entry Operator__________ Student Assignment Assistant _____________Increase Benefits Increase (25%) Average Upgrade Cost Salary Range $15,799-$25.439 $17,999-$26.639 $1,200 $300 $1,500  One time costs will be incurred for equipment (two printers and furniture), installation of the wiring and terminals (by our personnel), and fo the telephone system. The furniture and telephonesystem must, lie'^idTCurrent estimates set the furniture at^pproximately $13,000 and the telephone system at $30,000 which includes warranties and installation Consultants working with us have suggested that both prices may be as much as 20% lower when put through the bidding process. Revenue Source I By this business case, I am requesting that this project be included in the 1994-95 budget Force Field Analysis I I I Primary supporters of this proposal wilt be patrons of the district, SAO staff (except those directly affected perhaps). Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. Ultimately, this proposal will help them meet their obUgations under our plan and reduce costs. For example, a more efficient process for student assignment will decrease the number of special trips made by buses and thus reduce costs for transportation. I General Information Plan c I The following milestones for implementing this proposal will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation weekly after the decision is made to include the proposal in the budget Until that point, it will be monitored daily. xMxmn*! Kuw AMOcialeSupannttfkMnt tor C1/03/M BC2,SM)I Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 12  a Ij J Il l  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with finance person about source of revenue Present Business Case to SAO staff Present Business Case to the Superintendent Present Business Case to the Council Revise as suggested____________ Resubmit 8. Let bids on furniture and teleohone sv.stem 9. telephone system Open bids for furniture and telephone system 10. Order terminal for stations__________________ 11  Schedule installation of wiring \u0026amp; equipment_____ 12. Schedule training on telephone equip.__________ 13. Plan training for student assignors_____________ 14. Install wiring \u0026amp; equipment __________ 15. Schedule training sessions for student assignors 16. Complete training for student assignors_________ 17. Complete telephone training for student assignors Date 01/04/93 01/04/93 01/07/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/18/94 iHHi 02/68/94 02/22/94 02/28/94 Q2]2'\u0026amp;I9A 03/05/94 03/15/94 03/20/94 QZI2QI^ 05/31/94 05/31/94 Person Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Supt Neal Neal Info. Serv. Mayo Mayo SAO Info. Serv. SAO SAO Vendor I SieoutladfrrPuMUivc. A)oct\u0026amp;upu)tn4it ler Cn/ID/4 K2J51O Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 13 Attachment 1a  Personnel Costs Estimates \u0026amp; Job Description^ From To ______________ Position Upgrade Data Entry Operator__________ Student Assignment Assistant _____________Increase Benefits Increase (25%) Average Upgrade Cost Salary Range $15,799-$25,439 $17,999-$26,639 __________ $1,200 __________ $300 ______________ $1J00 Upgrading two (2) Data Entry Operator positions to Student Assignment Assistants will cost $3,000 per year. ~ future years if raises are given. Proportional increases will occur in * Job Description is attached 1 Personnel I  i Subfflinad br Rum Utvc. AMaei*tSuonntnaani Be:.  I Student Assignment Assistant Qualifications and Job Responsibilities Qualifications areas High School Diploma, some college preferred  Experience in data entry or other computer-related____  Willingness to be trained in LRSD Desegregation Plan / Evidence of successful experience with the public and people in general  Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education  Evidence of a disposition that is both pleasing and comfortable with people Responsibilities 4 3  Report to Coordinator for Student Assignment \u0026amp; Coordinator for Student Assignment Information Services  Provide information to the public via telephone in person  Enter student information in computer  Determine a student's appropriate school based on numerous factors as demonstrated in training sessions  Assist public in completing student assignment forms  Process Student Assignment forms *  Make alternate assignments for transfer students and those not placed in area schools  Process Minority-to-Majority Transfers (M-M)  Work with transportation to determine how newly assigned students will get to school  Maintain waiting lists  Keep school vacant seats filled  Maintain student data files  Word process documents as the need arises^  /  File  Do other duties as assigned / I I IStudent Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 14 Attachment 2 Telephone System Specifications \u0026amp; Cost Estimates  System Option 1 Option 2 Estimate $26,250.54* $30,992.68* We recommend Option 2. 1 Consultants working with us have suggested that both prices may be as much as 20% lower when put through the bidding process. 3 4 * Plus Tax i Telephone System pI fl SubautM byRuMUapa. Aaaaa(\u0026gt;$up*inidtt tarDwnii(tbn  I Little Rock School District Student Assignment Norstar 8x24 System Equipment List 1 Northern Telecom 8x24 Norstar KSU 1 Centrex+ Software Package 1 2-port Expansion Module 2 Trunk Modules 4 DS Trunk Cartridges 3 M7208 Digital Sets 5 M7310 Digital ACD Sets 5 Busy Lamp Fields 1 Power Bar 1 Remote Access Device !' I I I 1 Leviton Power Conditioner I h 2 Training Video Tapes Two Year Warranty 4 3 Purchase Price (equipment and installation) $10,550.00+tax* fl Finance (60 months) True Lease (60 months) $ $ 212.48+tax/month 212.48+taxymonth * This price is based on reusing existing wiring. If any new wiring needs to be pulled, this price will be subject to change. PROPRIETARY\nNot for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc., without written consent.M I Supervisor Features  Each Group can have one Supervisor assigned and a Supervisor can be assigned to multiple groups  Silently monitor an Agent's phone conversation - Press key to JOIN the conversation if needed  Playback an Agent's recorded phone conversation  Create and change recorded announcements directly from a Supervisor's station set  Receive three types of messages on the LCD display windows on the station set: - Informational - can be suppressed - Warning - can be suppressed - Critical - an Agent has requested Help General Features J I  System configuration is simple 1  All configuration is automatically backed up to diskette 1  Voice announcement capabilities are standard (user can choose quality and volume) I  Password securtiy J i  Central Answering Position (CAP) backup fl On-line HELP  Fully and seamlessly integrated with the Norstar  Plug-in ready  Remote maintenance available PROPRIETARY: without written consent. Not for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc.,Reporting Features  Ten reports generated from Cinphony's database  Generate reports on-demand or schedule  Archive data for future reporting  Ranges and options can be designated for each report  Report generation is simple using menus and pop-up windows Status Screen Features  System Status Display for system overview  Group Status Display for detailed look at a Group and its Agents I  True* real-time displays of all fields  Color-coded for quick recognition and understanding of information J I  % of disk full always displayed  Day or night routing table currently being used is displayed I V 1 fl PROPRIETARY\nwithout written consent. Not for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc., I IOPTION 1 I I 3 I s I  Investment Summary LRSD - Student Assignment Norstar 8X24 System $ 10,550.00 -I- tax StarTalk-Mini Voice Mail System Cinphony ACD \u0026gt; Level I Total Purchase Price Finance \u0026gt; 60 Months True Lease - 60 Months OPTION 2 Norstar 8X24 System StarTalk-Mini Voice Mail System Cinphony ACD - Level 11 Total Purchase Price Finance - 60 Months True Lease - 60 Months PROPRIETARY: without written consent. $ 2,881.26 + tax $ 12,819.28 + tax $ 26,250.54 + tax $ $ 528.69 + tax 528.69 + tax $ 10,550.00 + tax $ 2,881.26 tax $ 17,561.42 + tax $ 30,992.68 + tax $ $ 624.19 + tax 624.19 + tax Not for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc.,\u0026amp; 1 StarTalk-Mini Voice Mail System Student Assignment Norstar StarTalk-Mini is a fully integrated voice mail and auto attendant system. It provides comprehensive call answering, call routing, and message taking capabilities for unanswered phones. It is unique because of the display-based capabilities and its extensive intelligent integration with the Norstar Key System. StarTalk-Mini is designed exclusively as an extension of the Norstar Key System and models the Norstar's features and capabilities. The sophisticated integration of the Norstar Key System and StarTalk-Mini is possible through a digital control link. This link allows the Norstar Key System and StarTalk-Mini to communicate easily and reliably via the Norstar telephone's liquid crystal display (LCD). This extensive use of the LCD to command the system is unique within the industry. The Norstar telephone's display prompts the user for the next option and, by simply pressing the corresponding soft key, the user flows effortlessly through the voice messaging system. Verbal prompts are also provided for additional assistance. The intelligent integration of the Norstar StarTalk-Mini makes system administration especially simple. All administration functions are menu driven and are accessed by any M7310 or M7324 digital set by using a special password. Unlike other systems, no additional hardware investment is required to perform this function. This is also a unique advantage for the Norstar StarTalk-Mini system. The many unique features of the Norstar StarTalk-Mini establish a new industry benchmark for user friendliness and integrated functionality. The sophisticated level of integration provides functionality, simplicity, and reliability that is unsurpassed and is only available due to the use of the Norstar's digital architecture. 3 Purchase Price (Equipment and Installation) $ 2,881.26 + tax a M PROPRIETARY: Not tor disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc., without written consent.Student Assignment Office Reorganization Business Case 15 ! Attachment 3 I II 1! Office Furniture Specifications \u0026amp; Cost Estimates r i i Total Estimate: $13,295.00* I This includes installation \u0026amp; delivery. Bidding will be necessary and may bring a lower price. No tax is charged. 4 4 Furniture I 4 'a.t I 4 I 1 Ol/CO/W K2.S*3I I Ibday^ Office ARKANSAS OWNED AND OPERATED Furniture  Supplies  Design . Spece Plenning 717 West 7m St Little Rock. AR 72201 SOI /37S-S060 OCTOBER 28,1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE AVENIR- REFURBISHED: OPTION B: TY 2EA 4EA 8EA 2EA 2EA lEA 9EA 14EA *4EA 5EA lEA lEA 2BXS 4EA lEA 4EA lEA lEA DESCRIPTION SELL EXTENDED 48 X 52H PANELS WITH POWER 36 X 52H PANELS WITH POWER 24 X 52H PANELS 25 X 52H PANELS WITH POWER 48 X 41H PANELS WITH POWER 24 X 41 CURVED PANEL 24\" BOX ! FILE PEDESTAL 24\" END PANELS PWSCL-24 CLAMP PACKAGE SIDE SUPPORTS MSS (PAIR) POWER POLE 24 X 48 SPECIAL CORNER WORKSURFACE 98683-1D RECEPTACLES (6 PER BX) 36 X 72 CORNER WORKSURFACE SPECIAL 24 X 48 WORKSURFACE 24 X 36 WORKSURFACES 24\" CANTILEVERS STORAGE CABINET 52\"H 3 SHELVES 200.00 400.00 185.00 155.00 172.00 195.00 300.00 125.00 60.00 15.00 8.00 300.00 290.00 75.00 270.00 125.00 105.00 15.00 480.00 740.00 1240.00 344.00 390.00 300.00 1125.00 840.00 60.00 40.00 300.00 290.00 150.00 1080.00 125.00 420.00 30.00 480.00 I - PAGE 2 - OPTION B CON'T: TY DESCRIPTION SELL EXTENDED 4EA BRACKETS 14.00 56.00 4EA BOOKSHELVES 36\" 41.00 164.00 *4EA OF 1207 SIDE CHAIRS 98.00 392.00 *5EA OF1200P SWIVEL CHAIR WITH ARMS 165.00 825.00 S 9,791.00 QUOTES \"NEW\" ITEMS I SECTION II. SECRETARYS AREA\np OPTION B: (TY 2EA lEA 3EA *1EA *2EA 2EA 2EA 4EA 2EA lEA DESCRIPTION SELL EXTENDED 36 X 65H PANELS WITH POWER 48 X 65H PANELS WITH POWER 42 X 65H PANELS WITH POWER BASE POWER END SHARED CANTILEVER 24\" SPECIAL CORNER WORKSURFACE 42 X 78 24 X 48 WORKSURFACE BOX! BOX! FILE PEDESTAL 48\" SHELVES 42\" SHELF 210.00 220.00 200.00 70.00 45.00 225.00 125.00 200.00 43.00 43.00 420.00 220.00 600.00 70.00 90.00 550.00 250.00 800.00 86.00 43.00- PAGE 3 - OPTION B CON'T\nty DESCRIPTION SELL EXTENDED 3EA 36\" SHELVES 40.00 120.00 lEA 72 X 24 WORKSURFACE 150.00 150.00 2EA 24\" CANTILEVERS 15.00 30.00 IBX RECEPTACLES 75.00 75.00 S 3,504.00 TOTAL FOR ENTIRE AREA: (NO TAX) $13,295.00 J ** PRICES INCLUDE INSTALLATION \u0026amp; DELIVERY 3 A 3  3 S V \u0026lt; T - s^ cj \u0026lt;  r T   \u0026gt;3 1 1 I II l! 4 OiD SPIORUIUIB IB THX \"ours omn nc t m OR npKoinD RTTBorr phor 3 c Hm 2S/9 \u0026lt; 24/52 kI\u0026gt;/\u0026gt;2 fS  t\u0026gt; 24/52 Ir/8t r L ! ' AVENIR (REEURB) i I I' I-i. i (i  k 'f CINPHONY ACD FOR NORSTAR LRSD - Student Assignment Cinphony is an ACD (Automatic Call Distribution) system developed for Northern Telecom's Norstar telephone system. It is designed specifically for the unique requirements of the small call center (30 or fewer logged in Agents). Cinphony was designed using Norstar's Open Application Interface resulting in a completely integrated system. Cinphony is a combination of software and DOS-based hardware. It is a comprehensive ACD package - all ACD activities - advanced call routing, \"true* real-time status screens, and MIS reporting - take place on the processor. Whether a department within a larger organization or a small business, the small call center requires a great deal of flexibility. In particular, they need flexibility in regard to: 5 3 3 j I I  Setting up their groups  Overflow* capabilities  Supervisor capabilities  Using and learning the system  Reporting Cinphony provides both power and flexibility to the small call center. While other ACD systems are generally downsized versions of systems that were designed for large, specialized applications, Cinphony was designed very specifically for the small call center. As a result, Cinphony can adapt to the business requirements of any small business, department, or branch location within a larger organization. Cinphony is a unique combination of hardware and software designed for use with Northern Telecom's Norstar telephone system. Cinphony takes advantage of Northern Telecom's unique Open Application Interface to provide true interaction between Cinphony and the Norstar. Cinphony communicates to every level. It \"communicates* to the Agent by displaying messages on the LCD window on the station sets. It 'communicates* to the Supervisor using the LCD window and the real-time status screens. And Cinphony *communicates* to all levels of management with concise, useful reports. Cinphony gives staff and management the tools they need to do their job better. I Cinphony is like no other ACD system. It is more than a call management tool. It's a whole new way to approach business. PROPRIETARY: Not for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc., without written consent. I 3 9 4 I 3 2 S, I I i. Clnphonv ACD lor Norstar SYSTEM CAPACITIES Maximum Logged in Agents Maximum Groups Maximum Agent IDs Supervisory Positions Steps in Call Routing Table Call Routing Tables Maximum Lines Voice Cards Announcements Record A Call STATUS DISPLAY Real Time System Status Real Time Agent Status BEPQRTS Agent Profile Agent Profile By Group Group Profile Group Overftow Monthly Summary Routing Table ACD Call Profile Call Categorization Line Profile System Configuration Purchase Price (Equipment \u0026amp; Installation) PROPRIETARY: without written consent. LEYEkJ 12 2 48 1 16 2 per group Norstar Maximum 1 2 NO NO YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES YES NO YES $ 12,819.28 Not for disclosure outside Southwestern LEVEL II 56 24 224 1 16 2 per group Norstar Maximum 2 or 4 4 or 8 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES $17,561.42 Bell Telecom, Inc., cinphony ACD for Norstar Agent Features  Norstar station set functions do not change  Agents can login/logout from any station set  Agents can login to multiple groups simultaneously  An Agent can request HELP from their Supervisor directly from the station set  Using the Answer Forcing option (for use with headsets). Agents can receive calls without interacting with the station set  Press a key to record a phone conversation  Auto logout is a saftey feature that automatically logs an Agent out when a call is not answered within a user-defined period of time and then distributes the call to another Agent 7  Login Indicator flashes when calls are in queue 4  When a call is sent to an Agent, the LCD window on their station set identifies the Group the call is for and how long the caller has been waiting 1  Go UNAVAILABLE at a push of a button 1  Transfer calls to another Group's queue Group Features 1  Each Group is assigned a 'wrap-up' or 'post-work\" duration. (This is the amount of time that the system waits after an Agent complete a call, before sending that Agent another call. The Agent can also indicate he/she is ready for another call before the wrap time expires.) J i  Two Routing Tables per Group  Call Categorization can be forced or optional entry for each Group i  Agent Selection method defined by Group I.  Overflow defined by Group  Assign C.O. lines to each Group during configuration PROPRIETARY: Not for disclosure outside Southwestern Bell Telecom, Inc., without written consent.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL .............. . DISTRICT i Romine Interdistrict School Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills 3400 Romine Road Phone 228-3086 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 BUSINESS CASE: THEME SPECIALIST LIONEL WARD, PRINCIPAL MARCH 8, 1994 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thousands of dollars Communication Station lab School. and months of work are behind the unique to Romine Interdistrict Elementary behind matter curricula is comprehensive, both in terms of subject matter and in-depth coverage of many skills and concepts, quality without (-------...............   To get It 4- compromise, additional conditions should be met. techJnlo!^ specialist with strengths and skills,in computer echnology, management and oorrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall sskkiillllss porronmmoot+eosc igTrV'eo aa+t- edir* . . of the curriculum and neip, tor this new position is useful and therefore, strongly encouraged. coordination ensures that teachers and appropriate on-site help. FFoorr tthhiiss reason, this A. BACKGROUND Juonn'^X implementation and accountability pports the ultimate goals of Romine's Communication Station .f other instructional technology programs. The lack of an \" theme specialist increases stresses for the instructional orkforce by requiring a kind of linkage in instruction. linkage includes collecting information faxed regularly, using and acceptable activities and improving a\nEach I I i noted deficiencies, finally. specialist . . impacting the quality of instruction and influencing students' academic progress. The theme can eveirything together. academic progress. Th.. easily become likened to the glue that holds . This cannot be the frequent activity of the of the full range of responsibi-l-i-t-i-e-s spawned by simply would like to be able to implement instructional strategies fully. other daily duties. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Instructional in programs une With the addition of Romine's Communication Station ., , . stretch across each grade level,  - - roug si.{th grade. The increasing demands assistance are building. experiences exists throughout the pre-kindergarten grade. The increasing demands for technical ... ,  painful realization that the existing staff handle with all other ' cannot realities of their job. Clearly, they need to e-Afi Po/Kt^ to I  N BUSINESSCASE: March 8, 1994 Page 2 THEME SPECIALIST be able to capitalize on the talents of a specialist who possesses superior skills of technological organization and management. In some cases, teachers are much less comfortable with the technology tJian traditional teaching procedures. This position captures the support instructional leaders can take advantage of: coordinating instruction, implementing creative teaching strategies, training to coordinating provide follow-through support, sharing experiences with \"existing and prospective parents and patrons. - *------. Such situations can be created and properly nurtured by a theme specialist. c. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The conclusions that form the basis for this request occurred J simple review of the level of work within which teachers, students and building administrators work best, teachers encouraged such a position because, adds many positive effects. In general, a theme specialist will structure greater organization and ensure that students experiences and exposures found in the use of the technological advances. In general Discussions with unsurprisingly, it enjoy the latest D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that a theme specialist who is responsible for the implemtation and the overall coordination of the technology . . . . ----- The on-site specialist will provide the continuity related to instructional program be added to the staff. - ------------ management functions: coordinating the curriculum, ensuring that students receive appropriate instruction in areas identified by the school district \u0026gt; ^(iministrative staff, offering technical training to staff, monitoring and interpreting students' progress, assisting teachers in the implementation of the curriculum, scheduling lab participation and articulating and promoting school technology programs. curriculum. scheduling lab E, OBJECTIVE The objective of the preceding recommendation is to build in better work realities tied to a technological curriculum and strategies for using the realities to accomplish program ODjectives. The special i miidinn i i . specialist's guiding efforts will help the entire nsrructional staff to use everything available to them deliver instruction to students. as they To help evaluate the objective, the specialist's performance will be analyzed in the following context: liBUSINESSCASE: March 8, 1994 Page 3 THEME SPECIALIST F. 4 3 I * * * * Curricula decisions and other instructional activities Reviewing staff feedback following training  Docxynented support for teachers , individuals sessions parent groups and other Examining strengths and weaknesses in relation to the District's Teachers's Evaluation Cycle. IMPACT ANALYSIS thesuccess of our technology programs, specialist is extremely important to the use of this position 1 : +=4-^- 4-u J.- - uoc jx tnis position iSoirtof instructional program, reducing the negative impact of not having a theme specialist. Equally important a theme specialist communicates to the courts what is truly expected from interdistrict schools, Y Positions like theme specialists and cv\u0026lt;xii\u0026lt;^ul similar schools across the district, helps us to equalize curriculiun specialists are costs. The real risk, of course, suits our needs. , The position then efforts from school to school though there , is not adding a position that are G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS A theme specialist can come from within the existing staff but applicants is possible.' Training deSidr^^JLVVi by the job's role expectations and demands. Hopefully, bnaht. motivatfid t-paphoi-c i i ___ j__ Training bright, motivated teachers will consider the position a fresh opportunity to share their strengths and The specialist will work closely with the administrative oaiaries will be commensurate with salaries. (Salary Range: $21,118 - $40,670) and skills. staff. appropriate teacher/staff H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Because this students, it position is indeed a support system for teachers and IS likely that parents, teachers and students will see ..1 . ., -.-'- j.jf ana suuaenus will see enabling them to understand and implement the \u0026lt;-vAi X xC-UXuiTl The cost of this position should be commensurate with teacher/staff salaries provided by the Department Revenue Source: Resources. salaries Regular Budget. appropriate of HumanBUSINESS CASE RECEIVED APR 51994  GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY THEME PHASE II Office of Desegregation Monitoring It EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and their success is directly related to the success of the District's long-term desegregation plan. Each incentive school, was required to develop and implement a school theme: In support of the desegregation plan and a commitment to total quality learning. Garland Incentive School identified a Multimedia Technology and Educational Research theme. Realizing the cost of technology and especially technology that's on the cutting edge, the multimedia technology theme implementation is to be phased in over a period of 3-5 years. A plan of action is required to implement the theme in a way that supports the desegregation plan and provides quality training and learning for students and teachers. This business case is for phase II of implementation of the total plan for Garland Incentive School. An estimated 5150,000 savings in future cost can be realized by accessing the Distance Learning capabilities at another District School. Portions of the equipment for phase I is currently being installed with the final part to be shipped at the end of March 94 and installed in April 94. I 11 I t 1 3 A. BACKGROUND r I Garland Incentive school serves a minority community with students being challenged outside of the school by drugs, violence, gangs and many other problems plaguing today's urban school districts. The school is considered a safe zone and its students are proud and secure within its walls. The school's theme has been historically centered on communication and basic skills\nhowever, with the revision of the desegregation plan, the school's theme was changed to Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. Multimedia Technology combines text, graphics, sound, animation and video to convey information. Educational Research deals with using this new technology to locate, evaluate, and use information with excitement, motivation, and creativity. L Prior to 1992-93 school year, the school maintained a Mass Media theme though the theme concept was not being fulfilled. When the desegregation plan reintroduced the theme concept, the school's Mass Media theme evolved into Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. A new theme specialist has been hired with the responsibility of developing and creating the excitement necessary to recapture the minds of students and to create interest in desegregating the school. Parents, community members, teachers, and the school's principal, established the goals and objectives for the theme based on technology. The school's Total Quality Learning (TQL) team worked after the regular school year to provide the basis for the program.4 4 4 The Multimedia Technology and Educational ch Program is designed to enhance y curriculum. Technology will be infused the current Little RockSchool District (LP ,------- t'C i u zx/foriia into each classroom to enhance the teachers' instructional methods. The Libraiy/Media Center will become a hub of information for the school providing technolo^cally ceptional research capabilities to include Your advanced resources providing ----------  , , , , Educational Services\" (YT ,y satellite link network. Each grade level will fcus technology theme to assist the teacher in technology infusion. This wi 1 include themes fo Community Based instruction (CBI) students as well as Gifted and Talented (GT). on a Pre-Kind' garten through Second Grade will focus on Emergent and Early Literacy through Technology. This program will be designed to provide a balanced reading, writing, listening and speaking curriculum. It I1 allow teachers flextb.hty  music, math, art and science activities. 1.......- - portfolio assessment tools. The technology will use excitement, encourage discovery, and meet the unique needs of every student. It will also allow teachers to assess students using a multimedia platform to generate Third Grade students will focus on Researching America through Technology. This program will be the launching pad for future adventures in technolo^ and to^ It will serve as an introduction to research techniques, resources and critical writing skills. Computer keyboarding will be an integral part of the program. Fourth Grade students will focus on telecomputtng technology wh ch will a low them to communicate around the world, through educational computer bu etin boards. Using programs offered through universities such as UALR, students will use programs such as FREDMail, to establish pen pals at other schools from Alaska to Mame anc^even fore g countries. They will explore other cultures and access information available only through the aid of technology. Fifth Grade students will use knowledge gained in third and foufth grades_.o produce news reports suitable for both a school paper and live broadcast to other students. Their theme focus will be Media Productions - The Living Textbook fl Sixth Grade students will focus on Exploring the World through program will encompass the world using technology and prewous y  Included in this program will be the use of video cameras, video players and mixers, discs, CD-ROMs, and extended field trips. i CBI students will experience technology through the _________use of computers and photography, the studentsifor them to take pictures of their activities.  develop both regular and computer scrapbooks for the X. Cameras will be made available to 1 These pictures will then be used to students and the school. 1 infuse technology into the LRSD curriculum. Each teacher will use their theme to infuse tecnnoiogy miu me . _ f . , , . ripuz concent in the way teachers teach, it should Realizing technology represents a totally new concept j 2 I be understood that the first year will be a developmental and familiarization stage and that expectations as far as hours of use will be such that teachers have adequate time to become familiar and confident with the new technological environment. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION q s The myriad societal problems within the local community and the projection of societal norms are concrete issues that must be addressed in the educational arena. To combat these problems, Garland must implement a plan that is dynamic and capable of capturing the young minds and preparing them for a future which is constantly moving in technological leaps and bounds. To accomplish this task within financial constraints of the desegregation budget, phases of implementation have been developed. The four phases of implementing this plan support the district's present budget constraints. These phases can be accelerated provided additional revenue is made available. Phase I provides students and staff with the minimum hardware, software and traininr necessary to provide access to multimedia technology. This phase will include in?^ .nation of three computers in each 1 st grade classroom, one teacher workstation in each classroom 2nd through 6th grades, one computer in Pre-K, and K, and an aditional five station lab for 2nd through 6th grades with AppleTalk Phase II will install three additional computers in each 2nd, and 6th grade classrooms with ethemet network capability installed with linkage to ABACUS throughout the school. This phase will also include hardware, software, and installation of an audio/video lab with satellite capabilities microwave from Romine Interdistrict School. Photographic and Video equipment will be purchased to support the visual portion of the theme. And a software library will also be established during this phase. Phase III will install three additional computers in each 3rd, and Sth grade classroom and 3 computers in Reading, Math, and Resource. This phase will also include hardware, software, and installation of an electronic library. Phase IV will complete installation for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 4th grade classes. This phase will also include additions to the software library and the construction of a new media center or the expansion and remodeling of the existing one. The cost of full implementation in the first or second year is cost prohibitive, therefore, this business case is written to address Phase II of the Multimedia Implementation Plan. The current task before us is to determine the best way to implement the theme in a way most effective for our students and staff. I I I J 3 I * C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The Garland community considered several alternatives prior to developing this plan for implementing multimedia technology into the school: Laser Disc players, CD-ROM drives for current computer systems, networked drives, and portable drives. Though all are a part of multimedia, none can be purchased alone to provide the students with multimedia capabilities which would stimulate their creativity. In addition, the computer hardware presently at Garland ranges in age from three to seven years and will not support multimedia technology. It was decided multimedia computer systems which could stand alone or be networked would provide the best solution. With the approval of Phase I and the purchase of Macintosh computer systems for our teachers and the Multimedia Lab we have established a standard in hardware for the school, however, evaluation of it's effectiveness cannot be presented at this time due to the time equipment has been available in the school. D. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the District implement Phase II of the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Plan during the 1993-94 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of multimedia technology provides: * Microwave satellite link hardware will provide an essential educational asset to the school and community, while saving over $150,000.00 in longterm cost. * Software for grades K-2 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum. The software directly addresses the key concepts of reading, writing, listening, and speaking that are emphasized in the curriculum. An additional feature of the software is the use of thematic units to make connections between the various subject areas, making learning more relevant. Thematic units are a focus of the District's revised curriculum. This software will be available in all first grade classrooms with four computers each and in a lab setting for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and Second grades. I 1 * Software for teachers of grades 3-6 that provides administrative assistance. The software has desktop publishing capability, but most importantly it provides portfolio assessment tools that allow teachers to collect, organize, and present student portfolio information. Portfolio assessment is encouraged by the District and this tool will enable teachers at Garland to implement this form of assessment. This software will be available through one station in each classroom. ( * A multisensory approach to learning that meets the auditory, visual and kinesthetic styles of students. 4 IX R i * Presentation software for teachers 3-6. This software enables the teachers to produce multimedia presentations integrating video, audio, graphics, and text into classroom instructional units. R * Software for students in grades 3-6 that provides opportunities for developing creativity and critical thinking skills through productions levied around the existing curriculum. This software will be delivered through a 6 station lab setting. E. OBJECTIVE R The objective of this recommendation is to better support the LRSD's desegregation plan by partially implementing multimedia technology into the Garland Incentive School. The district as well as the school needs this technology in preparing our students and teachers for the future. The technology used appropriately can recapture the minds of our young people, save the staff many hours of manual labor and provide exciting presentations to the students which will encourage and motivate students to learn and master the curriculum. i Evaluation Criteria * r Monitoring of student progress through technology and Portfolio Assessment. * 3 3 Increased teacher use of technology which will also increase teacher proficiency in instructional and administrative tasks including increased use of ABACUS. * Increased use of Cooperative learning and Thematic teaching concepts. * Increased student interest in multimedia technology and learning. I * I * F * Increased parental involvement due to increased student interest. Timely, detailed reports for conferences, administration. Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. Achievement results will positively impact recruitment to Garland. * Peer and Parent/Teacher evaluations of student portfolios. t F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 Multimedia technology can open new doors for the students. It has the potential for assisting Garland and the District in stimulating this minority community as well as improving the goals of desegregation. Multimedia technology not only motivates students to learn but it also supports the District curriculum in ways exciting to students and teachers. Though the initial cost of technology is always high it is not always an object when it comes to educating and motivating a disadvantaged population and creating an environment conducive to desegregation. Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation. Risk 4 The equipment and software provided by implementing this phase of the plan is versatile and can be transferred if necessary with the exception of minimal installation cost. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment. Should the District decide not to support this system, the results cpn be very damaging and regarded as inefficien* e of desegregation funds. Timing Implementation Oi ?hase I was initially approved under the previous administration and funding which was to be carried over into this school year fell through with the change in administration. This caused a lengthy delay in the requisition and continuing receipt of equipment. To impact students and teachers with Phase II of the implementation plan, actions need to taken prior to close of this school year to ensure purchase during the 1994-95 school year. Decisions regarding this phase should be made as soon as possible. RESOURCES ANALYSIS A listing of hardware and software that must be purchased to implement this phase of the multimedia theme into the Garland School will be provided at a later date. I 6H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters will be students and patrons in the Garland community. Other supporters will be those in the community who want to see successful themes implemented in the incentive schools and those who feel that it is important for students to have access to technology that is on the cutting edge. Primary detractors will be limited to those who feel that the expense of the multimedia theme may not be justified. Information should be provided to them that will allow them to see the advantages of multimedia and to see the progress Garland students make after implementation. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TIMELINE Date 3/94 5/94 7/94 8/94 8/94 8/94 8/94-4/95 5/95 Activity Plan presented to Board of Directors for Approval Bid for Hardware/Software Opened Hardware/Software Ordered Hardware/Software Installed Additional material/supplies ordered Staff Development begins Person(s) Responsible Superintendent Purchasing Purchasing Vendor Theme Specialist Theme Specialist Vendor Theme Specialist 1 1 I On-going monitoring/assistance provided Principal Evaluation of current theme implementation Theme Specialist Curriculum Supervisors Principal Theme Specialist Teachers Curriculum Supervisors I 7s r J 5 ' 1 PHASEII.XLS Grade Level Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade 6lh Grade CBI Media Center Spanish Multimedia Lab #of Class QTY/C lass Description Price Total Status 1 1 Earty Childhood Connections Bundle $2,099.00 $2,099.00 Phase II 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/3 L 1/3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eariy Language Connection Bundle Software Early Language Connection Bundle Software Software Video Camera Software LC 575________ Apple Ext KeyBrd Mem Upgrade Software Camera \u0026amp; Equip Zap Camera Early Learning Bundle Early Learning Bundle Microwave Link Software Ti-IN Network Software Mac Server Apple Media Authoring Solution 14\" AV Monitor Apple Ext KeyBrd Software Fumituro Film Dev Eq $29,299.00 $2,000.00 $29,299.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,630.00 $160.30 $220.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 $800.00 $2,099.00 $2,099.00 $46,000.00 $8,000.00 $2,566.66 $500.00 $5,100.00 $6,098.00 $598.00 $160.30 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 Page 1 $9,756.57 j.otfO.00 $19,530.71 ^,000.00 yst6\u0026lt;0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $9,780.00 $961.80 $1,320.00 $4,000.00 $300.00 $800.00 $2,099.00 $2,099.00 $46,000.00 $8,000.00 $2,566.66 $500.00 $5,100.00 $6,098.00 $598.00 $160.30 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 Phase IIMusic 11 1 1 PHASEII.XLS Synthesizer KeyBrd Mac LC 575 $2,500.00 $1,630.00 $2,500.00 $1,630.00 Ip i 4 Chapter l/Resource, Math, Reading 11 111 11111 Apple MIDI Interface Apple Ext KeyBfd Apple Speakers___ Memory Upgrade Software/fumiture $69.30 $160.30 $138.00 $220.00 $2,00000 $69.30 $160.30 $138.00 $220.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 111 1 11 M^J-C57J______ Apple Ext KeyBrd Software _$1,630.00 $160.30 $1,000.00 $1,630.00 $160'30 $1,000.00 TOTAL $150,210.20 Page 2 I i I a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIV^O APR 51994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Rockefeller Incentive School 4 700 East 17th Phone 324-2385 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 4 BUSINESS CASE FOR THEME INFUSION ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL COMPUTER SCIENCE THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i The uiLLie kock bcnool District is \u0026lt; comprehensive desegregation plan which development and implementation of themes for Little Rock School District committed includes to a the schools. all incentive The incentive schools are vital parts of the total plan whose goals are to achieve academic success for all children, to decrease the disparity of achievement among the sub-groups, to create an environment conducive for learning, and to achieve a good racial balance within the school population. Rockefeller Incentive School has the theme of computer science and uses this theme achieving the goals. as a tool for A. BACKGROUND Computer Science Rockefeller during the was selected as 1986-87 school the theme for was one of four schools to pilot year. Rockefeller a a 25 computers. In addition, one installed in each classroom. A computer hired to oversee the total computer program. classroom. a full computer lab with Commodore computer specialist was was --- . --- The first year this a part time position and the next year it changed to full time. In 1 990, the district made ,a decision to was 1990, remove themes from the the 1992-93 incentive school school year, programs. to re-determine what the theme. a theme committee was During established survey went sixth grade. interest, The results out to The expertise, of all parents. staff was for Rockefeller would be. from also early A childhood to the and feasibility of surveyed to determine all surveys returning to the computer theme. overwhelmingly alternatives. supported The Writing to Read Lab was added to the school inventory and was used with Kindergarten and first grade Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia was added in the media center. classes. was After the choice for the theme had been submitted to the district and approved, the committee met to establish short and long range plans. Goals and objectives were outlined in detail that would support the district's revised curriculum. The committee made decisions about necessary equipment needed for the second phase of implementation for theme enhancement. The Commodore originally been provided in computers that had the classrooms were no longer up-to-date but were to be used as long as they continued to function with the available software. They would replaced once they could no longer function properly. be At the end of the 1992-93 school year, a cross section of the staff was selected to work for an extended time for theme development and refinement. previewed school During this week, staff software presently in the building and matched up software with the revised curriculum objectives. The committee previewed new software and expressed desires for software needed to enhance learning on all subject areas. staff with Guidelines were developed to present to the total objectives that would be a part of the school improvement plan for the coming year. of the theme development was established. The plan for phases At the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, a three day (August 11, 12, 13, 1993) intensive inservice was held for the entire staff. Seventeen new IBM compatible computers. seven purchased computer stations for the nine printers, and classrooms had from the school budget and installation been was completed during the first quarter of the school year. The following activities have been developed to implement the Computer Science Theme: * A certified teacher has been hired as the school I theme specialist. * 5 The computer theme specialist provides training sessions twice a month for all staff members. * The theme specialist conducts classroom sessions and provides software for classroom computers that support the curriculum. * The specialist library of available materials. * Repair and s catalogs software and maintains duties of the specialist. trouble shooting is a included within Keeping up-to-date materials and supplies (ribbons, paper, etc.) in all classrooms and office is an added duty. * Education Reports are I Plans, generated on the computer for Student Communication Forms. Student Performance Profiles, and Home 2 a Students keyboarding , computer are taught programming, graphic programs such as terminology. Instruction is word processing, Instruction Print Shop, q presentations are age appropriate. \" Computer Club is offered during the A grade book program for teachers * * Teachers offer adapted so and that ! extended day. was developed. , . .---- an extension of the lessons taught and include projects, writing, development of bulletin cards, and use of software that supports the curriculum. Specialists use computers to help them with reports and communication. communication, averages. Teachers use the recording computers to develop tests' home grades for up-to-date grade * Instructional training and assist the teacher the computer. Assistants have received computer in monitoring students using received r B. PROBLEM DEFINITION 4- fully implement the Computer Science Theme at Rockefeller Incentive School and in order to further develop the theme. School and comprehensive plan must be in place, is to use technology to enhance the revised curriculum, establish a ' The major goal a .  --- - new and exciting method of learning tne^ basics, as providing opportunities for subject Children must be Challenged and provided positive experiences that will prepare them for the wonderful world of technology in which they now live and in which they will be entrenched in the work place of the future. basics, in as all well providing areas. opportunities must AAtt tthhee pprreesseenntt ttiimmee, students on all grade levels are scheduled to attend the computer lab twice weekly with an  additional time planned for students identified in the Chapter I program. The sessions in the lab are 30 minutes long and are divided in half with reading and math instruction. In other words, students get no more than 30- o minutes per week of readinc instrnrtinn an/i + i-iS3nie in for in words. identified reading and reading instruction and the math in the computer lab. I which test Test results clearly reveal weaknesses in reading I impact not only reading scores but damage or lower scores on clearly reveal in mastery skills. believed that other subject areas that require reading To achieve maximum mastery results., it is a concentrated effort must be placed on this Use of technology supports our theme and would serve as the tool to provide this high level of concentration. Positive results would be expected in all subject areas. weakness. as Positive this 3 To fully implement the Computer Theme, proposing: the school IS Phase I: (1) ,, . At the beginning of the 1 994-95 school distributive .. , - . - ------ year, the method of providing computer instruction will .  expanding the present reading and math program for 1st-3rd grades in the classroom setting. This will allow 30 minutes i--  ''  include setting. ___ per day on the computer (150 minutes per week) in reading and extended time on math. There will be six in each of the nine classrooms, have printer. Every primary student will technology every day as an integral part of computers a This There will be Each room will experience . , as an integral part of instruction. An extension of the current software will be added with an integrated language arts program. (2) Writing to Read and Josten Computer labs will be continued for Kindergarten students during the 1994-95 school year. students during r (3) An Early Childhood Software Program for 3 and 4 year old children will be implemented. T ol and a printer will be provided for each of the four childhood classes. Two student stations early (4) continue continuous Fourth, computer fifth and software instruction sixth grade classroom computers. related in to the the students computer curriculum will lab with used on (5) Four teacher presentation computer systems should be purchased. This technology approach is an exciting technique that lets the teacher use interactive, full-motion video, animation, sound, text and graphics to support and enhance instruction in the classroom. computer (6) A full time lab attendant should be reinstated. There will be an additional host/file server to man and since the primary classes will be working on the computers daily rather than twice a week, be generated.  - server to man working on . more reports will Whole class instruction such as keyboarding, processing programming word processing and programming, by the teachers and the theme specialist will be conducted lab setting. This has not always been possible a time was so tightly scheduled. Also, the classroom teacher \u0026lt; ' ' This has more frequently in the since the was so tightly scheduled. Also, Ll- _1_______ could send a group of children to the lab to work on assignments, especially those using Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia. The lab attendant would be available to assist small I (7) groups. be available . , . Staff Development for teachers and instructional aides will be provided. 42   1 M fl Phase II: (1) The Josten computer lab will be current hardware is old and slow. supported by the current system. (2) -The distributive up-graded. The No more upgrades may be rr. Z,-------- mothod for providing computer instruction to Kindergarten will be added along with an integrated language arts program. This will consist of nine student stations and software. program. added along with (3) , . J, . Ii^termediate grades will continue in the computer lab for instruction. (4) The computer lab will also be sessions for students and staff. used for large^ group (5) , . Two will upgrade/replace Multimedia Encyclopedia in the media center. computers Compton's (6) Three additional teacher stations - hardware and systems would be purchased increasing the number to cover one system per grade level. software (7) Phase III: r Six printers will be purchased. (1) Early Childhood Software will be nariy cnildhood Software will be purchased to meet the needs of three and four year old students. (2) Equipment and related programs to programs to support the computer theme and assist in instruction will be purchased. This will include software extensions for thematic units as well as third party software. (3) me library will be automated so that it will provide access for library materials for students and teachers. This will extend the computer theme and better prepare the students to be better library users. (4) Fourteen teacher stations will be added to provide each teacher one for their class. The for access library materials for students u bett (5) Nine additional printers will be purchased which will complete the purchases for one for each classroom. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Consideration was given to instructional possibilities that would theme and satisfy the essential achievement. to a wide range of satisfy the support the computer component to increase Although most considerations were financially expensive, the gains of student mastery would make the investments worth the cost. ~ mastery would make (1) The alternatives are: We will make no changes in the way computer instruction is being delivered. Pro- Computer instruction will continue to be offered. Training of students/staff can continue. Con- Time spent on the basic learning system reading is limited to 30 minutes week. on per Children have to continue computer classes a pull-out learning activity. as 5Making no change is not in the best interest of the children in that it does not allow longer periods of time on identified weak areas. (2) Adopt the recommendation made in phases by beginning the process immediately. Pro- By phasing in the program, the proposal is financially more feasible. 4 T (3) s  (4) 3 The expenses be spread out over several years but still allow us to begin implementation immediately - by the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. The sooner it can begin, the greater the impact that can be expected to bring positive results. can Proof that we are making an honest effort improve upon the theme and that the incentive school program is successful in making a difference. to r Con- Very expensive. Implementation of Phase I only. Pro - Demonstrate that the district is working toward improvement of computer science theme. Students in first through third grades will receive more intensive focus on reading and math. The students will have at least 150 minutes per week on reading with the computer as opposed to the 30 per week they now receive, on math would be increased. Time spent Con The expected outcome for the change in computer use is increased academic achievement in the area of reading and all related subjects. - Limited up-grading of the overall computer science theme does not result in total infusion of the selected theme. Implement Phase I and the part of Phase II that at least up-grades the school lab. Pro- Primary students would receive increased time on the computer on reading and math. The full computer lab would be available for additional computer instruction of other subject areas/training of students in computer skills the since it will free up computer lab schedule. Training of staff in full lab setting will be possible. Equipment is up-graded in the lab. Equipment is seven years old and cannot be Less expected to last indefinitely. expensive than full implementation. Con- Expense I \u0026amp; inq I 4 s (5) Up grade the computer lab only Pro- r ' - q Replacement of equipment that is getting old and is slow. Allow us to run third party software. ~ lab for staff development. Con- Limited new technology introduced Students still have limited and math. It does not allow us time to time on reading -- schedule in adequate computer instruction for whole 1 I 1 D. (6) groups or third party software. Provide distributive method to all grade level Pro - Discontinue pull-out for computer lab. Con Difficult to schedule with intermediate classes who departmentalize. More expensive to purchase six computers for each classroom as opposed to up-grading the lab with 25 stations. s r RECOMMENDATION Rockefeller Incentive School Rock School District make requests that the Little . 1  . X , provisions to up-grade the adopted A solid foundation has been established A full computer lab, Writing to Read Lab, theme. established. computer lab stations rT-\n4-U 4. --------- ^.VlupULCl J.CtO ____________ beeJnnina . ^nd a printer in every classroom, beginning library of software, and the emergence of literate students and staff arp Alroadv 4 n . ouxLware, ana me emergence of computer students and staff are already in the first of development. Computers at Rockefeller are regarded as a friend and valuable tool. at Rockefeller stages already The recommendation of this business case includes: will implement the theme in three phases the purchasing process to begin immediately. r-'^r-rzl will   -   (1) with . , . .. . -  The overall provide capabilities to move computer the primary level from the lab to the V result of this change, the larger computer lao will be made available for whole group proposal instruction classroom. on move the lab q \"j-ii De made available tor whole group sessions for the ^\"^ediate level classes using the Josten Basic Learning as well as teacher training/staff development and for use with other software. The software will support the Rock District adopted Little The School addressing primarily reading those subject areas. (2) We will provide revised curriculum and math but not limited to q  provide age appropriate software for three and four year old students. (3) We will expand and rpfld-i  up-grade existing \\ software in the primary classrooms to include the integrated language arts component, include helping children build a arts The benefits will 1 - --.---- - a strong foundation in the ^^US'^age skills that they will use for the cir The experiences with interconnected language their lives. rest of T I Im 3 s  ! fl activities and natural. (4) emerging literacy will make learning fun and We will provide a new teacher that will allow teachers meet learning challenges. (5) - presentation system to use technology to help children Security of the facility should be increased for maximum safety of the valuable oreasea lor equipment. At the present time, continuing the distributive method to intermediate grades reasons: (1) A classroom is IS not recommended for a number of structured rotational use of centers in the mu frequently used on intermediate levels, (zj The desegregation plan in and ^4- X 7 - ----------requires departmentalizatipn diffipiHt r computers every day would be hnmfp Each teacher teaches their own omeroom class reading in a 45 minute block and then the rotation by subject matter begins, complete. strict r This takes all day to (3) Use of the distributive method would require tirne than is recommended intermediate students. If used, it would cut in required hours required by the state for each subject (4)Just as important, as a computer school, essential to maintain an up-to-date computer lab Ihis IS necessarv tn achieve reading time method would If used, a for a computer to the area. it IS an up-to-date computer lab setting. IS necessary to achieve computer proficiencv students and staff. One of the major school theme is to develop an interest, a love for using technology, effective if the students - necessary for components of the I i an understanding and Instruction is far more -------- no matter which sub group - can nave hands-on capabilities in a lab. far  and understandable when It is more meaningful the computer demonstration. E. OBJECTIVE one can personally experience rather than just listening and watching using a The objective of this recommendation is to support the D 1 r, J , ^7 .......................... xo LU tne School Districts commitment to the desegregation developing more fully the computer theme in innovative and creative ways. Evaluation Criteria: * of student progress through technology district's curriculum management system and tne Josten Basic Learning System will be continued. * Up-to-date detailed computer printouts of progress will be as needed. - student used to evaluate mastery and develop plans I ! I' 8 lb* biuoent achievement and mastery of reading skills will increase measured by the Stanford 8 test The year 1993-94 will Student as serve as the baseline data. results. * There be increased knowledge technology for students and staff. will of computer increase Teachers will teacher administrative tasks. increase use of technology which will proficiency in instructional and instructional * Achievement results will attract parents in positive recruitment efforts. and result * The fact that Rockefeller is teaching and. using technology regularly for instructional purposes will be impressive and assist in recruitment. I F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Desegregation This plan supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan requiring theme development and implementation Court Order The Little Rock School District would demonstrate good faith in complying with the court order to develop theme and keeping it up-graded with current trends that will support the curriculum. Political Factors fl The Little Rock School District will benefit by establishing a valuable tool for recruitment and favor from the court by implementing the theme selected for the school. Risk If students are not exposed to technology ct _ __ age, they will not be as prepared for the future that lies ahead for them in the work field at an early career/profession. or their chosen Timing In order for the Computer Theme x:omponent to higher level and make the move to a necessary improvements by the 1 a 1 I 8 A4 1994 95 school year, approval must be given by the Superintendent and cabinet and presented to the board. After approval, the purchasing process must begin as quickly as possible so necessary, and as to complete any bidding order selected equipment/materials, complete any necessary wiring, installation of equipment, and staff inservice training to be completed before the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It would be essential to begin the program at the very beginning of the school year to obtain maximum results. The equipment in the computer lab is 7 years old and although it has been no problem to us up to this* date, it is understandable that the equipment cannot last indefinitely. Thus the request to up-grade the lab:u.s made. r 4 L J REVISED PROPOSAL FOR THEME INFUSION FOR ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL/COMPUTER SCIENCE THEME MARCH 21, 1994 PHASE I 1994-95 SCHOOL YEAR: Hardware 1 Unix File Server............... Extra Enet Cards.................. Lannet Repeaters.................. Over 40/80/120 hardware.......... 10 Printers....................... 54 Student Stations for grades 1-3 R $20,816.00 130.00 1,715.00 1 ,617.00 7,500.00 76,410.00 Sub-total for hardware $108,188.00 R Sof tware......................... Integrated Language Arts Software Staff Development $70,997.00 R Required Plant Services Electrical Wiring Cables Personnel $12,000.00 loV m \\c 3nlv Reinstate Full Time Computer Attendant - one person\\only ESTIMATE PRE TAX GRAND TOTAL-PHASE I....$191,185.00 R PHASE II 1995-96 SCHOOL YEAR: R R Up grade the computer lab which will include: Hardware and Software 28 Student Stations: 25 Computers to up-grade computer lab 2 Computers for Compton's 1 Computer for Resource 4 Teacher Stations ESTIMATE PRE TAX GRAND TOTAL-PHASE II $84,596.00PROPOSAL FOR PHASE III 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR 9 Student Stations for Kindergarten.. 3 Printers .......................... 8 Student Stations-Early Childhood... Software Add-on Integrated Language Arts Software-kindergarten..... Software for Early Childhood........ Staff Development.................... 3 Teacher Stations................... $13,500.00 2,250.00 12,000.00- $10,800.00 13,000.00 5,000.00 17,820.00 Required Plant Services Any additional electrical wiring/cables needed ESTIMATE PRE TAX GRAND TOTAL-PHASE III..,.$74,370.00 PROPOSAL FOR PHASE IV - 1997-98 SCHOOL YEAR \u0026lt; Automated Library PC for Inventory and Emulation Card....$2500.00 4 Terminals @ 2 Scanners Inventory. Printer... \u0026lt;a 800.00 745.00 Plus Tax Total... 3200.00 1490.00 1100.00 400,00 $8690.00 521.40 $9211.40  *Conversion of Records Plus Tax.............. Total................. $6000.00 360.00 $6360.00 * 12,000 volumes multiplied times $ .50 per record $9211.40 + $6360.00 = $15,571.40 4 Teacher Stations $51,808.00 I ESTIMATE PRE TAX GRAND TOTAL-PHASE IV...$67,379.00I RECEIVED APR 51994 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Monitoring 4 Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Business Case  Assignment Office of transportation Desegregation i. . Involvement Quality, Equity, Service, \u0026amp; Understanding Commu n ications a January, 1994 C.. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent F di Little Rock School District Executive Assistant to the Associate Superintendent Business Case 3 I Executive Summary 5 2 The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest obligations from the court Included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools. Recently, the responsibilities of were Communications and Transportation added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees working on a day-to-day basis. a t  No formal secretarial or clerical assistance exists for the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation. Adding a neui position called Executive Assistant to support the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is recommended. Examples of responsibilities are as follows: A. Keeping the daily schedule of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nB. Screening and assisting with telephone callers\nC. Keeping notebooks on office procedures\nD. Keeping track of court documents and correspondence\nE. Staying abreast of court obligations\nF. Coordinating and assembling statistical reports some as follows:  Burden of Busing Z Racial Balance Z Attendance Zone Residence Z Requests from litigants, the state, the superintendent, and the Board of Directors G. Word processing correspondence and other documents as needed\nH. Preparing presentations by computer\n1. Monitoring calls concerning the transportation department\nand, J. Taking minutes of meetings.  H Solving this problem will permit, thorough monitoring of the desegregation obligations, complete analysis of reports not being generated now, efficient production of documents, efficient monitoring of progress in desegregation, quicker response on requests for reports, documents, etc., and, efficient filing and storage of documents and correspondence. These benefits will begin as soon as the person begins work. Improvement will be obvious as six to twelve months pass. The budget will be affected annually by the addition of this position. The recurring costs for salary and benefits will be approximately $35,000 plus $8,750 for benefits for a total cost of $43,750. This might be covered by shifting a position from another department. A one-time expense is requested for a computer and printer to provide current technology. This cost will be approximately $5,000. 1 JI Executive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 2 Ji i 4 This solution will permit reasonable support for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This will eliminate the inconsistency and confusion surrounding document preparation, coordination of reports, etc. The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, continuous non- compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for spending money from the budget, and the perception of favoritism toward Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The sooner we can do this the better. Currently, we have temporary help at best. This person needs to move back to assigning students for the registration period that begins in February. ~ 1 Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. Funding for this position would come from position vacancies in other areas of the budget. Therefore, no additional position would be required in the overall budget. The following milestones for implementing this proposal will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation weekly after the decision is made to include the proposal in the budget. Until that point, it will be monitored daily. I 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with finance person about source of revenue Present Business Case to the Superintendent Present Business Case to the Council__________ Revise as suggested _________________ Resubmit 8. 9. ...Pecisttmfortnctusion inthfttsaosfaodgat Advertise the position Interview 10. Begin Trainning Date 01/04/93 01/07/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/18/94 01/31/94 02/08/94 02/22/94 02/28/94 Person Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Gadberry Mayo Mayo I Timely consideration of this proposal is respectfully requested. C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation January, 1994 SubnutM fry Ru Uifo. Aaeaa(*SupnfltM\u0026gt;eni lorD|nftion 01/03/94 I I J4 Executive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 3 I Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation established to monitor the district's desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), was generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest obligations from the court Included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools. Recently, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees involved on a day-to-day basis. The kinds of problems produced daily in this department would fill the large part of a day. I Problem Definition No formal secretarial or clerical assistance exists for the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation. The responsibilities of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation justify assistance with typing, scheduling, receiving telephone calls, reporting, and researching documents, and compiling statistics. ^Analysi^^lternativ^ I The following alternatives have been considered to solve the problem: I I f 1. Use one of the clerical people employed currently in the Office of Desegregation Organizational Chart Student Assignment Office (SAO). That is being done now. This does not solve the efficiency problem, this person will have to reassigned strengthen reorganization be to for helping the public. 2. Split Student Assignment Assistant betueen his/her normal Support Exc. Assistant Director of Transportation Student Assignment Coordinator Data Processing Coordinator 111 I Desegregation Facilitator Directorof Communications ((2) Recruiters [ I Programmer | student Assignment Assistants Figure 1 Community Development Coordinator fVtPS) 1 Staff I a J^soeiatBSuperinte^^tJ^ ] Miro. AnociatSgpnntMtt lor Do^r^ition tn/QS/M BC.SKExecutive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 4 responsibilities and the Associate Superintendent's need for support. Either of these jobs are full-time responsibilities. II 3. Add a new position called Executive Assistant to support the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This is the most logical solution. Examples of responsibilities are as follows: A. Keeping the daily schedule of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nB. Screening and assisting with telephone callers\nC. Keeping notebooks on office procedures\nD. Keeping track of court documents and correspondence\nE. Staying abreast of court obligations\nF. Coordinating and assembling Office of Desegregation Support - Executh'e .Assistant a statistical follows: reports some as IL1 Z Burden of Busing Z Racial Balance Z Attendance Zone Residence Z Requests from litigants, the state, the superintendent, and the Board of Directors G. Word processing correspondence and other documents as needed\n Cooniinata and organaa raguaata for data  Prapara  Docuaant* for  for cotrt  Bnnaiaant fifo/Kaotu * A(fondanczoneM  Maa nnas * MHCvfofleouK  MonAor (  KacttI raong aehoett  rtcryiaaaftt  Cwaanaaty hvohftaant  AMcar ttf Agaoeiaf SuparintarMiant for t\u0026gt;aaagragation in parforming hia tiuaaa a H. Preparing presentations by Figure 2 computer\n1. Monitoring calls concerning the transportation department\nand, J. Taking minutes of meetings. I |RecOTHwe\u0026lt;to tion Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Add a new position called Executive Assistant to support the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. I Objective 11 Upon implementation of Recommendation 3, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will be supported so he may spend his time with coordination, supervising, budgeting, planning, and attending meetings. See Figure 2. SuBfiMtiadfryRuM Mayo. AnocKteSupanntvidanl ferDMfiption oi/m/M bc_sk\n1 IcIi t 1 iIJ a 3 Executive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 5 Solving this problem will permit 1. More thorough monitoring of the desegregation obligations\n4 2. More complete analysis of reports not being generated now because of the lack of help\nr 3. More efficient production of documents\n4. More efficient monitoring of progress in desegregation\n5. Quicker response on requests for reports, documents, etc.\nand. 1 6. More efficient filing and storage of documents and correspondence. These benefits will begin as soon as the person begins work. Improvement will be obvious as six to twelve months pass. Impact Analysis I Negatives 1 1. The budget will be impacted annually by the addition of this position unless a position shift takes place from some other department or line item. Positives 1. This solution will permit reasonable support for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This will eliminate the inconsistency and confusion surrounding document preparation, coordination of reports, etc. 2. This will support the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation as he addresses obligations under the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans relating to student assignment, marketing, recruitment, and transportation. Risks a The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, continuous non- compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor image. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for spending money from the budget and the perception of favoritism toward Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. SubmiitadlrrRuMMaro. AMocitKSwpmniwidwt lorDm(nptio\u0026gt;\u0026lt; 01/05/94 bc_sk: J1 Executive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 6 Timing The sooner we can do this the better. Currently, we have temporary help at best. This person needs to move back to assigning students for the registration period that begins in February. Though registration and assignment are strongly encouraged during the month of February, the process continues until August when it becomes overwhelming. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once approval is given. Resources Analysis Personnel This is an additional position in the budget unless a position is shifted from another department. Financial The annual recurring cost for salary and benefits is approximately $35,000 plus $8,750 for benefits for a total cost of $43,750. A one-time expense is requested for a computer and printer to provide current technology. This cost will be approximately $5,000. r Revenue Source N Funding for this position would come from position vacancies in other areas of the budget. Therefore, no additional position would be required in the overall budget Force Field Analysis I Primary supporters of this proposal will be council members, SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. Ultimately, this proposal will help them meet their obligations under our plan. Sobfniltal Or Rub AoccutaSupenniandant lor DM|rption Ol/tO/M BC^Executive Assistant to Associate Superintendent Business Case 7 Getteral Infortnation Plan The following are milestones for implementing this proposal. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7x 8. 9. Milestone Meet with finance person about source of revenue Present Business Case to the Superintendent Present Business Case to the Council.................... Revise as suggested................................................. Resubmit................................................................... Decision for tnctosion in the 1 ggQS\nbudget..\nAdvertise the position................................................ Interview 10. Begin Training Date 01/04/93 01/07/94 01/10/94 01/14/94 01/18/94 01/31/94 02/08/94 02/22/94 02/28/94 Person Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Supt Gadberry Mayo Mayo 1 I 5 .uMiittedbrFutsMiTC. A\u0026lt;Mm(iSupnntnan\u0026lt; lorDa^r^lion 01/03/94 BC_S8C RECEJVFI^ I I ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 51994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring OVERVIEW/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION I Over the past several years, the number of students attending the district's schools who do not speak English or who are English limited proficient has grown steadily. ?_ _____ conducted by the district during the spring of 1993 revealed a population of more than four hundred students grades K-12 for whom English is not the native language. succeeded in obtaining a 50% to 60% average response rate from the fifty schools surveyed.) These four hundred A survey (The district students represented sixty-six different language groups. A series of lawsuits and subsequent federal legislation occurring during a time period spanning from 1964 through 1986 have clarified the responsibilities of public schools in guaranteeing equitable educational opportunities for non or near-non English speaking students. The district has an I I obligation, therefore, to provide for the special learning needs of these 400+ students. Furthermore, federal and state legislation do not consider lack of English skills because of nationality/native language to be a handicapping condition. Instead, such lack of English language skills is viewed as a barrier to access of equitable educational opportunity. Thus, it becomes the district's responsibility to provide out of its local funds whatever services are needed to help the students overcome language barriers. 1 i i f I Currently, the district is operating an ESL program which provides services for identified non-English tutorial speaking/limited English proficient students. As these students are identified by their individual schools, they are referred to the LRSD Office of Communications, English, ESL, and Foreign Languages for tutorial services. This office supervises six part-time tutors who are assigned to the referred students for a minimum of language instruction each week. one hour of pull-out The tutors travel to the students' schools and assist the principals, teachers, and counselors in devising a support plan for each student assigned to them. A broad array of instructional materials has been purchased by the office of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, which the tutors check out to in providing appropriate English language instruction. LRSD program is serving, at the present time, from thirty-one schools. use The 102 students PROGRAM GOALS/OBJECTIVES The primary goal of the LRSD ESL Program is to assist nonEnglish speaking or limited English proficient students in acquiring the level of English language skill necessary for f 5 1 parity of participation in the standard instructional program. The district aims to achieve this goal through the following objectives: 1. 4 Design and implement an ESL identification and referral process. 2. Establish appropriate criteria for the entry into and exit from the tutorial students. program for ESL 3. Diagnose the instructional needs and provide appropriate learning assistance which meets ESL students' instruction, special needs for English language for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with their cultural heritages. 4. Provide appropriate and compatible instructional materials and staff training opportunities. 5. Provide gualified teachers/tutors. 6. Provide egual access to other district programs and services. 7. Provide for parental/family involvement. 8. Monitor the progress of ESL students during program participation and after program exit and reclassify students as needed. 9. Evaluate the ESL program and revise as needed. 10. Maintain student records. IDENTIFIED NEEDS The LRSD ESL Program is growing at a rapid pace. This continuing growth has resulted in a host of pressing needs that have been identified by teachers, principals, the ESL tutors, district patrons. and the supervisor communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, needs include: of These 4 1. 2. Additional tutors are needed to adeguately service the growing ESL population in the district's fifty schools. a Additional tutor contact time is needed with the ESL students to ensure that service is provided vhich ccrtplies fully with federal laws and state regulations. 2 1 4 4 4 4 J 3. Additional resources are needed for the ESL tutors and classroom teachers. The ESL students need hands-on materials for Total Physical Response (TPR) and oral language enrichment activities. Staff development is needed for ESL tutors to improve their skills and to help them learn new strategies. Classroom teachers need assistance in understanding their responsibilities and help with managing the learning process for non-English speaking and limited English proficient students. 5. Parents/families need training and resources to assist their children in English acquiring language skill while preserving the integrity of their native language and the culture it represents. 6. more comprehensive identification/placement 7. process needs to be developed that includes appropriate testing so that ESL students can be screened for other services currently denied to them. needs comprehens ive assessment/evaluation to be developed to determine process student progress and program success. 4. A A TARGET POPULATION The target population for the LRSD ESL Program are the K-12 students who speak no English, who speak limited English, or who have an identified cognitive gap, meaning that they speak English, but it is not their first language and they do not yet think well in English. ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL The LRSD Deputy Superintendent maintains supervisory including the ESL authority over all curriculum programs. The supervisor of communications, English, ESL, and program. foreign languages is directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ESL program and is responsible for long- range planning and evaluation of the program. The supervisor of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages works I under the direction of the deputy superintendent and supervises six ESL tutors who are assigned to the fifty schools on an as-needed basis. A secretary from the IRC fl secretarial pool also has a primary responsibility for the communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages office. 3STAFF DEVELOPMENT Various staff development opportunities have been made available to the tutors, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, principals, and central office personnel since the inception of the ESL program in 1991. Initial staff development was provided by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the IDRA/DAC-SCC in San Antonio, Texas. The ADE has also assisted the district in providing follow-up training. The ESL tutors are required to attend monthly staff meetings at which time they identify problems and discuss solutions. These meetings are also used to plan strategies and to work on assessment/evaluation of program components. As well. most of the tutors take advantage of training opportunities provided locally, but outside the district, including ADE and UALR workshops. Additionally, several of the tutors have provided staff development for classroom teachers. The tutors. classroom teachers, guidance counselors. and principals need extensive staff development in order for the district to achieve full compliance with federal laws and state regulations. The ESL population is highly diverse. which requires all involved district personnel to be able to select from an array of approaches in order to meet the needs of all the ESL identified students. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 require that parents/families of ESL identified students be provided with opportunities to participate education of their children. in the guaranteed public Currently, the district is relying on the ESL tutors almost exclusively to include parents/families in the education process. The ESL tutors recommend ways that the parents/families may assist with their children's studies. In some instances the tutors and/or district personnel make home visits to help link the school with the family. PHYSICAL FACILITIES All schools identifying ESL students should provide a private permanent room for the tutoring sessions. The room should be large enough to activities. accommodate TPR and oral enrichment 44 IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES The district has applied for Title VII funds which could provide approximately $175,000 per year for up to three years to develop a more comprehensive program of services. If obtained, however, the Title VII grant award could not be used to supplant the financial obligation of the district to provide basic services. It is the responsibility of the district to provide out of local funds whatever services are needed to help students overcome language barriers. PROPOSED BUDGET The following allocations will be necessary to adequately fund the LRSD ESL Program for the 1994-95 school year: 1. Salaries 8 tutors X $1,500 per week X 36 weeks ($15 per hour X 100 hours per week) 8 tutors X $45 per month X 9 months ($15 per hour X 3 hours per month for prep) Total salary cost = $54,000 3,240 = $57,240 2 . Materials and supplies $10 per student X 100 students $50 per school X 50 schools Total materials and supplies cost = $ 1,000 = 2,500 = $ 3,500 3. Staff development $45 per day X 2 days X 100 teachers (Substitute teacher pay) $90 per day X 5 days X 8 tutors (Tutor stipends) $5 X 108 participants (Training packets) Total staff development cost = $ 9,000 3,600 540 = $13,140 4 . Assessment/Evaluation $20 X 100 students Total Assessment/Evaluation cost = $ 2,000 = $ 2,000 fl Total program cost = $75,880 IMPACT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN I ESL eligible students enrolled in the district's schools are a part of the rich diversity which is the LRSD. The pure intent of the district's desegregation plan is to recognize and act upon the worth and potential of all children. While the plan specifically targets the failure of Arkansas public education to equitably serve the black child, the implied 5intent throughout is that no child should be denied the full array of educational opportunities and experiences available ths The desegregation plan was crafted at the direction of a federal court - a court bound to uphold federal law, which clearly protects the ESL identified within the district. student. The impact of certainly positive. the LRSD ESL Program IS most EVALUATION CRITERIA The general evaluation criteria for the LRSD ESL Program include family/parent, patron, principal, guidance counselor, teacher, and student satisfaction with the ESL tutor, tutor, teacher, principal, guidance counselor, and parent/family satisfaction with ESL staff development\nexamples of student work demonstrating achievement of program goal\nobservations in program\nESL staff development\nresults of teacher-made tests\nclassrooms identify quality teaching/learning\ninventories reflecting appropriate materials and supplies\nand total number of students exiting the program into the mainstreamed learning setting. that 6 I I s i i fl BUSINESS CASE ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the district is operating an ESL program which provides tutorial services for identified speaking/limited English proficient students. non-English The program was established in 1991 in an effort to achieve compliance with federal laws and state regulations. The primary goal of the LRSD ESL Program is to assist non-English speaking or limited English proficient students in acquiring the level of English language skill necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. The ESL students are identified by the local schools through a referral process that links them with the ESL program. The program is managed through the office of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, which supervises the six part-time tutors who staff the program. These tutors are assigned to the referred students for a minimum of one hour of pull-out language instruction each week. The tutors travel to the students' schools and assist the principals, teachers, and counselors in devising a support plan for each student assigned to them. The district proposes to continue the ESL program for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is. ultimately, achieved. The 1994-95 program will seirve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components will include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\ndevelopment program\na and comprehensive staff a identified/referral/assessment/evaluation process. revised A. BACKGROUND In late April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. The district succeeded in obtaining a 50% to 60% average response rate from the 50 involved schools. The Home Language Survey results revealed 400+ students who were potentially eligible for English as a Second Language (ESL) services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. 1These 400 students represented 66 distinct language groups, other than English. The results of the 1993 Home Language Survey confirm a sizeable ESL eligible population in the district. Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, require the district to provide whatever services are necessary to ensure that ESL identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not q recognize a language barrier as a handicapping condition or skills deficit, as a the district cannot provide such services for these students through existing Chapter One or q Compensatory Education programs. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The district is not in full compliance with federal laws and state regulations regarding the provision of services to nonEnglish speaking and English limited proficient students necessary for parity of participation instructional in the program. regulations as outlined Failure to comply with standard state in the revised Arkansas Public Schools Standards for Accreditation may result in loss of state aid and district accreditation. Failure to realize the full intent of federal legislation may result in a lawsuit against the district on behalf of ESL students, respond to the needs of ESL students will Failure to results in education deprivation which will become a life-long handicap for these students. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There is no other alternative available to the district. Provision of special ESL services is a local responsibility and it cannot be supplemented through special education or compensatory education programs. D. RECOMMENDATIONS The district administration recommends to fully fund the ESL program for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ultimately, achieved. The 1994-95 program should serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight Additional program components tutors. q should include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\na comprehensive staff development program\nand a revised process. identification/referral/assessment/evaluation 2 4I I E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the continuation of the ESL program is to achieve parity for participation in the standard instructional program for all ESL identified students. EVALUATION CRITERIA F. The evaluation criteria for the 1994-95 LRSD ESL Program will include family/parent, patron, principal, guidance counselor, tutor, and student satisfaction with the ESL program\ntutor, teacher, principal, guidance counselor. and parent/family satisfaction with ESL staff development\nexamples of student work demonstrating achievement of program goal/objectives\nresults of teacher-made tests\nidentify quality observations in classrooms that teaching/learning\ninventories reflecting appropriate materials and supplies\nand total number of students exiting th\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_21817","title":"Velma Brooks individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Brooks, Velma"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-04-05"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Velma Brooks.","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 Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African American--History--Arkansas","African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Velma Brooks individual file"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/21817"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1484","title":"\"Still Separate, Still Unequal: The Limits of Milliken II's Educational Compensation Remedies,\" by Joseph Feldman, Edward Kirby, and Susan E. Eaton, The Harvard Project on School Desegregation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":["Orfield, Gary"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Maryland, 39.00039, -76.74997","United States, Michigan, 44.25029, -85.50033","United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575","United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061","United States, Texas, Travis County, Austin, 30.26715, -97.74306"],"dcterms_creator":["Joseph Feldman"],"dc_date":["1994-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School facilities","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Still Separate, Still Unequal: The Limits of Milliken II's Educational Compensation Remedies,\" by Joseph Feldman, Edward Kirby, and Susan E. Eaton, The Harvard Project on School Desegregation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1484"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["320 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_157","title":"1992-1995 Budget Development Activities","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994-02-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["1992-1995 Budget Development Activities"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/157"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["17 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Court Submission February 25, 1994 1994-95 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIESd d d TABLE OF CONTENTS d Item Page No. d Program Planning and Budgeting Process Chart d Chronology of Events 1 d d Revenue and Expenditures for the Seven Month Periods Ended January 31, 1993 \u0026amp; 1994 12 d 1992-94 Revenue and Expenditures 14 d 1992-95 Revenue and Expenditures 16 d Assumptions 1994-95 18 d Strategies 1994-95 19 d d II dr II II II Program Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process February 25, 1994 d Management Tool 1994-96 II 5 12 19 S 8 15 9 16^ 2 10 17 11 ++ Completed * In Progress ** To be done in sequence Reassessment of Process and U- . NeedSfc 4^ Assessments A-d H d 1 2 3 4 6 C 1  J 4 II Organization 1 d n Program Inventory+-t- Program Evaluation Desegregation Plan 2 ,** H 1 Students II Public Input  Planning \u0026amp; Budget Goals' n 6 Monitoring \u0026amp; Reporting II Program Budget Document Budgeting* 3 n 5 4 d Little Rock School District r H II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS II CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS II n II H II n II II 11 II n H n DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) July 1, 1993 July 9, 1993 7:00 p.m. July 12. 1993 July 14, 1993 July 15, 1993 July 13-16, 1993 July 19, 1993 July 21, 1993 July 22, 1993 July 23, 1993 Began fiscal year 93-94. LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent During Special Board Meeting, distributed draft of Budget Specialists Program Planning and Budget Document to: Z Board of Directors Z LRSD Administrators Z Public LRSD Council meeting to discuss of: Z Staffing efficiency / Citizen and employee suggestions relating to prior year Z Planning process Z Budget Reductions Began to identify programs for \"fast-track\" evaluation. Special Board meeting\nBoard approved the closing of Ish School. Reviewed Budget Specialist's document. Initial LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document drafted. LRSD Council meeting including\nZ Program identification and coding of final list by Budget Specialist Z Began work on non-desegregation list Discussion of LRSD document with Budget Specialist. Regular Board meeting\nDesegregation Audit update. LRSD Council work session to refine budget calendar, tasks and responsible persons. Interim Superintendent Interim Superintendent Interim Superintendent LRSD Council LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Interim Superintendent LRSD Council LRSD Cabinet LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent LRSD Council 1 Ir H II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS Q II n II n II n a n II n II n n DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) July 26, 1993 July 26. 1993 July 27, 1993 July 27, 1993 July 28, 1993 July 28, 1993 July 29, 1993 July 30, 1993 July 30. 1993 August. 1993 August 2. 1993 August 3. 1993 August 4. 1993 August 4, 1993 August 5. 1993 Work session to discuss rewrite of LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document. Copy sent to Board for review prior to the July 28. 1993. Board meeting. Completed review of secondary schools staffing. Designated the Director of Planning. Research. \u0026amp; Evaluation as the lead planner. Stephens School site selection process. Memo from Budget Specialist regarding Program Planning and Budget Document. Special Board meeting\ndiscussed and reviewed draft of LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document with the Board. Thorough discussion of the document by the Board, which adopted the planning and budgeting process. Changes made to the LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document to reflect Board input. Defined needs assessment process, format and purpose. LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document filed with the Court and sent to Board members. Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish mission statement and tentative goals. LRSD Council meeting to discuss planning process. Meeting with Budget Specialist regarding Desegregation Audit and budget process. Began position control document edit. LRSD Council meeting to discuss: / Proportional allocation formulas  Public and District forums  Monthly and quarterly reporting Initiated plans for community and District forums. Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Interim Superintendent Director. Human Resources Interim Superintendent Site Selection Committee Director of Planning. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Director of Planning. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Interim Superintendent LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Director of Planning. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Director. Human Resources Manager of Support Services Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Director of Planning. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation 2r H H PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS II II DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) August 6, 1993 II H II li II II n II II II n H August 6, 1993 August 10. 1993 August 11, 1993 August 16, 1993 August 17, 1993 August 20, 1993 August 20, 1993 August 23, 1993 August 24, 1993 August 25, 1994 August 26, 1993 August 27, 1993 August 30, 1993 August 30, 1993 August 31, 1993 Requested copies of City of Little Rock Needs Assessment for Future Little Rock project. Revision of Budget Specialists procedures document. Stephens School site selection process. Joint meeting of LRSD Board/City of Little Rock Board. Discussion of Desegregation Plan and Future Little Rock Task Force report. Organized position control team and established team meeting dates. Distributed draft of Procedures Manual. Began development of proportional allocation formulas. Conducted work session in preparation for goal setting work session. Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies Position Control Team meeting. Reviewed responses to draft of Position Control Procedures Manual. Stephens School site selection process. LRSD Cabinet discussion of planning document\npre-goal setting. Regular Board meeting: report on the Program Planning and Budget process. Began development of monitoring and reporting procedures and issued instructions, as needed. Position Control Team meeting. Discussion of:  Standardization of forms  Manual revisions  Monthly manpower reports LRSD Council meeting:  Discussed Fast Track Evaluation format  Developed topics to evaluate Filed August Project Management Tool with Court. Interim Superintendent Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Site Selection Committee LRSD Board of Directors Director. Human Resources Manager of Support Services Manager of Support Services Superintendent LRSD Council Marketing Consultant Director. Human Resources Manager of Support Services Site Selection Committee Interim Superintendent LRSD Cabinet LRSD Board of Directors Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services Interim Superintendent LRSD Council Interim Superintendent 3r H II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS N II n n DATE August 31, 1993 August 31, 1993 Septembers, 1993 September 1, 1993 ACTIVITY Work session with Board. Developed mission statement and tentative goals. Stephens School site selection process. Distribution of Program Planning and Budget Document diskettes. Format developed by Budget Specialist. Stephens School site selection process. RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent Site Selection Committee Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Site Selection Committee n September 9, 1993 Hired Planning Specialist. LRSD Board of Directors September 9, 1993 H n a q q q q q September 10, 1993 September 13, 1993 September 15, 1993 Special Board meeting during which the Board:  Approved mission statement and tentative goals from August 31, 193 session.  Reviewed:  Issues related to needs assessment  Desegregation Program Inventory Report  Mission Statement/Goals / Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formula  Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for fast track evaluation  Provided input regarding public forums Filed Desegregation Audit with Court. Position Control Team meeting. Completed revisions to forms and manual. Discussed implementation schedule/plan. Participation in LRSD/City of Little Rock Collaborative Effort. Discussed Desegregation Plan. LRSD Board of Directors Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services LRSD Board of Directors q 4d d PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS II If q q q q II n If II II II II M n DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) September 15, 1993 September 16, 1993 September 18, 1993 September 20, 1993 September 22-23, 1993 September 23, 1993 September 23, 1993 September 21,1993 September 29, 1993 September 30, 1993 September 30, 1993 October 1, 1993 October 4, 1993 October 5, 1993 October 8, 1993 October 11, 1993 Held principals meetings to review: Z Mission Statement Z Goals Z Program Planning and Budget Document Z Program Budget Document terms and data element definitions Z Desegregation Plan/School Operations Z 1993-94 Budget Allocation Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies. Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies. Inservice for inputing achievements on the Program Planning and Budget Document. Regular Board meeting. Board raised issues and gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document). Position Control Team meeting. Drafted implementation plan. Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies. Position Control Team meeting. Dratted instructions for using forms. Filed September Project Management Tool with Court. Position Control Team meeting. Package manual for approval. Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies. Conducted follow-up training for using the WordPerfect file. Position Control Team meeting. Distributed manpower and substitute usage reports. Discussed new monthly internal reporting. Held public forum at Cloverdale Elementary School. LRSD Council LRSD Council Marketing Consultant LRSD Council Marketing Consultant Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation LRSD Board of Directors Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services LRSD Council Marketing Consultant Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services Interim Superintendent Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services LRSD Council Marketing Consultant Instructional Resources Center Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services Superintendent 5r ri ri PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS ri ri DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) October 12, 1993 ri ri ri H H ri 11 11 d II ri ri October 13, 1993 October 15, 1993 October 19, 1993 October 26, 1993 October 28, 1993 October 31, 1993 November 2, 1993 November 3, 1993 November 8, 1993 November 10, 1993 November 10, 1993 November 12, 1993 November 15, 1993 November 16, 1993 November 16, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies. Work session with Associate Monitor. ODM. Position Control Team meeting. Completed instructions for forms. Reassignment of employee to Human Resources as project manager to implement position control procedures and data analysis. Held public forum at Parkview Magnet High School. Regular Board meeting\nstatus report regarding outsourcing. Fiied October Project Management Tooi with Court. Orientation of new Board members, including the planning and budget process. Filed First Quarter Status Report of the Program Planning and Budget Document with Court. LRSD Council meeting to discuss:  Non-desegregation Programs  Proportional allocation formulas  Review of management tool and development of process for improving the document LRSD Council reviewed the Desegregation Audit - Phase II and categorized all desegregation commitments recently submitted to Court. Held public forum at Bale Elementary School. LRSD Council work session on Desegregation Audit. LRSD Council meeting to discuss nondesegregation programs. Held public forum at Forest Heights Junior High School. Court approval of magnet school budgets. LRSD Council Marketing Consultant Manager of Support Services Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent Magnet Review Committee 6r II H PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS II II q II q II q II II n n II n H DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) November 18, 1993 November 19, 1993 November 22, 1993 November 23, 1993 November 29, 1993 November 30, 1993 November 30, 1993 November 30, 1993 December 2, 1993 December 2, 1994 December 3, 1993 December 3, 1993 December 6, 1993 Regular Board meeting during which Board members: / Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and 1993-94 (numbers, costs) / Requested a report for our December 17, 1993, Board meeting on the projections for the 1994-95 budget, as well as deficit shortfalls / Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993, Board meeting LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss business case formats. LRSD Council meeting to discuss criteria for Fast Track Evaluation\nbusiness cases submitted to ODM. District Dialogues meeting with central office administration. LRSD Council meeting to discuss:  Proportional allocation formulas  Non-desegregation programs  Project Management Tool Developed 94-95 budget training material. Filed November Project Management Tool with Court. Held public forum at Rockefeller Incentive School Special Board meeting. Reviewed Project Management Tool and Program Planning and Budget Document. Approved tentative organizational chart. Response by Human Resources regarding the Boards November 18 request for staffing information. Developed instructions for 94-95 budget preparation. Filed Notice of LRSD Board Involvement with Court. Held public forum at Garland Incentive School. LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent LRSD Cabinet Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Council Manager of Support Services Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Board of Directors Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services Superintendent Superintendent 7F H II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS N II n II H H n n n II II n n n DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Decembers, 1993 December 9, 1993 December 13, 1993 December 13, 1993 December 14, 1993 December 15, 1993 December 15, 1993 December 16, 1993 December 17. 1994 December 22, 1993 December 31. 1993 January 4, 1994 January 6, 1994 January 7, 1994 January 10. 1994 LRSD Council meeting to discuss\n Desegregation Audit / Proportional allocation formulas Meeting with program supervisors regarding new internal reports and the 94-95 budget process. LRSD Council meeting to discuss action plan to address the Incentive School Monitoring Report. Participation in LRSD/City of Little Rock Collaborative Effort. Discussed Desegregation Plan. Work session with elementary principals: / Rediscussed new internal monthly reports / Distributed 94-95 proposed budget allocations / Distributed 94-95 budget instructions District Dialogues meeting with teachers. Met with Support Services Directors and other department heads regarding the 94-95 budget process and allocations. Regular Board meeting\napproved business case to purchase Romine theme equipment\nupdate on 94- 95 budgeting process and meetings with budget managers. Fiied LRSD 1993-94 Budget with Court. Received distribution of 1993 final tax settlement funds. First notice of distribution problem. Filed December Project Management Tool with Court. District Council meeting to discuss:  Desegregation Audit - Phase II  Board Retreat  Fast Track Evaluations District Dialogues meeting with principals. Met with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand regarding outsourcing. District Council meeting to discuss early retirement incentive and Desegregation Audit - Phase II. Superintendent LRSD Council Manager of Support Services Superintendent LRSD Council LRSD Board of Directors Manager of Support Services Superintendent Manager of Support Services LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent Manager of Support Services Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent LRSD Council 8r II H PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS II n n II H H II II II u DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) January 11, 1994 January 12, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 18, 1994 January 18, 1994 Meeting with county officials to discuss shortfall on final tax settlement. Filed Response of LRSD to ODM Budget with Court. Met with County Collector to discuss final tax settlement progress. Met with Budget Specialist to discuss: Z Overview of new process Z Use of Tool Z Desegregation and Non-desegregation expenditures Met with instructional supervisors to discuss Fast Track Evaluations. Special Board meeting\ndiscussion of agenda for Board Retreat. LRSD Council meeting to discuss\nZ Board Retreat Z Fast Track Evaluations Z Proportional Allocation Formulas Z Desegregation Audit - Phase II Met with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand regarding outsourcing. Manager of Support Services Superintendent Manager of Support Services Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Manager of Support Services Deputy Superintendent LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent LRSD Council LRSD Board of Directors January 28, 1994 LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss the Project Management Tool and training. Superintendent LRSD Cabinet II II n H January 31, 1994 January 31, 1994 February 1, 1994 February 2, 1994 February 3, 1994 February 3, 1994 February 3, 1994 LRSD Council meeting to discuss transportation issues and fleet. Filed January Project Management Tool with Court. LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss Fast Track Evaluations. Discussion of Board Retreat. Met with Budget Specialist to discuss: Z Desegregation/Non-Desegregation expenditures Z Program Planning and Budget Document Joint meeting of LRSD/City of Little Rock regarding Future Little Rock Task Force joint efforts. District Dialogues meeting with classified staff. Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Cabinet LRSD Council Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Manager of Support Services LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent 9II II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS n II n II n II n II w II n DATE February 4, 1994 February 4-5, 1994 February 7, 1994 February 7, 1994 February 9, 1994 February 9, 1994 February 14, 1994 February 15, 1994 February 15, 1994 February 17, 1994 February 18, 1994 ACTIVITY LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss:  Program Planning and Budget Document mini inservice  Project Management Tool  Studies and Reports: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test  Curriculum Audit  Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey  Student Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Board Retreat. Discussion of the budget process from July 1, 1993 to present and 1994-95 major budget issues^ LRSD Council meeting to discuss:  Board Retreat  Early retirement incentive program  Negotiations  Fast Track Evaluations Filed Second Quarter Status Report of the Program Planning and Budget Document with Court. ASBO Convention. Discussed Workers Compensation and 94-95 budget impact. Announcement of State Aid miscalcuiation and reiease of statewide printout showing effects. State Board of Education meeting regarding state aid shortfall. Met with Magnet Review Committee regarding status of the 94-95 budget process. Magnet school principals in attendance provided input. Met with County Assessor to discuss final tax settlement. Special Board meeting regarding:  State Aid shortfall  Early retirement incentive  Outsourcing  Bond Refunding Meeting with Governor Tucker regarding State Aid issues. 10 RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Superintendent LRSD Cabinet LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent Superintendent LRSD Council Superintendent Manager of Support Services Manager of Support Services Manager of Support Services Manager of Support Services Manager of Support Services LRSD Board of Directors SuperintendentF II II PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS N II q q q q II q q q q q q q DATE ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) February 21-22, 1994 February 21-24, 1994 February 21-23, 1994 February 23, 1994 February 24, 1994 Meetings with individual Board members regarding program planning and budgeting. District Council meetings to discuss program planning and budgeting in preparation for Court hearing on February 25, 1994. District Council meetings to complete Phase II of Desegregation Audit. Joint Interim Education Committee meeting regarding school funding formula\ndistribution of revised data. Meeting with local legislators to discuss school funding issues. 11 Superintendent Manager of Support Services Superintendent LRSD Council LRSD Council Manager of Support Services LRSD Board of Directorsr II II II H q q q q q II q q 11 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE SEVEN MONTH PERIODS ENDED JANUARY 31,1993 4 1994 APPROVED 1992/93 RECEIPTS 01/31/93 % COLLECTED APPROVED 1993/94 RECEIPTS 01/31/94 % COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS___________ TOTAL REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX______________ TOTAL REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,576 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100.857 66.559,406 39.701,855 2,363,973 0 145,690 245,270 245,162 115,067 188,336 0 43.005.:^ 101.57% 41,027,982 55.62% 0.00% 104.06% 81.76% 109.12% 24.96% 62.78% 0.00% 4,502,692 21,420,949 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 64.61% 68382,399 39,161,056 3,056,253 _________0 146,379 259,545 162,353 28,202 159,042 _________0 42.992,830 95.45% 67.88% 0.00% 100.47% 85.66% 74.38% 5.83% 45.44% 0.00% 62.69% 73,419 11,000 84,419 48,952 0 48,952 66.67% 0.00% 57.99% 73,419 18,000 91,419 36,605 0\n36,605 49.86% 0.00% 40.04% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL________________ TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 3,000 229,403 2,692,563 2,490,900 697,589 548,034 46,367,563 14,969,069 3,889,954 _________0 36,714 512,902 8,580 3,540 160,194 985,510 756,256 432,991 422,702 22.1^,412 55.35% 43.58% 0.00% 50.01% 38.22% 1.04% 118.00% 69.83% 36.60% 30.36% 62.07% 77.13% 25,350,138 8,094,112 ________0 ________0 1,341,887 1,210,000 3,540 240,873 2,700,000 2,883,425 768,715 575,435 14,132,267 4,036,652 ________0 ________0 605,261 325,396 47.83% 43.168.125 _________0_ 144,626 2,191,636 930,703 350,079 _________0_ 22,716.622 55.75% 49.67% 0.00% 0.00% 45.11% 26.69% 0.00% 60.04% 61.17% 32.28% 45.54% 0.00% 5Z62% 40,000 262,000 600,000 902.000 113,913.388 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,278,796 14,278,796 134,471,434 21,795 0 0 21,795 65,254,512 1,799,383 0 228,647 505,350 2,533.380 5,128,287 5,128,287 72,916,179 12 54.49% 0.00% 0.00% ^42% 57.28% 41.96% 0.00% 38.82% 42,59% 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 113.631.943 0 1,023 0 1.023 65.747,080 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.06% 57.86% 4,280,691 192,433 624,024 1,091,051 40.35% 6.188.199 0 0 443,733 638,918 1,082,651 0.00% 0.00% 71.11% 58.56% 17.50% 35.92% 14,554,670 35.92% 14.554,670 54.22% 134,374,812 4,025,674 4,025,674 70,855,405 27.66% 27.66% 52.73%r II II II II II q II q q q q q q q q LITTLE RCTCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE SEVEN MONTH PERIODS ENDED JANUARY 31.1993 i 1994 EXPENDTFURES SALARIES BENEFITS PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATINQ EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES APPROVED 1992/93 EXPENDED 01/31/93 % EXPENDED APPROVED 1993/94 EXPENDED 01/31/94 % EXPENDED 73.581,345 9,941,433 21,652,668 9,597,115 500,000 115.272561 6,764.930 14,278,796 136.316.287 33,066,131 4,580,143 9,552,641 8,753,445 0 55.952.380 2,128,177 5,802,374 63.882511 13 44.94% 46.07% 44.12% 91.21% 0.00% 48.S44t 31.46% 40.64% 75,954523 9,306,556 21,849,168 8,870,123 1,000,000 116.980.370 7.074,106 14,554,670 48.86% 138.609.148 34.719,475 4,325,538 8,528,359 8,207,713 0 55.781.0 2.310.223 6,032,285 64.123593 45.71% 46.48% 39.03% 92.53% 0.00% 47.6W 32.66% 41.45% 48.26% Lr n  II II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTWCT 1992-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ACTUAL AND PROJECTED FOR COURT SUBMISSION 02-25-94 n ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94 ACTUAL 01/31/94 ESTIMATED 2/1-6/30 PROJECTED 06-30-94 q q q REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196.979 21,081.833 4.250.186 140.858 241.476 224.667 406.878 354.446 100.857 39.701.855 22.220.949 4.293.380 145.690 360.734 245.162 574.918 208.519 87.005 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,502,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 464,050 350,000 102,874 39,161,056 0 3,056,253 146,379 259,545 182,353 28,202 159,042 0 429,023 21,420,949 1,771,117 0 43,455 0 455,848 160,000 102,874 39.590.079 21.420.949 4.827.370 146.379 303.000 182.353 484.050 319.042 102.874 q TOTAL 64,998,180 87,838^12 88^,399 42,992,830 24,383,266 67,376,096 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73.419 15.350 73,428 18.031 73.419 18.000 36.605 0 36.814 18.000 73.419 18.000 TOTAL 88,769 91,459 91.419 36,605 54,814 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27.264.460 8.637.482 4.500.000 73.426 1.513.699 824.870 147.050 3.000 2.379.879 858.743 1.770.486 697.589 25.275.221 8.926.606 1.500.000 72.694 1.261.451 1.139.235 234.403 3.540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799344 25.350.138 8.094.112 0 0 1.341,887 1210.000 240.873 3340 2.700.000 575.435 2.883.425 768.715 14,132,267 4,036,652 0 0 605,261 325,396 144,626 0 2,191,638 0 930,703 350,079 11,437,544 4,057,460 0 0 736,626 884,604 96,247 3,540 506,362 575,435 1,952,722 418,636 25.569.811 8.094.112 0 0 1.341.887 1.210.000 240.873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 iK i ~7') TOTAL 48,670,684 45,101.764 43,166.125 22,716,622 20,671.176 43.387.798 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9.385 129.426 394.675 40.866 171.006 40.000 1.250.000 500.000 0 1.023 0 40.000 1.248.977 500.000 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 TOTAL 533,488 211,872 1,790,000 1,023 1,788,977 1,790,000 TOTAL REVBJUE OPERATINQ 114,291,121 113,243.307 1113,631.943 65,747.080 46.898.233 112.645,313 14H II II II n n q II q q q q I I UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-94 REVENUE ANO EXPENDITURES ACTUAL ANO PROJECTED FOR COURT SUBMISSION 02-25-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATEA-OCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVB4UE EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFTTS SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR TOTAL OPERATMQ EXPBISES EXPENSeS-FEDERAL GRAffTS ACTUAL 1991-92 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 5.222.843 13,887,841 13,887.8*1 133,401.805 73,191,213 8,992,742 22,470,043 7,950,100 0 0 112,604,098 5,132,152 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPBJSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 13,887,841 131.624,091 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 2,965,048 ACTUAL 1992-93 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 8,313,986 13,548,434 13.548:434 1ffl,105.727 71,912,128 9,908,175 20,080,366 9,554535 0 714,896 112,170,100 5,992,216 13,548,434 131,710,750 1,394,977 643,181 2,321,867 964,951 3,395,074 4,360,025 BUDGET 1993-94 4,280,691 192,433 624,024 1,091,051 6.188,189 14,554,670 14,554,670 134.374,812 75,954523 9,306,556 21,849,168 8,870,123 1,000,000 0 116,980\n370 7,074,106 14,554,670 138,609,146 (4,234,334) 964,951 4,109,970 79,044 761,544 840587 15 ACTUAL 01/31/94 ______0 ______0 443,733 638,918 1,062,651 4,025,674 4,025,674 70,855,405 34,719,475 4,325538 8,526,359 8,207,713 ________0 0 55,781,085 2,310,223 6,032,285 64,123,593 6,731,812 964,951 4,109,970 (262,621) 12,069,355 11,806.734 ESTIMATED 2/1-6/30 4,280,691 192,433 180,291 452,133 5,105,548 10,528,996 10,528,996 62,532,777 41,129,646 4,964,517 13,155,072 642,410 _________0 0 59,891,645 4,763,883 8,522,385 73,177.913 (10,645,136) 875,218 PROJECTED 06-30-94 4,280,691 192,433 624,024 1,091,051 6,188,199 14,554,670 14^554,670 133,388,182 75,849,121 9,290,055 21,683,431 8,850,123 _________0 0 115,672,730 7,074,106 14,554,670 137,301,506 (3,913,324) 964,951 4,985,188 341,665 (10,111,583) (9,769.918) 79,044 1,957,771 2,036,815 II II II II II H H H H H II u u H II n LfTTLEROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-95 REVENUE ANO EXPENDITURES ACTUAL AND PROJECTED FOR COURT SUBMISSION 02-25-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES____________ 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES_________ EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL REVENUE - STA TE SOURCES MFPA_______________________ SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS_________ ADULT EDUCATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874________________ TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE OPERATINQ ACTUAL 1992-93 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 87,005 67,838,212 73,428 18,031 91.453 25,275,221 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 45,101,764 40,866 171,006 0 211,872 113,2+3,307 16 PROJECTED 1993-94 39,590,079 21,420,949 4,827,370 146,379 303,000 182,353 484,050 319,042 102,874 7,378,096 73,419 18,000 91,419 25,569,811 8,094,112 0 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 \u0026lt;3,387,798 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 112,6+5,313 PROJECTED 1994-95 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 140,000 300,000 180,000 475,731 322,232 100,000 66,341,331 73,419 18,000 91,419 26,778,326 6,042,591 0 0 1,200,000 1,510,000 250,000 3,540 3,300,000 580,435 3,100,000 768,715 43,533,607 38,000 600,000 400,000 1,038,000 111,00+,^ ASSUMPT 1994-95 (1) (2) (3) (4) LII u 11 n ii q q q 11 q q q LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-95 REVENUE ANO EXPENDITURES ACTUAL AND PROJECTED FOR COURT SUBMISSION 02-25-94 ACmjAL 1992-93 PROJECTED 1993-94 PROJECTED 1994-95 ASSUMPT 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B___________________ OTHER TOTM. REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL REVENUE MgBcaa'............ TOTAL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS SERVICES.su PP.EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR ENCUMB TOTAL OPERAHNQ EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDSiAL GRAFTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUNO BALANCE FEDERAL_________________ OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 4.288.755 215.020 589.011 1.221.200 6,313,986 13,548,434 13348,434 133,105,727 71.912.128 9.908.175 20.080.366 9.554.535 0 714,896 112.170,100 5,992,216 13,548,434 131.710,750 1,394,977 643,181 2,321,867 964.951 3.395.074 4.360.02S- 17 4.280.691 192.433 624.024 1.091.051 6,188,199 14,554,670 14354,670 133.388,182 75.849,121 9,290,055 21,683,431 6,850,123 0 0 115.672,730 7,074,106 14,554,670 137,301,506 (3,913,324) 964,951 4,985,188 79.044 1.957.771 2,036315 4,280,691 192,433 624,024 1,400,000 6.497.148 14,991,310 14,991,310 132,493X16 78.372.896 9.625.474 22.649.762 8.620.475 1.000.000 0 120.268,608 6.491,192 14,991,310 141,751,110 (9,257,694) 79.044 1.957.771 85.000 (7.305.880) (7320.880) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (9)n II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II ASSUMPTIONS 1994-95 II (1) II Current taxes will experience only minimal growth. A net reduction will occur in this line item when combined with the full year effect of the loss of revenues from household goods. ll (2) Delinquencies will remain relatively constant due to declining collection rates in previous years. II (3) The Arkansas Legislature will address formula concerns by converting to a fixed charge rate for personal and utility properties as well as infusing new dollars to create additional revenues. (4) II Recruiting efforts for the new Pulaski County Special School District interdistrict school will generate additional transportation reimbursement and M-to-M funding. II (5) Additional funds will be secured as a result of the efforts of the new grant writer. H q H (6) Vigorous recruitment efforts by the Little Rock School District will increase enrollment at the six original magnets. II II (7) Funds are included for increments for all employees and eight (8) additional 4-year old teachers and aides. (8) Funds are included for the Workers Compensation Insurance Program which must be funded by the District beginning July 1,1994. Additional requirements for lease purchase obligations are also included. (9) Savings as a result of current proposed and prior approved debt restructuring. 18LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POTENTIAL BUDGET STRATEGIES 1994-95 Institution of an early retirement incentive program (with 100 participants) Potential Reduction Measures $ 1,000,000 9 ^0 ^(7) Salary freeze 2,286,000 Elimination of two (2) teacher contract days (changes contract length to 190 days) School closing (per location) Adjustments to vocational teacher contract lengths Reductions to fringe benefit contributions by 10% Outsourcing of transportation program 700,000 275,000 278,000 400,000 600,000 Redesign of delivery of Sth period 200,000 (9) (10) X(\") (12) Reduction in contribution to New Futures program Reduction in materials and supplies (1%) Millage election (1 mill - 40% pullback) Draw down in desegregation loan fund 19 200,000 46,000 575,000 2.000,000 $ 8,560,000 LBBS\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1102","title":"\"Little Rock School District 1994-1995 Budget Development Activities\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-02-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District 1994-1995 Budget Development Activities\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1102"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["236 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994--95 BUDGET DEVELOPMENTACTWITIES Court Submission February 25, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Program Planning and Budgeting Process Chart Chronology of Events Revenue and Expenditures for the Seven Month Periods Ended January 31, 1993 \u0026amp; 1994 1992-94 Revenue and Expenditures 1992-95 Revenue and Expenditures Assumptions 1994-95 Strategies 1994-95 Page No. 1 12 14 16 18 19 Program Planning \u0026amp; Budgeting Process February 25, 1994 Management Tool 1 5 6 7 8 12 13 M 15 19 20 21 26 'X1 little Rock School District 1994-95 2 3 4 9 10 11 Students Public Input ++ Completed + In Progress - To be done in sequence I DATE July 1, 1993 July 9, 1993 7:00 p.m. July 12, 1993 July 14, 1993 July 15, 1993 July 13-16, 1993 July 19, 1993 July 21 , 1993 July 22, 1993 July 23, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS I ACTMTY I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Began fiscal year 93-94. LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent During Special Board Meeting, distributed draft of Interim Superintendent Budget Specialist's Program Planning and Budget Document to:  Board of Directors  LRSD Administrators  Public LRSD Council meeting to discuss of: Interim Superintendent  Staffing efficiency  Citizen and employee suggestions relating to prior year  Planning process  Budget Reductions Began to identify programs for \"fast-track\" Interim Superintendent evaluation. LRSD Council Special Board meeting\nBoard approved the LRSD Board of Directors closing of lsh School. Reviewed Budget Specialist's document. Initial Interim Superintendent LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document LRSD Council drafted. LRSD Council meeting including: Interim Superintendent  Program identification and coding of final LRSD Council list by Budget Specialist  Began work on non-desegregation list Discussion of LRSD document with Budget LRSD Cabinet Specialist. Regular Board meeting\nDesegregation Audit LRSD Board of Directors update. LRSD Council work session to refine budget Interim Superintendent calendar, tasks and responsible persons. LRSD Council 1 I PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS I DATE I ACTMTY I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) I July 26, 1993 Work session to discuss rewrite of LRSD Program Interim Superintendent Planning and Budget Document Copy sent to LRSD Council Board for review prior to the July 28, 1993, Board meeting. July 26, 1993 Completed review of secondary schools staffing. Interim Superintendent Director, Human Resources July 27, 1993 Designated the Director of Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Interim Superintendent Evaluation as the lead planner. July 27, 1993 Stephens School site selection process. Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Memo from Budget Specialist regarding Program Director of Planning, Research Planning and Budget Document. \u0026amp; Evaluation July 28, 1993 Special Board meeting\ndiscussed and reviewed LRSD Board of Directors draft of LRSD Program Planning and Budget Interim Superintendent Document with the Board. Thorough discussion of the document by the Board, which adopted the planning and budgeting process. July 29, 1993 Changes made to the LRSD Program Planning and Interim Superintendent Budget Document to reflect Board input. LRSD Council July 30, 1993 Defined needs assessment process, fonnat and Director of Planning, Research purpose. \u0026amp; Evaluation July 30, 1993 LRSD Program Planning and Budget Document Interim Superintendent filed with the Court and sent to Board members. August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in LRSD Board of Directors work sessions to establish mission statement and Interim Superintendent tentative goals. August 2, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss planning Interim Superintendent process. LRSD Council August 3, 1993 Meeting with Budget Specialist regarding Director of Planning, Research Desegregation Audit and budget process. \u0026amp; Evaluation August 4, 1993 Began position control document edit. Director, Human Resources Manager of Support Services August 4, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss: Interim Superintendent  Proportional allocation formulas LRSD Council  Public and District forums  Monthly and quarterly reporting August 5, 1993 Initiated plans for community and District forums. Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation 2 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS I DATE I ACTM1Y I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) I August 6, 1993 Requested copies of City of Little Rock Needs Interim Superintendent Assessment for Future Little Rock project. August 6, 1993 Revision of Budget Specialist's procedures Director of Planning, Research document. \u0026amp; Evaluation August 1 O, 1993 Stephens School site selection process. Site Selection Committee August 11 , 1993 Joint meeting of LRSD Board/City of Little Rock LRSD Board of Directors Board. Discussion of Desegregation Plan and Future Little Rock Task Force report. August 16, 1993 Organized position control team and established Director, Human Resources team meeting dates. Distributed draft of Manager of Support Services Procedures Manual. August 17, 1993 Began development of proportional allocation Manager of Support Services formulas. August 20, 1993 Conducted work session in preparation for goal Superintendent setting work session. August 20, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment strategies LRSD Council Marketing Consultant August 23, 1993 Position Control T earn meeting. Reviewed Director, Human Resources responses to draft of Position Control Procedures Manager of Support Services Manual. August 24, 1993 Stephens School site selection process. Site Selection Committee August 25, 1994 LRSD Cabinet discussion of planning document\nInterim Superintendent pre-goal setting. LRSD Cabinet August 26, 1993 Regular Board meeting\nreport on the Program LRSD Board of Directors Planning and Budget process. August 27, 1993 Began development of monitoring and reporting Director of Planning, Research procedures and issued Instructions, as needed. \u0026amp; Evaluation August 30, 1993 Position Control T earn meeting. Discussion of: Director, Human Resources  Standardization of forms Manager of Support Services  Manual revisions  Monthly manpower reports August 30, 1993 LRSD Council meeting: Interim Superintendent  Discussed Fast Track Evaluation format LRSD Council  Developed topics to evaluate August 31 , 1993 Filed August Project Management Tool with Court. Interim Superintendent 3  PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS I DATE I ACTIVI1Y I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) I August 31, 1993 Work session with Board. Developed mission LRSD Board of Directors statement and tentative goals. Interim Superintendent II August 31, 1993 Stephens School site selection process. Site Selection Committee September 3, 1993 Distribution of Program Planning and Budget Director of Planning, Research Document diskettes. Format developed by Budget \u0026amp; Evaluation Specialist. September 7, 1993 Stephens School site selection process. Site Selection Committee September 9, 1993 Hired Planning Specialist. LRSD Board of Directors September 9, 1993 Special Board meeting during which the Board: LRSD Board of Directors  Approved mission statement and tentative goals from August 31, 193 session.  Reviewed:  Issues related to needs assessment  Desegregation Program Inventory Report  Mission Statement/Goals  Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formula  Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for \"fast track evaluation  Provided input regarding public forums September 10, 1993 Filed Desegregation Audit with Court. Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation September 13, 1993 Position Control T earn meeting. Completed Director, Human Resources revisions to forms and manual. Discussed Manager of Support Services implementation schedule/plan. September 15, 1993 Participation in LRSD /City of Little Rock LRSD Board of Directors Collaborative Effort. Discussed Desegregation Plan. 4 ii ii PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS ii DATE ACTMTY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) September 15, 1993 Held principals' meetings to review: LASO Council September 16, 1993  Mission Statement September 18, 1993  Goals  Program Planning and Budget Document  Program Budget Document terms and data element definitions  Desegregation Plan/School Operations  1993-94 Budget Allocation September 20, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment LASO Council strategies. Marketing Consultant September 22-23, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment LASO Council strategies. Marketing Consultant September 23, 1993 lnservice for inputing achievements on the Program Director of Planning, Research Planning and Budget Document. \u0026amp; Evaluation September 23, 1993 Regular Board meeting. Board raised issues and LASO Board of Directors gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document). September 27, 1993 Position Control Team meeting. Drafted Director, Human Resources implementation plan. Manager of Support Services September 29, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment LASO Council strategies. Marketing Consultant September 30, 1993 Position Control Team meeting. Drafted Director, Human Resources instructions for using forms. Manager of Support Services September 30, 1993 Filed September Project Management Tool with Interim Superintendent Court. October 1 , 1993 Position Control Team meeting. Package manual Director, Human Resources for approval. Manager of Support Services October 4, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment LASO Council strategies. Marketing Consultant October 5, 1993 Conducted follow-up training for using the Instructional Resources Center WordPerfect file. October 8, 1993 Position Control Team meeting. Distributed Director, Human Resources manpower and substitute usage reports. Manager of Support Services Discussed new monthly internal reporting. October 11 , 1993 Held public forum at Cloverdale Elementary Superintendent School. 5 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS I DATE I ACTIVI1Y I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) I October 12, 1993 Preparation of marketing and recruitment LRSD Council strategies. Marketing Consultant October 13, 1993 Work session with Associate Monitor, ODM. Manager of Support Services October 15, 1993 Position Control Team meeting. Completed Director, Human Resources instructions for forms. Manager of Support Services October 19, 1993 Reassignment of employee to Human Resources Superintendent as project manager to implement position control procedures and data analysis. October 26, 1993 Held public forum at Parkview Magnet High Superintendent School. October 28, 1993 Regular Board meeting\nstatus report regarding LRSD Board of Directors outsourcing. October 31 , 1993 Filed October Project Management Tool with Court. Superintendent November 2, 1993 Orientation of new Board members, including the Superintendent planning and budget process. November 3, 1993 Filed First Quarter Status Report of the Program Superintendent Planning and Budget Document with Court. November 8, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Non-desegregation Programs LRSD Council  Proportional allocation formulas  Review of management tool and development of process for improving the document November 10, 1993 LRSD Council reviewed the Desegregation Audit - Superintendent Phase II and categorized all desegregation LRSD Council commitments recently submitted to Court. November 10, 1993 Held public forum at Bale Elementary School. Superintendent November 12, 1993 LRSD Council work session on Desegregation Superintendent Audit. LRSD Council November 15, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss non- Superintendent desegregation programs. LRSD Council November 16, 1993 Held public forum at Forest Heights Junior High Superintendent School. November 16, 1993 Court approval of magnet school budgets. Magnet Review Committee 6 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS DATE ACTMTY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) November 18, 1993 Regular Board meeting during which Board LRSD Board of Directors members:  Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and 1993-94 (numbers, costs)  Requested a report for our December 17, 1993, Board meeting on the projections for the 1994-95 budget, as well as deficit shortfalls  Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993, Board meeting November 19, 1993 LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss business case Superintendent formats. LRSD Cabinet November 22, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss criteria for Fast Superintendent Track Evaluation\nbusiness cases submitted to LRSD Council ODM. November 23, 1993 District Dialogues meeting with central office Superintendent administration. November 29, 1993 LRSD Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Proportional allocation formulas LRSD Council  Non-desegregation programs  Project Management Tool November 30, 1993 Developed 94-95 budget training material. Manager of Support Services November 30, 1993 Filed November Project Management To0I with Superintendent Court. November 30, 1993 Held public forum at Rockefeller Incentive School Superintendent December 2, 1993 Special Board meeting. Reviewed Project LRSD Board of Directors Management Tool and Program Planning and Budget Document. Approved tentative organizational chart. December 2, 1994 Response by Human Resources regarding the Director, Human Resources Board's November 18 request for staffing information. December 3, 1993 Developed instructions for 94-95 budget Manager of Support Services preparation. December 3, 1993 Filed Notice of LRSD Board Involvement with Superintendent Court. December 6, 1993 Held public forum at Garland Incentive School. Superintendent 7 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS DATE ACTMTY RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) December 6, 1993 LASO Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Desegregation Audit LASO Council  Proportional allocation formulas December 9, 1993 Meeting with program supervisors regarding new Manager of Support Services Internal reports and the 94-95 budget process. December 13, 1993 LASO Council meeting to discuss action plan to Superintendent address the Incentive School Monitoring Report. LASO Council December 13, 1993 Participation in LRSD /City of Little Rock LASO Board of Directors Collaborative Effort. Discussed Desegregation Plan. December 14, 1993 Work session with elementary principals: Manager of Support Services  Rediscussed new internal monthly reports  Distributed 94-95 proposed budget allocations  Distributed 94-95 budget instructions December 15, 1993 District Dialogues meeting with teachers. Superintendent December 15, 1993 Met with Support Services Directors and other Manager of Support Services department heads regarding the 94-95 budget process and allocations. December 16, 1993 Regular Board meeting\napproved business case to LASO Board of Directors purchase Romine theme equipment\nupdate on 94- 95 budgeting process and meetings with budget managers. December 17, 1994 Filed LRSD 1993-94 Budget with Court. Superintendent December 22, 1993 Received distribution of 1993 final tax settlement Manager of Support Services funds. First notice of distribution problem. December 31, 1993 Filed December Project Management Tool with Superintendent Court. January 4, 1994 District Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Desegregation Audit - Phase II LASO Council  Board Retreat  Fast Track Evaluations January 6, 1994 District Dialogues meeting with principals. Superintendent January 7, 1994 Met with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand regarding LRSD Council outsourcing. January 1 O, 1994 District Council meeting to discuss early retirement Superintendent incentive and Desegregation Audit - Phase II. LASO Council 8 I I II ,a \"II DATE January 11 , 1994 January 12, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 13, 1994 January 18, 1994 January 18, 1994 January 28, 1994 January 31, 1994 January 31, 1994 February 1, 1994 February 2, 1994 February 3, 1994 February 3, 1994 February 3, 1994 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS ACTMTI RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) Meeting with county officials to discuss shortfall on Manager of Support Services final tax settlement. Filed Response of LRSD to ODM Budget with Superintendent Court. Met with County Collector to discuss final tax Manager of Support Services settlement progress. Met with Budget Specialist to discuss: Director of Planning, Research  Overview of new process \u0026amp; Evaluation  Use of Tool Manager of Support Services  Desegregation and Non-desegregation expenditures Met with instructional supervisors to discuss Fast Deputy Superintendent Track Evaluations. Special Board meeting\ndiscussion of agenda for LRSD Board of Directors Board Retreat. LRSD Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Board Retreat LRSD Council  Fast Track Evaluations  Proportional Allocation Formulas  Desegregation Audit  Phase II Met with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand regarding LRSD Board of Directors outsourcing. LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss the Project Superintendent Management Tool and training. LRSD Cabinet LRSD Council meeting to discuss transportation Superintendent issues and fleet. LRSD Council Filed January Project Management Tool with Court. Superintendent LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss Fast Track Superintendent Evaluations. LRSD Cabinet Discussion of Board Retreat. LRSD Council Met with Budget Specialist to discuss: Director of Planning, Research  Desegregation/ Non-Desegregation \u0026amp; Evaluation expenditures Manager of Support Services  Program Planning and Budget Document Joint meeting of LRSD /City of Little Rock regarding LRSD Board of Directors Future Little Rock Task Force joint efforts. District Dialogues meeting with classified staff. Superintendent 9 Ill II DATE February 4, 1994 February 4-5, 1994 February 7, 1994 February 7, 1994 February 9, 1994 February 9, 1994 February 14, 1994 February 15, 1994 February 15, 1994 February 17, 1994 February 18, 1994 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS ACTM1Y RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) LRSD Cabinet meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Program Planning and Budget Document LRSD Cabinet mini inservice  Project Management Tool  Studies and Reports: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit  Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey Student Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Board Retreat. Discussion of the budget process LRSD Board of Directors from July 1 , 1993 to present and 1994-95 major Superintendent budget issues. LRSD Council meeting to discuss: Superintendent  Board Retreat LRSD Council  Early retirement incentive program  Negotiations  Fast Track Evaluations Filed Second Quarter Status Report of the Program Superintendent Planning and Budget Document with Court. ASBO Convention. Discussed Worker's Manager of Support Services Compensation and 94-95 budget impact. Announcement of State Aid miscalculation and Manager of Support Services release of statewide printout showing effe9ts. State Board of Education meeting regarding state Manager of Support Services aid shortfall. Met with Magnet Review Committee regarding Manager of Support Services status of the 94-95 budget process. Magnet school principals in attendance provided input. Met with County Assessor to discuss final tax Manager of Support Services settlement. Special Board meeting regarding: LRSD Board of Directors  State Aid shortfall  Early retirement incentive  Outsourcing  Bond Refunding Meeting with Governor Tucker regarding State Aid Superintendent issues. 10 PROGRAM Pl.ANNING AND BUDGET PROCESS ii I DATE I ACTMTY I RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) I February 21-22, 1994 Meetings with individual Board members regarding Superintendent program planning and budgeting. Manager of Support Services February 21-24, 1994 District Council meetings to discuss program Superintendent planning and budgeting in preparation for Court LASO Council hearing on February 25, 1994. February 21-23, 1994 District Council meetings to complete Phase II of LASO Council Desegregation Audit. ii February 23, 1994 Joint Interim Education Committee meeting Manager of Support Services regarding school funding formula\ndistribution of revised data. February 24, 1994 Meeting with local legislators to discuss school LASO Board of Directors funding issues. a 1111 11 .. /. .  . }. . ..... LITTLE ROCK SCH90L DISTRICT . { ]    OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE SEVEN MONTH PERIODS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1993 \u0026amp; 1994.. n \u0026gt;: ..... x :.   . r  \u0026lt;'   . t t. . \\\\ APPROVED RECSPTS 1992/93 01/31/93 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 39,701,855 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 2,363,973 40% PULLBACK 21,694,576 0 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 145,690 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 245,270 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 245,162 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 115,067 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 188,336 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 0 CM, COLLECTED 101.57% 55.62% 0.00% 104.0SCWl 81.761Wl 109.1N 24.9\u0026amp;Ml 62.78% APPROVED 1993/94 41,027,982 4,502,692 21,420,949 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 RECEIPTS 01/31/94 39,161,056 3,056,253 0 146,379 259,545 182,353 28,202 159,042 0.OOCWl 102,874 0 TOTAL .. .... . ...... .. 66,5591~ ~.005.~ .. }) REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES ._ ... CM, COLLECTED 95.451Wl 67.881Wl o.~ 100.471!t 85.66% 74.38% 5.83% 45.44% 0.00% COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 48,952 66.SN 73,419 36,605 49.86CMJ SEVERANCE TAX ... .IOI~ ... , ......... ,., ..... . REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TOM ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL N .Y V' REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL OP.ERA.TING REVENUE REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLEVI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE 11,000 0 27,042,713 14,969,069 8,926,606 3,889,954 1,500,000 0 73,419 36,714 1,341,887 512,902 821,449 8,580 3,000 3,540 229,403 160,194 2,692.563 985,510 2,490,900 756,256 697,589 432,991 548,034 422,702 40,000 21,795 262,000 0 600,000 0 902,000 . 2U95 113,91_3.388 65,254,512 .. , 4,288,755 1,799,383 215,020 0 589,011 228,647 1,186,464 505,350 6,279,2SO 2.533.380 14,278,796 5,128,287 14.278,796 5,128,287 134,471,-434 72,916,179 12 0.00% 18,000 0 0.00% 55.35% 25,350,138 14,132,267 55.75% 43.58% 8,094,112 4,036,652 49.8N 0.00% 0 0 o.~ 50.01% 0 0 o.~ 38.2N 1,341,887 605,261 45.11% 1.04% 1,210,000 325,396 26.89% 118.00% 3,540 0 0.00% 69.831Wl 240,873 144,626 60.04% 36.WM: 2,700,000 2,191,638 81.17% 30.361Wl 2,883,425 930,703 32.28% 62.07% 768,715 350,079 45.54% n.13% 575,435 0 o.~ 52.~ 40,000 0 0.00% 0.00% 1,250,000 1,023 0.08% 0.00% 500,000 0 0.00% 2.~ 1,790,000 1,023 O.O\u0026amp;M 57.~ 113,631,943 65.7~7,080 57.S\u0026amp;W 4,280,691 0 0.00% 192,433 0 o.~ 38.SN 624,024 443,733 71.11% 42.59% 1,091,051 638,918 58.56% 6,188,199 1,082,651 17.SOCM 35.9N 14,554,670 4,025,674 27.661Wl 35.9N 14,554,670 4,025,674 27,t\nSqE 54.2.N 134,374,812 70,855,405 52.73% EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS PUA SER,SUPPUES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY APPROVED EXPENDED 1992/93 01/31/93 73,581,345 33,066, 131 9,941,433 4,580,143 21,652,668 9,552,6\"1 9,597,115 8,753,445 500,000 0 4141 EXPENDED 44.941Mi \"6.074MI 44.121Mi 91.211Mi O.OOCMi ~:/}:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:- TOTAf'OPERA~EXPENSES} :i~l:212]6{ rns:jSi~:  ... .,.~~ EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,76\",930 2,12a.1n 31.-461Mi APPROVED EXPENDED 4141 1993194 01/31/94 EXPENDED 75,954,523 34,719,475 \"5.711Mi 9,306,556 4,325,538 \"46.48% 21,849,168 8,528,359 39.03% 8,870,123 8,207,713 92.5:N 1,000,000 0 O.QOIM: 7,074,106 2,310,223 32.66% EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 5,802,374 40.6\"% 14,554,670 6,032,285 41.45% iv\"'\".........\n: II:ii:\n!l::: ,36:s,i$rl =~~~~ : : , ~ :~ 1ii:i~~:1~ :~~ij~r:J )1:\n:i!il:: 13 [t  ,. --. . gtn.E ~s6~~c,\n\u0026gt;  .. . t 1992.\n94 REVENUE AND EXPENOl:Tl.iAES ACTUAL ANO.PROJECTED   . . . fC\u0026gt;fl C::OUR'f.SUfJM~~~027~.i~/. I. ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROJECTED 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 01/31/94 2/1-6130 06-30-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,701,855 41,027,982 39,161,056 429,023 39,590,079 40%PULLBACK 21,081,833 22,220,949 21,420,949 0 21,420,949 21,420,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,293,380 4,502,692 3,056,253 1,n1,111 4,827,370 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,858 145,690 145,690 146,379 0 146,379 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 241,476 360,734 303,000 259,545 43,455 303,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 245,162 245,162 182,353 0 182,353 MISC. AND RENTS 406,878 574,918 484,050 28,202 455,848 484,050 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 354,446 208,519 350,000 159,042 160,000 319,042 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 87,005 102,874 0 102,874 102,874 .... - Torl~ i .} 64.~:~t 67,838.2ii ~~-~ ~992.830 2,{~~ .67~3~\n= REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,428 73,419 36,605 36,814 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 15,350 18,031 18,000 0 18,000 18,000  T~Afr :   ~:~1,f 91.~1\n )\\\\_:_: 88,769 91~'.459  t\\ 91,-419  36,605 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,264,460 25,275,221 25,350,138 14,132,267 11,437,544 25,569,811 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 4,036,652 4,057,460 8,094,112 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 73,426 72,694 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,513,699 1,261,451 1,341,887 605,261 736,626 1,341,887 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 824,870 1,139,235 1,210,000 325,396 884,604 1,210,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 234,403 240,873 144,626 96,247 240,873 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,540 3,S40 0 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 2,379,879 3,198,252 2,700,000 2,191,638 508,362 2,700,000 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 858,743 563,602 575,435 0 575,435 575,435 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,no,486 2,127,216 2,883,425 930,703 1,952,722 2,883,425 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 799,544 768,715 350,079 418,636 768,715 ::::- .... .... TOTAL 48,670,684 45.101.m 43,168,125 22,716,622. 20,671.176 43,387,798 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 9,385 40,866 40,000 0 40,000 40,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND 129,428 171,006 1,250,000 1,023 1,248,9n 1,250,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 394,675 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 TOTAL 533,488 211.872 1,790,000 1,023 1,788,Sn 1,790,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,243,307 113,631,943 65,747,080 46,898,233 112,645,313 14 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,280,691 0 4,280,691 4,280,691 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 192,433 0 192,433 192,433 Tilt.EV! B 558,810 589,011 624,024 443,733 180,291 624,024 OTHER 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091,051 638,918 452,133 1,091,051 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 4,025,674 10,528,996 14,554,670 EXPENSES SALARIES 73,191,213 71,912,128 75,954,523 34,719,475 41,129,646 75,849,121 BENEFITS 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,306,556 4,325,538 4,964,517 9,290,055 SERVICES,SUPP,EOUIP 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,849,168 8,528,359 13,155,072 21,683,431 DEBT SERVICE 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,870,123 8,207,713 642,410 8,850,123 CONTINGENCY 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 RESERVEFORENCUMBR 0 714,896 0 0 0 0 TOTALOPERATINGEXPEHSE'S 14~604.~ 112.170,100 116.980,370 55,781,085 ' 59.891~~ 116,672.730 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,074,108 2,310,223 4,763,883 7,074,106 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 6,032,285 8,522,385 14,554,670 TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BAL.ANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL --- t3f,624,091 131,710,750 138,609,1-46 64,123,SSS 73. 171,913 137,301,506 1.m.114 1,394,977 (4,234,334) s,131,s12 c10,645,136) (3,913,324) 552,490 643,181 964,951 964,951 964,951 634,844 2,321,867 4,109,970 \" 109,970 875,218 4,985,188 643,181 964,951 79,044 (262,621) 341,665 79,044 2,321,867 3,395,074 761,544 12,069,355 (10,111,583) 1,957,711 2,965,048 4,360,025 840,587 11,806,734 (9,769,918) 2,036,815 15    ACTUAL PROJECTED PROJECTED ASSUMPT 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,701,855 39,590,079 38,600,327 (1) 40% PULLBACK 22,220,949 21,420,949 21,420,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,293,380 4,827,370 4,802,692 (2) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 145,690 146,379 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 360,734 303,000 300,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 245,162 182,353 180,000 MISC. AND RENTS 574,918 484,050 475,731 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 208,519 319,042 322,232 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 102,874 100,000 67,376,096 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,428 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,031 18,000 18,000 /\" .. ,.. TOTAL' :. 91,459 91,419 9,:.1: ,419 : REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 25,275,221 25,569,811 26,778,326 (3) SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 72,694 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,261,451 1,341,887 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,139,235 1,210,000 1,510,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 234,403 240,873 250,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,198,252 2,700,000 3,300,000 (4) COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 563,602 575,435 580,435 M TO M TRANSFERS 2,127,216 2,883,425 3,100,000 (4) ADULT EDUCATION 799,544 768,715 768,715 TOTAL 45,101,764 43,387,798 43,533,607 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,866 40,000 38,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 171,006 1,250,000 600,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 0 500,000 400,000 TOTAL 211,872 1,790,000 1,038,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,243,307 112,645,313 111,004,957 16 \\ti::::: :::::::i:::\n-~\\ .\n.1 ~ : :u: T.~\n~:r::: \n:~-:--- ~n.-:::: :-:-\n\\\\\\::.:.:.: :::::::: '\" .\n.:: :::?: :::::: :::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::\n: :::::::::::::::::::::::::=::: ::::=::::::::::: ,:,:,:\n:::::::\n:::\n:::::::\n:::: ::::::::\n:::::::::::: .-:. ::::::::::::: :\n:\n:::::\n: ::\n::::::::::: ::\n:::\n: ACTUAL PROJECTED PROJECTED ASSUMPT 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,288,755 4,280,691 4,280,691 CHAPTER II 215,020 192,433 192,433 TITLE VI B 589,011 624,024 624,024 OTHER 1,221,200 1,091,051 1,400,000 (5) REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,991,310 (6) It : : J+t' ::: . '~J:Ji :: t 13,548,434 r 14,554.J:l : 14:\nj\nJ: \u0026lt;:: : \\.:\nEXPENSES SALARIES 71,912,128 75,849,121 78,372,896 (7) BENEFITS 9,908,175 9,290,055 9,625,474 (7) SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 20,080,366 21,683,431 22,649,762 (8) DEBT SERVICE 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,620,475 (9) CONTINGENCY 0 0 1,000.000 RESERVEFORENCUMB 714,896 0 0 :: -:-: TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES ,.. 112,170.tOO 11S,672,730 120,268,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,992,216 7,074,106 6,491,192 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,991,310 TOTAL EXPENSES ,,('/ :::: I.  . ..., 131,710,750 137,301,506 141,751\n110 ,( INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,394,9n (3,913,324) (9,257,694) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 643,181 964,951 79,044 OPERATING 2,321,867 4,985,188 1,951,n1 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 964,951 79,044 85,000 OPERATING 3,395,074 1,951,n1 (7,305,880) TOTAL  4,360.025 2,036,815 (7,220,880) 17 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSUMPTIONS 1994-95 (1) Current taxes will experience only minimal growth. A net reduction will occur in this line item when combined with the full year effect of the loss of revenues from household goods. (2) Delinquencies will remain relatively constant due to declining collection rates in previous years. (3) The Arkansas Legislature will address formula concerns by converting to a fixed charge rate for personal and utility properties as well as infusing new dollars to create additional revenues. (4) Recruiting efforts for the new Pulaski County Special School District interdistrict school will generate additional transportation reimbursement and M-to-M funding. (5) Additional funds will be secured as a result of the efforts of the new grant writer. (6) Vigorous recruitment efforts by the Little Rock School District will increase enrollment at the six original magnets. (7) Funds are included for increments for all employees and eight (8) additional 4-year old teachers and aides. (8) Funds are included for the Workers Compensation Insurance Program which must be funded by the District beginning July 1, 1994. Additional requirements for lease purchase obligations are also included. (9) Savings as a result of current proposed and prior approved debt restructuring. 18 -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POTENTIAL BUDGET STRATEGIES 1994-95 Potential Reduction Measures (1) Institution of an early retirement incentive program $ 1,000,000  (with 100 participants) (2) Salary freeze 2,286,000 (3) Elimination of two (2) teacher contract days 700,000 (changes contract length to 190 days) (4) School closing (per location) 275,000 (5) Adjustments to vocational teacher contract lengths 278,000 (6) Reductions to fringe benefit contributions by 10% 400,000 (7) Outsourcing of transportation program 600,000 (8) Redesign of delivery of 6th period 200,000 (9) Reduction in contribution to New Futures progra~ 200,000 v (10) Reduction in materials and supplies (1%) 46,000 (11) Millage election (1 mill - 40% pullback) 575,000 (12) Draw down in desegregation loan fund 2,000,000 v---- $8,560,000 19\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_930","title":"North Little Rock Response to Monitoring Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994-01-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["North Little Rock Response to Monitoring Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/930"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nJAN 2 1 1994 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESPONSE TO MONITORING REPORT The North Little Rock School District wishes to comment on three aspects of the 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report appeared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and dated January 12, 1994: 1) the calculation of racial balance\n2) the Baring Cross Elementary School\nand 3) the Alternative School. CALCULATION OF RACIAL BALANCE The Monitoring Report indicates at page 5 that, while the NLRSD Plan makes no reference to organizational level, the District nonetheless calculates racial balance for elementary and secondary school separately each year based on the racial composition at each level. Furthermore, in determining the range of acceptable racial balances at NLRSD elementary schools, the Report uses the total elementary population including kindergarten students. The NLRSD believes that its plan does indicate that racial balances are to be calculated by organizational level and, further, that its plan provides for the exclusion of kindergarten students in determining the elementary school population for racial balance purposes. While we understand that kindergarten students may have been included to maintain consistency among the reports of the three districts and including kindergarten students did not change the compliance status of any NLRSD school, we wanted to clarify this matter for future reference. Turning first to the inclusion of kindergarten students, we would direct the Court's attention to pages 7 and 8 of the NLRSD's Desegregation Plan approved by the Court April 29, 1992 (4/29/92 Plan). In the discussion of elementary school racial balance, the Plan repeatedly refers to the elementary population as being approximately 42% black and 58% black. The Plan also indicates that the NLRSD has 4,620 elementary students of whom 2,467 are nonblack and 1,793 are black. In discussing the racial composition of elementary students, the reader is directed to Addendum lA as the source of these numbers. Addendum lA is a table showing the racial composition of the school districts entitled \"North Little Rock Elementary Schools Racial Count As Of October 1, 1985, Excluding Kindergarten Students.\" (Emphasis supplied). Likewise page 8 of the Plan reflects that kindergarten students are not transported for purposes of racial balance. We submit that, when the applicable provisions of the NLRSD Plan are read in their entirety, it is apparent that the Plan contemplates the exclusion of kindergarten students in determining the racial composition and racial balance of the NLRSD elementary schools. It is submitted the same conclusion must be reached with respect to the Plan's anticipation that racial balance would be determined by organizational level. A review of page 8 of the 4/29/92 Plan reflects an application of the 25% standard to the 2. elementary schools. This application is based on the data contained in Addendum lA which is limited to the elementary school population excluding kindergarten students. Thus, we submit it was clearly anticipated that the racial balance of the NLRSD's elementary schools was to be determined by comparison only to the elementary organizational level, excluding kindergarten students, and not to the total population of the school district as a whole. Further support for this conclusion is found in the original North Little Rock Plan which can be found at 2 Joint Designated Record at 81 et~- (2 JDR 81) The same kind of calculations were done for the junior high schools and senior high schools in the original plan, see 2 JDR 87-88, and these calculations were derived from Addendum 1D which reflects separate calculations for the racial composition of the junior and senior high schools. The application of the 25% standard to the junior and senior high schools in the NLRSD is found at 2 JDR 88 and that application is once again based on organizational level. Because the senior high schools had been reorganized into single grade schools and the junior high school assignment zones had been changed, Addendum 1D was deleted from the 4/29/92 Plan since it had been superseded by events. However, we would submit that it is appropriate to look at the original plan in determining whether it contemplated, and still contemplates, the application of racial balance standards based on student populations by organizational level. BARING CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Monitoring Report indicates at page 5 that the Baring 3 Cross school is out of compliance with the racial balance guidelines. We respectfully disagree. It should be noted that the Court (Judge Woods presiding) found in 1987 that all elementary schools in the NLRSD were in compliance with the 25% racial balance guideline. LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F.Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987). This specific finding incorporated into the 4/29/92 Plan. of the Court was likewise A review of Addenda lA and 1D reflects that the Baring Cross Elementary School was 70% black at the elementary level and 77% black at the secondary level when the Court made this finding in 1987. The Court's finding would be seemingly inconsistent with the 25% standard were it not for the footnote referring to Baring Cross contained in both Addenda. These footnotes state, \"Baring Cross was created as an alternative to placing severely handicapped children in state institutions. The only students assigned to this school were those who are profoundly and multiply handicapped.\" 4/29/92 Plan Addendum lA and 2 JDR 95, Addendum 1D. Thus, we submit it was never intended that the 25% racial balance guideline be applied to the Baring Cross Elementary School. There are good reasons for Baring Cross' exclusion. As the footnote indicates, Baring Cross serves only students with profound and multiple handicapping conditions. Parents of students at Baring Cross have the option of placing their children in a regular school if that is their preference. The NLRSD created the school, however, as institutions an alternative to for individuals placement with 4- in state residential severe developmental disabilities. The NLRSD cannot control the racial composition of this population and all students in this population are eligible to attend Baring Cross. It would be inappropriate for the District to assign students away from Baring Cross simply to maintain an artificial level of racial balance. In short, it was never contemplated in the Plan or by the Court that racial balance guidelines appropriate for the assignment of the general student population be applied to the Baring Cross Elementary School. As a result of the Court's earlier ruling and the recognition of the exceptional nature of Baring Cross, we submit that Baring Cross is not out of compliance with the racial balance guidelines, at least to the extent that such a lack of compliance would indicate a violation of the NLRSD's Desegregation Plan. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL The NLRSD's Alternative School was not contemplated by the Desegregation Plan. Section 5 of the Plan does direct the creation of an alternative school to be contained at the North Little Rock Boys Club. However, the Alternative School located at the former Argenta Elementary School is a separate and distinct program. While it can be argued that, since the Plan is silent with respect to the Alternative School the 25% racial balance guidelines would be applicable, it is respectfully submitted, that it would be inappropriate to apply that standard in these circumstances. One of the ten specific segregative acts which the Court found the NLRSD to have committed was that \"a disproportionate number of blacks drop out of school. \" NLRSD 5- Desegregation Plan, 4/29/92 at page 5\nLRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 349, paragraph 102 (E.D. Ark. 1984), and Section 5 of the NLRSD Plan, \"Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention\", was directed at remediating this specific segregative act. While the Alternative School was not required by the NLRSD Plan, the creation of that school reflects an additional effort by the NLRSD beyond its plan requirements to address the problem of the disproportionate dropout rate among black students. Thus, the Alternative School is a solution to a problem, and one would expect the solution to a problem be as disproportionate in its application as the existence of the problem. In other words, to the extent that a disproportionate number of black students drop out of school, one would expect there to be a corresponding disproportionality in the assignment to the Alternative School since it is a program specifically directed at reducing school dropouts. Certainly, the NLRSD could artificially insure that the racial composition of the Alternative School mirrored the racial composition of the District by organizational level. To do so, however, would only result in depriving black students of an alternative educational dropping out of school. its own right. experience intended to keep them from This could be considered segregative in An immediate and compelling example of the harm inherent in such an approach can be found with respect to expelled students. As with dropouts, the Court found that the NLRSD had committed a 6 . segregative act in that blacks were disproportionately expelled from school. However, Section 7 of the Plan, \"Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions\", which contains the programs required of the NLRSD to remediate this segregative act, does not include the Alternative School as one of those requirements. Nonetheless, the NLRSD in the 1993-94 school year has offered expelled students an alternative educational program as an option to out-of-school expulsion. This has included the Alternative School as well as the educational program administered by the Juvenile Courts. A disproportionate number of students expelled are black, but, instead of being expelled to the \"street,\" the District is presently giving them the option of attending either the Juvenile Court School or the Alternative School. If strict racial balance guidelines were to be applied to the Alternative School, however, the result would be to exclude these students from participation in the Alternative School. We hardly think this is a desirable outcome, and, we respectfully suggest that the 25% racial balance guidelines were not intended to apply to the Alternative School and that to apply them to the Alternative School would, in fact, result in harm and not benefit to black students. January d I, 1994 By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)375-1122 , ~ - CI \"-vt L'-t-.. \\/ S ephen W. Jones,# ATTORNEY FOR NORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT 7- 8083 LITTLE ROCK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -\nj\n:_,1- I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this _6 ,_ day of January, 1994, sent one copy of the foregoing, via hand delivery, to the following: Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard w. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL and STREET Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza 410 w. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 _,. (_) STEPBE~NW' . JONES 8\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1180","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994-01-17/1994-12-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1180"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["311 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n. . . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Board Meeting January 13, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in duly-called special meeting at 5:50 p.m. on January 13, 1994, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. John Riggs, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Mr. Talmadge Hashberry, Ex-Officio Student Representative Ms. Theresa Peterson, Ex-Officio Teacher Representative CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the special meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. I. SALE/EXCESSED PROPERTY - WESTSIDE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mr. Doug Eaton explained to the Board that in 1983, the Board excessed several of the District's buildings. Westside Junior High School site was one of those excessed. Mr. Eaton said that an agreement has been prepared whereby the Children's Hospital has offered the District $200,000 for the property. If Children's Hospital signs the agreement, (and there are indications that Special Meeting January 13, 1994 Page 2 this will happen), then we would advertise the property for sale and Children's Hospital would have first refusal rights if we have an offer of more than $200,000. If there is someone who makes a higher bid, they could purchase the property if Children's Hospital turns down the offer. Ms. Pondexter moved that the administration accept the proposal as presented, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. O'Malley proposed the following amendment: \"put the property up for sale but wait until the 27th of January and have it on the Board Agenda to vote on at that time.\" Ms. Gee seconded the motion. After discussion of the amendment, the chair called for a vote on the motion as amended. The motion as amended failed 4-1 with Mr. O'Malley voting \"yes\" and Mr. Riggs, Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Pondexter and Ms. Gee voting \"no.\" The chair then called for a vote on the original motion and it carried unanimously. II. DISCUSSION WITH MR. GEORGE BUTTERFIELD - NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY PROGRAM Mr. Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety and Security, introduced Mr. George Butterfield to the Board. Mr. Barnhouse reminded the group that Mr. Butterfield had come to Little Rock in March, 1989 and talked with the Board, principals and staff at that time. Mr. Butterfield said we are ahead of some Districts in the country concerning curtailing violence in our schools. Mr Riggs asked Mr. Butterfield how the District can accomplish a good safety perception with their patrons. Mr. Butterfield offered the following suggestions: 1. You should be truthful with your public and not try to hide anything. Tell them what has happened and what you are doing about it. 2. Get task force involved, including parents, courts, and probation officers. 3. Emphasize the fact that the problems are community problems and not just school problems. III. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA AND TIME FOR BOARD RETREAT FEBRUARY 4 AND 5, 1994. The Board Retreat to be held on February 4 and 5, 1994, was discussed. It was agreed that the Retreat would begin at 4:30 p.m. on February 4 and they will work until a maximum of 10 p.m. on that date. Special Board Meeting January 13, 1994 Page 3 On February 5, 1994, the Board will convene the Retreat at 8 a.m. and work until a maximum of 4 p.m. The Retreat will be held at the Worthen Bank Building in their 4th floor conference room. The items suggested for discussion at the Board Retreat were: 1. What do we want the District to look like in the future? 2. Discuss District policies 3. Discuss budget 4. Discuss curriculum 5. Discuss safety and security 6. Discuss Desegregation Plan 7. Discuss safety and security on transportation 8. Blue Ribbon Committee. The Board suggested starting the meeting with a budget work session on Friday afternoon. IV. STUDENT REINSTATEMENTS \u0026amp; CONFIRMATION OF EXPULSION RECOMMENDATIONS Juan Dukes, a former Mabelvale Junior High School student, petitioned the Board for reinstatement to the Little Rock School District. Juan was expelled from the Little Rock School District by the Board of Directors for the 1992-93 school year for participating in a gang related fight and for verbal assault of staff. He was in the Boot Camp Program at Camp Robinson for 105 days. He has completed the Program and wants to be reinstated to the District. The Hearing Officer recommends reinstatement for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. Jason Allen, a former Southwest Junior High School student, petitioned the Board for reinstatement to the Little Rock School District. Jason was expelled during the 1993-94 school year for threatening a teacher. He has enrolled in and successfully completed a treatment program at Bridgeway Hospital. The administration supports the recommendation that he be reinstated for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year and be assigned to the Alternative Learning Center on strict probation. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. UNCONTESTED EXPULSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The administration recommended that Andrew Rogers, a Southwest Junior High School student, be expelled from the District for the Special Board Meeting January 13, 1994 Page 4 remainder of the 1993-94 school year and assigned to the Juvenile Justice Center with the understanding that he may petition the Board for reinstatement for the 1994-95 school year. He had physically abused a staff member and warrants expulsion from the District. The administration recommended that Jamishun Scott, a Central High School Student, be expelled from the District for the remainder of the 1993-94 school year. He may petition the Board for reinstatement for the 1994-95 school year. Jamishum was observed by the principal of Central High School attacking a nonstudent on the front lawn of Central' s campus. He was charged with Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The administration recommended that Stephen Morgan, a student at Central High School, be expelled from the District for the remainder of the 1993-94 school year. He may petition the Board for reinstatement for the 1994-95 school year. Stephen had assaulted a female student on December 15, 1994. He later returned to the campus while on a Sent Home and verbally threatened a student witness to that assault. Ms Pondexter moved the approval of the administration's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Gee and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Pondexter moved adjournment at 6:45 p.m., seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: i -.\n? 7 -q '{ sey Ja~kon Superintendent icJfWVbkp,fu-cw Dr. Katherine Mitchell Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 E MAR 4 f 94 Olli o of Do, gr 110 Mo The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met for its regularly scheduled Board Meeting in the Board Room of the Administration Building on January 27, 1994. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Executive Assistant Ms. Betty Forbes, staff Assistant Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Mr. Thalmadge Hashberry, Ex-Officio Student Rep. Ms. Theresa Peterson, Ex-Officio Teacher Representative CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The President called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. Mr. Jackson welcomed the student and teacher representative to the Board for January. II. READING OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the December 16, 1994 Regular Meeting and the January 13, 1994 Special Meeting were presented for reading. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the minutes as read, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS: Educational Programs: Woodruff Elementary School was featured as the educational program for the month of January. Mrs. Pat Higginbotham, Principal, made a presentation on the school's nonviolence program. She stated that the students had gone 414 days without a fight on the campus. She stated that this did not start as a program, it started as a challenge to the students to stop violence. The students were first given awards. Since that time, it has been a challenge among the students. When there seems to be a confrontation on the surface, or a feeling of anger, the students seek the advice of their counselor, Ms. Shirley Davis. Students, Ladonna Murphy, Tameka Hundley, Drew McClure and David Henson each addressed the Board and told of their pride in Woodruff and how excited they are with the \"program.\" A. Superintendent The Superintendent presented citations and congratulations to the following people: Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School received one of only seven awards for its successful effort to address the problems of under achievement in American Schools which are funded by Business Week with the help of 11 corporations who advertise in the magazine. As a result of the grant, Carver will become part of the national effort, \"Network to Success,\" which is committed to helping other educators to adopt and adapt their effective design. In addition, announcements will be included in Business Week as well as other publications. The following secretaries were given citations for putting student's addresses into the computer system with less than a 1 percent error rate in their address files. These secretaries are in addition to the ones who received citations at the December meeting: Tracey Nelson - Hall High School Sandra Carter - Parkview Magnet School Sarah Shelman - Forest Heights Jr. High Eleanor Bodenhamer - Pulaski Heights Jr. High Virginia H. Irving and Mary Joe Stone - Southwest Jr. High Norma Ruth Hartwick - McClellan Business/Communications Magnet School Esther Washington - Cloverdale Jr. High Julie Williams - Mabelvale Jr. High Lucy Hendricks - Bale Elementary Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 3 Phyllis Forbes - Carver Magnet School Connie Walker - Chicot Elementary Nettie Higgins - Cloverdale Elementary Sue Mitchell - Dodd Elementary Jessie Webb - Meadowcliff Stacy Blacknall, Curriculum Specialist - Rightsell Incentive School Ella Anderson - Wilson Elementary Bobbie Levy - Mabelvale Elementary Ann Campbell and Pat Roland - Terry Elementary The following secretaries had a 0.0% or no error input: Rachael Williamson - Garland Incentive School Sandra Johnson - Mitchell Incentive School Peggy Weeks - Western Hills Elementary A citation was given to Terri Shaw, a recently hired employee of the District, for her grace under pressure and for her willingness to accept the LRSD spirit of teamwork. Citations were awarded to the student and teacher exofficio Board Members for the month of January. Student member was Talmadge Hasberry of McClellan and the teacher representative Teresa Peterson of Geyer Springs Elementary. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES There were no Committee Reports C. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Riggs complimented the -Bea~a:t. on their being well prepared for Court. He stated that Dr. Williams, Dr. Mayo and Mrs. Matthis did a good job and believed this administration is serious about complying with the Desegregation Plan. Ms. Pondexter wanted to say a \"thank you\" to Bob Brown for delineating the fact of how well our children are doing in the schools. She stated she believes that disparity is getting better. She said we must have equitable educational programs in the LRSD. Mr. O'Malley stated this was his first day in court. He complimented Dr. Williams, Dr. Mayo and Mrs. Matthis stating it showed that they wanted the judge to know they were serious about taking action on the Desegregation Plan. Mr. O'Malley also congratulated Parkview on winning the King Cotton Classic Tournament. * * 0 0 ttt 1-i ro 0 rt f-' 0 ::J r10 1-iO p,3 rt'd f-'1-' Of-' ::J::l  ro ::J rt ro 0, rt ::r ro :i,, 0, 3 f-' ::J f-' (JJ I Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 4 D. PARTNERSHIPS The following partnerships were recommended to the Board for approval: Way out Willies and Fair Park Elementary School McDonald's - Markham Parkway and Fair Park Elementary Twin city Bank - West Markham and Fair Park Elementary Wendy's of Little Rock and Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts and Mitchell Elementary McDonald's - Roosevelt and Mitchell Elementary Mr. Riggs moved approval of the partnerships, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Beth Greenway addressed the Board, stating that the Debbie Fulbright trial would be held on February 17 and 18. She urged the \"downtown\" administration to reach out to her and show her support. Jerry Robinson addressed the Board concerning the District's withdrawal from the Martin Luther King, Jr. Marade. Mr. Robinson said he thinks the media dictates the decisions that are made. He asked the Board to have some kind of policy on participation in the marade (parades). V. ACTION AGENDA A. 1994 Emergency Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities Grant Application. The U. S. Department of Education is accepting applications from local school districts for federal funds to implement a comprehensive integrated services model to impact high risk youth who are economically disadvantaged\nat risk for gang affiliation or have committed delinquent acts, are pregnant or is a teen parent. Partners involved in implementing include the Stepup Center in southwest Little Rock, the Pulaski County Prevention Institute, McClellan Community School, Ottenheimer Community Center and the Southwest Little Rock Alert Center. The grant requested is $508,301 and covers a two-year period. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the application, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 5 B. Adult Education Direct and Equitable Proposal Adult Education requested approval to make application for $22,027.16 from the State Department of Education for Direct and Equitable funds which will allow the Adult Education Program to continue serving educationally disadvantaged adults on grade levels 0-5.9. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the administration's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. C. security Guard Recognition The security guards have petitioned the Board for recognition as an employee group for the purpose of negotiations. The administration recommended that the Board recognize the security guards as a separate group and that the an election be held to determine the type of relationship that the security guards wish to establish. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the administrations recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. D. Pilot Use of Portfolio Assessment in Selected Departments Hall High School has requested to pilot the use of portfolio assessment as an alternative to semester examinations in selected departments for the second semester of 1993-94. Participation in the use of portfolio assessment would be optional for students who meet certain conditions and would serve as an incentive for improved academic achievement and attendance. Gene Parker, Supervisor of English, explained the assessment program. Mr. Riggs moved approval of this pilot program, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Special Report/Ish Elementary School A report on the use of Ish Elementary School was given by Mr. Eaton. Mr. Eaton said as of this date, five agencies have contacted the administration expressing an interest in either leasing or purchasing Ish Elementary School. Mr. Eaton reminded the Board that as of November, 1993, the Little Rock School District is prohibited from taking any final action with regard to the disposition of Ish pending a decision presently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 6 B. Update on Metropolitan Area Vocational Center The Vocational staff gave a report on the Metropolitan Area Vocational Center. The staff reported that they have a total of 812 students enrolled at Metro. Ms. Carol Green, Director of Vocational, stated she would like to have a \"Board Day\" at Metro so the Board members could come out and see things that are going on in the classes. Mr. Riggs mentioned that the courses that are offered at Metro should be a skill in which there is a need in the business community. Ms. Green explained that is the purpose of the Advisory Committee, which is made up of business leaders. They keep her updated on the demand in the business community for skilled training. Ms. Green explained that all students are at Metro for one-half day. The cost for all students who attend is $250 per student. The cost is regulated by the State Department of Education. C. Capital Project Status Report - 1994 Mr. Eaton prepared a report on the Capital Projects Status. It was learned that on this date - January 27, 1994, the judge had handed down an order approving the Williams Magnet School Project. Mr. Malone was requested to get an update on the status of Jefferson's capital project. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Upon opening up the discussion of the consent agenda, Mr. Riggs moved that the name of Betty Hilton be removed from the personnel items to be considered at another time. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Gee casting a \"no\" vote. The Consent Agenda included the following items: 1. Personnel Changes 2. Financial Reports 3. Donations Ms. Gee stated she thinks personnel items and financial reports should be on the Action Agenda. She and Ms. Pondexter asked to have their slip sheets earlier than they have received them in the past. Minutes - Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 7 VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS Mr. Say McIntosh addressed the Board with a complaint about a statement one of the Board members had made at the meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 8:20 p.m., Mr. Riggs moved that the Board go into Executive Session to consider personnel items. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. After returning from Executive Session, Mr. Jackson announced that the Board had met in Executive Session but no action was taken. Mr. Riggs at this point moved that the personnel item in which Betty Hilton was removed from the consent agenda as a resignation be accepted as listed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. It was also the consensus of the Board that the administration and Department of Human Resources would do what they could to see that Ms. Hilton gets disability benefits. XI. DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following students requested reinstatement to the Little Rock School District: Jeremy Gray - Southwest Jr. High School Calvin Long - McClellan High School Terence Saulsberry - McClellan High School Rodney Scott - McClellan High School Kareem Smith - McClellan High School Jaruby Gregory - Central High School Kevin MacKintrush - Central High School Antonio Nelson - Central High School Marcus Stephens - Central High School Micha Williams - Central High School The administration recommended that Jeremy Gray be reinstated to the Little Rock School District and assigned to the Alternative Learning Center for the balance of the 1993-94 school year. The administration recommended that Calvin Long, Terence Saulsberry, Rodney Scott, and Kareem smith be reinstated to the District. The principal is willing to accept these students back to McClellan, and that Kareem Smith be on strict probation. Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 8 The administration recommended that Jaruby Gregory, Kevin MacKintrush, Antonio Nelson, Marcus Stephens, and Micha Williams be reinstated to Central High School. Dr. Williams stated that these young men had attended a program provided by Arkansas Baptist College and that the directors of that institution recommended the students be returned to their school to receive their diplomas. After a discussion of these students, Dr. Mitchell moved that the Board accept the recommendation of the administration on all the above students, seconded by Ms. Pondexter and it carried unanimously. Derrick Jackson, a student who was expelled from the District on June 24, 1993, and was to complete an alcohol/drug abuse counseling program. Derrick petitioned the Board for reinstatement to the District. Ms. Elston stated she would personally see that Derrick gets an assessment through the alcohol/drug abuse counseling program. Derrick is to attend that program on a regular basis and his parents are to be responsible to see that he attends this program. Ms. Pondexter moved the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. Waylan Johnison, a student who was expelled from the District during the July, 1993 Board meeting, petitioned the Board for reinstatement to Dunbar Magnet Junior High School. The recommendation of the administration was that Waylan be placed at the Alternative Learning Center in order to receive additional support in academics and tutorial support for the rest of the school year. Ms. Gee moved the administration's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried 4-2 with Mr. Riggs and Mr. Jackson voting \"no.\" Kendrick Henderson, a student at Central High School, appealed an expulsion recommendation for the remainder of the 1993-94 school year for being involved in a fight. The administration recommended that Kendrick be expelled for the remainder of the 93-94 school year and that he could petition the Board for reinstatement for the first semester for the 1994-95 school year. He is to be enrolled in an alternative educational setting during this expulsion period. After discussion among the Board members, the Board members called for a recess at 11 p.m. and reconvened at 11: 10 p.m. After discussion, the Superintendent recommended that Kendrick be long-termed suspended. Dr. Williams told the Board he would attempt to get Kendrick back into an educational setting as soon as possible. Mr. Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Pondexter and it carried unanimously. The following students were recommended for longterm suspensions for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1994 Page 9 and have accepted the recommendation without appeal: Brandon Howie - J.A. Fair Sheree Harden - McClellan Antoine Baker - Cloverdale Junior High LaTracy Bizzell - Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Jermaine Glass - Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Orlando Jones - Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Shammar Wood - Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Dennis Luster - Forest Heights Jr. Greg Peterson - Forest Heights Jr. Marcus Williams - Forest Heights Jr. Larry Jones - Henderson Jr. High Derick Bowman - Mabelvale Jr. High Jay Buchanan - Mabelvale Jr. High Keyono Cook - Mabelvale Jr. High Keisha Fairley - Mabelvale Jr. High Olins Johnson - Mabelvale Jr. High Zeke Lawson - Mabelvale Jr. High Mishon Wright - Mabelvale Jr. High Terrance Stigall - Mann Magnet Tashia Washington - Pulaski Heights Jr. Akiel Keith Dunbar - Southwest Jr. Yuhanna Clinkscale - Southwest Jr. Monita Marbley - Southwest Jr. Kenneth Nolan - Southwest Jr. Mr. Riggs moved approval administration, seconded by unanimously. of the recommendation of the Dr. Mitchell, and =i~t __ c=a=r==r=i~e~d ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved adjournment at 11:15 p.m., seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. Approved: ____ _ Katherine Mitcell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED MAR 41994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Board of Directors Special Meeting February 17, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:20 p.m. on February 17, 1994, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Patricia Gee ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Ms. Jeanne Whitesell, Teacher Ex-Officio Ms. Latasha Fulton, Student Ex-Officio CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, called the special meeting to order at 6:20 p.m .. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of acting on a recommendation for refinancing of bonds, hearing a report from Coopers and Lybrand, and the administration's request for confirmation on uncontested expulsions and long-term suspension recommendations. Special Board Meeting February 17, 1993 Page 2 DEBT REFUNDING: The administration recommended that the Board approve the refunding of bonds dated September 1, 1989, September 1, 1990, and October 1, 1991 at an estimated annual savings of $176,000. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved approval, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM COOPERS AND LYBRAND: Representatives, Sherri Speakman, Frank Burke, Bob Samperio, and Steve Muliak, from Coopers and Lybrand were available for questions from the Board on the research they conducted in the District on the Support Services Department. Ms. Speakman told the group they covered all areas of the Support Services Division Food Services, Financial Services, Procurement Department, Maintenance, Transportation, Informational Services, Safety and Security Department. They found evidence that the Transportation Department might be considered for outsourcing by the District. The Board asked Dr. Williams to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing the Transportation Services with the help of Steve Muliak. LONG-TERM SUSPENSION/EXPULSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The administration recommended to the Board the uncontested expulsions of the following students: Calvin Long - McClellan Terence Saulsberry - McClellan Rodney Scott - McClellan Franswar Jordan - J. A. Fair The administration recommended to the Board the uncontested long-term suspensions of the following students for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year: Ronnie Scott - J. A. Fair Patrick Canady - McClellan/JJC Marcus Johnson - Cloverdale Jr./ ALC Susan Miller - Cloverdale Jr./ALC Derrick Scott - Cloverdale Jr./ALC Tondalia McGee - Forest Heights Jr./ALC Phelipe Williams - Forest Heights Jr./Pen Charles Williams - Mabelvale Jr./ALC Duron Canada - Southwest Jr./JJC Corey Eubanks - Southwest Jr./JJC Chris Martin - Southwest Jr. Corey Wiley - Southwest Jr./ALC Special Board Meeting February 17, 1994 Page 3 Ms. Linda Pondexter moved the approval of the administration's recommendations on the foregoing students, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved adjournment at 7:40 p.m., seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. Q President APPROVED: ------ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 APR 2 0 1994 Office of Desegregation Mormonng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met for its regularly scheduled Board Meeting in the Board Room of the Administration Building on February 24, 1994. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. T. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Ms. Jean Whitesell, Ex-Officio Teacher Representative Ms. Latasha Fulton, Ex-Officio Student Representative CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the regular meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. II. READING OF MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the Regular Board Meeting on January 27, 1994 and the Special Board Meeting on February 17, 1994. Dr. Mitchell moved acceptance of the minutes as read, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Jackson pointed out a minor correction to the minutes, and they were approved unanimously, with the correction to be made. Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS A. The Superintendent read a few passages from a parent's letter concerning two support staff members at Jefferson, Mrs. LaQuana Coleman and Mr. Stanley Barnes, who have been instrumental in working with at-risk students. It was reported that they have special love and concern for each child they encounter. Mrs. Coleman and Mr. Barnes were acknowledged with a Superintendent's Citation. A Superintendent's Citation was presented to Mrs. Margaret Warren, owner of M \u0026amp; M Used Book Store, who has made a priceless contribution to the education of Arkansas' youth. Because of the death of her husband, Mrs. Warren decided to reduce the size of her used bookstore. She called several schools and asked them to come and help themselves. Lee Willingham, a sixth grader at Bale Elementary School, helped Dr. Williams make a presentation to Officer Kenneth Temple, who has been the DARE Officer at Bale for three years. It was said that Officer Temple educated numerous students on the dangers of drug abuse. Officer Temple has also written a plan to place trained National Guardsmen into Little Rock elementary Schools to serve as role models and mentors to high risk children. Fatimahj Akbar was recognized for serving as a VIPS chairperson with the District since 1983. In addition to managing successful volunteer programs at several Little Rock Schools, she found time to mentor a student at Stephens School. Barbara Moore has been a VIPS Chairperson at Western Hills Elementary School for ten years. She began working as a supervision aide at Western Hills in 1979 and has actively recruited other volunteers throughout her service. Both Ms. Akbar and Ms. Moore were presented Superintendent's Citations. Dr. Williams presented citations to the teacher exofficio Board Member for the month of February, Ms. Jeanne Whitesell of Gibbs Magnet, and the student member, Latasha Fulton of Parkview Magnet School. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 3 c. Legislators. are opening. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee expressed appreciation for meeting with She said she felt that the lines of communications Ms. Pondexter expressed condolences of the Board to members of the family of Tommie Wilbarger, an aide at Geyer Springs Elementary School, who lost her life very tragically. Mr. Jackson expressed appreciation to Mr. Cleveland Ellis for the invitation to attend the February 9 STOP PROGRAM at Washington. He stated that Mr. Ellis is to be commended for being a role model for students. Mr. Jackson also stated that he had the opportunity to attend the VIPS Board luncheon together with several Board members stating he appreciated that opportunity. Due to the illness of Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Jackson expressed the sentiments of the Board in wishing her a speedy recovery. Dr. Mitchell stated that throughout the month of February, she visited several elementary schools where they were being taught the valuable contributions that African Americans have made in history. Dr. Katherine Mitchell left the meeting at this time. D. PARTNERSHIPS New partnerships were presented for approval by the Partners in Education Program. They were: Subway and Fair Park Elementary School Little Rock Zoo and Garland Incentive Elementary School Mexico Chiquito and John L. McClellan Community High School Mr. Riggs moved approval of these new partnerships, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried unanimously. E. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS REPORT Ms. Scrimmager, Director of Community Education, reported on the Educational Programs presentation for the month of February. She reported that she will be chaperoning an \"ACT Lockin\" for students who need help in raising their test scores. She Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 4 stated they had rented the Student Center at UALR. F. INCENTIVE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' REPORT Rightsell Incentive School was featured at this Board Meeting. Ms. Davis explained the theme for her school, Career Awareness and Mass Media Technology. She introduced her theme specialist, Ms. Stacy Blacknall. Ms. Davis stated that instead of going on the usual field trips, her groups are visiting industrial sites to learn of the various occupations that may be available. Ms. Blacknall said they plan to implement more of the technology part. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Ms. Debra Suttlar, addressed the Board concerning several items of concern at Central High School: 1. She stated that near the beginning of school her son's musical instrument was stolen. She stated that no one at the school filed a police report and she felt that the school district should have provided some reimbursement for the musical instruments. 2. She said that her son was given an interim report and he did not give the report to her, so therefore, when the grades went out, she was not notified that his grades had dropped. She complained that the District did not require that the interim report be returned to the school signed by the parent/guardian. She said that her son was out ill and she forgot to call in to report that he was ill, but when she got home there was a message on her recorder telling her he was absent that day. She feels there could also be a recorded message that the grades are dropping. 3. Another item of concern she had was that the student assignment office did not return her calls. She said her husband is stationed out of state and she travels a lot. She put in a request to have her son transferred to Hall High School to be closer to her home. She got a letter two weeks later that said they needed more information. They did not return her call. Mr. Tyrone Davis addressed the Board concerning what he termed as the failure of minority vendors to get contracts through the Little Rock School District. He feels he is being excluded Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 5 from the bid process. He said he was yet to receive one contract within the state of Arkansas. Ms. Nettie Nichols, a bus driver for the District, addressed the Board with concern that the District was considering subcontracting (or outsourcing) the transportation services. She said it had been tried before and it did not work. Ms. Pam Adcock addressed the Board with concern that the city was considering placing a drug rehabilitation house (GIST House) near Cloverdale Elementary School at 8801 Frenchman Lane in front of Hamilton Inn. She feels this would lead to a security problem. B. J. Wyrick reiterated what Ms. Adcock had to say about the drug rehabilitation house being placed near Cloverdale. She asked for support from the Board. Ms. Shelia Parker addressed the Board. She stated she wanted more parent involvement in the schools. Ms. Parker does not want the children to sell anything for schools. Ms. Eleanor Coleman addressed the Board concerning the sub-contract of transportation services for the District. She said this meant the discarding of the faithful employees in the District. Mr. Frank Martin addressed the Board concerning the subject of sub-contracting for transportation services. He stressed that the financial crisis is not of their making. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Resolution to Declare Excess Property - Lee School The Board considered a resolution to declare Lee School as excess property. It was reported that the general condition of Lee School is that it is in a much-deteriorated state. The building can no longer be used for its intended purpose of an educational facility. The administration recommended the Board approve the disposal action on this school. Mr. Riggs moved the approval of the administration's recommendation, Mr. Jackson relinquished the gavel to Mr. O'Malley and seconded the motion and it carried 4-1, with Mr. O'Malley voting \"nay.\" B. EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE The Superintendent recommended that the Board authorize the administration to immediately seek to reopen negotiations for Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 6 purpose of reaching a mutual agreement on an early retirement incentive for teachers and also to continue developing early retirement incentive plans tailored to the mutual interest of the District and other employee groups. The Board will be asked to approve any agreements or plans before they are adopted or implemented. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. C. PERSONNEL ITEMS The Superintendent presented a record of the resignations/terminations, certified and non-certified, and new employees, certified and non-certified. Mr. Riggs moved the approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Gee and it carried unanimously. D. DONATIONS A list of property donations was presented in the printed agenda and recommended for approval by the Superintendent. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. E. APPROVAL OF POLICY ON GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENTS ON THE FIRST READING A copy of a proposed policy and regulations on graduation requirements for general education students was presented to the Board for approval on a first reading. This policy and regulations seeks to meet or exceed the Standards for Accreditation set by the State Board of Education. After discussion by the Board, Ms. Pondexter moved approval of this policy for the first reading, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. F. APPROVAL OF GRANT FOR ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION REACH OUT INITIATIVE McClellan Community Education is asking for permission to utilize the existing structure of the McClellan School Health Clinic to develop a plan for offering medical services to unserved and underserved youth and family members in the underserved area of Southwest Little Rock. They are asking to write a grant for funding of this program - $100,000 will be used for the first year for planning and $2 00, 000 will be used the second year for implementing the program. This grant is to be submitted to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Reach out Initiative. Mr. Riggs moved approval of this grant application, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 7 G. APPROVAL OF GRANT FOR COMMUNITY-WIDE DRUG AND ALCOHOL PREVENTION PROGRAM The Little Rock Housing Authority and the McClellan Community School are seeking a grant through the Prevention Services Program in the amount of $20,000 to support a drug and alcohol abuse program. The program would provide mentors and accessibility to activities and interests that parents or relatives might seek. A camp called 2 Cool 4 School would provide avenues for the whole family. The model program is designed to help highrisk youth to be more involved in the community and offer opportunities for them to participate in a program and develop a knowledge to learn and participate in a non-threatening environment. The administration recommended the Board's approval. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of this grant application, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. H. RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF STATE EDUCATION FUNDING ON LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The administration prepared a Resolution supporting Governor Jim Guy Tucker's plan to amend the current funding formula for education to equalize the charge rate. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the Resolution, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. {A copy of the Resolution is attached.) I. 1992-93 AUDIT AND EXTENSION OF AUDIT CONTRACT A copy of the District's financial audit for the fiscal year 1992-93 was provided to the Board under separate cover. The administration recommended the Board's approval of the audit. Ms. Pondexter moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. It was also recommended that the Board approve the extension of the contract with Thomas and Thomas for auditing services through June 30, 1994. Mr. Riggs moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. J. FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Riggs moved approval of the financial reports as presented by the administration, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. THE CHAIR CALLED FOR A BREAK AT 8:05 p.m., and RECONVENED AT 8:25 p.m. at which time Dr. Mitchell re-joined the meeting. Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 8 AT THIS TIME, THE ADMINISTRATION ASKED FOR A VOTE ON SUSPENSION OF THE RULES TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM: APPLICATION FOR NEW OR EXPANDED VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1994-95 The Superintendent asked for a suspension of the rules to consider the application for New or Expanded Vocational Education Programs for School Year 1994-95. Mr. Riggs moved approval for suspension of the rules, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. The administration asked for permission to implement \"Workplace Readiness\" in all senior high schools and at Metropolitan Vocational Center for the 1994-95 school year. This course is a requirement for Tech Prep completers. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the application, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. FIRST SEMESTER TRUANCY REDUCTION CENTER REPORT A report on the Truancy Reduction Center for the first semester was presented. The Board was told that this center was implemented because of the mounting concerns regarding the number of truant school-age students observed on the streets and in other public areas during school hours. A detailed report was copied for the Board showing a total of 112 students processed through the end of the first semester. B. UPDATE ON WILLIAM J. CLINTON INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL The Board was given a report on the William J. Clinton Interdistrict School which is being built by the Pulaski County Special School District. The school is well underway, and is scheduled to be open in the fall. 200 seats are available for Little Rock School District students. C. UPDATE ON RECRUITMENT FOR 1994-95 SCHOOL YEAR An update on recruitment for the 1994-95 school year was given by Dr. Russell Mayo. He stated that his department has moved ahead with recruitment according to the plan. He stated the plan was based solely on our obligations under our desegregation Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 9 plan, court orders, and transcripts. Dr. Mayo further stated that they would continue recruitment activities for 1994-95 through September, 1994. D. REGISTRATION FOR 1994-95 SCHOOL YEAR A detailed report on registration for 1994-95 school year was presented to the Board by Dr. Mayo. He stated that public service announcements had been made to make the public aware of this registration period, flyers had been mailed to every home (including private school homes), and reminders had been sent home by students. VII. AUDIENCES WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Ms. Gee suggested to Mr. Jackson that the presentations by the public be limited to three (3) minutes as had been the policy in the past. VIII. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Linda Watson presented to the Board an uncontested expulsion recommendation on Quinta 0. Thomas, a student at Fair High School. Dr. Watson reported to the Board that the following students received long-term suspension recommendationis for the second semester of 1993-94 school year and have accepted the recommendation without appeal. Board approval was requested. Joe Oliver - J. A. Fair High School Benjamin Blade - McClellan Michael Vincent - Dunbar Karuthus Plummer - Forest Heights/ALC Peter Owens - Forest Heights/Penick Timothy DeWitt - Forest Heights/ALC Roxie Bryant - Mann Jr./ALC Yashica Young - Central High School Cartelyous Johnson - Central High School Ms. Pondexter moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1994 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved adjournment at 9:35 p.m., seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: J-\nc/~ f/..3 Dor?\n:~~ DP.i\u0026lt;atherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting March 3, 1994 APR 2 0 f994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:55 p.m. on March 3, 1994, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Ms. Patricia Gee ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, called the special meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the recommendation of the administration for disciplinary action on a student and for the purpose of passing a resolution honoring the memory of Mr. Herschel Friday. Special Meeting March 3, 1994 Page 2 DISCIPLINARY ACTION: The Board was asked to consider the appeal of Johnny Green, a student at Mitchell Incentive School. However, the guardian of Johnny did not show up for the hearing after having been properly notified by the hearing officer. The confirmation of the expulsion and that of the following students for long-term suspensions were acted on: Joseph Oliver - J. A. Fair Earl Williams - McClellan Chris Royster - Dunbar Jr./ ALC Lee Fluker - Forest Heights/JJC Terrick Washington - Forest Heights Jr. Anthony McBride - Mabelvale Jr./ALC Curtis Hawkins - Southwest Jr./ALC Tekia Thompson - Southwest Jr. Laboya Walker - Southwest Jr. Ms. Pondexter moved the recommendation of the administration, on the expulsion and long-term suspension recommendations, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Ms. Pondexter suggested that the guardian/parent be advised to seek counseling for Johnny Green. RESOLUTION: A resolution was prepared as a memorial to Mr. Herschel Hugar Friday who died tragically on March 1, 1994. Mr. Friday was remembered as giving his personal guidance and professional legal support that expressed his heart-felt understanding of the needs of the District, its Board of Directors, administrators, teachers, staff, parents and children. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the resolution, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to be considered at the Special Meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:35. The Board adjourned to a worksession on the budget. Approved: ..l-J4-1'3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 RC VE MAY 6 1994 Office of Desegregation t,},:\n'i,:,.,\nng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met for its regularly scheduled Board Meeting in the Board Room of the Administration Building on March 24, 1994. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Ms. Emma Peyton, Ex-Officio Teacher Representative Mr. Christopher Williams, Ex-Officio Student Rep. I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The President called the regular meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. Mr. Jackson welcomed the student and teacher representative to the Board for March. II. READING OF THE MINUTES: The reading of the February 24, 1994 Regular Meeting and the March 3, 1994 Special Meeting were presented for reading. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the minutes as read, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS The Superintendent presented congratulations to the following people: citations and Ms. Higginbotham was presented a citation because her school (Woodruff) had gone a record 449 days without an altercation on the school campus. Ms. Higginbotham and her staff were commended for the outstanding job of leadership. The Lions Club presented Ward, Cundiff and Aaron Awards to several of the LRSD teachers who had demonstrated excellence in teaching. This year's recipients from the LRSD are Ms. Lavera Davis, Business Education teacher, Forest Heights Jr. High\nMs. Shirley Davis, Counselor, Woodruff Elementary\nMs. Sandra Lester, 5th grade teacher, Brady Elementary\nMr. Hosea Malone, Biology Teacher, Hall High School\nand Ms. Jamie Lou Neal, Kindergarten teacher, Pulaski Heights Elementary School. Two employees who had given unselfishly of their time and effort to nurture young men and sponsor activities such as to grow in pride, self esteem, character and leadership skills were honored for their involvement\ncitations were presented to Mr. Tony Casteel, special education teacher and Mr. David Rouby, 9th grade science teacher, both of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School. Employees at Geyer Springs Elementary School were commended for their courage, strength, and professionalism during the traumatic loss of an employee, Ms. Tommie Wilbarger. The staff pulled together to try to meet the emotional needs of other staff members and students. Citations were awarded to the teacher ex-officio Board member for the month of March, Ms. Emma Peyton from J. A. Fair. Another citation was presented to the student ex-officio member for March, Christopher Williams from Central High School. RESOLUTIONS FOR DECEASED EMPLOYEES were prepared and presented to the families of Iris J. Haley and the family of Ms. Tommie Wilbarger. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES BI-RACIAL COMMITTEE Mr. Steve Meeker, Chairperson of the Bi-racial Committee gave a report. He presented a report that was conducted by the committee. He stated they were particularly concerned about the drop in enrollment in the incentive schools. The committee feels Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 3 that recruitment strategies have been ineffective in the school. The report further stated that they were over inspected and thinks there is too much paperwork. He stated he believes the District should petition the court to adjust the Desegregation Plan. Mr. Meeker stated they are recruiting members for the BiRacial Committee. PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL Ms. Kathryn Bishop, Parent Facilitator for the Parent Advisory Council, addressed the Board. Ms. Bishop reported on the Chapter I Mid-Winter Conference held at Hot Springs. She also reported that the Council teaches parenting skills and stated that parent involvement is one of the most important ingredients in a child's education. C. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Riggs reported that he had been to Cloverdale Junior High School and enjoyed the reenactment of the \"Battle of Pea Ridge.\" Ms. Gee commented that there are wonderful things going on in the school district. Mr. Jackson wished a speedy recovery to Dr. Victor Anderson, Principal at Hall School, who had recently undergone heart by-pass surgery. D. PARTNERSHIPS Dr. Williams announced that the following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives and were recommended for approval for partnerships: Twin City Bank - Park Plaza and Fair Park Elementary School\nKenny Rogers Roasters and Geyers Springs Elementary School\nWal-Mart #124 - Baseline and Mabel vale Elementary School\nPresbyterian Village and McDermott Elementary School\nRegular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 4 Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm and Rockefeller Incentive School\nKenny Rogers Roasters and Rockefeller Incentive School Sidney Moncrief Pontiac Buick GMC Truck and Stephens Incentive School. E. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS REPORT The Parkview String Quartet performed meeting as the educational program presentation. much enjoyed by the Board and administration. F. INCENTIVE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' REPORT: at the Board They were very Stephens Incentive School was featured at the Board Meeting for the month of March. Ms. Dean, Principal, stated that the students had achieved 85 percent mastery on their basic skills. The student choirs from Stephens performed for the Board. The Stephen cheerleaders led the group in cheers and were very energetic. Choirs consisting of an all boys' choir and an all girls' choir performed. They were enjoyed by all. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Jackson announced that at each monthly Little Rock School District Board meetings, patrons and members of the community are offered the opportunity to address the board with their concerns. Members of the community are reminded that although the board is willing to listen to public presentations, it will not engage in dialogue at this time. However, the concerns that are voiced will be recorded, taken into consideration and researched. The board will make no comments, but will provide interaction through the Superintendent. Say McIntosh addressed the Board and stated it was time for parents to send their children to school to learn and to quit fighting. Kenyon Lowe addressed the Board stating that he had an alternative recommendation to recruitment to the incentive schools. Bill Smith addressed the Board as a teacher in the District for 28 years. He stated he would be retiring this year. Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 5 Lou Ethel Nauden, kindergarten teacher, addressed the Board concerning the prospective freeze on the step increases for teachers. She said this puts an undue burden on teachers. She said she could suggest several ways to reduce the budget rather than to include the teachers. She suggested several specific areas. v. ACTION AGENDA A. EXCESSED PROPERTY - J. A. Fair The Board was requested to pass a resolution excessing approximately 25,000 square feet of land located near J. A. Fair High School as being declared excessed property to the needs of the Little Rock School District. . Ms. Pondexter moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. B. APPROVAL OF JTPA SUMMER LEARNING PROGRAM The District is requesting to submit a grant application to the Private Industry Council to provide employment and remediation opportunities for up to 300 eligible students during a six-week period. The requested amount of funding is $63,282. Mr. Riggs moved approval of submission of the grant, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. C. APPROVAL OF POLICY ON GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENTS ON THE SECOND READING. The Board approved the policy on graduation requirements at its February Board Meeting on the first reading. Ms. Pondexter moved the approval for a second reading, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. D. PROPOSAL FOR SUMMER SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION PROGRAM: K-3 SUMMER SCHOOL The State Board of Education enacted regulations pursuant to its authority under Act 1139 of 1993. Specific regulations were established to provide guidelines under which local school district may be allowed to provide summer supplemental instruction for students in kindergarten through grade three not performing at grade level. The administration is recommending that a special K-3 Summer School be implemented this summer for a funding cost of $428,261, provided by the Arkansas Department of Education. It was further proposed that the following schools be used: Carver Magnet School, Cloverdale Elementary School, King and Washington Interdistrict Schools, and Terry Elementary School. The administration requested approval of the submission of this Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 6 proposal to the State Department. submission of the grant proposal, carried unanimously. Mr. Riggs moved approval of seconded by Ms . Gee, and it E. PERSONNEL: SPECIAL K-3 SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMER SCHOOL The following personnel were approved for the special K-3 summer school program: Sharon Davis - Principal - Carver Tyrone Harris - Principal - Terry Ada Keown - Principal - Washington Berthena Nunn - Principal - Cloverdale Betty Raper - Principal - King Interdistrict J. J. Lacey, Jr. - Principal - Stephens School Mr. Riggs moved approval of the personnel as presented, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. F. 1994-95 STUDENT CALENDAR The student calendar for the 1994-95 school year was presented for approval. Information was given to the Board stating that Pulaski County Special School District and Little Rock School District have coordinated their calendars, however, North Little Rock has not. The Board suggested that they try to coordinate spring break with U.A.L.R. After discussion, Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the calendar as presented (copy attached), seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried 4-1 with Mr. Jackson casting the 11nay11 vote. G. APPROVAL OF ENCLOSURE OF CORRIDORS AT McCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL BY CITY OF LITTLE ROCK TASK FORCE The Superintendent recommended that this item be tabled. Ms. Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. H. PRACTICAL ARTS TEXTBOOK ADOPTION RECOMMENDATION The state Department of Education requires a review and selection of textbook every five years. The Practical Arts Textbooks are up for adoption this year and the committee has been working and made the recommendations as printed in the agenda. The Superintendent presented the list for adoption. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 7 I. PROPOSED REGULATIONS - IGBE - POLICY ON REMEDIATION Regulations to Policy IGBE - Policy on Remediation was presented to the Board for approval. These regulations are presented to comply with Act 1139 of 1993 which requires local school districts to address a number of areas in their proposed plans for implementing the special K-3 summer supplemental program. The district's current attendance policy does not appear to be appropriate for summer school. Ms. Gee moved approval of the regulation, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. J. JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA) PROPOSAL FOR HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS (HIPPY) The City of Little Rock as recipient of funds under the Job Training, is requesting proposals from school districts and other agencies to operate employment and training activities. The LRSD's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) wishes to seek funding that will assist in the continuance of their program. The funds will allow the District to serve approximately 100 families who have eligible four- and five-year-olds. The administration recommends the Board's approval to submit this proposal. Ms. Gee moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. K. DONATIONS OF PROPERTY The following requests have been made for the donation of property to the Little Rock School District: Cloverdale Junior High School, PhoneMaster System Computer - by Twin City Bank\nMeadowcliff Elementary School, $500 Grant Award by Arkansas Community Foundation\nWilliams Magnet School, an Intercom System, by the Williams PTA\nMcClellan Community Education, $250, by Southwest Little Rock Neighborhood Association\nMcClellan Magnet High School, $500, by Smoky Hollow Foods\nWashington Magnet School, Computer Equipment $2,000 and 50 Calendars, by Gary Lambright/Personal Products\nand Pulaski Heights Elementary School, a VCR/TV, from Pulaski Heights Student Council. The administration recommends acceptance of these donations. Mr. Riggs moved approval of these items, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. L. EARLY CHILDHOOD DRUG EDUCATION INITIATIVE Approval is requested to submit an application to the Arkansas Department of Health, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse P Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 8 Prevention Program. Approximately 1900 pre-school children and their parents will participate in experiential educational activities using the Alpine Low Ropes model. These activities are designed to enhance self-esteem, fitness, comunication skills, cooperation, self respect and compassion for others. A one year grant of $55,000 will be used to implement the program. Mr. Riggs moved approval of submission of this grant, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. M. INSTITUTIONALIZED/CORRECTIONAL PROPOSAL Permission is being asked to submit a proposal for Institutionalized/Correctional funds from the State Department of Education, Adult Education Section to be used for the Adult Education program during the 1994-95 school year. The amount request is $87,875.18. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of this proposal, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. N. PERSONNEL CHANGES The Administration asked for approval of the personnel changes at the positions, salaries, and classifications as listed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved approval of these personnel changes, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. SUSPENSION OF RULES TO CONSIDER EARLY RETIREMENT Ms. Pondexter moved suspension of the rules to consider the early retirement incentive recommendation as presented by the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. Ms. Pondexter then moved to approve the Early Retirement Incentive Plan for teachers, (copy attached), seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. 0. FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Riggs moved approval of the financial report for the month of February, seconded by Mr. O 'Malley, and it carried unanimously. VI. A. REPORT AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISION OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES The Superintendent reported that a process has been - initiated by staff for effective implementation of our Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 9 Desegregation plan which necessitates a thorough review by the district of its existing policies, regulations, and practicies to determine whether they are consistent with obligations required in the operation of a desegregated school system. B. UPDATE ON RECRUITMENT FOR CLINTON SCHOOL A report was given by Dr. Mayo concerning recruitment for the new Clinton School. He said they were generating a list of students who are in the incentive school zones, but not attending incentive schools and will try to recruit some of those students to the incentive schools. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS AND/OR GROUPS None VIII. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Linda Watson presented information on the following student who is seeking reinstatement to the Little Rock School District: Ryan Yant - Mabelvale Junior High School suspended March 23, 1992 for possession of a firearm. The recommendation of the administration was to place him at the Alternative Learning Center for nine weeks. Ms. Gee moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. The following students were recommended by the administration for expulsion from the District without appeal: Byron Threet - McClellan Michael Reynolds - Parkview Damyan Riggins - Hall The following students were recommended for long-term suspension recommendations for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year and have not appealed: Michael D. Smith - J. A. Fair Willie Tyler - Dunbar Jr./ALC Antoine Harris - Henderson Jr./JJC Janice Harris - Henderson Jr./ALC Lamar Holmes - Henderson Jr./ALC Darryl Johnson - Henderson Jr./ALC Deangela Staples - Mabelvale Jr./ALC Heather Glidden Cloverdale Jr/ALC Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1994 Page 10 Ms. Gee moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried 4-1 with Ms. Pondexter abstaining. MOTION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Ms. Gee moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried 3-2 with Ms. Pondexter and Mr. Riggs voting 11nay. 11 ADJOURNMENT: The Board returned from Executive Session at 10 p.m. and the President, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, announced that there was no action taken. Mr. Riggs moved adjournment of the meeting, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. ~=~\\~ Dorsey Jacksoi\\,rsident APPROVED: ~ Dr. Katherine Mitchell Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 1994-95 WV ST . BH .) :,\n- 1.,, . .:::\u0026gt; MONTH M T w TH F M T w TH F M T w TH F M T w TH F M T w TH F sv PC DAY IN SH WO TCD JULY 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 * AUGUST 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 8 BH PC SEPTEMBER 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 20 (40] WO OCTOBER 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 31 20 AEA AEA BH BH NOVEMBER 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 18 (41] WO WV WV WV WV WV WV DECEMBER 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 15 WY WV BH JANUARY '95 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 30 31 19 FEBRUARY 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 20 (50] WO PC SY sv sv sv SV MARCH 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 16 IN APRIL 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 19 BH MAY 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 22 # JUNE 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 (47] TOTALS 178 Y!!}end . 1st Day Students IN lnservice ll End Quarter BH Board Holiday WV Winter Vacation SH Special Hot/day sv Spring Vaa:ition WO Non-Student Wo,k Days I ST1.JDNTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THI= DAYS SHADED A60VEI PC Parent Conference TCD Tola/ Contract Days ST DAY Student Days # Last Day Students CAUIS - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Minutes of Special Meeting March 29, 1994 MAY 61994 Ollie ct O The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:20 p.m. on March 29, 1994, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Linda Pondexter ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president Mr. Dorsey Jackson, called the special meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering recommendations of the Superintendent for an early retirement incentive for Administrators, Nurses, Secretaries and employees on the AN Salary Schedules. (A copy of the plan for these employees is attached.) After discussion by Board members and the administration, Ms. Patricia Gee moved the approval of the recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Jacovelli and it carried unanimously. Special Board Meeting Minutes March 29, 1994 Page 2 BUDGET WORK SESSION: At 5:20 p.m. the Board opened the meeting for the budget work session. Mark Milhollen stated he had previously sent the Board a copy of the proposed budget for 1994-95, and further stated that we cannot present a balanced budget at this time. He stated that there are too many unknown variables such as the negotiations with the Classroom Teachers Association, MFPA figures will not be available until the books are closed out after July 1, and there is a projected 7.2 million dollar shortfall for the 1994-95 school year between the revenues we will receive and the revenues we will need to operate the school district. Further, it was mutually agreed that the District cannot have a final budget ready to be recommended for adoption until the Board Meeting on July 28, 1994. The Board discussed the need to notify teachers that we will not be rehiring if we have not settled negotiations. Teachers have to be notified by April 30 if they are not to be rehired. The Superintendent stated that there will be several cuts. Mr. Jackson asked about getting our demographic information to see about closing of some schools. The Board asked if the designation of Washington Magnet School as an intradistrict school has been presented to the court. Mr. Malone stated they are still working with all the parties involved to get agreement. After discussion by the Board and administration it was decided that the Board members would submit their individual strategies for reducing the budget to Dr. Williams, who in turn will submit these suggestions to Mark Milhollen. The recently approved business cases were presented to the Board together with a breakdown of the number of additional staff members and dollar amount that is involved. Mr. Jackson suggested to the administration that the contract date for the teachers needs to be rolled back so that negotiations can be settled before the budget has to be prepared. Board of Directors Minutes March 29, 1994 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Mrs. Jacovelli moved adjournment at 7:15, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried unanimously. Approved: ____ _ Early Retirement Incentive Program for Administrators The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Employees who are at step 16 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. E. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. F. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. G. H. - I. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application not to exceed $55,000. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each  January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application dead::~ e will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal inst~,E :,ents, one (1) each January 15. _ 1 .. , l/lb-,'\" 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the May 20th ap.plication dead:i:1e will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each - Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the Clerical Salary Schedules The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Employees who are at step 13 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. - Early Retirement Incentive Program for Nurses The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Employees who are at step 16 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid fifty - Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the AN Salary Schedules The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Employees who are at step 12 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary'' (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary'' as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 14, 1994 Board of Directors Minutes of Special Meeting April 14, 1994 MAY 6 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:07 p.m. on April 14, 1994 in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president, Mr. Dorsey, Jackson, called the special meeting to order at 8: 50 p. m. The roll call revealed the presence of seven (7) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering recommendations of the following items: 1. Approval of Regular Summer School Principals\nBoard of Directors April 14, 1994 Page 2 2. Presentation of Proposed Budget for the 1994-95 School Year. 1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR SUMMER SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The following names were recommended to serve as principals for summer school sites for the 1994 summer School: Rockefeller - Grades 1-6 - Sharon Brooks Forest Heights Jr. High - Grades 7-8 - Angela Munns Central High School - Grades 9-12 - Mike Peterson Mrs. Jacovelli moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. 2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE 1994-95 SCHOOL YEAR. Dr. Williams stated that the proposed budget as delivered to the Board members was being submitted to the Court on the 15th of April as ordered by the Court. This will be the subject of the Court hearing on April 22. CALL FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION\nMr. Riggs moved that the Board move into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mrs. Jacovelli and it carried 6-1 with Ms. Pondexter casting the \"nay\" vote. The Board returned from Executive Session at 9:50 p.m. and Mr. Jackson announced that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: With no further action to be taken, Mrs. Jacovelli moved adjournment at 9:51 p.m., seconded by Mr. Riggs and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: _____ _ ~ ~ ~ ,_______., Do:e, ~sident \\ ~w.-.'--K-a\n.t,_h.\n:\n..e'\"\"r\"\"'1'\"- n~e,.._M_i_t_c_h.,_e_l_l.\n__-=--- Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 JUN 9 1994 Office oi D gr aa ,c 1 ~. c\nri  J The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met for its regularly scheduled Board Meeting in the Board Room of the Administration Building on April 28, 1994. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. T. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist Mr. Greg Harris - Teacher Ex-Officio Representative I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the regular meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. Mr. Jackson welcomed the teacher representative to the Board Meeting for April. II. READING OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Board Meeting on March 24, 1994\nSpecial Meeting on March 29, 1994\nand the Special Meeting on April 14, 1994 were presented for reading. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the minutes as read, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS A. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented congratulations to the following people: citations and Amanda Andres, Elizabeth Axley, Laura Beasmore, Margaret Campbell, Lois Jean Choate, Gay Gattis, Helen Littleton, Helen Lock, Marjorie Mccrary, Doris Zweig, and Edwina Ryan Stabler were presented citations from the Superintendent for their time spent every Tuesday morning tutoring students at McDermott Elementary in connection with Presbyterian Village's Partner in Education. Mrs. Wanda Baskins was recognized for her work in securing a grant provided by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to further develop her innovative ideas at McClellan High School in her sponsorship of the Teacher of Tomorrow Program. Thirty-five athletes from the District were chosen to be a part of the Little Rock Junior High All-Star Football Team. Those team members were recognized and presented with a citation: Pulaski Heights Junior High: Chris Bullock, Jason Flanigan, Donald Floyd, Marcus Iverson, Charles Murray, Keenan Richardson, Harry Winkler, and Marcus Yarbrough. Mabelvale Jr. High: Thomas Green, Roe Brammer, Brian Steele, Korey Oliver, Draper Hall, James Johnson and Corey Thomason. Forest Heights Jr. High: Sextus Harris, Robin Sullenger, Michael Lamkin, Nicky Lamar, Ramon Fields and Virgil Jones. Dunbar Jr. High: Moses Crawford, Marquette Newsome, Elisa Barnum, Nick Cheatham, Troy Austin, and Sidney Small. Southwest Jr. High students: Tommy Parker, Jarmall Lovelace and Charles West. Henderson: Jarrett Hart, Justin Casey and Kelton Roach. Mann Magnet Jr. High: Damon Helton Cloverdale Jr. High: Damarius Harris Citations were presented to the teacher and student exofficio Board Members for the month of April - Greg Harris from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and student representative Robert Palmer from J. A. Fair High School. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 3 B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None C. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee expressed a feeling of sympathy for the families of the students we have lost. She asked that the motorist be very careful and look out for children. She asked that we educate the children about the seriousness of watching the traffic. Mr. O'Malley reported that he had read to some students at Rightsell and enjoyed it very much. Dr. Mitchell expressed that the next week was Teacher Appreciation Week and she wanted the teachers to know that she did appreciate them. Mr. Jackson expressed congratulations to Mr. Al Porter who was honored as VIPS Volunteer of the Year at the \"Evening with the Stars,\" program sponsored by VIPS. D. PARTNERSHIPS The following schools and businesses were presented citations for having completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and being actively involved in working together to accomplish objectives of the partnership: J. A. Riggs Tractor Company and Chicot Elementary School Central Arkansas Black Data Processing Associates and Rockefeller Incentive School Shorter College and Rockefeller Incentive School University of Arkansas at Little Rock College of Education and Rockefeller Incentive School Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and Stephens Incentive School Mr. O'Malley moved acceptance of the partnerships as recommended by the Superintendent, seconded by Ms. Pondexter and it carried unanimously. E. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS None Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 4 F. INCENTIVE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' REPORT Garland Incentive School and Mitchell Incentive Schools were the featured schools for the month of April on their Incentive themes. Mitchell School presented a program with their ballet class sponsored by the theme specialist, Deborah Trulock. Garland Incentive School showed a film on their use of technology with their students and teachers. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Jackson read a statement reminding the citizens that as they speak, there would be no comment from the Board members, but their concerns would be taken into consideration. Mike Campbell, bus driver, stated he had been a bus driver for more than five or six years. He stated that he feels it would be more personal to keep the Transportation Department as it is now, that they care about the children. Nettie Nichols, bus driver, stated she had been a bus driver for 10 years. She asked the Board to please vote against the privatization of the Transportation Department. Janelle Romandia - a bus driver, is a driver of children with special needs. She encouraged the Board to vote against the outsourcing of transportation. Gwen Porter Cole stated that she is a parent and a school bus driver. She has been a driver for seven years and feels they have been deceived. Eleanor Coleman, President of the CTA, spoke on behalf of the Transportation Department. She stated she had thought the District had learned their lesson by past experiences when they tried to outsource before. She said some drivers have been with the District for 5, 6, 7 and 10 years. Consideration should be given for their years of service. Theretta Jackson stated it had been quite a while since they had to come before the Board. She told the Board they need the drivers. Foster Strong stated he was here to talk about Stephens School. He wants the children in that neighborhood to continue to go to Stephens - wants it built back where it is. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 5 Frank Martin stated that it has been stated that they have thrown a road block. He asked that the Board face the real problem - that being the Board and this administration. He said the problem is spending money on District programs that are not working. He asked that the entire Board resign. Hafeeza Majeed spoke as a citizen and parent. Look at going to another plan and get out of court. Heip Tran and Julie Murry students, spoke to the Board on promotion of their plan for a drug free and smoke free school. They asked to be put on the agenda for the next Board Meeting. Senator Jerry Jewell stated his purpose for speaking to the Board was to support the bus drivers. He stated he believed in collective bargaining and is a advocate for the public school system. He asked that they not move on the outsourcing of the transportation. V. ACTION AGENDA Dr. Williams asked for suspension of the rules to discuss the closing of Stephens School. Mr. Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation to hold the discussion, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried 5-1 with Mr. O'Malley voting \"nay.\" Dr. Williams asked that the Stephens School relocation be added to the agenda for this meeting for Board discussion. He stated the staff is in the process of preparing a business case for the relocation and temporary closing of Stephens School that will be discussed at the May meeting. He was hoping that the Board would look at the current Stephens site for the new school. Judge Wright has supported the notion that we need to make some adjustments in the number of incentive schools we have in the District. In closing Stephens at the current location he believes we have seats across the District to relocate those students and bring them back to Stephens when the new building is completed. Dr. Williams stated he had been in touch with the Joshua Intervenors, parents in the community and those people who have a lot of interest in that facility and they say that rebuilding at that site is one that makes a lot of sense. Dr. Williams asked for permission to start the process of closing Stephens. Mr. Riggs asked Dr. Williams to present the Board with a business case on the closing of Stephens and have it ready for the May Board Meeting. Dr. Williams said that assuming that the Board takes positive action for the temporary closing of Stephens, he would then get it to the court and hope to have it Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 6 acted on in a timely manner. Mr. Jackson asked that we move with haste and act on this in a special meeting if necessary. In a lengthy discussion by Board members, Mr. Jackson asked that they present their wish list at the Agenda Meeting in order to shorten the Board meetings. BREAK The Board took a break at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Riggs left the meeting at 8:20 p.m. CONTINUATION OF ACTION ITEMS: A. DEDICATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY: HUGHES STREET The City of Little Rock has selected Hughes Street, Evergreen Street to \"H\" Street as one of the local streets to be improved as part of the 1988 Capital Improvement Bond Project. They have requested that the LRSD approve a Dedication Deed, Rightof- Way Easement and Temporary Construction Easement as set out in the agenda. The Board was asked for approval for the administration to enter into legal agreements on these requests to support this project. Ms. Gee moved the recommendation of the administration, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. B. GRANT TO McCLELLAN TEACHERS OF TOMORROW ORGANIZATIONS McClellan Teachers of Tomorrow Organization received a $1,000 grant from the Arkansas Coalition in Education, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. The grant will be used for activities focused on recruiting minorities into the educational pipeline. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of this grant, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. C. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEXTBOOK ADOPTION The Foreign Language Textbook Adoption Committee consisting of 17 teachers, one assistant principal, and one member of the LRSD Board of Directors and coordinated by the Supervisor of Communications, English, ESL, and Foreign Languages, met several times and made a recommendation on the foreign languages textbooks and ancillaries as listed on the agenda. Ms. Gee moved the approval of the committees' recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 7 D. ARKANSAS BEST CHANCE (ABC) GRANT PROPOSAL The Administration recommended that the Board approve the Early Childhood Education Department's requests to submit an application to the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission for continuous funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood programs. This proposal will allow the District to apply for $233,992 in continuous funding from the ABC Commission. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the submission of this grant, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. E. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES AND FIXING FORM AND TERMS THEREOF The Board was asked to approve a resolution on the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes in the principal amount of $15,070,000 necessary to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the District through June 30, 1994. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the resolution, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried 4-1 with Ms. Pondexter abstaining. F. DONATIONS OF PROPERTY Requests for donations of property were presented to the Board as listed in the agenda. The LRSD City-Wide CCE Programs received a $300 donation from James Mccarther, Worldwide Services, Inc. The donation will be used for the city-Wide CCE Incentive Program to encourage excellence in the classroom and on the job at the four area high schools (J.A. Fair, Hall, McClellan and Central.) Also, the CCE Program received a $500 donation from Kathryn B. Hadley, Vice President, CCE Advisory Committee, for the four area high schools. Ms. Pondexter moved acceptance of the donations, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. G. PERSONNEL CHANGES The personnel changes as presented on the agenda were discussed by the Board. Included in the personnel changes was the recommendation for the Grant Writer, Marvin Schwartz. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the personnel changes as presented, seconded by Ms. Pondexter, and it carried unanimously. H. FINANCIAL REPORT There was discussion concerning the financial reports as presented. Ms. Pondexter moved approval of the reports, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 8 I. CONSENT DECREE FOR VIOLATION OF EPA REGULATIONS The Environmental Protection Agency (\"EPA\") has issued a Consent Decree for Violation of EPA Regulations on the demolition, renovation and/or construction activities at the Panky Exceptional School and the Watson Elementary School. In this Decree the LRSD is assessed $4 5, 68 O penalty. The Superintendent is asking approval to place his signature on the document. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the Superintendent's signing the document, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. REPORT ON STUDENT HANDBOOK Prosecuting Attorney, Mark Stodola, asked for permission to address the Board concerning the Student Handbook which had been prepared by the Public School Security Initiative Committee which consisted of employees in the Prosecutor's Office, Juvenile Justice System, and the Police Department. He explained to the Board that the feeling was that it made more sense for the three school districts in Pulaski County to have one common handbook because students from all school districts go to school in all three school districts. Mr. Stodola was asking the Board to approve the handbook. Mr. Jackson asked Mr. Stodola to include a member/s of the CTA on the committee. B. REPORT ON SPECIAL EDUCATION Dr. Patty Kohler, Director of Special Education, gave a special report on the Special Education Department. She stated the Special Education Department has a stated mission statement, and reported on the core beliefs of the Special Education Department. C. EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR AIDES AND CUSTODIANS Board Members had asked the administration to extend the early retirement incentive to the aides and custodians. The Board was told that the early retirement incentive for this group would have to be modified because they are paid on an hourly basis, therefore, this was to be negotiated with the aides and custodian groups. This would be an amendment to an early retirement incentive. VII. AUDIENCES WITH INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS None Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 9 VIII. DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following students were recommended for expulsion from the Little Rock School District and have accepted the recommendation without appeal: Simeund Darby - Parkview Magnet School Felante Williams - Forest Heights Junior High The following students have received long-term suspension recommendations for the second semester of the 1993-94 school year and have accepted the recommendation without appeal. Action by the LRSD Board of Directors was requested: Antonio Nelson - Central Marcus Stephens - Central Michael Lee - Hall Jarvis Hilliard - Hall Kenneth Nolan - ALC/Watershed Larry Jones - ALC/Watershed Derrick Scott - ALC/Watershed Kendrick Gardner - Dunbar/ALC Monica Marion - Dunbar/ALC Antonio Cooley - Dunbar/ALC Shavonne Pennington - Forest lights. Jr./ALC Clifton Long - Henderson/ALC Samuel Robinson - Henderson/ALC Michael Everhart - Mabelvale Jr./ALC Michael Tinnel - Mabelvale Jr./ALC Anthony Smith - Mabelvale Jr./JJC Annette Juniel - Pulaski Hts. Jr. Tim Parr - Southwest/ALC Karlisha Porter - Southwest/ALC Cornelius Spencer - Southwest Jr./Watershed After discussion, Mr. O'Malley moved acceptance of the recommendations, seconded by Ms. Pondexter and it carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Dr. Mitchell moved that the Board go into Executive Session, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. The Board went into Executive Session at 9:40 p.m. At 10:20 p.m., the Board returned from Executive Session and stated that no action was taken. Regular Board Meeting April 28, 1994 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Gee moved adjournment at 10:22 p.m., seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Dorseyji~, President APPROVED: ------ ~~~\u0026lt; Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Secretary RECE V ._O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUN 9 1994 Office of O~grog' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 12, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:05 p.m. on May 12, 1994, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, called the special meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The special meeting was called for the purpose of considering an amendment to the 1993-94 Early Retirement Incentive Program. The Board was told that the early retirement incentives for the custodians group and the aides group have been negotiated with their respective bargaining teams. Additionally, an amendment to the previously adopted early retirement incentive for teachers has been negotiated with the LRCTA. The amendment would provide all teacher participants an A\u0026amp;ntunng Special Board Meeting May 12, 1994 Page 2 additional $2500 as an additional incentive to accept the offer. Early retirement incentives for maintenance employees and food service employees were also developed and were presented for Board approval. Some modifications in other previously adopted incentives were recommended as follows: 1. Nurses: Change the eligibility criteria from step 16 to step 15. 2. Administrators: Change the eligibility criteria from step 16 to step 13. 3. Unclassified Administrators: Make the unclassified administrators eligible under the administrator incentive program with the same salary cap. (Copies of amendments are attached.) The Superintendent moved presented. Ms. Pondexter recommendation, seconded by unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: approval of moved the Dr. Mithcell the amendments as Superintendent's and it carried With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. APPROVED: _______ _ i.~ Secretary /2/ ,I.x A~ ~(xv \\. v\\J' l\\ I 1o ~i1t B~\\.f  Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the Custodial and Building Engineer Salary Schedules The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Full time employees who are at step 10 on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. E. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by June 1, 1994. F. Applications received after June 1, 1994, will not be considered. G. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. H. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salal),,. as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. I. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary diyjded in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each Janual)' 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. / 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age c,n the June 1st application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. 10. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995. 11. Employees 65 years of age or older on the June 1st application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. L. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time or part-time contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in an hourly rate substitute position only. ,' I Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the Maintenance Salary Schedules The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Full time employees who are at step 13 on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. E. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by June 1, 1994. F. Applications received after June 1, 1994, will not be considered. G. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. H. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. I. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. 10. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995. 11. Employees 65 years of age or older on the June 1st application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. L. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time or part-time contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four ( 4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in an hourly rate substitute position only. Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the Aides Salary Schedules  The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Full time employees who are at step 7 on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating employees are not required to retire UJ1der the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating emp\n.1yees may be empioyed in another Arkansas School District. E. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by June 1, 1994. F. Applications received after June 1, 1994, will not be considered. G. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. H. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. I. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15.  4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. 10. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995 . . 11. Employees 65 years of age or older on the June 1st application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. L. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time or part-time contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in an hourly rate substitute position only. - Early Retirement Incentive Program for Personnel on the Food Service Salary Schedules The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Full time employees who are at step 15 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by June 1, 1994. Applications received after June 1, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary\" (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. 10. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the June 1st application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995. 11. Employees 65 years of age or older on the June 1st application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. L. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time or part-time contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in an hourly rate substitute position only. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting June 23, 1994 AUG 2 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met for its regularly scheduled Board meeting in the Board Room of the Administration Building on June 23, 1994. The president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter (Ms. Pondexter became ill and left the meeting at 8 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The President called the regular meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of seven (7) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the May 26, 1994 regular meeting\nspecial meetings of June 2, 1994, June 6, 1994, and June 9, 1994, were presented for reading. Mrs. Jacovelli moved approval of the minutes, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Jackson stated that the minutes as printed were correct, but that an incorrect call was made on the vote in the minutes of the June 9, Special Board Meeting, in which the Board voted on the Regular Board Meeting June 23, 1994 Page 2 recommendation of the Superintendent to assign Mr. Marshaleck as a principal on special assignment to the Department of Human Resources. The vote was three \"yes\" votes, 2 \"no\" votes, and 1 \"abstained.\" The vote was erroneously called as carrying, however, the vote failed for lack of a majority vote. Ms. Pondexter moved that the agenda be amended to place the Agreement on outsourcing Transportation services, No. I to A on the Agenda. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Jacovelli and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. The Superintendent presented congratulations to the following people: citations and Reverend Hazekiah Stewart and Ms. Deborah Blackwell who have been instrumental in placing students who were expelled from the LRSD into alternative educational settings were recognized by the Superintendent. The Watershed staff and school district administrators work collaboratively to continue the education of these students. Ms. Blackwell was present to accept the citation for both she and Reverend Stewart. Carla Bobo, who has served two years as President of the PTA Council, and Ms. Essie Middleton who recently was elected president of the Arkansas PTA were recognized by the Superintendent and given citations. Ms. Cynthia Phillips and Ms. Judy Belford of Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet received citations. Ms. Belford was not present for the meeting. They led a team of 57 sixth grade students in the Marite Francois Girbaud Peace Movement and received a $1,000 award for having the highest percentage of participation. The teacher Ex-Officio Board Member for the month of June, Kristen Compton of Jefferson Elementary School, and the student ex-officio Board Member, Telly Noel from McClellan High School were mentioned as receiving citations. B. CITIZENS COMMITTEES None C. BOARD MEMBERS Mr. O'Malley congratulated Ms. Middleton on her election as Arkansas PTA President. He stated he had attended the multi- .. . Special Board Meeting June 23, 1994 Page 3 - culture celebration at Garland School and enjoyed it very much. Mr. O'Malley stated he had received many calls regarding the principal changes in the schools. He stated that he is supporting the Superintendent's decisions. Mr. Riggs stated he had been thinking about the union and their contract. He said he felt the contract should end in June. He also thinks the budget document should be moved back to have the budget finished by June 15. Ms. Jacovelli said she has received an abundance of calls from citizens opposing the closing of Baseline School. Ms. Gee stated she had been on the Board for six years and this is the most principal changes she has seen in the school District. Ms. Pondexter said in the last several weeks she has received a number of calls on a number of things. She stated she is concerned about the process of cutting the budget. She says she has asked and wants to receive information on cuts of central office salaries, aides and teacher days. She stated she hoped the cuts would not be with those who work closely with students. Mr. Jackson stated he agreed with Mr. Riggs that the classroom teacher contract needs to be revised. He said he had asked that Mr. Gadberry put it in this year's negotiations. He said it is time for this District to make some changes. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Jackson reminded the audience that their speaking time was limited to three minutes. Mike Campbell, bus driver, addressed the Board concerning the possibility of the outsourcing of the transportation. He stated he did not want the outsourcing because of the well-being of the children. Neddie Nichols, bus driver, stated she had addressed the Board several times on the same subject (bus drivers). She stated that bus drivers have a right to know things that are going on. Alfred Angulo, Jr. asked to address the Board. Several of the parents relinquished their three minutes to him, therefore he spoke to the Board for some time. He stated he was one of the patrons who opposed the recommendations the Board would be receiving on assignment of principals to the elementary schools.  He stated he did not believe the selection process was complete. Regular Board Meeting June 23, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Angulo stated that the committee asked that five parents and five staff members be allowed to participate on the principal selection committee. He also stated they wanted to interview certain candidates for the position. Mr. Angulo said committee was made up of three parents and two staf\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) funding"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_6","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1994-01/1994-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/6"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant. Developed by the Arkansas Department of Education's desegregation team to comply to progress and implementation of educational provisions and timelines. The reports were submitted to federal court.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n \n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":42,"next_page":43,"prev_page":41,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":492,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}