{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0815","title":"Oral history interview with Mary T. Mathew, April 25, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Varma, Rashmi","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Mathew, Mary Thundyil"],"dc_date":["1999-04-25"],"dcterms_description":["Mary T. Mathew left her home near Kerala, India, for North Carolina in 1970, remembering that \"the second I disembarked in New York, I felt I had come home.\" After a period of adjustment, worrying about visas and financial stability, Mathew experienced four turning points that would define her life in the United States: she got her visa, began working, stopped wearing her traditional sari, and started to drive. Mathew and her husband embraced American culture, speaking English in the home and finding a place in a Christian community. As they formed new bonds, the ties with the fellow immigrants that had been so strong in their early days in America started to dissolve. In this interview, Mathew describes this transition and her forward-looking immigrant experience, one relatively unaffected by the pull of her homeland and marked by the release from the cultural norms and traditions of India. The most significant markers of this approach might be Mathew's children, whose desire to fit in with their American peers nudged Mathew and her husband toward reconsideration of the \"pre-established cultural-behavioral expectations\" they learned as Indians. The result, though it did not come without some anxiety, is a thriving family and a successful career. This interview will interest researchers concerned with immigration and assimilation.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["East Indian American women--North Carolina","East Indian Americans--Cultural assimilation--North Carolina","Americanization","East Indian Americans--Ethnic identity"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Mary T. Mathew, April 25, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0815/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Oct. 31, 2008).","Interview participants: Mary T. Mathew, interviewee; Rashmi Varma, interviewer.","Duration: 00:51:01.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Mathew, Mary Thundyil"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_60","title":"Dorothy Cotton","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-04-22"],"dcterms_description":["Dorothy Cotton discusses working with Dr. King to establish the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta. She continued to work and travel with Dr. King, including organizing with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, until his assassination."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","Southern Christian Leadership Conference"],"dcterms_title":["Dorothy Cotton"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/60"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1686","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-04"],"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","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1686"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \\':1  ' ' '  . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '\"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r\u003e  .-1  .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.\",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work\u003c April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little -~-r ~kansas 72'f\\  ~ \\' --~ \" lc .. J..r..\\..\\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I \"'j'\"j'\"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\) \\ l,1,,J :\\ 1\\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order \"declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision.\" The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical \"Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on.\" l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The  current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments\" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ,\" 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua\" (at 3), or, alternatively, as \"a modification of the 1990 Plan\" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal \"is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision \"furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\" .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to \"scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \" Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... \"Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has \"[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... \" Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was \"ready\" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: \"This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the \"new\" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the \"Commitment\" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a \"change\" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for April, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  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. "},{"id":"ere_c18_39732","title":"Oral History Interview with Dr. Andrew Best March 31, 1999","collection_id":"ere_c18","collection_title":"African American History","dcterms_contributor":["Moskop, Ruth"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Best, Andrew A., 1916-2005"],"dc_date":["1999-03-31"],"dcterms_description":["Oral history interview with Dr. Andrew Best, a longtime health care provider of Greenville, North Carolina. In this interview, Dr. Best discusses the importance of informing adolescent students about preventive care and communicable diseases. He also talks about several incidents that he witnessed during the Civil Rights era and his activity on local boards and councils during that time. The information covered in this interview is relevant to the years 1957 to 1972."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Medicine--Practice","Communicable diseases--Prevention","African American physicians--North Carolina--Greenville","School integration--North Carolina--Pitt County","Civil rights movements--United States--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Oral History Interview with Dr. Andrew Best March 31, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["J.Y. Joyner Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/39732"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This item has been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Researchers are responsible for using these materials in accordance with Title 17 of the United States Code and any other applicable statutes. If you are the creator or copyright holder of this item and would like it removed, please contact us at als_digitalcollections@ecu.edu."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0276","title":"Oral history interview with Jeff Black, March 29, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Grundy, Pamela","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, 35.22709, -80.84313"],"dcterms_creator":["Black, Jeff, 1981?-"],"dc_date":["1999-03-29"],"dcterms_description":["African American senior Jeff Black reflects on his experiences at West Charlotte High School. Black felt West Charlotte's ties to his community well before he set foot on the school's campus, and like many of his peers, he eagerly anticipated beginning school there. He was not disappointed: at West Charlotte, Black found an intellectually stimulating, socially energizing, and racially diverse environment that allowed him to commit himself both to reaching his individual goals and strengthening his community. But Black admits that West Charlotte is not immune to the legacies of segregation: students tend to self-segregate in the cafeteria, there are few minorities in advanced classes, and the administration limited marching band routines because, surmises Black, they reflect an aspect of black culture the school does not want to associate itself with. He nonetheless believes that West Charlotte's \"contagious\" sense of belonging outweighs racism. Black's experiences at West Charlotte have been so positive that he tells the interviewer that \"the race relations issue tends to be stressed a little bit too much.\" He believes that individuals have to choose to mingle with people from different backgrounds.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--North Carolina--Charlotte","Charlotte (N.C.)--Race relations","Schools--North Carolina--Charlotte","African Americans--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American students--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American students--North Carolina--Charlotte--Attitudes","West Charlotte High School (Charlotte, N.C.)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Jeff Black, March 29, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0276/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Duration: 00:43:26"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Irons, Ned","Black, Jeff, 1981?-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0438","title":"Oral history interview with Leroy Magness, March 27, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Markey, Michelle","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Lincoln County, 35.48618, -81.22387","United States, North Carolina, Lincoln County, Lincolnton, 35.47375, -81.25453"],"dcterms_creator":["Magness, Leroy, 1920-2007"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Leroy Magness spent most of his life in Lincolnton, North Carolina, about thirty-five miles from Charlotte. A poet, and a man who \"didn't want to be a troublemaker,\" Magness has an easy relationship with his past as an African American in a segregated southern town. He did not participate in the civil rights movement, nor approve of those that did, believing that good behavior was a better catalyst for change than activism. This determination to avoid conflict lies at the heart of this interview, and, it seems, at the heart of Magness's character. He will not place blame for segregation, and his principal memory of desegregation was some trouble between white and black students.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American men--North Carolina--Lincolnton","African Americans--Segregation--North Carolina--Lincolnton","African American men--North Carolina--Lincolnton--Attitudes","Lincolnton (N.C.)--Race relations","Lincolnton (N.C.)--Social life and customs"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Leroy Magness, March 27, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0438/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Dec. 2, 2008).","Interview participants: Leroy Magness, interviewee; Michelle Markey, interviewer.","Duration: 01:21:45.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Magness, Leroy, 1920-2007"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_456","title":"Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164"],"dcterms_creator":["Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Program (Taw Caw Baptist Church, Summerton, S.C.) on funeral services for Rebecca Richburg, a plaintiff in Clarendon County (S.C.) School Segregation Case [Briggs v. Elliott]; wife of John Hazel Richburg; includes obituary."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 25)","Joseph A. DeLaine Papers"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--South Carolina--Genealogy","Clarendon County (S.C.)--Genealogy","African Americans--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Obituaries--South Carolina--Clarendon County"],"dcterms_title":["Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/jad/id/456"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For more information contact the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["programs (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Richburg, Rebecca, d. 1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_jad456","title":"Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164","United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, Summerton, 33.60822, -80.3512"],"dcterms_creator":["Taw Caw Missionary Baptist Church (Summerton, S.C.)"],"dc_date":["1999-03-27"],"dcterms_description":["Program from the March 27, 1999 funeral for Rebecca Richburg, held at Taw Caw Baptist Church in Summerton, South Carolina. Rebecca Richburg was the wife of John Hazel Richburg and a plaintiff in the Clarendon County, South Carolina school segregation case, also known as Briggs v. Elliott. The program includes an obituary.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 25), Joseph Armstrong DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000,  South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbus, South Carolina."],"dcterms_subject":["Taw Caw Missionary Baptist Church (Summerton, S.C.)","Funeral rites and ceremonies--South Carolina--Summerton","Obituaries--South Carolina--Summerton","African American women--South Carolina--Summerton","African Methodist Episcopal Church","Death--South Carolina--Summerton","African American churches--South Carolina--Summerton","African American civil rights workers--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights workers--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights movements--South Carolina--Summerton","African Americans--Civil rights--South Carolina--Summerton","Civil rights--South Carolina--Summerton"],"dcterms_title":["Program, 1999 Mar. 27, (Summerton, S.C.), Homegoing Services for the Late Mrs. Rebecca Richburg, Taw Caw Baptist Church"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/jad/id/456"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["programs"],"dcterms_extent":["image/jpg","Manuscripts"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Richburg, Rebecca, 1915-1999","Richburg, Rebecca, 1915-1999--Death and burial"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1013","title":"\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03-25"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock School District","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School administrators","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation"],"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/1013"],"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":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \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 and may contain some errors.\n- rica A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-1 O 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ......................................... 4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ....................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-1 6 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office .......................... : ............................................. 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization .............................................. 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes ........................................................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ............................................................................ 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7.1 lntroduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ............................................................... 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7 -25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ......................................................................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 lnfrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-10 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development .............................................................................. 8-17 8. 7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance .............................................................. 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .............................................................. 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........................................................................ 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ................................................... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ...................................................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1 .1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-10 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ........................................ .4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ...................................................................... .4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-16 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office ......................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization ....................................... ....... 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes .............. ...... .................... ................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ................................. ........................................... 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7 .1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ........................................................... .. .. 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7 .4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7-25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ............................................... .......................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-1 O 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development ..... .. ................................ .. .. .... .. ............................. 8-17 8.7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance ................... .. ..... .. ......... .. ....................... 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .......... ........... ......................................... 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........... .. .................................. ......................... 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ..... .. ................................. ..... ...... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ............................... .. ..................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative_ Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ..................... .. ............................. .......................... 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page Ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Ill Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page Iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 {which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District {LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: ..... comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision tor the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for a/locating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and l'v1arketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations finn, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge tor the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to detem1ine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This infom1ation was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Iii Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. ,__ ___ . ___ AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding fom,ula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCT/ON, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3O\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LASO) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: ..... comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enonnous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to detennine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being ottered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11 , 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers. ..  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and infonnation collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted fonnal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1 .1 , we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. As stated in the Alliance's Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum:  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. We wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Carnine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1 Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. ACTIVITY Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2 Introduction 1.1 Study Methodology This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGT's audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1. 1. 1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include:  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\n University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk,  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3 Introduction  annual budgets\n job descriptions\n salary schedules\n peIBonnelhandbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1. 1.2 Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4 Introduction Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5 Introduction who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. . . . the Little Rock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support . . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Rock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LRSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Rock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District.  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools.  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instructional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGT's charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6 Introduction There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, it accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District:  Objective 1 : Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students.  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: Establish Marketing Teams within each school building.  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: Establish regular and timely communications with all LRSD employees.  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families.  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media.  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7 Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2 describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees.  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-8 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation  Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Court's order of \"all deliberate speed.\" The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve \"racial balance\" in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1 Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration --- to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. An end may be at hand to the friction born of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree \"does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan\" but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if the district upholds what is commonly called the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\n the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comf'T}ittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it \"recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced\" (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: .. . in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against AfricanAmerican students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page2-2 Background on the Little Rock School District on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools (Section 2. 1, Revised Plan). In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified AfricanAmericans\n an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline\n the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable\nand  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3 Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employee's child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). As stated in Section 1 0 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when:  the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-4 Background on the Little Rock School District 2. 1. 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with \"the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements.\" The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each party's compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua lntervenors Joshua lntervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua lntervenors are responsible for enforcing the lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua lntervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including:  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures t9 be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the district's schools\nand  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5 Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment  Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2. 1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1 .3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent AfricanAmerican. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-6 27,000 26,500 26,000 \"' ~----~- 25,500 25,000 24,500 EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES /------~ // , , \"\"\"-\" \"\"r~ \"'-,. ,, ''-....,,~~\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ' \\ ' Background on the Little Rock School District t:o). I ... .......... ~-- ...... ~::i: I I ( I \\ l / 24,000 \\ '\\ / / 23,500 \\ '\\ I \\ , rc~ 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website,www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enrlment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT .. LITTLE ROCK STATE U.S . .. , RACE (%) {%) (%) African-American adults with some 43.1 24.5 35.1 college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a 63.3 35.0 46.9 bachelor's, or an advanced degree Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows:  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 11 0 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. .. .. . ' RACE EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME LITTLE ROCK STATE African-American Families $21,103 $14 785 White Families $41,074 $26,939 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. U.S. .. $22,429 $37,152 Page2-B Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources:  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall.  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-9 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING SCHOOL FUND ENDING FUND SETTLEMENT LOAN FUNDS . YEAR BALANCE BALANCE FUNDS EXPENDED EXPENDED 1993-94 $6,019,557 $4,794,251 $8,094,112 $0 1994-95 4,794,251 3,645,739 6,042,591 0 1995-96 3,645,739 915,442 3,829,942 0 1996-97 915,442 942,644 683,125 3,000,000 (budgeted) Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue all other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources.  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average.  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rock's operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendent's Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that \"basically includes no new revenues for the coming year.\" Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-10 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc.  Federal \u0026amp; Other  State  Local Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD ..  MILLAGE TAX ASSESSMENT RATE CHARGE $1,401,195,338 0.0414 $58,009,487 468,027,843 0.0419 19,610,367 13,016,161 0.0414 538,869 73,758,248 0.0419 3,090,471 $1,955,997,590 $81,249,193 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) . $74,749,258 Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law, Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in \"fiscal distress\" under this  law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the district's older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing \"schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12 Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as \"brokers\" in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication \"A Vision for the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998\" is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the district's mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_375","title":"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final 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":["1999-03-25"],"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--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' Final 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/375"],"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":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nA MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology...................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 J 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... I i ..3-2 ..3-5 3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results........................................................... Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office........................,..................................... Division of School Services........................................................ Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 1 1 6.6 6.7 1 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7-1 i 8.0 1 9.0 J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction.................................................................. Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan...................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... Infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................. Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support.................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations........................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 .9-14 .9-17 .9-22 9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35J 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I i 1 J 1 J1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Overview f In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. t I I i In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. j Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. J Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working ! MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary } employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. 1 Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n4  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\nI  the current financial position\nf \u0026gt;  the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. i The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study  MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several 1 recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page iiExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 a During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district.  Formal On-Site Review During the week of December 7-11,1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan i } -i Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Ina Page IIIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION i Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. I i j One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. J The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instnjctional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officers position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION '5 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. i The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school district's current financial position? The RFP asked the consultant to 'analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the 1 I adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for Uie future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships.  1 Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary i should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. i The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. i AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ' 9 I J J Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. 1 J Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. I The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. i These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 I AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: 1 .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. I 1 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place  A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instnjctional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary  1 The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. I The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement I  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education 1 i 7 There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. 1 The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viiiExecutive Summary ) t i 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. 1 In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND INSTRUCTIONAL i Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. a 1 i In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 s that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LFISD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. 1 A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the ] lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by i  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to detenriine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy tor providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and J  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page xExecutive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District i There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. I ! The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 1 j Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. ( J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. i i 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page xii1 { i I I 5 i i 1 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE\nACTIVITY October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 I December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings tor technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xillTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1 t ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology....................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure.................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS .3-1 I 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................. Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures............... 1 t r ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS .4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results........................... Principal Survey Results........................................................... Teacher Survey Results............................................................ Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys..................................................................... Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems.......................................................... EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office..........................\n.................................. Division of School Services......................................................... Division of Instruction.................................................................. Operations Division..................................................................... Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 ,4-12 ,4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 ,5-15 .5-30 ,5-35 6-1 I 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs.................. Assessment of Fund Balance..................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94TABLE OF CONTENTS i PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 i 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes.................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations.......................................................................... Chapter Summary........................................................................... 6-99 6-115 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR .7-1 1 } X 8.0 1 J 9.0 i J 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction................................................................... Funding for New Construction..................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations....................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan..................................................................... Technology Committee........................................................... Staffing.................................................................................... infrastructure............................................................................ Hardware................................................................................ Staff Development.................................................................. Technical Support................................................................... Obstacles to implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................. NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement.............................................. Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts................................................................... English as a Second Language...................................................... Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy............................................................................. Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results ...7-1 ...7-4 ,7-21 .7-25 .8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 8-17 8-23 8-27 8-30 .9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 .9-17 9-22 .9-26 9-30 9-32 9-35? \u0026gt; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I I 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, wzhere declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District:  the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review t .i During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. I Formal On-Site Review 1 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: J  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 1 s Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page HIExecutive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. i Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. i One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Linder the proposed organizational stnjcture, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus tor fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. 1 i T AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION i 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. 1 The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position. The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instnjctional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and n repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. 1 J The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. I Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page vExecutive Summary 1 should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. * 1 The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. J The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc, Page vl1 Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by SDMntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. j These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. 1 AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES J Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discnminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place ~ A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instnjction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning  support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. a In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. a The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V\nFUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. I In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary 1 that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the districts obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the 1 ! lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: This strategy should be accomplished by  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n3  annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand I i  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MG T of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary i The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Gamine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District X There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlExecutive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. 1 As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instmctional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. 1 1 i MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary 1 EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY 1 October 15. 1998 November 1998 November 2-6,1998 December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1, 1999 March 1-24, 1999 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. I 4 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25,1999 Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. MGT of America, Inc. Page xlll1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 f 7 J J1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1.1, we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. t As stated in the Alliances Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum\nJ  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n1 .1  a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. J wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Gamine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. i MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. 1 November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing December 7-11,1998 Conducted formal on-site review. December 1998 Requested additional data from the school district. January 1999 Prepared the draft report. February 12,1999 Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. March 1, 1999 Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. March 1-24, 1999 Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2Introduction i 1.1 Study Methodology 1 This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGTs audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1.1.1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include: }  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\nI  University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk-, 4 J  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n1 J I  independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3Introduction  annual budgets: 1  job descriptions\n salary schedules\n personnel handbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1.1.2 Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys 1 4 To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following\n Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology 5  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4? Introduction i f * Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we inten/iewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5Introduction j 1 who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions\nInstruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. ... the Little Pock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support. 1 a . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Pock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LPSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Pock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. i  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools. .i  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. J These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instnjctional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGTs charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6Introduction 1 There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District: 4 .f  Objective 1: Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students. 1 t  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: building. Establish Marketing Teams within each school  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: LRSD employees. Establish regular and timely communications with all  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families. -j'  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media. ! i  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2'describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees. 1 i  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. 1 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-82.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J I 3 7 1 J 4 12.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 1 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegreciation ! I The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. i For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Courts order of all deliberate speed. The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve racial balance in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration  to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if n the district upholds what is commonly called the Revised Plan. 1 The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\nT i 3  the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comrpittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. i I At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. I The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: ...in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discnmination by LRSD against African- American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-2Background on the Little Rock School District 1 on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LFtSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools (Section 2.1, Revised Plan). 1 t 1 In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified African- Americans:  an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline: J  the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n1  improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n1 ) 1  students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent African- American) as reasonably practicable\nand -I  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employees child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). i As Stated in Section 10 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when: ...the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-4Background on the Little Rock School District 2.1.1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring j 1 J As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements. The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each partys compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua Intervenors are responsible for enforcing the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua Intervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including: i  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures tp be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the districts schools: and  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. 5 J 5 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2.1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1.3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. J .J However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent African- American. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. J In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-6tw.iaiWit L...  i Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES 27.000 26,500 26,000 25,500 25,000 24,500 ____\\k ____ -------\\ / 24,000 \\ 23,500 \\ \u0026gt; \\ ! V 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 / 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website, www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enriment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District i 1 i EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1 RACE African-American adults with some college, a bachelors, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree LITTLEROCK \u0026lt;%) 43.1 63.3 STATE 24.5 35.0 U.S. 35.1 46.9 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997.  ! In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows: 1  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 110 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME J sl:STATE LITTUEROGKSO U.S African-American Families $21,103 $14,785 $22,429 White Families $41,074 $26,939 $37,152 f .1 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-8Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources: 1  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. 1 These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 1 j school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall. 1  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-9Background on the Little Rock School District 3 EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES J 5 SCHOOL \"YEAR 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 (budgeted) BEGINNING FUND\nBALANCE $6,019,557 4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 ENDING FUND BALANCE $4,794,251 3,645,739 915,442 942,644 SETTLEMENT FUNDS EXPENDED $8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 LOAN FUNDS EXPENDED $0 3,000,000 0 0 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue ail other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows\n The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources. 1  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average. J J  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. 7 Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rocks operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendents Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that basically includes no new revenues for the coming year. Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. J MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-10u. 1 J Background on the Little Rock School ct EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%  Federal \u0026amp; Other  Stale  Local 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District 1 EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,401,195,338 468,027,843 13,016,161 73,758,248 $1,955,997,590 MILLAGE RATE 0.0414 0.0419 0.0414 0.0419 TAX CHARGE $58,009,487 19,610,367 538,869 3,090,471 $81,249,193 ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) $74,749,258 Source\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. i Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law. Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in fiscal distress under this law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes 7 As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. J Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the districts older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as brokers in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication A Vision tor the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998 is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the districts mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means for assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SCf percentile on standardized tests of who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  IVe will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. i i *  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  IVe will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-13Background on the Little Rock School District  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. 2.2.5 Ongoing Pay and Classification Study The district is currently working with an outside consultant to complete an internal pay and classification study. The parameters of the study include:  reviewing current job descriptions\n evaluating job positions\n developing salary administrative policies and procedures\n completing a comparative study\n planning for transitions (including comparing old to new, creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees, setting a policy for grandfathering, and deciding on a policy for exceptional cases)\nand  establishing a review committee to ensure fairness, equity, and consistency. According to the schedule planned by the district, the study will be completed in May 1999. The study will review all central office and school positions, except teachers, aides, bus drivers, and custodians. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure One major requirement of the management study is for MGT to examine the current management structure and appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions. Therefore, this section reviews the current structure of the central office\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":"noa_sohpcr_k-0440","title":"Oral history interview with Kenneth Norton, March 23, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Campbell, Brian","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Gaston County, Davidson, 35.50233, -80.83912","United States, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, 35.24671, -80.83276"],"dcterms_creator":["Norton, Kenneth, 1928?-"],"dc_date":["1999-03-23"],"dcterms_description":["Kenneth Norton attended the segregated Ada Jenkins School in Davidson, North Carolina, in the 1930s. In this interview, he shares some memories about the school and segregated Davidson. Norton describes an under-resourced school able to offer only eleven grades, limited instruction, and well-used uniforms for its sports teams. This interview offers background for those interested in the history of segregation in schools.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American schools--alumni and alumnae--North Carolina--Davidson","African American schools--North Carolina--Davidson","Segregation in education--North Carolina--Davidson","African Americans--Education--North Carolina--Davidson","Davidson (N.C.)--Social life and customs"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Kenneth Norton, March 23, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0440/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 26, 2008).","Interview participants: Kenneth Norton, interviewee; Brian Campbell, interviewer.","Duration: 00:36:55.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Norton, Kenneth, 1928?-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0434","title":"Oral history interview with Terry Graham, March 22, 1999","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Covington, Amanda","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Iredell County, 35.80708, -80.87344","United States, North Carolina, Iredell County, Mooresville, 35.58486, -80.81007"],"dcterms_creator":["Graham, Terry, 1919?-"],"dc_date":["1999-03-22"],"dcterms_description":["Mooresville, North Carolina, resident and taxi service operator Terry Graham describes his changing town in this interview. He worries that the town has \"just outgrown itself\" and is at risk of being swallowed up by nearby Charlotte; already, businesspeople from the racing industry are infiltrating the town, says Graham, and he worries about the effects of the closing of Burlington Mill on African Americans. The future for Mooresville as Graham sees it does not look bright for its lower-income residents. Perhaps the most significant change Graham describes is desegregation. He remembers a relatively uneventful process: though the white and black community disagreed about whether it was the white school or the black school that should undergo the conversion to an integrated facility, that and other questions were handled peacefully, even when Martin Luther King's assassination roiled the community. This interview offers a glimpse of a town in flux, sprawling toward an uncertain future.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American businesspeople--North Carolina--Mooresville","School integration--North Carolina--Mooresville","Mooresville (N.C.)--Race relations","Mooresville (N.C.)--Economic conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Terry Graham, March 22, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0434/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on December 16, 2008).","Interview participants: Terry Graham, interviewee; Amanda Covington, interviewer.","Duration: 00:37:51.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Graham, Terry, 1919?-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":403,"next_page":404,"prev_page":402,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4824,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}