{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47882","title":"[Portrait of Rosa Parks  taken during her visit to Stockholm, Sweden for the \"One Day of Peace\" festival, held in her honor, 1994] [graphic] /","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Sweden, Stockholm, Stockholm Municipality, Sweden, 59.32938, 18.06871"],"dcterms_creator":["Pettersson, Kurt, photographer."],"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":["Photographer credit: \"\u0026copy; tre fotografer\" - stamped on back of print.","Title devised by staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Portrait of Rosa Parks  taken during her visit to Stockholm, Sweden for the \"One Day of Peace\" festival, held in her honor, 1994] [graphic] /"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47882"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_38964","title":"[Portrait of Rosa Parks with singer Cyndee Peters] [graphic] /","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Sweden, Stockholm, Stockholm Municipality, Sweden, 59.32938, 18.06871"],"dcterms_creator":["Pettersson, Kurt, photographer."],"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks seated in a chair and gospel singer Cyndee Peters standing behind Parks, likely taken during Parks' visit to Stockholm, Sweden for the \"One Day of Peace\" festival\", held in honor of Parks and organized by Peters, 1994.","Title devised by Library staff.","Photographer credit: \"\u0026copy; tre fotografer\" stamped on back of print."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["swe"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Portrait of Rosa Parks with singer Cyndee Peters] [graphic] /"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.38964"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraits","photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Peters, Cyndee"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-33-0","title":"Postage Meter - Pitney-Bowes, Inc.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Postage Meter - Pitney-Bowes, Inc., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Postage Meter - Pitney-Bowes, Inc."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1355%7C97%7C33%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-15-0","title":"Prentis Herman Williams","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Prentis Herman Williams, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Prentis Herman Williams"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=543%7C6%7C15%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-136-0","title":"Prentiss County","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Prentiss County, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Prentiss County"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=505%7C2%7C136%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-75-0","title":"Prentiss, Miss.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Prentiss, Miss., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Prentiss, Miss."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=346%7C2%7C75%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-124-0","title":"Prince of Peace Goodwill Movement","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Prince of Peace Goodwill Movement, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Prince of Peace Goodwill Movement"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=479%7C2%7C124%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_582","title":"Principal changes","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Principal changes"],"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/582"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUNE 23, 1994 TO: ( Board of Directors FROM: D rat:, 't.Rictiard L. 1 irley, Director of Human Resources THROUGH: Dr. Henry lams. Superintends SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following new staff at the indicated positions, salaries, and classifications. NAME POSITION SCHOOL EFFECT DATE SALARY CLASS* William Broadnax Principal J.A. Fair H.S. 7-1-94 ADM12 06-09 EDUOl C.A. 52,865 2,000 900 Cassandra Norman-Mason Principal Cloverdale Jr.High 7-1-94 ADM12 05-09 EDUOl C.A. 48,645 1,500 900 Johnny Neely Principal Southwest Jr. High 7-1-94 ADM12 05-14 EDUOl C.A. 54,469 1,500 900NAME POSITION SCHOOL EFFECT DATE SALARY CLASS* Duane Benage Principal 7-1-94 Forest Hgts. Jr. High ADM12 05-17 EDUOl C.A. 57,962 1,500 900 Sharon Brooks Principal Rightsell Elem. 7-1-94 ADMCER 05-14 EDUOl C.A. 50,669 1,500 900 Faith Donovan Principal Mitchell Elem. 7-1-94 ADMCER 05-09 EDUOl C.A. 45,251 1,500 900 * DOES NOT INCLUDE A STEP-INCREASE FOR 1994-95.RESUME William E. Broadnax EDUCATION 1982 University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff BS 1986 Arkansas State University MSE, Secondary Educational Adminstration EXPERIENCE 1994 - Present Interim Principal Henderson Magnet Junior School 1987 - 1993 Assistant Principal Little Rock School District 1986 - 1987 Teacher Indiana School District 1985 - 1986 Graduate Assistant Arkansas State University 1982 - 1985 Teacher Watson Chapel School DistrictRESUME Cassandra Norman - Mason EDUCATION 1978 Philander Smith College BA 1980 University of Arkansas at Fayetteville MSE 1990 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Specialist Degree Educational Administration EXPERIENCE 1992 - Present Assistant Principal Southwest Junior High 1989 - 1992 Assistant Principal Henderson Junior High 1987 - 1989 CCE Coordinator McClellan High School 1982 - 1987 Sp. Ed./ CCE Coordinator North Pulaski High School 1978 - 1981 Teacher Baker Elementaiy SchoolRESUME Johnny M. Neely EDUCATION 1970 Southern Baptist College 1972 Arkansas State University BSE 1977 Arkansas State University MSE 1984 Arkansas State University Ed.S./Superintendency EXPERIENCE 1991 - Present Principal Townsend Park Elementary - DoUarway School Dist. 1989 - 1990 Principal T.A. Futrall Jr. High School - Lee County Dist. 1987 - 1989 Principal Earle Elementary 1981 - 1985 Principal Bay High School - Bay School District 1978 - 1981 Principal Wilson School - South Mississsippi County Rivercrest So. JHS - South Mississippi County 1977 - 1978 Graduate Assistant Arkansas State University 1976 - 1977 Teacher Parkin School District 1973 - 1976 Teacher Forrest City School DistrictRESUME Duane Lee Benage EDUCATION 1969 Western Illinois University BA 1972 Purdue University MS EXPERIENCE 1985 - Present Principal Oxbow High School - Bradford, VT 1983 - 1985 Principal San Pierre High School - North Judson, IN 1979 - 1983 Principal North Judson High School - North Judson, IN . 1977.1979 Assistant Principal North Judson Jr. High School - North Judson, IN 1970 - 1977 Teacher Hobart Junior High - Hobert, IN 1969 - 1970 Teacher Wirt High School - Gary, INEDUCATION 1973 1979 1987 EXPERIENCE 1993 - Present 1992 - 1993 1988 - 1992 RESUME Sharon Brooks Wichita State University - Wichita Kansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock BSE University of Arkansas at Little Rock MSE Assistant Principal Rockefeller Elementary Assistant Principal Washington Magnet Elementary Evaluation \u0026amp; Testing Specialist PRE - Little Rock School District 1987 - 1988 Teacher Rockefeller 1986 - 1987 Reading Specialist Reading Dept. - Little Rock School District 1985 - 1986 Teacher Western Hills Elementary 1982 - 1985 Teacher Williams Magnet Elementary 1979 - 1982 Teacher Woodruff Elementary1 RESUME' Faith R. Donovan EDOCRTION 1960 Auburn Community College , State University of New York Associate Arts 1973 University of Arkansas at Little Rock BSA 1976 University of Arkansas MSE EXPERIENCE 1990 - Present Curriculum Coordinator Dunbar Magnet Junior High 1987 - 1990 International Studies Specialist Gibbs Elementary Magnet 1985 - 1987 Teacher Henderson Junior High 1982 - 1985 Teacher Williams Magnet School, K-6 1975 - 1982 Teacher Romine Elementary School 1973 - 1975 Teacher Holy Souls ElementaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUNE 23, 1994 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Dr. Ri' Dii:ector of Human Resources THROUGH: Dr. Henry ndent SUBJECT: Administrative Transfers The following reassignments of individuals have been completed and are presented for your information. NAME FROM TO Sharon Davis Rightsell Elem. Romine Elem. Lionel Ward Romine Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Julie Davenport Mabelvale Elem. Franklin Elem. Franklin Davis Franklin Elem. Wilson Elem. Gwen Ziegler Wilson Elem. Washington Elem. Karen Buchanan Washington Elem. Henderson Jr. High Dr. Samuel Branch Mitchell Elem. Fair Park Elem. Barbara Means Fair Park Elem. Baseline Elem. Mary Menking Brady Elem. Williams Elem. Ed Jackson Williams Elem. Gibbs Elem. Gayle Bradford Cloverdale Jr. High Mabelvale Jr. High Walter Marshalak Mabelvale Jr. High Alter. Learning CenterNAME FROM TO Linda Watson Student Hearing Officer J.A. Fair Asst. Principal Othello Faison Alter. Learning Center Coordinator Fed. Program/Grants Leon Adams Fed. Programs/Grants Arts, Music \u0026amp; Technology Mary Jane Cheatham Baseline Elem. Transportation I^vanna Wilson Bale Elem. Hippy /Early ChildhoodV Agenda LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 21, 1994 To: Board of Directors From: Through: Richard E. Hurley, Director, Human Resources Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Personnel Changes I new recommend the approval of the following indicated positions, salaries, and classifications. staff at the NAME POSIITON SCHOOL EFFECTIVE DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY ! Anderson, Barbara Principal Bale TBA ADMCER 5-09 $43,195 CA 564 Banks, Barbara Asst/Prin Rockefeller TBA ADMCER 2-05 $33,064 CA 231 Briggs, Mona Principal Pul Hgts Jr TBA * ADMCER 5-12 $52,139 Ed Stip 2,000 CA 800 Dean, Lonnie Principal Baseline TBA ADMCER 5-19 $57,169 Ed Stip 2,000 CA 626 Mitchell, Elayne A/Supt Elementary TBA ADMUNC $61,000 CA 1,200 A CT/A)Resume' Barbara Anderson EDUCATION 1976 - Associate Garland County Community College Hot Springs, AR 1977 B.S.E. Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 1987 M.S.E. University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 1988 - Additional Hours Henderson State University ArkadeIphia, AR EXPERIENCE 1992 Present Assistant Principal Romine Elementary 1990 1991 Elementary Principal Clinton Public Schools Clinton, AR 5 1989 1990 Program Administrator, Chapter II, ESEA Arkansas Department of Education 1985 1989 Elementary Teacher Lake Hamilton Public Schools 1978 1985 Elementary Teacher Paron Public Schools Paron, ARResume' Barbara Banks EDUCATION 1986 B.A. Northwestern State University Natchitoches, LA 1993 M.S.E. University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR EXPERIENCE Summer 1994 Instructor (University of Central Arkansas) Conway, AR Present Reading Specialist Little Rock School District 1988 1993 Elementary Teacher Little Rock School District 1987 1988 Elementary Teacher Dallas Independent School District Dallas, TX 1987 Elementary Teacher DeSota Parish School System Mansfield, LAEDUCATION 1970 B.S.E 1979 M.S.E. 1985 1986 EXPERIENCE 1993 Present 1985 1987 1983 1987 1980 1985 1979 1980 1974- 1975 1970 1973 Resume' Mona R. Briggs Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Arkansas State University Jonesboro, AR Arkansas State University Jonesboro, AR Principal Tresure Mountain Middle School Park City, Utah English Teacher Miller Junior High West Helena, AR Reading Instructor Phillips Community College Helena, AR Central High School West Helena, AR English Teacher Central High School West Helena, AR DeWitt High School Dewitt, AR English Teacher Bossier Parish School Plain Dealing, Louisiana eResume Elayne R, Mitchell EDUCATION 1968 B.S. Morgan University Baltimore, Maryland 1972 M.S.E. Towson University Towson, Maryland 1978 Ph.D University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 1986 Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana EXPERIENCE 1992 Present Vice President Educational Training TMG Consulting Assoc. Columbia, Maryland 1987 1992 Executive Director Education Funded Programs Josten Learning Corp Phoenix, Arizona 1984 1987 Superintendent for Elementary Education Indianapolis Public Schools Indianapolis, Indiana 1984 1987 Adjunct Professor Administration, Management Secondary Education Indiana University 1979 1984 Chief, E.C.E./Elementary/Family Maryland State Department of Education 1976 -1979 Instructional Supervisor Pre K-12 Baltimore City Public SchoolsLittle Rock School District 2 a August 16, 1995 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Cfiics of Dess ji 4UG 2 J 1995 // y? icn Aicni'cnny FROM: Dr. Rid i irector-Human Resources SUBJECT: Ms. Ann Browns Request for Information (dated 8-9-95) I have, at your request, put together the information as requested, by item number. Item #1: Current Listing of Principals/Assist Principals by name, race, gender, and length of time in current position. Response - Provided as Attachment I Item #2: Interview and Selection Process Response - Provided as Attachment 11 Item #3: Involvement of StafBng Committees and Magnet Review Committee, Response - The Incentive School Staffing Committees were not utilized, per se. There may/may not have been members of the Committee on the team as appointed per Item #2. The Magnet Review Committee was involved to the extend that the Executive Director was apprised of each interview schedule and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, who participated on several of the teams, is a member of the Committee. Item #4: Days committee met, recommendations, and person selected. Response - Provided as Attachment HI If you require additional information, please dont hesitate to let me know. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000ADMIN3.EXC SCHOOL CENTRAL TITLE PRINCIPAL I NAME R. HOWARD I RACE Ibl GENDER I YRS IN POSITION M HALL HIGH METROPOLITAN JAFAIR PARKVIEW McClellan ALT. LEARN CTR HENDERSON CLOVERDALE JR MABELVALE JR. DUNBAR MAGNET MANN MAGNET FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS ASST. PRINC. B. JAMES ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. [asst. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC I DIRECTOR IVOV. TECH IVOC. ADMIN. IPRINCIPAL IASST. PRINC. IASST. PRINC. VACANT N. ROUSSEAU yv. MORRIS G. BRADFORD M. BREWSTER J. POWELL L. WATSON C. GREEN C. SPRINGER M. PETERSON W. BROADNAX A. FINCH B. BURR iASST. PRINC.iv. SMITH. JR, 'principal |j. BABBS iASST. PRINC.Id. BOOTH lASST. PRINC.!A HANSEN IASST. PRINC.lM. WOODS |j. CARTER IPRINCIPAL iASST. PRINC. B. GRAHAM iASST. PRINC. E. HAWKS iASST. PRINC.!C. WALKER IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL IaSST. PRINC? IASST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC. i PRINCIPAL IaSST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL W.MARSHALAK J. WASHINGTON J. MOSBY V. LINDBERG G. PITTS C. MASON D. DUERR D. PATTERSON J. FULLERTON M. GREEN R. WILLIAMS L.BROWN ASST. PRINC. E. HUDSON ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL D. JAMES M. LACEY ASST. PRINC. I VACANT ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST, PRINC, PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. J. MATTHIS W. WOODS D. BENAGE P. MCMURRAY D. WHITEHORN M. BRIGGS R. KNIGHTEN D. BERRY BL F I TWO I TWO I I' CAU BL CAU CAU Ibl Ibl 'bl I T BL BL BL !CAU CAU BL BL BL CAU BL BL BL I T T T T * iCA ICA CA CA BL CA ICA BL CA IBL iCA BL CA CA BL BL BL BL BL CA BL CA CA BL CA F M  F M F F M M M F F M M M F F M If M F M M M F F F F M M F M F F M F M M M F M F M F Page 1 I FOUR |NEW I NEW I SEVEN I FIVE INEW I TWO I TWO Inew I ONE IONE Inew I THREE !ten I THREE I SIX ! THIRTEEN I FIVE IONE I THREE iFIVE Ione Inew Inew Ione I SIX IONE I FOUR I EIGHT i ACTING I EIGHT I EIGHT Inew I FOUR I THREE I SEVEN I I FIFTEEN I EIGHT Ione [THREE iSEVEN IONE jNEW InewSOUTHWEST !PRINC1PAL tJ. NEELEY lASST. PRINC.IA. MUNNS ADMIN3.EXC CA BL M F IONE BADGETT BALE BASELINE ASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL D. SMITH BL M BOOKER MAGNET I PRINCIPAL BRADY IaSST. PRINC? IPRINCIPAL CARVER MAGNET I PRINCIPAL CHICOT CLOVERDALE EL. DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN lASST. PRINC. IPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL (PRINCIPAL iPRINCIPAL M. GOLSTON B. ANDERSON E. COX C. SIMMONS D. HALL KEOWN M. BARKSDALE Y. SCOTT O. PRESLAR E. CLEVELAND F. FIELDS F. DONOVAN S. BRANCH BL CA BL CA FULBRIGHT IPRINCIPAL IV. ASHLEY 'PRINCIPAL IE. DUNBAR ASST. PRINC. (VACANT IPRINCIPAL IM. HUFFMAN ASST. PRINC.IB. JONES BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA (BL I BL Tb? I  F F F F_ F F F_ M F M F M F F ONE NEW EIGHT ONE NEW FOUR NEW NEW NEW Ione EIGHT TWO I TWO (new (two EIGHT NEW GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET JEFFERSON iPRINCIPAL iPRINCIPAL i PRINCIPAL (ASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL II. WARD J. DAVENPORT B. RAPER F. HOBBS F. CAWTHON ICA IbT IbT (CA |CA I BL ICA M F M M.L.KING ASST. PRINC.Ia. JOINER-TATUM |BL IPRINCIPAL |h. HARRIS [617 ASST. PRINC.!J. HARKEY T MABELVALE ELEM MCDERMOTT 'PRINCIPAL (VACANT 'ASST. PRINC.IN. WILLIAMS (principal IM. OLIVER ASST. PRINC.Ia. smith [THIRTEEN I SEVEN F F F F F M F NEW NEW NEW Inew I SIX Ione Inew Ione MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK P. HEIGHTS EL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL J. WORM M.BASSA (BL jcA I BL ICA F M F M NEW SEVEN ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON I PRINCIPAL jc. TEETER I PRINCIPAL II. CARTER BL CA BL IPRINCIPAL Is. BROOKS IPRINCIPAL lA. MANGAN lASST. PRINC.! iPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL B. BANKS S. DAVIS K. GREENLEE G. ZEIGLER T. PHILLIPS L. WILSON K. BUCHANAN ' ASST. PRINC.IS. BEARD iPRINCIPAL T. COURTNEY\nASST. PRINC. V. ROBINSON BL CA I BL I BL CA BL CA BL BL CA 1817 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Page 2 Ione (EIGHT I NEW FIVE TWO ONE EIGHT ONE ONE ONE NEW NEW NEW NEW ONE TWO ONEADMIN3.EXC WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL S. MORGAN M. MENKING D. MITCHELL F. DAVIS P. HIGGINBOTHAM CA CA BL BL CA M F F M F FIVE ONE EIGHT ONE SEVEN Page 3/ oc. xNbtKitu IN AGENDA FOR august 25, 1994 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCDA - Regulation SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. principal shall tile are acceptable foras will then be ^ovidtrf i,? ^strict ap^jlication ecplcyed with Little RccK ScJcSl D1S2?,\" District.) 2. ^i'^^ict administration for acceptability. certification, and references. Officials will Taken --- into experience, education, j screen the applicants consideration performance reviews, are 3. The sS\neri?St(s^=i=taht Which may include interview questions. 4. Affirmative Action, J^ericans with Disability Act?Uc.) 5. An interview committee will be follows: selected/appointed, as Three Two Three (3) Paroats/Patroas (2) Teachers (3) Admiaistratioa Represeatatives Note:l Note:2 Kote:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives a process: 2. 3. . - ---------will be selected by of the president of the ot une affected school. The teacher(s) representatives affected school and The Deputy Superintendent i appropriate staff - Assistant Supervisors, and Principals) s Administration representatives. *NOTE: ~ shall be from the PP Administration. (in consultation with consultation Superintendents, may designate the ^e committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible bv rare ' ! race and gender. P.EC^ ? SEP 19E34I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 EPS CODE: GCDA Regulation 6. committee shall meet to interview recommend candidates.  xuveirview be provided folders and 7. 8. 9. 10. 1) 2) 3) 4) The interview committee will containing the following: An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials complete the ratings sheet. interview the epplicente end wiH aSee Von aT committee, through consensus, submit a recommendation of the ton three 3) candidates to the Superintendent. ratings are  reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall Interview Committee and select the for Board approval. review the recommendations of the committee reconvene to determine and require that the new recommendations. Once the Superintendent has selected he/she will submit that individual' Directors for approval. an acceptable applicant, s name to the Board of If the applicant is currently serving _______ \u0026gt; _ r superintendent i^aV reasslS Se PrZnSJal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which ?\nt=!tion. pertinentAiiRcrtMevT H? xam p te. tf-rrEk May 18, 1995 Little Rock School District To: Carver Magnet Interview team members (listed below) From: Dr. Director - Human Resources Subject: Interview process First, I wish to express my sincere personal thanks to you for agreeing to participate as a member of the interview team for Principalship of Carver Magnet elementary school. As you might imagine, this team is charged with the extremely important responsibility of interviewing the applicants and, as a team, to recommend three top candidates to the Superintendent, who will then make a recommendation to the School Board. To assist you in the interview process, you will be provided the following items: 1. An interview schedule 2. A list of interview questions 3. A candidate rating form 4. The applicant's application materials (Ie: application, letter, etc.) These items will be provided to you on the day of the interviews. I will attempt to schedule the interviews on a one-hour-per-applicant schedule. This will allow for the interview time as well as follow-up discussion among the team to reach consensus about the candidate. If you have any questions about this very important process, please don't hesitate to contact me at 324-2088. I will advise you as quickly as possible the date and times of the interviews. cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Donna Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee Team Members: Vai Henry, Parent/Patron representative Dewey Fitzhugh, Parent/Patron representative Roz Newton, Parent/Patron representative Joy Thomas, Teacher representative Kim Washington, Teacher representative Patty Kohler, Administration representative Leon Modeste, Administration representative Dick Hurley, Administration representative 810 West .Markham Street  tittle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Sheetl Tn~~ DATE OF INTERVIEW SCHOOL ^RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES CANDIDATE SELECTED MAY/22/1995 CARVER MAY/25/1995 HENDERSON JR. MAY/26/1995 M. L. KING JUNE/29/1995 IGIBBS MAGNET I JUNE/30/1995 iDIANE BARKSDALE iJERRY WORM I GWEN ZEIGLER jJAMES WASHINGTON JAMES FULLERTON IRON AUSTIN________ ITYRONE HARRIS I GWEN ZEIGLER ! ETHEL DUNBAR I KAREN GREENLEE I ADA KEOWN BETTY RAPER DIANE BARKSDALE JAMES WASHINGTON TYRONE HARRIS BETTY RAPER iTERRY ELEMENTARY\nETHEL DUNBAR I T GWEN ZEIGLER JULY/19/1995 IGEYER SPRINGS I I T !DEBORAH MITCHELL I GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN ETHEL DUNBAR I DEBORAH MITCHELL J.J.LACEY JULIE DAVENPORT JULY/25/1995 AUGUST/3/1995 AUGUST/4/1995 AUGUST/7/1995 BRADY ELEMENTARY : KAREN GREENLEE ____________________! BEVERLY JONES ____________________iADA KEOWN________ HALL HIGH SCHOOL I GAYLE BRADFORD ____________________I LINDA BROWN______ ____________________JIM MOSBY_________ FRANKLIN INCENTIVE i KAREN GREENLEE ____________________I ETHEL DUNBAR ____________________JEFF CARR_________ DUNBAR JR. MAGNET!LINDA BROWN______ ____________________DANIEL WHITEHORN PATRICIA McMurray ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD ETHEL DUNBAR LINDA BROWN Page 101 SSs I?\n\u0026gt;v [  ?./? aSy**  ' * I. ' ) ^'^iwj^'irr. t- Ir ( r-Vf: i 'SU. I. i ' i- ^-J' hl u I .4-  \n\"S\u0026gt;'  V^^\u0026gt;iSur, \"t: I. -4 7 !  iJC'.hr:''\n7 \\\u0026lt; \u0026gt; A08/13/1998 14:21 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02 School Senior High Schools Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Vocational-Technical Center Metropolitan Junior High Schools Cloverdale Academy Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Elementary Schools Badgett Bole Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Magnet Interdistrict Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Interdistrict Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff Alternative Learning Center Little Rock School District 1998-99 (501) 324-2000 Principal Address Phone Projected Enrollment Rudolph Howard William Broadnax Gayle Bradford Jodie Carter Dr. Linda Brown Michael Peterson Cassandra Norman Deborah Berry Vernon Smith James Washington James Fullerton Dr. Brenda James Nancy Rousseau Jim Mosby Mary Golston Barbara Anderson Eleanor Cox Dr. Cheryl Carson Ada Keown Diane Barksdale Jane Harkey Frederick Fields Faith Donovan Dr, Samuel Branch Theressa Courtney Ethel Dunbar Deborah Mitchell Lionel Ward Donna Hall Felicia Hobbs Susan Beard Tyrone Harris Tabitha Phillips Virginia Ashley Jerry Worm Lillie Scull Janice Tucker Lillie Carter Sharon Brooks Anne Mangan Sharon Davis Nancy Acre Maty Jane Cheatham Gwen Zeigler Michael Oliver Scott Morgan Mary Menking Beverly Jones Pat Higginbotham Johnny Neeley 1500 Park, 02 13420 Dodd, 10 6700 H Street, 05 9417 Geyer Springs, 09 2501 Barrow, 04 7701 Scott Hamilton, 09 6300 Hinkson Rd., 09 1100 Wright Ave., 06 5901 Evergreen, 05 401 Barrow, 05 10811 Mabelvale W., 72103 1000 E. Roosevelt Rd., 06 401 N. Pine, 05 3301 S. Bryant, 04 6900 Pecan Road, 06 6501 W. 32nd, 04 3623 Baseline Rd., 09 2016 Barber, 06 7915 West Markham, 05 2100 East Sixth, 02 11100 Chicot Rd., 72103 6500 Hinkson Rd., 09 6423 Stagecoach Rd., 04 616 N. Harrison, 05 1600 N. Tyler. 07 1701 S. Harrison, 04 300 Pleasant Valley Dr., 12 3615 W. 25th, 04 5240 Mabelvale Pike, 09 1115 W. 16th, 02 2600 N. McKinley, 07 905 Martin L. King, Jr., Dr., 02 9401 Mvale Cut-off, 72103 1200 Reservoir Rd., 07 25 Sheraton Dr., 09 2410 Battery, 06 16000 Otter Creek Pky., 09 319 N. Pine, 05 911 W. 19th, 06 700 E. 17th, 06 3400 Romine Rd,. 04 10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 11 75 Westminister, 09 115 W. 27th. 06 7000 Valley Dr., 09 4901 Western Hills, 04 7301 Evergreen, 07 4015 Stannus Rd., 04 3010 W. 7th, 05 800 Apperson, 02 324-2300 228-3100 671-6200 570-4100 228-3000 565-8465 570-4085 324-2440 671-6390 228-3050 455-7400 324-2450 671-6250 570-4070 324-2475 570-4050 570-4150 324-2482 228-3065 324-2460 570-4062 570-4055 455-7430 671-6260 671-6267 671-6380 228-3080 671-6275 570-4160 324-2490 671-6281 324-2135 455-7420 228-3072 570-4165 324-2415 455-7440 671-6290 324-2430 324-2385 228-3086 228-3093 570-4190 324-2470 570-4195 570-4175 671-6363 570-4180 671-6270 324-2370 1983 940 773 821 931 618 817 757 612 498 872 783 478 198 366 320 598 387 562 560 483 227 236 452 505 539 278 347 311 510 738 393 476 315 243 342 452 271 487 346 516 682 461 300 472 371 280 I I k I i indicates continued Drincipal service School Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabefvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Res. Elem. Charter Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Data from LRSD Personnel Directories 1988-69 1989-90 6. Cannon. Supt (W) Mary Golston (B) Lavanna Wilson (B) Robert Brown (B) William Finn (B) Karen Buchanan (B) Bobbie Goodwin (B) Olis Preslar (W) Jacqueline Dedman (B) Mary Cheatham (W) Catherine Gill (B) Virginia Ashley (B) Connie Aston (W) Mac Huffman (W) Cheryl Simmons (W) Mary Guinn (B) PRINCIPAL CHANGES WITHIN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1988-89 through 2004-06 I 1990-91 1991-92 Ruth Steele. Superintendent (W) William Finn (B) Robert Brown (B) Mary Menking (W) Sadie Mitchell (B) Franklin Davis (B) Xindicates first vear school in operation Data from LRSD School Profiles (B) indicates black 1992-93 Mac Bernd. Supt (W) 1993-94 I 1994-96 I 1996-96 1996-97 1997-98 Cheryl Simmons (W) Barbara Means (W) Robert Brown (B) Patricia McNeil (W) Hank Williams. Superintendent (B) Don Roberts, Supt. (W) I I Data from LRSD Communications Dept 1998-99 I 1999-00 Les Gamine. Supt. (W) I Mary Cheatham (W) Frederick Fields (B) (W1 indicates white 2000-01 2001-02 I 2002-03 Ken James. Supt (W) Closed Barbara Anderson (W) Lonnie Dean (B) Betty Raper (W) Diane Barksdale (W) Samuel Branch (B) Julie Davenport (B) Robert Brown (B) Lavanna Wilson (6) Karen Buchanan (B) Eleanor Cox (B) Ada Keown (6) Jane Harkey (W) Faith Donovan (W) Ethel Dunbar (B) Lionel Ward (B)  (Cheryl Carson) (W) (Faith McLaughlin) (W) Theresa Courtney (W) (Theresa Ketcher) (W) Deborah Mitchell (B) Closed 2063-04 Don Stewart, interim Supt (V/) Morris Holmes. Interim Supt (6) Eleanor Cox (B) Donna Davis (W) Lonnie Dean (B) Margaret Gremlllion (W) bllie Carter (B) Dorothy Faulkner (W) Mike Oliver (W) Jeny Worm (W) Donita Hudspeth (W) Pal Price (W) Eddie McCoy (8) Francis Cawthon (W) Closed Julie Davenport (W) Carolyn Teeter (V^ Kay Loss (W) Stan Strauss (W) Closed X Sadie Mitchell (B) Samuel Branch (B) Lillie Carter (8) Maijorle Bassa (B) Julie Davenport (W) Betty Raper (W) Susan Beard (W) Feiecia Hobbs (B) Donna Hall (8) Tyrone Hartls (B) Ed Jackson (W) Faith Donovan (W) Tabitha Phillips (W) Marjorie Bassa (8) (Henry Hams) (B) Susan Beard (W) Virginia Ashley (B) Lillie Skull (8) Janis Tucker (V^ Darlan SmiUi (B) Roberta Mannon (W) Karoo Carter (W) Kay Loss (W) Anne Mangan (W) Lionel Ward (B) Stan Strauss (W) Nancy Volsen (W) Lloyd Black (B) Bobbie Goodwin (B) Sharon Davis (B) Sharon Brooks (B) X Krishna Young (B) Mary Smith (B) Closed Eunice Thrasher (B) Alice Stovall (W) Lonnie Dean (B) LaOell Looper (W) Sharon Davis (B) Closed Lillie Scull (Bl Willie Morris (B) X Bobbie Goodwin (B) Karen Buchanan (B) Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Junior High Schools ALC*____________ Diana Glaze (W) Margie Puckett (W) Ed Jackson (W) Reine Price (W) Pat Higginbotham (W) Theresa Courtney (W) Gwen Ziegler (8) Gwen Ziegler (B) Levanna Wilson (8) Karen Buchanan (8) X Sharon Brooks (B) Gwen Zeigler (B) X Othello Faison (B) Scott Morgan (W) Mary Menking (W) Franklin Davis (B) Mary J. Cheatham (W) Nancy Acre (W) Gwen Ziegler (B) Michael Oliver (W) Les Taylor (W) Beverly Jones (B) Janice Wilson (6) Ctoverdaie Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Dexter Booth (B) James Haley (W) James Wise (B) Brady Gadberry (W) Gayle Bradford (W) Robert Robertson (B) Richard Maple \u0026lt;W) Nancy Volsen (W) Richard Maple Everett Hawks (W) !/ (Nancy Acre) (W) Cieli Watts (W) Walter Marshaleck (W) Cassandra Mason (B) Johnny Neeley (W) {Cassandra Norman) (B) Lloyd Sain (8) Jodie Carter (8) David Patterson (B) Mabeivaie Puieski Heights Southwest High Schoofs ACC Ctetl Watts (W) Martan Lacey (B) Ralph Hoffman \u0026lt;W) Gall McLaughlin (W) Charity Smith (B) W. Marshaleck (W) Duane Benage (W) Karen Buchanan (8) Jamas Washington (B) Gayle Bradford (Vtf) Mons Briggs (W) Johnny Neeley (W) Linda Brown (W) Deborah Berry (W) Angela Munns (B) John Bacon (iW) James Washington (8) James Fullerton (W) Vernon Smith (B) Eloulse Hudson (B) Larry Buck (W) Marvin Burton (B) Walter Marshaleck (W) Brenda James (B) Nancy Rousseau (W) Jim Mosby (W) X Carol Green (B) Alicia Finch (W) Central Fair Hall___________ McClellan Metropolitan_____ Parkview TOTAL changes' PERCENT______ Everett Hawks (W) Sam Stueart (W\u0026gt; Bill Bamhouse (W) Rudolph Howard (B) Doyle Dillahunty (W) Junious Babbs (6) Al Niven (W) 8 16% John Hickman (8) Vic Anderson (W) Jodie Carter (B) Carol Green (B) Rudolph Howard (B) Doyle DillahuntyfW) William Broadnax (8) Gayle Bradford (W) Betty Burr (W) Michael Peterson (B) 17 33% 6 12% ' The LRSD calls the person In charge of the ALC a director Instead of a principal. 6 12% 9 18% 27 64% 16 32% 6 10% Note: Names inside () signify a change in name only. 6% Linda Brown (W) 16 30% Prepared by ODM based on data from LRSD Ann Blaylock (W) Jim Fullerton (W) Daniel Whitehorn (W) David Smith (6) Nancy Rousseau (W) Carol Green (6) Cassandra Norman (B) Vernon Smith (B) Larry Buck (W) 9 17% 10% 3 6% 6 12% 2 4%June 7, 2 0 0 2 I LR School Board OKs principal assignments ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved the reassignment of two district employees to principal positions for the 2002-03 school year. Larry Buck, who has been princip^ at Henderson Middle School since 1999, was named principal for McClellan High School. Buck, who previously worked as an assistant principal at Cloverdale Middle School and as an English teacher at J. A. Fair High School, replaces Jodie Carter at McClellan. Carter will be reassigned to another district position. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said Thursday, but that assignment has not yet been finalized. Daniel Whitehorn, assistant principal at Central High School since 1995, will take the helm at Pulaski Heights Middle School. A former assistant principal at what was then Forest Heights Junior High, Whitehorn replaces Nancy Rousseau, who is leaving Pulaski Heights to be the new principal at Central High. Mitchell said applicants are being considered for principal vacancies at Henderson Middle School and Southwest Middle School, and recommendations will likely be made to the School Board for approval later this month. Joe Mosby, who has been principal at Southwest, is being reassigned to another district position, Mitchell said.Arkansas Democrat Igr (gazette I LR schools name three principals ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Three principals were chosen for schools across the Little Rock School District on Thursday evening. The districts board of directors approved their appointments at a regularly scheduled meeting. John Bacon, principal at Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Education Magnet Middle School for the past four years, is to be the new principal of HaU High School in the Little Rock School District. Bacon will replace Vernon Smith at Hall. Smith is retiring from the district after being out on sick leave during much of the 2004-05 school year. An employee of the district since 1995, Bacon started work for the system as a substitute teacher before becoming a business education teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High in August 1996. He was a vocational business teacher at McClellan Magnet High School for a few months in 1998 before he became an assistant principal, first at Cloverdale Junior High and then in 1999 at Dunbar. Bacon is a 1992 graduate of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville with a bachelors degree in public administration. He has a masters degree in business administration from Louisiana State University and another masters degree in secondary education from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in educational leadership, also from UALR. On Thursday the board voted to replace Bacon with Eunice Thrasher, principal at Rightsell Elementary since 2002. Thrasher was assistant principal at the districts Williams Magnet Elementary School from 1998-2002. She has also been a speech therapist at several of the districts campuses. Thrasher is a 1975 graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, where she earned her bachelors in speech pathology. She received her masters degree in educational leadership from the University of Central Arkansas in 1995. The board also appointed Randy Rutherford, assistant principal and athletic administrator at Central High, to the principal position at JA. Fair High School. Rutherford will follow Cassandra Norman in the job. He was the head football coach, as well as a business and physical education teacher at J.A. Fair from 1999 to 2002. He graduated from UCA in Conway in 1985 with a bachelors degree in physical education. In 1998 he earned his masters of science in education from Henderson State University in Arkadelphia.July 15, 2 0 0 5 LR principal takes middle school post ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Frederick Fields, principal at Little Rocks Cloverdale Elementary School, is moving next door to become principal at Cloverdale Middle School for the 2005- 06 school year. The Little Rock School Board approved Fields appointment TTiursday as part of an ongoing series of personnel changes for the coming year. Fields is replacing Angela Munns. Betty Mosley, an assistant principi at Forest Heights Middle School, will take over as principal for Cloverdale Elementary, which is going to be housed in the old Badgett School this year because of structural problems with the Cloverdale building. Nancy Swaty will be the new principal at McDermott Elementary School when classes start for students on Aug. 19. Swaty, who has been McDermotts media speciaUst/librarian, is filling the vacancy created by the retirement of Virginia Ashley. i\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_563","title":"Principal selection process, Magnet Review Committee's role","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals","Educational law and legislation","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, Magnet Review Committee's role"],"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/563"],"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\nsr\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE'S ROLE IN PRINCIPAL SELECTION PROCESSMagnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Greer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 received July 21, 1994 JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions We have responded to each for the 1994-95 school year. The necessary point to the best of our ability, documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments1. The date{s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting\nMarcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. 3. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1. above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were \"previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions\n\" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures\nindicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet.5. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the \"appropriate action\" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1 994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD 6. The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. 7. The datefs) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 March 4, 1987b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: June, 1 994 July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed\nhowever, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order \"Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: September 3, 1986 September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: November 5, 1992 November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school.MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 3 f the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main special-called meeting o . held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street, North little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday, May 12, 1994 . A Arkansas on Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Joshua Intervenors Evelyn Jackson, Estelle Matthis, LRSD m. by thanking all opened the meeting at 8:40 a.   to this special-called meeting. Dr. Altom MRC members for coming then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. He Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was principalship, he began to -- makina a change in principaisnip, nc making a the Court would Court Order because he was afraid the the staffing changes. 1992, Dr. Altom's In looking review the -- admonish the MRC regarding 5, ^^992, Dr. Altom s through the Court O^der expanded role from understanding was that th Altom polled each of the years past. Because of that. DrAltom p MRC members to see if they thought tn , expanded and the consensus was yes, they ai then contacted Dr. Dr. Altom --- , . this information with him. Williams They had a very unofficially to share cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago , with regard to of became concerned about the themes budget cuts, ^,3 admonished the MRC for not the magnets. taking a more It now the MRC would come about the items in active role. together to make an the Court Order, page seemed appropriate that official statement 12. It s hould be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) 2) 3) consult staff (who staffing changes it includes) (what does this mean)to the Court saying that The MRC will need to write a letter hnHv. this is what we believe and if this is not so. as a body, this is please tell us if you see it differently. H STAFFING Does it mean to give language says the Court decides, appropriate action The the MRC the authority to overturn? MRC merely states what the should be. STAFF When staffing changes administrators, or 3 are inade, does it mean teachers, support staff as well? This needs to be to determine who the critical MRC needs clarified because with regard to the theme. another magnet consist or a people are principal being assigned to staffing change? Does a magnet Estelle Matthis then asked for^an address the personnel issue. M\" executive session to Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has Order and the MRC. every intention of working by the Court Dr. Williams wants to assure you that the district will advertise positions. etc. and will follow the procedure interview, make as in the past - to the MRC, the Board approves. recommendation __ abide by the Court Order. etc. He does plan to Ms to . Harding noted that in defining terms. should be clarified. surprise to this body. the term II prior Things should not come as a of some time f the Court filings ns. naiuxuy  13X1?'c Since then, this has ago f with regar have a come into play, and ^p^is was not tied to tiedomy to th. Ms. Harding said that some o budgeting process. related to that issues are Matthis said LRSD understands budgS Their Program Budget Guide governs daily Ms. Their Program activities. Dr Altom said he called Dr.  - - -- strongly about it. Williams' attention to RIF He told him the 5Sc SraTt^rCourt^for'a speUy resolution. Ms . understands the Matthis said that Judge Wright Mattnus __that unless the the assignment agreement. re-assignment The Sth Circuit says has an impact on desegregation. will go on. -2-reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Dr. Altom reminded the committee tnai uuuua v, , a Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State s role Marcia Gene in monitoring. CONSULT said the critical item will be the timing in SL.rSnS.rS co:sJiC\"S\n=\nTSso-==e to the MBC first, and when? We have to get the timing down on this. Does LRSD come We have to Dr. Altom noted the definition of \"consult\" is \"to ask the This does not say you have are considered. advice or opinion of. II IS decision-making authority, but your thoughts _flofinition would be, \"consider by asking the combined definition would be, II c advice or opinion of.\" STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, in Judge Woods' court personnel. from earlier on, when staff came up it encompassed all certificated , . ---, these sked to make recommendations The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used MRC made personnel. -- , . that time for hiring purposes. prior to recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis s aid LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person either a teacher, administrator, to come into a building and be support individual. or 2) The other has to do with the poss ibility of transfers. would mean that the II This ----- defined for both of these. prior to II II needs to be prior to II regard to posting a position, what does \"prior to mean. with regard to a mean with transfer, Ms 7 condition, the MRC should be thinking of . Harding said that under^any^^ individual. notified as soon as poss reassigning or making a representation the regularly-s transfer of an staffing changes. should report any cheduled meeting of the MRC. The LRSD etc. at -3-PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does problem to report at the MRC meeting every LRSD representation could give a not believe it would be a two weeks. The a status report when something is happening. Ms . a Creer noted that, just as a copy could be given vacancy is posted, immediately. normal procedure, when a to the MRC needed about looking at . Harding said clarification is non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. Ms would screen job postings T +- LJArr adeed that the MRC Office - ---- - - . the agenda for every MRC meeting and place these postings on with regard to staffing in magnet schools. hiring ys. TRANSFER ither hiring or transferring. Anv staffing change means either niring or QuLtion: MRC has always been comfortable with the Section process of hiring. That is acceptable. LRSD will consult with MRC before making change. What does It consult with II mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly\nApplicants apply to Human Resources\nhrmlications are checked by Assistant The applications are Superintendents\nSelection Committee reviews\nSrSrZ: clnStoSs'^o to superintendent for * consideration/possible interview\ncnncrintendent makes recommendation to the Board o P refl?s it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a same etc. ? situation. the MRC will be looking at the meet the qualifications, will be'held in Session. The transfer, Does this person MRC should Discussions then report to the Court. Executive Ms. Harding has a concern - for change s to transfers. Williams says change as this relates ake would not be made. Dr. concerned, when they are Where transfers are -  .,uopr\u0026gt;ed to that information needs to be presented to if it has disruptive effects). -4- us involuntary, (particularlyThe Conunittee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools, motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Marcia Harding seconded the After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was affirmed in Open Session. taken that needs to be letter will go to the Office of Desegregation\nreached consensus on In summary, a letter win go tu uie vxx Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has order the sentence on Page 12, of the Court uraer the language in dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve for the selection of principals. the LRSD selection process In order to be more pro-active in MRC will have on its regular agendaan item on the future, the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. brought to the table, Evelyn Estelle When no more business was , Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Matthis seconded the motion, and the The meeting was adjourned at 10. JU a.m. unanimously. MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, The next will encompass discussion 1994 and f the interdistrict magnet schools budget. o -5-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 Qf the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main A special-called meeting _ the Magnet Review Committee Office, held in Street, North Little Rock, 1994 . Arkansas on Monday, June 27, Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Horace Smith, Associate Monitor Assistant Superintendent - LRSD ODM The meeting .s called to order at 1:05 p  by Chairperson called to He explained the meeting was  a.he nrncess used in the recent selection of magnet examine th p , , ------- agreed in its letter to the Court telling Dr. Bobby Altom. school principals and because May 12, 1994 meeting to send a _ rnnrt of MRC's opinion regarding its rol chool principals the Court of MRC's opinion selection in magnet schools. staff Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: Dr 1) 2) The unapproved minutes MRC meeting\nof the May 12, 1994 the Court outlining  1994 The May 18 , 1994 letter to ... _  had delineated in its May 12, what the MRC had delineateo in xuo what the iterpretation  the meeting in used in Judge Wright s Order describing MRC's input in November 5, 1992 Court original magnet staffings. of the May 12, T T A reading of the minutes . Altom called f ^nd a few corrections, MX L.CX _____________ TmniTbPA 1994 meeting. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes andEstelle Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. The motion carried . Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process  - . She noted that LKbU Ms. -------- , . T.RSD uses in selection of principals. LKbu uses in three parents to serve asks PTA presidents for the names on the principal' s\n------  1. j with regard to race and gender. selected for the committee, one black and one white, and Central Office administrators are These people submissions are one interview team, and LRSD looks at these Two teachers curriculum person. ... Assistant Superintendents, for elementary schools. represented by two the selection committee make up Secondary schools follow the same procedure as but incentive schools have staffing committees. noted above, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are to them notifying them to serve Ms. question as wanted five parents to be included. Ms. Matthis and five teachers. -----worked, and she also jioted that explained how the .^.ted when' they get to parents could asK quesuj-uho j___rorrpqbprt to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. If an applicant Most applicants had no school itctiealiy given ere an - principal, they^ applied for the Gibbs job. an audience. , . and one specialist one principal Once the applicants.had been were given for the interviews. identified, dates and times Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: A listing of all brought in and a included in this A list of questions was told that n want to however, you ask applicants a question, that's fine\n_______4- t-bAt- same question to all if you candidates. II must ask that same ques-- -- A rating sheet was included in the folder also, participants. and it was explained to committee The rating sheet is one committee members were\nby their first choice. process. ' applicants part of the whole asked to rank evaluation etc., and the -2-After that, committee tries to come to a consensus. there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. situation where Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point, the job will be re advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent transfer personnel. responsibility to re-assign or Matthis and Ms. Ms. Harding asked Ms. are such large numbers in movement. Gremillion why there They noted that options are such large numoers ru j for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms Committee go into interdistrict magnet schools. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Executive Session to discuss personnel for the Ms. Harding made a motion to go Ms. Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. into Executive Session, The motion carried and When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis The motion carried unanimously. was motion to re-convene seconded the motion. Dr. Altom reported the He suits of the Executive Session, record in a letter to the Court that LRSD has followed re said the MRC will go on , . . stating that the MRC does not believeL-v the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that nic vuuiu ______ MDr anri Tnn.Qt se in the consult the MRC and must seek Court in the future, the LRSD must  future, on making any staffing changes The MRC does not believe that that permission prior to magnet schools.\" 1 consultation was made. II record that MRC sure that the interview have integrity. in the letter, ork with the the Court Order is followed for 1----- - future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was motion to adjourn Evelyn Jackson made a brought before the Committee, the meeting and r VeXVIl ul dw rfc oA *  - The motion carried m. -3-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 Al -railed meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was he?rs thriXt R^iew committee Office 1920 Morth Mam North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18, A the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street 1994 . Members Present: Bobby Altom, Dana Chadwick, NLRSD PCSSD - Chairperson Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE , , __phAimerson, called the meeting to order at He informed the Magnet meeting was l?:T^_'^^^^^gpriicipalship at Carver Dr. Altom asked for a motion to and Estelle Matthis provided the 2:05 p.m. being called to discuss District's recommendation Elementary Magnet School. go into Executive Session Dana motion. caiTiried. unanimously  Chldwick seconded the motion, and the motion Matthis made a motion to When Executive Session return the motion. The motion general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that hail, after hearing the Little entative regarding the Rock school District's . ....... ,s,.ot,on orooess of Carver selection process --- of the LRSD ^^tthis seconded the principal recommendation jea unanimously. motion, and the motion Dr. Altom said the 1 recapped the events of the Executive Session. -- will submit, by way of He Magnet Review Committee will suomtt  formal letter to the n Desegregation Monitoring, the action meeting. As a part of the letter. 1 taken during this a statement will be madenot believe that the that the Magnet Review Committee does been done in as timely a fashion as But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school -to meet and support that individual. The process has would like. what the MRC parents are anxious  ---- -. Maqnet Review Committee does support_the selection. Rock School District did provide a more in depth for selection of the Carver Little discussion of rationale principal. the By consensus, the Magnet Review Comttee MrI on letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on nrocedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: of vacancies arising\ntimely notification . for recruitment of candidates\nthe procedures for candidates\nscreening procedures---- ,-4.+.^^. of the interview committee, make-up selection UlciJS.c:Ui/ ------------------------------- , the development of the interview itsel , considered for the written criteria or factors . . of the final principal selection, removal of magnet school selection reassignment and/or principals. The MRC will ask him to help might be appropriate for pr\nmagnet schools. p look into any changes that incipal job descriptions in the When no further business was brought before the Committee, motion to adjourn the meeting and The motion carried was Estelle Matthis made a Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, unanimously, and the meeting was a adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2-5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL V Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.! ij LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2 . 3 . District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4 . The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the 2. of the affected school. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent appropriate staff - Assistant (in consultation with Supervisors, and Principals) Superintendents, Administration representatives. may designate the *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender.1 r.' t, t \u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7. 8 . 9 . 10. a J 3 EPS CODE: GCAB The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will he provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. '* (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his information. salary. pay grade. and other pertinent PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST May 10, 1994 now accepting applications for Rock School District is the 1994-95 school year. The Little the following positions for POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions __\n- (1) williams Magnet Magnet (1) Carver Magnet (1) Franklin (1) Gibbs (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive Incentive qualifications: 1. At least five (5) years experience administrator. as a teacher and/or 7 2 . A master's degree or higher certification as an e with eligibility for Arkansa lementary principal.... s 3 . Evidence of strong organizational skills. 4 . Knowledge of ing methods. curriculum development and successful teach 5. Demonstrates and will learn in the conviction the Little 6. 7 . 8. students can learn that all -.\nRock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of involvement. Evidence successful experience with parent and staff of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. evidence of THESE BASIC performance RES PONS IB. IES: 1. Assumes re\nof his/her sponsibility for the management -- chief advisor and monitoring to the 2 . school, and serves as a^cni^t superintendent v-t-a i ni na ^KadmKiSli?2n^ budget, and S'S?ts%\nRainin, to . implementation in matters program his/her school. and Works with _ . priorities program staff and patrons and goals to determine for his/her educational school.^^^^^?|rFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) BASIC 3 . Implements the proces s whereby school-level educational 4 . 5 . 6. 7 . 8 . Informs the appropriate oroorams needs are identified. Lsociate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needs are needed logistical and consultative accomplish this task. support in order to Serves on and task forces as assigned by the appropriate such Ovisory^groups^^..^-^--^^ -superintendent. the development of educational programs Oversees - plan for implementing them on the school level. and the Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. Assumes responsibility for evaluation of all personnel Assumes responsibility Assumes administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance Evaluation conducting the performance assigned to his/her building. for all record keeping and other luated annually in i-hiq -iob will be evaluated annuaixi , -Visions Of the Board  s pel i=y of Administrative Personnel. on ORGANIZATIONAL PETATIONSHIP. Reports to the Deputy Superintendent. SAIARY and TERMS: Schedule - An Month Contract 'MuSSarsLpd, car Allouance Eleven (11) - ! and Benefits plus application DEADLINE: 1994, or any time Mav 19, 1994 , or any recommended and approve later until satisfactory applicants are SEND WRITTEN LETT_ERS OF INOUITVJTQ: Hurley Dr. Richard Resources School District Director o T ittle Rock--- 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201Principals NOTE: IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED COMPT ETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS . ,,m BeSuS an individual applies FOR A POSITION DOES NOT ---- INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. THEREFORE necessarily mean that an for Desegregation. It is criminate the policy of the Little Rock on the basis of age, sex. sex, School District not to discolor, religion, national activities disability in its educational programs, origin, employment practices. or orLITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. , PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 363 cite BS 6S9 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Afk. 1987) Faulkner\nBob Moore: Don Hindman\nShirley Lowery: Sheryl Dunn\nDavid I i of .P. f MSP Sain: Bob Slender\nGrainger Williams\nRichard A. George A. Giddings\nMcCrary: Buddy Raines\nWard, Defendants, and Dale Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)\nLRCA\nEd Bullington, Individually and as President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)\nPACT\nJohn Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Association (NLRCTA): NLRCTA: and Milton Jackson, Individually and as Certified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock-5chool District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Teachers NLRCTA\na Non- ! i j 1 I. nors Lesue josnua. ouuvj Wayne Joshua\nRev. Robert Willing- ham\nSara Matthews, as next friend of nmiit kjo*** * 1 Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong\nMrs. Alvin Hudson, friend of Tatia Hudson\nMrs. as next next friend of Parsha Hilton Taylor, as . Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor, Rev. John M. Miles as next friend of Janice Miles and Dereck ineuu -. Miles\nRev. Robert Willingham on be- half of and as President of the Little Branch of the NAACP: Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of  Rock Branch of Rock the North Little NAACP, Intervenors. No. LR-C-82-866. 1 s: Q} d o =r little rock school district. Plaintiff, United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. vD CO COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL Tffl So\"b'SUU.e ROCK of Education\nWayne Hartsfield\nWal- A. Haines: Jim ter Turnbow\nHarry  Dupree\nDr. Harry P. McDonald\nRob- e^rt L. Newton: Alice L. Preston\nJeH Starling\nEarle Love\nBob Lyon\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nLeon Barnes\nMa- Gosser\nSteve Morley, Mac Jeff rianna Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School % ! desegregation plans were submitted. The for the Eastern District United SUtes District Court of Arkansas, 59/ RSupp 1220, held that countywide inter- [1059] il ii .1 I  1ll- il. r\u0026lt;' 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT ji district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Ap- peals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Board of Education and defendant school I Education and defendant school districts, ______ ________ whereby districts proposed to desegregate segregate schools, inter alia, by allowing schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to districts, whereby districts proposed to deI J J i I black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety\n(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects\nand (3) that portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. r 1. Schools =13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. [1060] schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. J i 3. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(14) Stipulations between Suite Board of other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools \u0026lt;s=13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle- down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. I t i I i Order 5. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(6) That portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. I t i I P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip . Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little II I C 1 LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., Neal, Gerber \u0026amp; Eisenberg, Chicago, Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., No. 1, Mac Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don Hindman, Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, David Sain and Bob Stender. C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sharon Streett, Dept, of Educ., Little Rock, Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Grainger Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. ill 365 tion of the magnet school plans of the other parties and a critique of the plan of the Magnet Review Committee. At the 1 close of the testimony on January 30, I suggested that the parties again confer and attempt to reach an agreement on the magnet school portion of the Eighth Circuit mandate. (R. 568-69). El] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only the mag- net school issues but also the student as- signment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (hereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the I Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors stipulation and were in general agreement Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (Sth Cir.), and the ensuing with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open I I 'Im I\nII I' I I mandate, a hearing was held on January court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, tar- 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the three districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Commit- I geted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January We Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1 i 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987 a presenta- The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under- [1061] I 1'I t / \u0026gt;1 1 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and sUrt anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, training and development, community input i and involvement, and student recruitment. / The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. 1 am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet Review Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated\nit is approved as cov- appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B here- The Committee shall be financed as to. agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July 1, 1987 and again on September 1, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdensome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of ered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (Sth Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294] at 1312-18 [Sth Cir.1984]. The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the Sute of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the 1- ) I (10621 1LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 367 die u 659 F.Supp. 365 (E.D.Ark. 1987) funding is required by the Court of Appeals ruling. The States share of the magnet school funding will be considerable. It will Strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education das- the State at a time when the State has committed itself to new standards for all Arkansas public schools. Although the blacks in Little Rock have suffered from the ravages of segregation, so have the blacks in every section and every county of the State. Significantly the new state standards provide for compensatory education for all students where performance is substandard. (State Exhibit MX 25). [3] The parties have agreed upon a sys- majority-to-minority tern for handling transfers. The stipulation setting forth this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, is approved and is incorporated herein by reference. The three districts and the Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon a Pulaski County Education Cooperative \u0026lt; for staff development, distribution of audio visual resources, \"teacher center activities, purchasing and other cooperative efforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation establishing the cooperative venture, attached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages ------------- was 61517. The district was given two weeks I I \"i 1 to submit an alternative plan. At the time the Countys student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignare currently underrepresented. Supple- mentally the NLRSD has agreed to develop uj ______-____  numerical goals and timetables for increas- been*awaiting the resolution of the magnet jpg the number of blacks to these positions, school issues. The Little Rock District is (Supplement plan 2.1). ment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. DeUiled assignments have I hereby authorized to proceed with its stu- as submitted to the dent assignment plan court in March, 1986. [4] The North Little Rock School District was found to have purposefully comii mitted a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdis- trict effect\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its crict eiiecu w ----------------- , , xit non central administration or to high school ehminated^^RbD principalships and coaching positions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of and blacks in schools south of Interstate 40\n(c) sifications on a discriminatory basis and (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. 1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (Sth Cir.1985). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted an implementation plan designed to remedy the interdistrict effects of its constitutional violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a supplement to its implementation plan (supplement plan) which addressed remediation of intradistrict impact of its prior segregative acts. The NLRSD student assignment plan, the Storm Plan, has been in effect for a number of years. When properly implemented, the Storm Plan provides for a constitutional student assignment system and for equitable busing burdens between blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence 1 I I I I'ii iill II uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hear- The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes consumes most of the NLRSDs March implemenUtion plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black students as retarded would be has suggested several [1063]VMXfc-u---- 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT { / J important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and while, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with indi- black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and recommendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group decision. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSDs March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable approach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSP plan is hereby approved in all respects. I I vidualized programs. ORDER [5] The Pulaski County Special School __________ District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to nuX^oTprograms aimed at the problem have committed a number of segreg jive of students who leave school prematurely acts with an interdistrict effect, (a) fade The excessively high drop- to comply with a 1968 desegregation court The NLRSD supplement plan includes a out raU o7blackVinThV NLRSD is one of order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC constructed schools in of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)\n(b) locations which en- sured that they would become racially identifiable\n(c) failed to allocate the burden of (Student Assignment Classwhich serves students who are suspended from their --------- _ sound and should busing equitably between black and white I regular classes) prove beneficial. are The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary rea sons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year. 48% of students\n(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff\n(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD)\n(f) failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize cnlndAd Students were black. While to schools in such a way as co ,he suspended desegregation\n(g) assigned students tu this percentage the actual percentage of black students S pecial education classifications and gifted   *  ..  Urt to* iHl enlolUdVlOW, the deviaUon is not so great programs on a \u0026lt;'1'' JJJ  t ndieate a continuing problem at th . assigned black principals  -lb ^-S'Sa^i^n a,. rhiriS 1 1 I The NLRSD has made strides in improv- ing the participation of black students in its Talented orocram. The Gifted and program. NLRSD supplement plan includes a num- ber of safeguards to insure identification of [1064] schools there. Little Rock to build new -------- r- \nSchool District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (^.D^ Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed Little Rock by the Court of Appeals. II nnve en- UdeiV iSiof lEfSP  JW\nV? llifect maximiie Wto fgifted I iSF(h) I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 369 School District v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed new construction. School District, IIS F.2d 404, 418 (Sth While no schools have been constructed during the pendency of this case, two i w Cir.1985). Many of the violations have already been curedeither by court order or by affirmative actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- tion/consolidation violation has been cured elementary schools are now proposed. Ihe sites chosen conform to the board's new policy and are approved. In that same vein, progress has been made recentv in Jiff^ost I'gngraded Md'failed by the redrawing of boundary lines which separate the districts. The failure to comply with Zinnamon includes the failure to appoint black members to the PCSSD board. By order of this court dated December 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect board members from zones. According to the plan submitted and approved, one of the zones will be majority black and another will be 407. black, 587. white and 27. other. This remedy supercedes that portion of Zinnamon dealing with black school board members. The ceding of the improving the physical plants in sc .on s such as Harris and Scott which were racial- ly identifiably black. The PCSSD has made continuous progress in hiring and promoting black fac- An affirmative action plan was 1984, ulty. adopted by the PCSSD board in which has apparently been successful. As of November, 1985, 22.67. of the PC-b\u0026gt;D from LRSD to Granite Mountain area PCSSD includes the transfer of public to PCSSD. Moreover, there housing areas are apparently other public housing developments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits teachers were black as compared with a 23.67. black student population. PCSSD Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has a goal to have black teachers make up 20-307. of the faculty in each school\n, tl.e district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix 1. Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful, although there remains under18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories. has created a new position in the superincoordinators and directors. In spite of these specific areas which should be carefully monitored, the percentage of I ck administrators (24.77o) is good and indicates among other Quties, reiav^ -- aeficien- velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD v The PCSSD student , u  soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks i cial education classes can perhaps b' use of culturally un- tendents office, the Coordinator of Housing and Integration. This staff person will. Other duties, relate to realtors, de- PCSSD Exhibit R-2, p. 4. assignment plan will be submitted and at that time the issues of desegregation in student assignments and equiUble allocation of busing burdens will be addressed. School site selection involves two sepa- rate violations. First, the construction of new schools where they are likely to be racially identifiable and second, the closing or downgrading of schools closest to centers of black population. Since this lawsuit was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a policy making desegregation and equal to school primary goals in cess decisions to build? renovate, or discontinue use of a school. Plan, March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- PCSSD Implementation remedied through the 1 S'C- rjst be biased screening and subsequent monitor- PCSSD plan includes both of ing The incluoes ooui vx these elements. The result of the plan has been a marked drop in the percentage of blacks classified as requiring special^ education. While the percentage designate., for PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. of blacks designate!, special education is 4.27 higher than the percentage that deviation is range. of white children so designated. within an acceptable .nt in ex- The PCSSD plan includes a comm, to assure black student participation Notably, in the lOU i ja**/   _ _ Hnusine and tracurricular activities. UM. M. ----------- Housing students com- Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school ye dix B. The Coordinator nr i' 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 1 J prised 287- of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan. Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresenU- tion in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD desegregation plan is hereby approved. School \u0026amp; Program CarverBasic Skills Math-Science WilliamsBasic Skills BookerArts GibbsForeign Language/ International Studies MannMath-Sciences/Arts ParkviewArts-Performing Arts Total EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs\nGrade Target Enrollment * K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 ! 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magits implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. I I I co? alt students must fully participate in magnet courses. As well as the magnet theme, net all magnet schools will have strong academically-oriented curricula. financing New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present for a magnet school or program not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee s deci- applications sion and in recommendation shall be sub- OlUU OHU .....................- mitted to the parties no later than Novem- ber 15 The MRC shall make its recom- the Court not later than Demendation to cember 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half (Va) of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half W the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by other student, will be required to pay to'the host district as its full liability for any child cost of the said unfilled seat the per host districts debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet lUC pa* Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the P   The host district 1987-1988 school year. shall provide to the MRC and to the parties [1086] program, I. The host district will provide 1 accounting and budgeting infor- to mation regarding the magnet program the Magnet Review Committee for review. of.^S cuSS that for^ less becaw plaii^ cha^ tc-O traaaaa net/S ervffi mam cosS dentu men^ Tra^ scli(w| ister^ seni^ thal'S U.S.M for thea POP!^ bla^ The^ scliOM be  mubm capa^LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. - PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 19S7) INTERDISTRICT 371 TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost extra- of transporting these students for curricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- dents should be performed utilizing mea- sures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses I pur- chased in order to transport magnet/M- to-M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. 'V Each dis- trict agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict t'on of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- B' istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. iIKa SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student i population which is fifty percent (50%) school will be considered as an M-to-M black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for-  mula\nTwenty-five per centum (257o) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re- served for the shadow area in the host per district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportion to that districts percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementary, junior high, or senior high). At the elemen- tary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-.black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock- School District shall not exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particulai school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribu- I i !l I enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet I I transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067)cNh 372 659 FEDERzVL SUPPLEMENT I ( 1I 1 transfers which in part recognizes that if M-lo-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by anv of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) dorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District en- 1 re^ as| 4 na ih^  iJ 1.1 iH I LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. /s/ Gene Jones North Lillie Rock School District /s/ James R. Smith Little Rock School District /s/ Jesse L. Rancifer Arkansas Department of Education /s/ Marcia A. Harding Arkansas Department of Education administration /s/ Morris F. Holmes I- INI Thd schooU respou der iid The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Mag-net/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall in-elude community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE report to the COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. e ratio  ova live  mi to th^ lion, SI magnel  IK necea adminij  mo.i) ing clia magnel 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of inteiwiew protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.f: 11 I- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS School Principal shall file Persons desiring employment as a an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, are acceotable for the initial contact. District application or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) District administration officials will screen , the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. acceptability. experience, The Deputy into are education, Superintendent Superintendent(s) will prepare to be used in the interview process. a and/or the Assistant list of interview questions The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie. Affirmative Action, E.E.O., Americans with Disability Act, etc.) An interview committee will be selected/appointed, follows: as Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. will be selected by The Parent/Patrons representatives designated by the PTA president of the a process: of the affected school. 2 . The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by.the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent Assistant (in consultation with Superintendents, appropriate staff - Supervisors, and Principals) Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition.shall he balanced, as nearly as possible, by may designate the race and gender.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10. t J 'J ..'.J I: j J EPS CODE: GCAB 1 The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of_ Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. Once When approved, the candidate shall receive a details his salary, pay grade, other his pay and contract which pertinent information.A' D f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASTEQN district ARKANSAS SEP 3 1986 CARL R. EREN 13, CLERK ey:________:______________ ,'.CP. CLE.'dC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECbAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Ct al DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ns Next Friend of Minors LESLIE JOSHUA, et al INTERVENORS ORDER Pursuant to the agreement entitled \"Stipulation For Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" filed by the three  party school districts and the Arkansas the following Order is hereby entered: o tate Board of Education,: The subject of this stipulation was addressed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of November 7, 1985 , styled as above and reported at 778 F.2d 404, 436 (Sth Cir. 1985 ) . 1. Plaintiff and each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and report th name of that person to the Court within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the MRC and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua intervenors will appoint a person to the MRC to- serve, SEP-8 1986 ATTORNEY general OF ARKANSASc ex-officio, and report within ten (10) days. the names of that person to the Court Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi tlii n the ten -day period conccrninc those to be named in an attempt to insure til at the MIvC tins at least two black members, A excluding 2 . Order, the ex-officio member. 'Within twenty-one the MRC shall meet magnet school program. planning (21)- days from the entry of this to begin planning an interdistrict _ The MRC shall develop a and implement in planning process A. t ime table for the magnet school program. the MRC shall: Consider plans and proposals the parties\nB. C. Dur i n o the for magnet schools by Hear evidence Submit, for proposals to the D. ef.f ects E. presented by the parties\ncomment and evaluation, parties for their Evaluate interim corrment and/oi er i t i c i sm\nboth the segregative and desegregative of any proposals a-d vanced for magnet schools. Make findings concerning the number, location. stalting, racial ratios, and themes et In determining the number and location the MRC shall have as the magnet schools, .of magnet schools. its primary objective of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be located in may 0 r proximate make exceptions Williams School may the furtherance Consistent with this objective. established in school facilities to black residential areas. The MRC to this general rule\nfor example. be retained as a magnet. 23 . c ( The MRC shall report its findings to the Court, together with such recommendations as may be necessary to the efficient operat ion and administration of the magnet schools. Any member of the MRC may file con surring or dissenting reports. The MRC report and recommendations, and any concurring or dissenting repor t s, mus t be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which deadline may be extended by the Court for good cause shown. The pa r t i es will seek a prompt hearing and determination by the Court on the MRC recomnendQtions. 4 . Upon implementation of the magnet school program. the MRC will continue to monitor, evaluate, and reconmend changes 1 n the actual operation of the magnet schools. I The MRC will file an annual report with this Court. In performing its functions under this paragraph the MRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures OU 11i nec in the preceding paragraphs. The 'IRC may retain a consultant to assist in the magnet 5 . planning process, and the parties may retain other experts and I consultants 6 . to make presentations or assist in the process. The representative shall be nonvoting, but participate fully in- 7 . on any of the Joshua intervenors on shall otherwise be entitled to all aspects of the deliberations Any party, at any time, may move re commend a_t_i_pn or Th i s the MRC of the MRC. the Court for a hearing report of the MRC. day of September, 1986 . I S. DistricTJudge  3 de -en t entered on docket sheet Ath Rulo 580 JUL 061987 OR 'ARKAt'SAS U.S cr.-JiT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL CW!L R. CREM'S, CLEH. cf p. Ct' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al NO. LR-C-82-866 DEFENDANTS ORDER After hearing from a number of witnesses, including magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comm i 11 e e (MRC) reports. I remain steadfastly optimistic that six quality interdistrict magnet schools can and will be ready by fall. Th is will. of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The pr incipals are most impressive and will provide excellent leadership, in spite of the manner in w..ich they were selected. Proper procedures have now been instituted for staff --_ selection. The attorneys have he 1987-88 school year reached a comp romi s e of $3100 uer i s hereby approved. All parties agree that so on the budget for ma gnet student. the role of the MRC mus that the interdistrict magnet schools can success fully implemented and operated. committee such as i n Th i s f i gu r t be c 1 ar i f/i ed be efficiently and Divergent opinions the MRC are not only inevitable thoroughly examining options. The i n a but are helpful current problem with the MRC is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions. butthat any vote wh i ch i s less than unanimous 1 s V i ev/ed by the parties as a s talemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to a How the parties to compromise and reach agreement however through the MRC they choose, whether through their attorneys o r it runs That IS not a realistic long-term solution and counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in order ing the MRC to \"administer tl the magnets. . Generally educational decisions should be made by educators, no t by lawyers. For the mo st part, the MRC i s composed of members with exce1 lent ct edent ials and abilities i n the field 0 e educat ion. The recent opinion in the St. light on what the Court of Appeals Louis desegregation intended the role case sheds of the MRC in our corrmun i ty to be. i d d e 11 , et al V- Board of Edu_cati!h e t al , No. 86-1511, slip 01 . (8th Cir. June 8 , 1987 ) . (\"Liddell X\") . Initially it is clear that the MRC i s a decision-ma king, rather than merely an adv i sory, body. Both the MRC m Li tt . c Rock/Nor th Little Rock and Metropolitan Coordinat ing Commi 11 ee (MCC) in St. Lou i s were charged with the task o f admi n i s t er i ng specialty s choo1s. In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given author i ty to admin i s ter the interdistrict vocational schools jus: as the MRC was formed i n this case to admi n i s t er the magnet schoo 1 s . I n the St. Lou i s case, by agre eme n t, the day -1 o -\u0026lt; a. operation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with boards o f educat ion of the host districts. The r e spons ib i 1 i t ies reserved to the boards included tl the operation o f the respective 2.. -A programs, emo 1oyment o f staff, developmen t of personnel and - appropr i at i on of funds to meet each district's needs. 11 Subsequen t to the agreemen t, the district court ordered two voca t i onal schools closed and further ordered the MCC to develop a staffing plan to accommodate the reduced and reassigned staff members in those closi ng schools. The City Boa rd of Education. argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffing plan infringed on the powe r s reserved to the boards o f educat i on. The_c^uit of appeals held: We find little merit in It is clear th i s content ion. add itional authority 'independence .. schools and and MCC must be objectivity than   Even''i^th 'its po' t Vh. MCC musV have the close eooperat.on the MU.^ is to succeed. the that . must be permitted to than 1t has in are be Even i ts the J Li dde 11 X at 2 7. have the 0 f dTstn'cs It Ithel plan Similarly the parties to this case have distr ict of a magnet school should make the agreed that the host day-to-day decisions regarding the operation D will not be of the school. This agreement cannot and construed to relegate the MRC t o the status o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed the MCC in St. Lou i s to make independent investigatio_ns, evsluations i and decisions\nThere is no evidence the matter, or made respect  pract ice to or it. thoroughly revi'ewed that [the MCC1 independent cour t indicated. an decision w i I h the district cannot be permi this The MCC must itted to continue. responsibility given to it the ,ted to exercise^.^^,^ be permi district court by the Li dde11 X at 22. Accordingly, the role o f the MRC 1 s to make r ecorrmended 3poll cy decisions. regarding the opera t i on ...o f -the magnet . schools. _ Those decisions should then be conmunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and shou Id reflect independent fact-finding. Ob jections to MRC reports should be filed wi th the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, mod i fy or reject the MRC's r ecornrienda t ions. The court has neither the t ime nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of \"policy\" decis ions as d i s t i ngu i shed from \"day-to-day II decisions. By way of example. 1 n select! ng staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used 'or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropr lately selecting the teachers. With respect .to seat allocation, the MRC should establish a polJ_cy_Lo.r__seat. al locat i on...wi_t_h.iA_te bounds of the s t i pu 1 at i^on wh i ch  s h o u 1 d__s e t__it s schools from all three districts. Each district criteria for select ion o f i ts students for magne t schools to enhance 11 desegregat ion efforts. For the 1987 -88 __s_chopiJ/ea the parties have agreed, and i t i s hereby approved. that all North Little Rock Schoo 1 District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnel schools as o\nMay 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties. the Ji.umber_,o f jea t s__a_l 1 oc_a^e d\n NLRSD and PCSSD are_to be broken down_ o_n _an _org anizational level 4Zach Polett sr 501-376-2423 DU 6/17/94 0:02 AM Liab GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO\nDr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: . 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration 1 G'ibb$\\ schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Poletl XT 501-376-2423 026/17/94 WO.UJAM 03/\u0026amp; Partial I ist of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selectioa Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polett  501-3/\u0026amp;-2X23 J 6/17/94 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday. June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussZach Polett W 501-376-2423 0116/17/94  8:05 AM L35/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 2) 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.TO\nGIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Follow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee, we again respectfully request to interview the following people for the principalship of Gibbs at the earliest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedie Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feasible. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.PARENT GIBBS ELEMENTARY ' - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District HAND DELIVERED 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you Again, Gu  ...................... - ---------------- ------------, vour time in discussing the selection process with us. . ___ ________.J_____i- _________ i- 4-,^ I for your time in discussing the selection process wiun us. think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our teachers. school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the Recognizing that you will be involved in to date. principal's position. other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the I would like to reiterate that our course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it stated by the administration that this particular in prior applications, it has been our is inherently and to be determined. has been procedure had \"worked\" that the process in this instance experience fatally flawed.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the At no time were we ever given specific or accurate process. information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent role would be. Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district We also requested requesting involvement in the process, information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. Committee. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told It was not until the expressed interest in the Gibbs position, by you that that was \"misinformation\". It was interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure Both before the for selection of the principal would be. and at the conclusion of the interviews. interview process we in the inquired of the administrative representatives whether, event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could consensus on the applicants to be recommended to were later told that, yes. In not come to a you, the process would remain open and we would be able toDr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were \"misinformed\". The parent and faculty members of the selection committee reservations about the utilization of the also expressed serious Our concerns were the lack of prior input evaluation forms. into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on There was substantial reluctance on the simple mathematics. part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we'could r ecommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to position. , submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to fact that the committee had interviewed the five document the applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee_ expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr . Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board I am, under separate cover. as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR BY: / ^f red . Angulo, 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \\^/ Donna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860da GIBBS ELEMENTARY - TEACHER ASSOCIATION PARENT June 17, 1994 Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Henry Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, This letter is being provided to each of you so that you 1994 . ---- will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administrationwhich was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. We believe that it is important for each of you to know that of the committee unanimously believe the parent-teacher members inherently and fatally flawed. that the process was if for no substantially eliminated any significant Other reason than it ... . and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any Williams for consideration for the principal names to Dr. position at Gibbs.Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee APAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Easter Willie Tucker Jones BY: A Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman MOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED NOV 0 51992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, to the CARL R. BRENI8, CLERK DEP. c \"PX PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted Court for review and approval a budget for the 199 2 9 3 school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93 . (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court /) heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992 the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant ic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary principal at Washington BasicSchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. tl It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the Court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the MRC's position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") responded that they support the LRSD's views.' Background of the Maqnet Review Committee. In November 1985 a opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the State of Arkansas, the PCSSD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. \"The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 'The Court also received a concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cuts on the magnet See Exhibit A. letter dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenon.  * . -C - niin/irsal tn iiinh'a schoob and the assignment of a white vice-principal to Gibbs. -2-schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987) . Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that \"[sjtaffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660. F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further noted that the Eighth Circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be administered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of administration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual Any reservation or the LRSD. assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree c larified so that the a that the role of the MRC must be LLe interdistrict magnet schools can be successfully implemented and operated._ efficiently and successfully impiemenuea anu . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3-to compromise and reach agreement however they choose, whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-term solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day T-arra-rHi nn thp ooeration of the school This decisions regarding the operation of the school agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to_ make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be d, in a written report, to the court for The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact- Objections to MRC reports should be filed with communicated, approval. the of IS Those written report, findino. ----- , the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve modify, or reject the MRC's recommendations. of example, in selecting staff, the 1C ... By way of example, in selecting suui, tnc should set the criteria to be used or process by ^^ich teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriate y lected for magnet schools\nselecting the teachers. Little Rock School District V . Pulaski District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. County Special School 1987) . In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated\nIn our view. the District Court order outlining the -4-duties and responsibilities of Committee was well conceived. the Magnet It Review recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district. . . . We specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective do, it Mtsvex\", daX  ----- ---- agresinGnts between host school distiricts and bargaining agreements between host school aisiriccs ana the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with heretofore given to the Magnet the responsibilities Review Committee or with respect to the with orders of the District Court staffing of magnet schools. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (Sth Cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992 . The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget, proposed to reduce staffing in During that meeting the LRSD the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE in which he slated that the role of the MRC is to ^In a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in - , which would be communicated to the court for approval. See LKSU . make recommended policy decisions PCSSD, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D.Ark. 1987). -5-positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs. the MRC's role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD V. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition. the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement (\"PNA\") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD's position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD's \"controlled choice student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an H annual basis to submit to the Court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6-continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action. and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled \"A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee\" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal. Dr. Bernd states: \"It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee . . (I (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose reduction in positions at a the magnet schools. He states: \"Because the reduction in positions would create a 1 that the per pupil rate be total reduction in costs. we recommend reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The Court is dismayed actions. The LRSD did not and somewhat confused about the LRSD's consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing budget for the -7- amagnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recommendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC's permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MRC's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said \"that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question. II Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (Sth Cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however. that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case. it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8-integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. \"Magnet schools . . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment. It Little Rock School District v. a Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (Sth Cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are \"recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools. with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . . It Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a proven success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the Court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- astated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MRC's decision to reinstate the FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1.0 FTE music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School\n2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School, 3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School\nand 4) three (3) .5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Assistant Principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet_School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC'S position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as \"black\" or \"white. It 3.9 a 1 -10-It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)\n778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of magnet schools. The Court, the assistant principals for the two however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters. this is no ordinary matter. The LRSD must function under court order and court oversight in lawsuit the district itself a -liinitiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, ___U.S. ____, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) , the Supreme Court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Among the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the parents and students of the once public and to the parents and students or one once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a action when its policies f--- constitutional course of form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12-to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993. SO ORDERED this day of November, 1992. /-y*-v^f____1 r-'-r^ /---------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE lliK -vi- -13-JOHN w. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR.  .Also admitled to Praclin\nin i uno District of I nlumoia JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding I wish to add to that list concerns proposed by the Little to cut approximately 15 teaching See copy of letter to Magnet Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am the District has regarding the budget cuts District. The District proposes positions in the Magnet school. Review Committee from Dr. E concerned because in the budget cut proposals taken at least one action that makes absolutely Mac 1992 . sense. It has removed the assistant principal at salary of approximately $34,000.00 a Gibbs Elementary School who had and replaced her with an fn the District who has a salary of $60,,000 or more administrator in ------------_ _ ____ I just don't understand this, principal at Gibbs wcc Afri'\" Caucasian. The further irony of this African American prrncrpal, was pled^at Wasjtxngton^^^ The the removed assistant rstand this. Moreover, the removeo o... was African American\nthe replacement for her irnnv of this whole matter is that the was with another African American principal whil Gibbs now Caucasian principals. RfeCSiVED SIJSA HAi-'IStT-: !3 OF T. WFIGhT -O Exhibit A U. S. DISTRICT JUDGEPage Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 We are, therefore, The entire matter is suspect, we believe. Ann Brown's office inquire into these matters (hopefully) hearing or meeting before requesting that Ms. prior to any scheduled with the Court. or Sincerely, Jo'lin W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn JacksonTO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 28 , 199 2 Magnet Review Committee Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C- Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School Distri 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position Rock School District Board approving the  1 that any reductions of the area schools should also be made in the magnet Therefore, the personnel^in^^^^^^ Magnet Review Committee. schools Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Elementary 1.5 Counseling Elementary 1.4 Counseling Secondary 2.0 Music Teachers - Elementary (Except Booker) 3.0 Teaching Vacancies - Secondary 7.0 14.9 Because tne une reduction in positions create reduction in costs, we recomnend that the per pup $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. the the in would a total we re be reduced frommay-04-1994 15 = 38 FROM J.B. UflN HOOK REALTY, INC TO 7712420 P.01 May 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wifliams\nWe, the faculty and support staff of WiUiaxna Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reassignmeni of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through his effective administrative style and leadership, has guided Williams Magnet School to a level of superior achievement. Our school's high-performance record speaks for itself. Wc highly recommend that Dr. Jackson's transfer be recraisidcrcd. Also, attached you will find a list of factors that wc hope you will considet before you make your final decision. These are just a few of the numerous accompUshmeots that Dr. Jackson has helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He has truly helped to make our school *a choice for excellence \" As we close this 1993-94 academic year, we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Respectfully yours, Williams Mag^ School Faciilfy^Ste^ cc Board of Directors cc Magnet Review Committee cc Dr. Edwin S, JackaoQ . - Cslf- A I f - . i^4^TlKxtSu I h//i,s., t^Y-.04-1994 15:39 FPOT1 .J.B. OAN HTOK PEAI.TY. INC TO 2420 p.03 ... Strong leadership ... Staff coimrnttment ... Parental support and trust ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff turn-over ... Pupa comonttmenf to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A, membership ... C.O.E, leads- ... Staff support ... Continuity in sa|^xt of Magnet philosophy and goals ... Hi^ expectations ... Fima, fair and consigtent with students, staff and parents ... Knowledgeable of M^net Review Commiaco Federal sxandards ... Good reialionsh^ with the corporatc/business world ... Chosen to .serve on the Joint lotetHn Committee on Education ... Standardized test semes are cmtsistenlly high ... Conceived idea of new buildmg design and construction ... Professional in aD aspect* of his position ... National Association of Elementary Principals member ... Oversight and Directions Conunittce representative ... Attends annual Intematimial Magnet School Convention ... Federal Legislative Chairman for Arkansas Elementary PrirwqMiIs TOTAL P.0245 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 1994 72207 6oP/ Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone to discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, seen how dedicated and concerned Dr. in promoting the goals of our magnet He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. Jackson is school. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my student at Williams Magnet. son is a kindergarten My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievemen , and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. I' ve Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, construction to its end. would be a great asset in seeing the My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and for allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain as the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. Sincerely, Dorothy DeYoung (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) bcc Magnet Review Committee 16 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 19\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_634","title":"Principal selection process, telephone surveys","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals","Parents","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, telephone surveys"],"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/634"],"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-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 13, 1994 Richard Kalkbrenner 1716 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Kalkbrenner\nThe Office of Desegregation Monitoring is looking into the process the Little Rock School District recently used in hiring principals. As part of our study, well be discussing that process with members of the principal interview committees. One of our staff members contacted you today to arrange a date and time for you to participate in a telephone survey to discuss your involvement in the selection process. This letter confirms that a member of our staff will call you at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, July 15, at 372-6175 to ask the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? What was your understanding of the principal selection process? What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Briefly describe the interview process your committee followed. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? 6. Whom did you understand would make the final selection of the principal? 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Well compile the answers to our survey and submit them to the Court as part of a composite report. Before we finalize that document, well hold a meeting with the survey participants to discuss our findings and also to make sure that we've accurately recorded our information. (We'll contact you about the meeting at a later date.) It is possible that the Court will hold a hearing on this matter. You will not be required to attend the hearing or to testify, but you may attend if you would like to and you may also have the opportunity to testify if you wish. We very much appreciate your taking time to help us with this project. Please feel free to ask the interviewer any questions that may help you participate in our survey. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Intavduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question)ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - When were you selected? - Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - What written or oral instructions did you receive? - When did you receive these instructions?3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? - What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process?9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376-6200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parents willing to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? In order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all Interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.LRSD Principal Hiring Process: Initial Contact Script Hi. Im with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Have I reached ? Were looking into the processes the Little Rock School District used recently in hiring principals. According to information we received from the district, you were a member of the committee that interviewed principal candidates for school, is that correct? Id like to make arrangements to phone you at a convenient time to ask you a few questions about that interview process. Weve put together a short list of questions that should take about 20 minutes to talk over with you. All of your individual answers will be confidential. Ill mail you a copy of those questions beforehand so you can know what to expect and think over your answers. Will that be OK with you? Were working to gather this information in the next few days. When would be a good time for one of us to call you? (Day and time: .) Ill be mailing a letter with more information and the list of questions to you today. However, Im not asking you to write out any answers\nwe will call and ask you to tell us your answers. What mailing address would you like us to use, or would you like us to fax you the information? What phone number should I call on (day, time)? One of my colleagues or I will be calling you during that time. Remember that we will eventually be publishing our findings and submitting them to the Court, but we will not use your name in that report. Before we finalize our report, well have a meeting to give feedback to the survey participants and to make sure that weve gotten our information straight. You may attend that meeting if you wish, but you will not be required to come. Also, its possible that the Court will hold a hearing to review the principal selection process, but you would not be required to attend or to testify. However, if you would like to attend, you will be able to do so, and if you wish to be testily, you would have that opportunity. We certainly appreciate your help. If you should think of any questions either before or after you receive our letter, please call me at 376-6200. Thank you very much.9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376^200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parent\nwilling to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? In order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question)L^s*l- '.^   sW^ . \u0026gt; *  M.^\" I *4. 2^? V'* r \u0026lt; -ti r .*1: i^jti' r -^- ' c- V t:' - '1 i-'. X Vii \u0026lt;/ tW.'A TJt=^  ?,\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 'i? 1 s-^t fcWy-J^...-\"'**\"-- fc. M-  -. ^5?^ V  -4.'.  K'-i- .'*\u0026lt;\" ' ^4  ?^''' iCk 1- W -5. : Z' r . ^. ^ 'Ll  It it.  W'5\n. kA: Mtfl  '.'ir/ 5:.- -ij-'  - 4rt 0\u0026lt; fSij 5e  ( \u0026gt;. :1 t yv f. '?r r gifCS /-X A t 5. *1^ ''  Jis ' *\u0026gt;ii f :* flc . i Y' 5  e \u0026lt; 'xl ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdiictioii , an Hello... this is with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) DRAFTODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdnction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) DRAFT ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/ sex): Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - When were you selected? - Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - What written or oral instructions did you receive? - When did you receive these instructions?3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? - What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process?9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376^200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parent willing to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? Tn order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First.. (Ask the first question) i CLi '(J'tODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer:___________________ Date/Time: 1) 2) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee?  What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? 4^ a.rhcc/' Cl 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Do you fagi^iMt the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 5) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? 6) ^ jaii-tlMak your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? 7) Wer\u0026amp;-you satisfied with the process? What was good about the process? What needs improvement? tzOUX. 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is draft with the , an Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Before we begin, let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. Do you have any questions regarding our general process or the survey? First... (Ask the first question)ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) - i\u0026gt; How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection Were you satisfied with the process? What was good about the process? What needs improvement? What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Do you think your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? 7Were you properly supported by the district administration? - Instructions from the administration 60 'Q^umber and quality of applicants provided - Response to requests for information 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdnction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be conndential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) y School: ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE _____________ ---------------------- ---------------- -  Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer: Date/Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) De-yoa feef4hat-the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 5) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Do .you thinlt your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? T) Wctg^ou satisfied with the process? What was-^d-abTJUt the process? What needs improvement? 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?\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":"mus_sovcom_1-33-0","title":"Prof. Lawrence Anthony Kratz, Miss. State University","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","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":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Prof. Lawrence Anthony Kratz, Miss. State University, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Prof. Lawrence Anthony Kratz, Miss. State University"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=50%7C1%7C33%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_576","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2003-12"],"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 improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/576"],"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\nCorrespondence, evaluations. Program evaluations determined the effectiveness of programs to improve the academic achievement of African American students.\nC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast- track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. - All employment contracts. - Student assignment process. - Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. - Substitutes. - Special education. - Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. - Academic progress incentive grants. - Library media services resurvey requirement. - Early retirement incentive program. Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to helpf^h^ program people in developing their material.We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process. If I can be of any assistance, just give me a call. Thanks.13 SO* 9J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SIO WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Program Managers, Directors, and Supervisors FROM\nEstelle MatthnhrrSsw,, IInnterim Superintendent SUBJECT: Procedures to be Used for Fast Track Evaluation of Desegregation Plan The districts Program Planning and Budgeting document identified a number of activities that are to be implemented during the 1993-94 school year. An activity for August 1993 is for the Superintendent and the Cabinet to begin to identify programs for \"fast track\" evaluation. A fast track evaluation will not have as many dimensions or details as a regular evaluation, since the evaluative process is conducted in a reduced time frame. Evaluation of the districts program will provide the information that is needed for us to determine if programs are effective and that such implementation will assist us in meeting our commitment to our Court-approved Desegregation Plan. The following guidelines are to be used to conduct fast track evaluations of targeted programs. 1. Prepare a comprehensive program description for each area or component that is targeted for evaluation. 2. Identify program goals for each area or component of the program that is being evaluated. 3. Identify the evaluation criteria that is to be used to fast track evaluate each goal. Include all evaluative measures and instruments that will be used in this process. 4. Identify any obstacles or problems that were encountered that hindered or impacted the obtainment of program goals. 5. Given the results of your fast track evaluation, recommendations for program additions, deletions, and/or changes are deemed appropriate. This data can be extremely helpful as you develop a strong business case for making a major decision(s) regarding continued implementation of various programs in the Desegregation Plan. The format for a business 2 case is enclosed for your review as well as copies of the standard format that is to be used to fast track evaluate targeted programs. The following programs have been targeted for fast track evaluation: Targeted Program Person(s) Responsible 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. All Employment Contracts Student Assignment Audit Construction of Stephens Special Education Vocational Education Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Library Media Services Resurvey Requirement Lucy Lyon Early Retirement Incentive Program Substitute Teachers Recruitment Brady Gadberry Estelle Matthis Doug Eaton/John Riggs Patty Kohler Carol Green Margaret Gremillion/Larry Robertson Leon Adams/Alice Stovall/Gene Parker Mark Milhollen/Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry/Human Resources Director Jeanette Wagner/Becky Rather We need each program manager to submit your preliminary evaluation report to my office by November 15, 1993. The final report is due by December 15, 1993. All evaluation reports will be submitted to the Board of Directors during January, 1994. /Iks t i iFORMAT FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION GOALS / EVALUATION CRITERIA / EVALUATION RESULTS OBSTACLES TO GOAL ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATION I Objective - (Evaluation Criteria, Expected Benefits) Impact Analysis Resources Analysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan RECOMMENDATION II RECOMMENDATION III Recommendation(s) will be made if changes to the program are needed. Each recommendation should be supported by the information included in the business case. I IC0RR18 Date: August 19, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram From: Bill Mooney Subj: Fast-Track Evaluations In reviewing the Program Planning and Budget Process, activities related to the fast-track evaluations are to begin this month with completion in early January. The results will be input into the budget decision-making process. Items should be identified as candidates for fast-track evaluations if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district and involve a significant amount of money. In reviewing the Desegregation Plan and my notes from this past budget development effort, I have identified some candidates for your consideration. I am sure many of these targets are already on your list. - Incentive school operations\ntwo reports, things not working well. - Possible school closings. - Criteria for closing incentive schools. Q All employment contracts. ^Student assignment process. ^Construction of Stephens. - Outsourcing support services. Q Substitutes. ^Special education. ^Vocational education. - Incentive school scholarship program. f Academic progress incentive grants. Library media services resurvey requirement. Early retirement incentive program. I Many of the above items could yield significant savings, and several could result in cost avoidance and be removed from the plan requirements. The curriculum audit would be another good source of ideas for improvement and possible savings. As we begin the fast-track evaluation process, I believe it important to set out some written guidelines and directions to help The program people in developing their material. We should develop a standard program evaluation format, and require well-written business cases on every major decision option within each evaluation project. This would help ensure the consistency of our work, and would provide us with the business cases we will need for the coming budgeting process.DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Program Name: School Operations Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Program Evaluation Format Fall 1994 Your program evaluation should include the elements listed below. Please be succinct. The length of your program evaluation document will be dependent to some degree based on the extensiveness of the program. In general, however, each program evaluation should not exceed two pages. Program Description: Please describe your program. This description comes from the program description in the Program Budget Document (PBD). Evaluation Criteria: The program goal(s) taken from the PBD should be used as the evaluation criteria. In other words, the program goal(s) should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of your program. Summary: Provide a summary of the overall effectiveness of implementation of your section of the desegregation plan as per the goals. A similar summary of overall effectiveness should be provided as per the goals for the nondesegregation programs. Goal Attainment: Please identify and describe the factors that facilitated goal attainment. Evidence: Please provide or describe evidence (i.e., data, documentation, etc.) for which goals were or were not achieved. I \u0026lt;ggfraBHii 1 Little Rock School District December 11, 1995 RECESVEO DEC J 2 J995 MEMORANDUM Olfice of Desegregation Moruionny TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation RE: Enclosed Reports u2i.O'. Ase!.S.m(n+'^ Please find enclosed a draft of the 1995-96 Needs Assessment document and a copy of the Extended Evaluations for the Little Rock School District. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. drg Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20009 /CX/  i ODM Review of LRSD Extended Program Evaluations 1995-96 Program Name - Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School Program Summary Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School houses grades seven, eight, and nine in the only junior high to be included as one of the original six magnet schools. Established in 1987 with the interdistrict format, the school offers the arts and sciences specialties as two separate programs. Science magnet students are required to take the traditional and required core courses along with at least one science laboratory course each year. Arts students must select an area of concentration from visual arts, drama, dance, or music m addition to the traditional and required core courses. Eight hundred fifty students attend. Fifty-three percent are black. Evaluation Criteria 1. Sufficient program personnel are in place as measured by the monitoring instrument. 2. School climate survey will be used to measure parent, student and teacher perceptions. (The author of the extended evaluation appears to have mixed a process and an outcome.) Evaluation Processes Evaluators cite the LRSD Equity Monitoring Assessment and the school climate survey as the source of data used to draw inferences supporting the recommendations. Evaluation Results 1. There is a need for renovations of and additions to the building. 2. There is a need for new equipment, updated materials and computers, and program additions. 3.There is a need for additional personnel to staff 1 and 2 above. Recommendations 1. Modernize and expand science classrooms and laboratories, add one science classroom, enlarge dance and drama rooms, and provide additional storage space. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Major budget increases required for construction, remodeling, and equipment purchase.2. Extend the 7th grade science laboratory course from one semester to a full year and add courses in ceramics, crafts, and cartooning to the arts magnet program. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Would require one additional teacher - $31,000. 3. Establish teacher computer demonstration stations in all science classrooms, including equipment to go on line with Internet and install computer system in the piano lab. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Substantial budget increases for equipment and wiring in science classrooms. Piano lab costs - $4,000 plus. 4. Limit enrollment in science classes to 25. Create ensembles in music and dance. A. Would not require plan modification. B. Budget impact - one teacher for science recommendation, $31,000. For ensemble recommendation - $15,000 for materials (costumes and music). Total costs, all recommendations - $81,000 plus major construction and renovation. Evaluation Critique The evaluation consists primarily of perceptions and wishes of the staff. Little data support the recommendations, but they are comprehensive and probably reasonable if continued improvement in the magnet program is a viable option. The district will probably have to prioritize the requests and spend whatever it can afford.Program Name - Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Program Program Summary The Henderson Health Sciences Program was developed in 1992 to serve students rising from Carver, Romine and Washington Elementary Schools, which have science specialties, and to serve as a feeder school to Parkview Science Magnet. Because of the declining white enrollment at Mann, the districts planners believed the science program was needed because of the potential for desegregative effect. Evaluation Criteria A. Comparisons of enrollment data from 1992 - 1995 to determine desegregative effects. B. Costs of supplies, equipment, materials, and staff development related to benefits. Evaluation Processes The evaluator attempted to show that white students who transferred from out of the attendance zone to the magnet program had a desegregative effect and that the districf s failure to fally fund the program had impeded the potential effects. The evaluation builds a case for fall funding of the magnet program as originally conceived. Evaluation Results The results indicate that students who transferred to Henderson for the magnet program had a desegregative effect since the percentage white was greater in the transferring population than in the resident population. The data reflect 1995 expenditures of $244 ($58,958 budgeted) per magnet student for magnet programs including the purchase of an 18-station computer lab. It also includes a list of equipment and materials valued at $14,000 which had been included in the original plan but have never been purchased. The conclusion is that if the plan were fally implemented, the program could be more successful. Recommendations Though not stated as a recommendation, the clear intent is that the equipment and materials described in the original plan should be bought immediately. A. Would not require a plan modification. B. The budget impact is $14,000.Evaluation Critique The evaluation format leaves much to be desired, but the message that more money is needed comes through. The other conclusions are not clear\nnor is the recommendation.Program Name - Central High International Studies Magnet Program Summary The Central High International Studies Magnet complements the international studies programs at Dunbar Junior and Gibbs Elementary in that it offers a logical culmination of studies started at lower grades. The program uses the highly academic atmosphere of the foreign language, social studies, and English classes to provide the core of international studies. The strong Advanced Placement programs match well with IS. Evaluation Criteria I. The magnet component will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students. 2, The costs of the magnet program are justified by the benefits. Evaluation Processes Evaluators identified the numbers of M-to-M and out-of-zone students by race who attend the magnet program and the school at large. The minimal costs of the magnet program were itemized. Benefits to students were subjectively described. Evaluation Results One hundred twenty-three students transferred from other attendance zones or districts to attend the International Studies Magnet in 1995-96. Seventy-eight per cent (96) are nonblack. The total school population is 37 per cent non-black. The magnet program clearly contributes to desegregating the school. One period release time for the magnet coordinator plus $1,990 for materials are the only costs identified for the program. Benefits were described as outstanding. Recommendations 1. That the IS program be established as a node on the Internet. 2. That the IS coordinator be given a ten month contract and three periods release time. A. Neither recommendation will require a plan modification. B. Costs are not described in detail but $9,000 for equipment and software plus $200 per month line costs is a fair estimate. Personnel costs will be an additional two periods per day release time, $12,000. Total - $23,400 (ODM estimate)Evaluation Critique The evaluation is not well done in format or content, and conclusions have little support. However, it does make the case for program improvement. Curiously, International Baccalaureate is not mentioned in the recommendations even though a business case has been presented recommending its implementation.Program Name - Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program Summary The Dunbar program offers the dual themes international studies and gifted and talented. All students are identified as magnet either in gifted or international studies because all students are required to take some foreign language. Other than languages, the only international studies course being taught in 1995-96 is African studies. Gifted students are enrolled in the gifted sections of the core courses. Evaluation Criteria The magnet program was evaluated by determining whether the out-of-zone and M-to-M students contributed to the desegregation of the school, and whether the benefits of the program outweighed the costs. Evaluation Processes Evaluators compared white and black enrollment differences before and after seven years of the magnet programs existence, and summarized magnet costs when considered in the context of student accomplishments. Evaluation Results Evaluators compared enrollment data that indicate the school has moved from 79% black in 1989-90 to 59% black in 1995-96. The change is attributed to the majority white enrollment of M-to-M and out-of-zone students which number 266 students, 28% of the total student body. Expenditures for the magnet program for 1995-96 total $76,809 or $289 per participant. The cost estimates are followed by a litany 17 different honors, contest winners, and awards bestowed on Dunbar students. Recommendations That the criteria for application to the magnet program be expanded to include black out- of-zone and M-to-M students who have been identified as gifted. A. Implementation of the recommendation would require a change in the M-to-M stipulation agreement as well as the LRSD student assignment regulations. The desegregation plans would require changes in areas that refer to the stipulation agreement. B. Budget increases would occur only as a result of an increase in student population.Evaluation Critique The evaluation is more clearly written than any of the other extended evaluations I have read, but the recommendation is probably a bad one. The magnet program was developed to attract white students. It is working as intended but has the down side of creating majority white classes in the gifted program. Opening the program to black students from outside the attendance zone would diminish success and, in the case of black students from outside LRSD, violate state law.APIG/Focused Activities Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: This administrative summary provides a short history ot APIG/Focused Activities from their inception to the submission of the April 1995 business case that changed the basis of program funding. The history quotes program goals from the desegregation plan but doesnt provide insight as to the nature of the programs individual schools have implemented. The summary lacked evaluation criteria since no attempt was made to evaluate the program. The summary did not show evidence of an evaluation process. Results: N/A Recomm: Continue to give area schools the opportunity to enrich their programs with the twenty dollar per student allocation in their budget. The process has only been in place for one year. Opinion: Im not sure of the point here. This document is called an Administrative Summary and bears no resemblance to an evaluation. The recommendation is groundless in that it isnt based on ant type of evaluation of the program for the 1994-95 school year. Parkview Arts/Science Magnet Summary: The extended evaluation focuses on both the Parkview science and art components. Particular emphasis is placed on the facilities and equipment believed to be necessary for maintenance and expansion of the programs. Eval. Criteria: The two criteria were the school climate survey and monitoring reports competed by supervisors and assistant superintendents. The evaluation writer noted that the yearly Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation was used as a reference. Eval. Process: Uncertain. The evaluation process was not described as part of the document. The narrative skipped from criteria to results without an explanation of process. Results: 1. Yearly departmental summaries revealed a need for repairs, equipment and/or renovations. 2. Information was collected through the Magnet Review Committee which was instrumental establishing a curriculum update and the enrichment of curriculum offerings.Recomm: Budget: Opinion: 1. Installation of hardware and equipment for establishment of Parkview being functional and on-line with APSCN. 2. Renovate Rm. 1-101 into a mini-theatre to greater accommodate small performances/presentations. 3. Purchase additional lab equipment to greater accommodate increased enrollment of science/art magnet students. 4. Purchase major instrument pieces to better equip the band/orchestra magnet program areas. Some equipment is in poor condition or outdated. $164,842 over a three year period The recommendations are justifiable\nhowever, as I mentioned to you, the evaluation doesnt provide the type of substantial data needed to make the case. For example, the addition of equipment is justified by increased program enrollment, but the only year for which an enrollment figure is given is 1995-96. The evaluation does not describe the disadvantage the school suffers from not being on-line with APSCN. A simple chart of the current number of musical instruments and the ages of those instruments in addition to increased music program enrollment would have been ample documentation of the need for replacements and additional new instruments. McClellan Business/Communications Magnet Program Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Process: Results: The evaluation is based on two program goals. 1. The magnet component of the program will result in the further desegregation of the school by attracting M-to-M and out-of-zone students to the program. 2. The costs incurred in the delivery of the magnet program are outweighed by the benefits of participation rates in the magnet program and the achievement of the participants. Criteria was whether each of the program goals could be affirmatively demonstrated. Use of enrollment data on M-to-M and out-of-zone students in addition to standardized achievement scores for McClellan students 1993-95. Related to the first goal, the data indicates that 22% of the 177 non-black students at McClellan are from other high school zones. Curiously, 98 out-of-zone black students are also attending McClellan. The evaluation claims that without the out-of-zone black students the McClellan black enrollment would be 78% instead of the current 80%. Related to the second goal, participation in the magnet program has increased from 57 in 1992 to 203 in 1995. The overall McClellan enrollment has been mixed, but has grown since the inception of the magnet program. McClellans overall SAT scores have improved since the 1992-93 school year. The evaluation attributes the improvement to the increased funding, class offerings, and equipment resulting from the magnet program. The magnet program teachers and students have been the recipients of numerous honors and awards at both the state and national levels. Obstacles: Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: The evaluation identifies the demographics of the McClellan attendance zone as an impediment to continued efforts to desegregate. The satellite zone is 100% black. Magnet courses such as Desktop Publishing I and II are now being offered at other LRSD high schools. These used to set the McClellan business program apart from others. The duplication lessens the magnetic appeal of the McClellan program. It is recommended that McClellans attendance zone be adjusted in such a way as to bring its black component into line with the attendance zones of the other LRSD area high schools. The LRSD should adopt a policy by which a new magnet course will be added to a schools magnet curriculum when one of their existing magnet courses is put into the general course offerings of the LRSD. The evaluation indicates that there is a need for a plan modification. Rather, I see the case being made for alteration of current attendance boundaries. No budget impact is indicated by the evaluation. I do wonder if the school will move to add new, more unique courses to the magnet program while retaining the ones now being duplicated at other area high schools. If so, the addition would seem to affect the budget - possibly through new equipment and additional staff. Overall, I believe the recommendations to be sound. Altering the attendance boundaries would further desegregative efforts and reward the community and school. It is also logical that the district adopt a policy on course offerings which will safeguard the uniqueness of the magnet programs. Once again, the evaluation itself had weaknesses. For example, no documentation was provided as to the increase in out-of-zone and M-to-M students resulting from the magnet program to address the first goal. In reference to the second goal, the achievement data didnt reveal a significant, sustained growth on the part of McClellan students. In addition, the goal regarding achievement was related to the program specifically. Yet, the evaluation did not separate out the achievement of magnet program participants.McClellan Community School Summary: Eval. Criteria: Eval. Results: The evaluation sought to measure the effectiveness of the McClellan Community School on a wide range of involvement from community involvement to affecting McClellan student academic achievement. The evaluator(s) used 1991-95 data to evaluate the program based on the following objectives: Enhancing the McClellan educational format and eradicating test score disparities. Expanding the participation on the Advisory Board Expanding use of the well-child clinic Enhance the Advisory Boards knowledge of school district policies Re-integrate older adults into community activities Inform the school population and community of school goals/objectives Expand the use of the school facilities Results regarding educational enhancements for McClellan students were sketchy. The evaluation only provided data on the number of students participating in the current Healthy Family Center After-School Tutorial and the ACT Lock-In of 1993-94. To expand the Advisory Board, new members were elected to fill vacancies on September 25, 1995. In addition, the evaluation mentions that the community school director has been involved in developing a strategy to survey the community. The evaluation notes that the well-child clinic serves an average of 20 students per day, but no comparative data is provided. The McClellan principal reports monthly to the Advisory board concerning issues pertaining specifically to the school and the district as a whole. In addition, other school district officials visit Advisory Board meetings and Advisory Board members also attend the LRSD school board meetings. Classes are offered to older citizens to help reintegrate them into the workforce. In addition, older citizens are encouraged to join the Community School Advisory Board. Community Education brochures are the most frequently distributed pieces of literature disseminated to the community. Other documentation offered as sources of information for the community: Advisory Board meetings, community school staff, McClellan faculty and staff, LRSD Communication, and the patrons of McClellan High School.McClellan is open to the community year-round. In addition to the courses oflfered the community school sponsors a summer camp, tutoring, and the ACT Lock-In. Additionally, local businesses and organizations use the facility for various activities. Recomm: Plan Mod: Budget: Opinion: It is recommended that a survey of the community be conducted to recapture community interest in the program. It is recommended that needed enhancements to the schools facility be made in order to better serve the educational needs of the school and community. The evaluation indicates a plan modification, but I dont see where any of the recommendations necessitate modification. The evaluation indicates that the recommendations will require a budget increase. The cost of enhancements is set at $25,000. The evaluation contains no information regarding the regular courses offered by the Community School (e.g. course offerings, enrollment trends, etc.). While the cost of enhancements is estimated to be $25,000, the evaluation lacks information about how this total was reached. Although a budget increase and plan modification were indicated, the writer also claimed that a business case was unnecessary - that doesnt make sense. In my opinion, the evaluation is very weak. Past program evaluations of the Community School, while at times fluffy, have made a better use of data than this attempt. The first recommendation is not founded in the findings of the evaluation. Otherwise, there would be more information regarding a lack of community enthusiasm, support, and participation in programs, documentation is provided to that effect. No Special Education Transportation Summary: Eval. Criteria: The evaluation attempts to ascertain whether the Special Education Transportation Program provides safe, efficient, and reliable transportation for students in the LRSD. A series of tasks listed in the PBD ranging from the signing of requisitions to the completion of summer check sheets. The writer of the evaluation acknowledges that the relationship of the tasks to an operational evaluation is weak since completion of the tasks is no indication of the quality of service provided. The writer indicates that in the future criteria such as percent of on-time arrivals, driver attendance, and the amount of training received by individual drivers should be developed and used. Eval. Results: Obstacles: Recomm: Budget: The number of buses is limited. For Special Education, no buses have been purchased since 1993. Manpower shortages taxed the resources of the Transportation Dept. Including the Special Education section. The fleet continues to age and no replacement plan exists. Buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance not covered by warranties. Ideally, an organization should replace 5-8 buses per year for a fleet of 53 buses. The district meets state and federal regulations for Special Education transportation, but falls short of voluntary guidelines suggested by various agencies that exceed the state and federal minimums. Beginning in 1996-97, there will be no specific funding from state or federal government sources for transportation of special needs children. All costs will be paid from the districts general fund. Due to the age of the fleet and lack of a replacement plan, maintenance workers cant keep up with the repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the overall need. It is recommended that the district outsource the Special Education transportation to a private company. Make the Special Education Transportation Department a model system meeting all recommended (voluntary) guidelines for providing transportation to special needs children. Although no specific figures are given, the evaluation indicates that recommendation #1 would possibly save the district money over a three year period. In essence, the writer claims that outsourcing Special Education transportation would not cost the district any more than it would if a decision was made to continue the present service with the purchase of new equipment. The evaluation states that recommendation #2, the model program, is would cost in excess of $1.6 million with the purchase of all new equipment. If a replacement schedule is used, $250,000 per year should be budgeted for replacement of equipment. Additional personnel would cost at least $12,000 per person including all pay, and benefits. No preference for either recommendation is noted. The evaluator did not indicate the need for a business case.Opinion: The strongest aspect of the evaluation was that having to do with the age and condition of the fleet. The evaluation and recommendations have less to do with the eflflciency of service and patron satisfaction as they do with the cost of upgrading a fleet that the district has lacked the resources to upgrade or simply benignly neglected. Once again, as with facilities, a lack of foresight seems to have placed the district in yet another deep hole. On the other hand, it could be argued that if the current outsourcing of non-Special Education transportation works to the district s advantage, it would only make sense to outsource Special Education transportation in light of the lack of state and federal subsidies for the transportation of special needs children. 1.A Program\nBooker Arts Magnet Focus: Support for and Expansion of Bookers Theme Evaluation Criteria: School Improvement assessment School-wide planning and addressing achievement disparity Ongoing staff development Evaluation Process: As part of their assessment for general school improvement the Booker team examined student achievement data, enrollment figures over the last three years, evidence of home/ school communication, student participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities, recruitment efforts, inventories of band instruments, as well as other documents. After looking at all the information listed above, the evaluation team composed as \"discussion\" of the schools efforts toward school wide improvement and their recommendations for further improvements. Evaluation Results: The evaluation team found that enrollment at Booker was far below the schools capacity and attributed this to the failure of the school to grow and change since its establishment. The Booker proposal seeks to create additional support for the schools arts theme and expand their fine arts emphasis to also incorporate more performing arts. An ongoing goal of school improvement has been to increase participation, especially among minorities, in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. The evaluation documents that participation has increased over 100% in both orchestra and recorder, but it also shows that the school faces a severe shortage of band instruments. The orchestra has 215 enrolled, but only 60 instruments. In order to support the theme and guarantee equal access to all students, the school wants to purchase instruments, secure regular maintenance for them, and ensure secure storage for all instruments. Reconunendations: Incorporate drama in the Booker curriculum Purchase additional orchestra instruments Establish fund for yearly repair and maintenance Add a piano lab Expand the artists-in-residence program Develop new brochures and flyers to facilitate recruitment of new students Reinstate the 3-day preschool inservice to promote the integrated curriculum and sound instructional practices Update the computer labThese recommendations do not require plan modification. They do result in a budget increase. The total cost, which is spread over five years, is $292,05356 Evaluation Quality: This is not the best evaluation Ive ever read, but it is far from the worst. I did find it a little difficult to follow and some areas lacked sufficient detail (the section seeking $130,00 for computer updates is very vague). I think the authors of this evaluation did a good job identifying some of the problems the school faces. They concentrated a great deal of their resources on issues that address the low enrollment. I think the case they made for the added orchestra instruments and the piano lab is strong. The a school with and arts program should provide instruments for all the students. The free instruments coupled with the staffs outreach efforts ensure equal opportunities for all students to participate. I also had a favorable reaction to the proposal to add drama to the school. I think that a drama component is an integral part of any arts program. The addition of such a program would compete with the theme offered at Mitchell, but Booker might be able to recruit students whose parents would not consider the incentive school option. The $35,000 estimated to fund the position of drama instructor seems a little low, if it is to include salary and benefits. Also, the evaluation records this expenditure as if it occurs once, when it will be a recurring cost. The total costs for staff development are under $10,000. Little detail is provided about the training except to say that all teachers would receive training aimed at instructional effectiveness and a core group of 10 teachers would have an additional planning session devoted to the integration of arts into the curriculum. As I mentioned above, the final section on the computer lab updates is sparse. I can not determine whether they plan to buy new hardware, software, or both.Program: Carver Math and Science Magnet Focus: Developing a \"state of the art\" technology program Evaluation Criteria: School climate based on the belief that all children can learn. And provide the resources to support that belief. Develop policies that foster a positive school climate while addressing individual student needs and learning styles. To provide opportunities for all students to participate in extracurricular and co- curricular activities. Give principals authority and accountability for school improvement, making sure all students have the opportunity to succeed. Provide staff development. Evaluation Process: The evaluation team examined a variety of documents, data, and school procedures: student achievement records, enrollment records, discipline practices, recognition programs for good behavior, evidence of home/ school communications, current levels of technology usage, and Evaluation Results: After study of the various documents and school procedures outlined above, the Carver evaluation team came to the conclusion that the school needs to upgrade its technology to improve student performance and to continue to be able to attract white students to the school. The computer labs found at Carver are those established when the school opened eight years ago. The study mentions that, as a math and science school, they should be leaders in technology. The evaluation states that this technology \"was needed yesterday.\" The current system does not have the memory necessary to allow students to use a computerized encyclopedia. The aged computers do not contribute to efficient, effective instruction. Reconuneudations: Select and install new hardware and software Conduct staff development training related to the new system These recommendation do not require a plan change but they will require and expenditure of $28,130 in each of the next five school years (the LRSD portion would be about $8400 per year). The total cost is estimated at $140,650. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation is very well done. It outlines the need for the technology upgrades and gives a detailed implementation schedule with a yearly budget. When reviewing this document, you can see what they plan to do, when tasks should be complete, and how much it will cost.Program: Gibbs International Studies Magnet Focus: Additional Support for the Magnet Theme Evaluation Criteria: The team preparing the Gibbs evaluation based their evaluation criteria around the school operation goal to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD. Evaluation Process: A variety of documents were examined including the School Improvement Plan, the School Climate Surveys, achievement data, enrollment data, magnet seat allotments by district, documentation of waiting lists from 1989 to the present, and the like. Evaluation Results: In analyzing the schools progress towards meeting a wide variety of educational objectives, the authors of the evaluation determined that the school had a long way to go before fulfilling the terms of those objectives. The report indicated that much of the schools operations had become static (and perhaps stagnate) since its founding. The report mentions that materials such as maps an globes have not been updated. The school does not offer modern technology, and the disparity in achievement between black and white students persists. When making same grade comparisons of test scores over time, you find a decline at every grade level. The decline ranges from 2.6 percentile points at the sixth grade level to 35.7 percentile points at the second grade level. The good news here is that childrens scores appear to improve as they remain in the school. Recouuiiendations: Recruit an International Studies Technology Specialist Update existing computer lab and include program designed for at-risk first graders Incorporate closed circuit TV Technology training for staff Replace out-of-date or worn globes, maps, and research materials Develop International Studies Staff Development Plan Purchase new materials to enhance the media center Install portable classroom to house the foreign language teachers Automate the media center and enhance materials, equipment, and resources in the media center The improvements to the Gibbs educational program would be instituted in five phases: Phases I, II Phase III Phase IV Technology International Studies (update resource, materials, and equipment) Foreign Languages (secure portable classroom for instruction of French, Spanish, and German)Phase V Enhance the Media Center Gibbs Extended Evaluation, continued No plan change is required. The total cost for each of the phases is as follows: Phase I, II Phase III Phase IV Phase V $68, 835. 10 ($38,805.10 of this would be a recurring expense, since it represents the cost of adding a technology specialist to the Gibbs staff.) While the proposal includes this recurring expense, the evaluation only mentions the first year cost. $17,341.86 No cost listed. The evaluation recommends relocation of an already-owned portable to the Gibbs campus. The authors of the evaluation must not have been aware that the relocation of a portable will cost several thousand dollars. $11,827 GRAND TOTAL $98,009.86 Evaluation Quality: The evaluation presents a great deal of good information, and it honestly examines the strengths and needs of Gibbs. As noted above, some of the figures require further examination. My biggest question regarding the evaluation is why werent some of these items purchased over the years with instructional money? I know the school has not had the funds for a technology update, but it seems that the standard instructional budget could have allowed for the update of globes and maps.Program: Williams Magnet School Focus: Educational quality and school climate Evaluation Criteria:  To provide a climate based on the belief that all students can learn and to provide the resources necessary to support that belief  To design a program that meet the needs of all children  Monitor school climate and resource allocation  To design a program which meets the specific need of the students Evaluation Process: The evaluation examined the successes of the Williams program and its current needs. The background information gives a good overview of investments made in the instructional program and physical plant over the last few years. This narrative makes reference to data gleaned from the School Climate Survey, student achievement data, the school profile, the mission statement, and the like. Evaluation Results: While the evaluation mentions the many successes and accomplishments of the Williams program, it also outlines the need for updated technology at the school. PTA contributions have begun to automate the media center, but could not be completed \"because of LRSD systems requirements.\" Evaluators found that the Williams computer lab consist entirely of Tandy computers purchased about eight years ago. Other computers have been added to classrooms over the years, as funds allowed. The computers are not part of a network. Reconunendations: Purchase the hardware and software needed to update the lab and classroom computers. Automate the library system Connect with the Internet and network the computers within the building Purchase new printers Conduct staff development related to new technology None of these proposals would require a change in the desegregation plan. The total cost for the technology upgrade is $167,900. The cost would be spread over the period from August 1998 to August 2000. Evaluation Quality: This evaluation did not have the excruciating level of detail that some of the others presented, but I felt it gave a very good picture of the school and its needs. The evaluation also pointed out the efforts the school has made to upgrade technology within the annual budgets of the last several years. It also pointed out parental contributions to technology purchases. I found the evaluation to be quite adequate.Program: Four-Year-Old Focus: The programs progress towards meeting the commitments outlined in the desegregation plan. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation examined the extent to which each of the provisions regarding the four-year-old program has been met. Evaluation Process: The provisions regarding areas such as curriculum, establishments of sites, racial balance, and the like were examined and discussed individually. Evaluation Results: The evaluation found that all objectives had been attained. This is not to say that no work remains in this area. Many of the early childhood plan obligations are ongoing. Only two problem areas were noted\nthe districtwide shortage of substitutes sometimes makes teacher release for staff development a problem, and the lack of any support staff for the Director of Early Childhood Education. The evaluation states that the effectiveness of the department is reduced because as a one-person operation a great deal of time is spent on clerical tasks. The IRC secretaries are available to help with early childhood chores, but they can do this only after they have fulfilled all the tasks assigned by their immediate supervisor. Recomiiieiidatious: Add one new position to the early childhood education department. This position could be either a secretary or an early childhood specialist. This would not require a plan modification, but it would increase the budget. No dollar figure is attached. The amount spent would depend on whether the district hired a secretarial or professional support person. Evaluation Quality: This is a very through evaluation of the early childhood program. The program objectives are tied directly to the desegregation plan.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER (ALC) Focus The evaluation covers five (5) areas: In-school suspension. Alternative Learning Center, Curriculum Offering, Attendance Pattems/Rates, and Behavior Modification procedures. Supposedly, the writer evaluated the program by examining seven (7) objectives. The document is poorly written and somewhat difficult to follow. I believe the writer wants the reader to believe that the alternative school is meeting all of its objectives, but with a little help (2 additional staff members), the staff could do a better job. Criteria The A-School evaluation relies on data that was written and interpreted by the director. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Number of reports submitted from ALCs office. Review of attendance rosters. The ALC Profile Book. Review of school-based objectives, policies, and procedures. Review of statistical information on race and gender for roll, grades, awards, discipline, and other areas. , , Evaluation of the number of reports of counseling interventions, parent involvement, and due-process procedures. Evaluation of curriculum offerings. Note: Evaluation is a very misleading term in this report. Nothing is evaluated. Process The only discernable process seems to be to say something is true, which then makes it true. The writer outlines or summarizes some general descriptions of the ALC program, regurgitates some highly suspicious data, and proclaims the program a success. Results According to the evaluation, the ALC is meeting all of its objectives. The ALC now submits reports to^all the junior highs, central office, and advisory board. Added to the recipients are the SAO Communication Office, and Special Education. The report shows an average attendance rate of 88% for the first 12 weeks of school (the goal was 75%). The director developed a nng binder library which covers 19 areas. The evaluation concludes that the ALC has proven effective because they publish the Alternative Learning Center Mission Package. The staff holds an intake conference on every enteringstudent, students participate in a three day orientation, teachers are prepared to provide individualized lesson plans, however, they provide no evidence that they do. Further, they have in-school detention and suspension for those who commit violations outlined in the Mission Package. Other students may take academically related field trips to Central Flying Service and Aerospace Education Center. The evaluation also claims that students can participate in several clubs, such as electronics, weight lifting, science, or Scrabble Club, among others. Finally, the evaluation claims a reduction in black enrollment from 85% to 77% and that at least four students a day receive counseling. Disciplinary sanctions remain high, but are less than past years. Students receive a basic curriculum, but the report states that they cannot provide much needed hand-on instruction because they do not have a qualified wood working instructor. Recommendations 1. 2. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise the in-school suspension class. Hire an additional instructional aide to supervise wood working as an activity instead of a class (because the cost of a real teacher would add to the district s financial stress). Requires budget change, approximately $20,000 for both positions @ $10,000 each. Review Crap! Crap! Crap! O.K., I feel better now. This so-called extended evaluation neither extends information, nor evaluates any program. Although it has been a year since ODM monitored the alternative school, 1 sincerely doubt that the program is any better than what we found, and what we found stunk. In essence, the evaluation tries to substantiate a need for two additional instructional aides. One to supervise the in-school suspension class and the other to supervise a wood working activity or arts and crafts class. The justification for the in-school suspension aide is that evaluation of the behavior modification procedures indicates that by having two behavior level groups in one room (level zero and level one) too many disruptions occur and it is difficult to maintain order. Apparently, the loss of support from the Delta Service Project (a service provided by Americorps) has exacerbated the problem, but the evaluation does not make clear how. The evaluation claims an attendance rate over 80%. What the report fails to mention is the number of students attending compared to the number of students referred. Its easy to have good attendance rates when you drop students on a regular basis, make no attempts to locate noshows, and fail to account for all of your students. The staff has no clue as to what behavior modification means. Their idea of behavior modificationis to ask or tell a student to do something, and if he or she does it, then the behavior is modified. The school does not have a behavior modification program, and provides no competent group or individual counseling services. Parent involvement translates into a requirement that parents attend an in-take session or a re-entry hearing. Teachers receive no training in dealing with this population, all of the referrals are disciplinary in nature, and students do not have individualized contracts or plans for improvement. Unless things changed, the principal had stopped accepting ninth graders altogether. The evaluation lists 6 sections of a non-categorical special education class, but the principal informed me last year that he did not accept special education students. The little group counseling provided for these students came from a counselor-social worker assigned to the four restructuring schools. Students assigned to non-restructuring schools did not get even that little bit of additional help. Nursing services were almost non-existent. One part-time reading specialist visits the school. No speech therapist, social worker, music, art, or foreign language teacher is on staff. The school does not have a librarian or media specialist. The directors idea of hands-on teaching involves wood working or arts and crafts. This man does not have a clue! The school lacks a science lab and a computer specialist, yet the director wants to add an instructional aide to supervise a wood working activity! His idea of educational field trips is to visit the Central Flying Service to visit his buddy over there. Never mind that the students may have other interests. This proposal is a big waste of money!LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATION TEAMING IN NEW FUTURES RESTRUCTURING SCHOOLS Focus The evaluation focuses on how school restructuring, through teaming, affects achievement, school climate, and the development of appropriate educational environments for adolescents. Criteria Assessment of possible added personnel costs Assessment of student achievement Assessment of school climate in areas such as: discipline, parent involvement, faculty absentee rates, curriculum enrichment, incentives, and recognition of success as evidenced by participation in a Carnegie Grant. ProcessZResuIts The evaluators compared staffing levels at a teamed and a non-teamed school, with similar student populations, to determine the difference in FTEs. They found a difference of .8 FTE. When comparing the staffing ratios in all of the junior highs, they found no significant differences between them. The evaluation notes that the staff ratios of magnet schools to teaming schools is 15.4 to 14.5. Most important, the evaluation found no increased costs due to teaming. A three-year assessment of student achievement on reading and math tests in the participating schools using cohort student files from 1992-3-4 reveals a slight increase in reading scores for two of the restructuring schools, no change for one, and a decline of 2 NCEs at another. All of the districts JHs saw declining math scores over the three year period assessed, however, on average, math scores in the restructuring schools declined somewhat less than the others. An examination of discipline data for the districts junior highs indicate that magnet schools, which do not practice teaming, averaged 50 fewer suspensions and expulsions in the 1994-95 school year than the teaming schools. Therefore, the writers concluded that the use of sanctions in the schools did not significantly affect school climate. According to the extended evaluation, parent involvement increased in all of the restructuring schools. In some cases PTA membership increased, in other cases monthly volunteer hours increased. For instance. Southwest reported a 76.3% increase in volunteer hours for the 94-95 school year. With the exception of Cloverdale, the teaming schools had significant increases in PTA membership from SY 90 through SY 95. Absenteeism was lower at the restructuring schools than at the magnet schools. The authors concluded that job satisfaction, as manifested in attendance, is greater at the restructuring schools. The document does not evaluate enrichment/extension experiences in the restructuring schools, rather it lists some of the components of teaming and some of the programs and services provided at the schools. Key to the teaming concept is the development and implementation of interdisciplinary units. Other major features in the restructuring schools are requiring students to participate in two major educational activities, service learning projects, and advisory programming, to name a few. An evaluation of incentives for student achievement consists of a list of strategies and activities that have shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. Team leaders reward students with special activities such as homework bash, field trips, or team recognition assemblies. Students can earn additional percentage points for classroom participation\nthey can receive tutorial assistance at lunch and after school\nor students can join special clubs such as the Young Professionals Club, Breakfast Club, and the Ladies or Gentlemens Club. The report concludes that middle level restructuring has been a success because Pulaski Heights JH has been designated as a Carnegie Foundation Systemic Change School by the ADE Carnegie Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative. The school accepted a grant from the ADECMGSSPI, and became one of only six schools in Arkansas chosen and one of only 90 in the U. S. To work on the advancement of middle level practices. Recommendations Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally-appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. The evaluation makes no recommendation on plan modifications, asserting that district personnel are still making decisions based on the facilities study. Implementing the middle school concept will require some monetary investment for staff development needs. However, teachers and equipment are already available\nmost likely, some assignments and allocations would change. The evaluation indicates that more detailed information is included in a business case. This evaluation is more of an outline, than an evaluation. Unless one was very familiar with the middle school concept, this evaluation does not yield enough information to make an informed decision which would result in a radical change in the districts educational system. The business case is more comprehensive. I believe that approval of the recommendation would require some sort of plan modification, because grade configurations would change. Instead of junior highs, the district would have middle schools with a grade configuration of 6-7-8. All of the elementary schools would lose their sixth grade and all of the high schools would gain the ninth grade. Implementing the middle school concept will have the greatest impact on magnet schools. While the magnet schools will keep their themes, the district would have to make some accommodations for students already in their system when the change occurs. Some teachers would have to get additional certification, however, it is my understanding that ADE has already studied this matter and has a plan in place to ease certification requirements. As a member of the districts middle school task force, I endorse the recommendation.LRSD EXTENDED EVALUATIONS ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM (ASP) Focus The evaluation focuses on the ASP at the secondary level. Specifically, the following areas are addressed: degree of implementation at the secondary level administrative coordination external funding Criteria The extent to which the secondary schools are implementing the reading and language arts plus (LAP) and the math plus (MP) models. A listing of major program activities with a timeline and the person(s) who initiated or implemented the activity. A description of program components and the cost of each component for the 1995-96 SY. Process/Results Evaluators surveyed all of the LRSDs secondary schools to determine the total number of Language Arts Plus and Math Plus classes and the total number of students enrolled in each class. At the junior high level, they found that of the 352 LAP students, 27 were not being served by their own English Teacher. Of the 437 MP students, 80 were not being served by their own math teacher. Similarly, at the senior high level, 95 of 343 MAP students were not being served by their English teacher, and 2 of 72 MP students were not being served by their own math teacher. According to the tables on page 9 of the evaluation, much of the eligible population is not being served. Class enrollment in both programs is not to exceed 15 students, however, the average Lap Class has 9.5 students, and the average MP class has 9.8 students. Enrollment of eligible LAP students ranged from a high of 63.9% at Dunbar to a low of 12.5% at Cloverdale. In MP classes, enrollment of eligible students ranged from a high of 62.2% at Cloverdale to a low of 0% at Parkview. The evaluators examined the coordination of services and events that are required for full implementation of the two programs. They found 32 separate entries which they reduced to 7 function categories. They then took the categories and matched them with their corresponding departments in the district. Departments responsible for implementing the programs are: Federal Programs, Reading/Language Arts Department, Mathematics Department, AssistantSuperintendent of Secondary Schools, and building-level principals. Some events required coordination between two or more entities. Next, evaluators examined program administration. They looked at application preparation, student selection, monitoring, personnel and evaluation. Additionally, they looked at time lines for completion and persons responsible for task completion. The report indicates that in several cases the process broke down because of lack of coordination between program or resource managers. The system lacked continuity and as a result, students who should have been receiving services were often overlooked, not recommended but should have been, or their cases were mishandled because of a lack of follow through. Finally, after comparing the difference in funding levels between SY 95 and SY 96 for both programs, the evaluators found that funding levels had decreased a combined total of $572, 860. (Note: My calculations show a decrease of $507,140. I dont understand how they got their total.) The report also indicates that the senior high schools, along with Pulaski Heights JH were not eligible in SY 96. I assume they mean not eligible for Title I funds. The evaluation further states that Comp-ed funding would drop by $250,000 in 1997 and Title I funds could be decreased by 10% in that same year. With the decrease in funding came a drop in FTEs. The secondary programs lost a total of 20.8 FTEs between 1995 and 1996. LAP and reading lost 16 FTEs, and .MP lost 4.8 FTEs. Naturally, such a decrease in staff had a negative impact on services. Recommendations 1. 2. 3. All schools follow the model as it is written. Apparently, the secondary schools have pieced together LAP and readins programs as well as Math Plus Programs. In particular, one of the main features of the programs is that students would retain their regular subject area teachers. In that way, the teachers could reinforce earlier lessons, provide continuity with current curricula, and they would be familiar with the problems that initiated a students referral to a program. Instructional supervisors have a greater role in program design, implementation, staff development and related technical assistance. It seems that the right hand doesnt always know what the left hand is doing. According to the extended evaluation, even overlapping services arent coordinated very well. As a result many students who should be referred to the LAP and MP programs are not, thereby creating a service gap. Also, the people who actually deliver program services are left out of the design and decision making steps and program supervisors do not seemed to be adequately involved with building-level people. Investigate more cost efficient alternatives to the current ASP at the secondary level.Included in the recommendation is the suggestion that Math Plus at the 10th grade level be eliminated. The reasoning is that students in the MP population have the common denominator of having failed Algebra I in junior high. As a result, this homogenous group would just as easily benefit from extra attention and individualized instructional strategies from the senior high Algebra I teachers. The recommendation also suggests that similar alternatives could be explored for reading and language arts. 3-a. Explore consolidating resources at lower grade levels. This could be done by eliminating or reducing some services at the secondary level. This is by far the best e?rtended evaluation I have read of late. Although the evaluation doesnt go into great detail, it is succinct and to the point. Technically the recommendations do not require any plan changes or budget changes. The first two recommendations merely ask the district to implement the Language Arts/Reading Plus program and the Math Plus program according to their filing and in an efficient manner. The major change occurs in the third recommendation, eliminating Math Plus at the 10th grade level. The ASP submission of March 24, 1993 (which in itself was a plan change) does not identify individual grade levels, it only specifies elementary or secondary. More importantly, the document does not mention Math Plus. The submission identifies Language Arts Plus as a separate program. Other approaches to remediation mentioned include pairing language arts teachers with reading specialists (math teachers were already paired for instruction), so that teams could jointly plan appropriate whole group and small group instruction, as well as individual instruction, and utilizing math assistants to tutor math students. The evaluation clearly identifies the problems and offers reasonable solutionsSAMPLE DESEGREGATION PROGRAM EVALUATION of (Fill in name.) SCHOOL Date: Program Name: School Operations Name of School Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader(s): (Margaret Gremillion) Principal's Name PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: School Operations includes the total integrated learning experiences which meet the academic, social, and developmental needs of all LRSD students in a desegregated educational setting. Central Office staff [and] principals of the schools collaborate to ensure quality educational program planning for all students with the support of staff, parents, and the larger community. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The intent of the School Operations goal is to provide equitable educational opportunities for all students in the LRSD\nevaluation of the stated intent serves as the evaluation the case of this particular desegregation program evaluation, the foregoing statement applies specificallv to Pill in In the foregoing statement applies specifically to Fill in name of school. SUMMARY: (Using the objectives outlined in the Program Budget Document (PBD), write a summary of the overall effectiveness of goal results, as they relate to your school.) 1. Example of a summary beginning - Equitable educational opportunities were (or were not) provided for all students at (Name the school.) during the 1993-94 academic year. An organizational structure was in place which provided equal opportunity and access for parents, students, and staff. (Following these introductory sentences, either write how these opportunities were provided or explain why they were not. In the paragraphs that follow the summary of the overall effectiveness of the first objective, do the same for each objective listed. As you continue writing your summary, combine objectives, if you wish. year. (Following BODY OF SUMMARY Example of a concluding sentence - By implementing the strategies summarized above, or (because of the factors explained above which prevented the successful implementation of planned strategies,) equitable educational opportunities were (were not) provided to all students at (Fill of school.) It is possible that you may have a combination of strategies which were successfully implemented and ones which were not. If so, this combination should be reflected in your summary. in were not. 2 .Sample PBD Eval. Report Page 2 GOAL ATTAINMENT: The following list provides examples of factors that facilitated (or prevented) goal attainment\nincluded in this list is the identification of the factor, along with its description. Factors and Descriptions PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT  A cross-section of parents were actively involved in a variety of projects and in attendance at all functions and Beetinos. all functions and meetings. STAFF DEVELOPMENT Courses and/or workshops were provided for teacher development, to improve student achievement, etc. (Continue listing the factors and descriptions which cite as examples.) you choose to EVIDENCE: Evidence substantiating the summary and explanation o attainment may be found in total in the Program Budget Document, School Profile, and/or the Extended COE. - -- of goal examples of such evidence: Following are several the Factors and Evidence PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT P.T.A., Dad's Club, Biracial Committee, tutors, VIPS Open House, mentors Science Fair (Continue listing the factors and evidence which as examples.) you choose to citeTO: Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Board of Education FROM: THROUGH\nDr. Kathy LeaaefAssistant Superintendent, PRE Dr. Ed Williams, Research and Evaluation Specialist, PRE Gamine, Superintendent ionnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE: August 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Plan According to Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1. states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving A\u0026amp;ican-American achievement If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendents have established the evaluation agenda for the 1999-2000 school year. Planning, Research, and Evaluation will be responsible for the program evaluation design and the program evaluation for the following programs: Title I/Elementary Literacy ELLA Success for All Direct Instruction Little Rock Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRPMSANSF Grant) English as a Second Language (ESL programs) Middle School Transition and Program Implementation wdU work in conjunction with Campus Leadership Teams, curriculum specialists, pnncipals, parents, teachers, and other interested parties as appropriate to design and implement these evaluations. Several meetings have already been held with , --O- -  J MV'AV* miil our desegregation consultant, Dr. Steve Ross, from the University of Memphis. He is providing technical assistance to guide the development of our program evaluation components. Upon completion, results of these program evaluations will be presented to the Board,*An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 Ms. Aim Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 rECSVBD MAR 10 OFRGEOf Dear Ann\nI am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, I hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc: Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 7. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"'' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4*** Grade Standards, Benchmarks  5* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 25, 2000 To\nBonnie Lesley From: Ann BrOy Re: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For which audience is the publication intended? What is the stated purpose of the publication? List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why'i What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 7. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only obsen able omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD d\"*, 7*, S\"*, Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fulfdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. Strengths: The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. Weaknesses: The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropriate as a reference to the rear of the document. Also, the questions arent answered directly. Often, the real answer comes only after a lengthy explanation. The document places the notice to non-English speaking parents at the end - and in English! In addition, the notice only offers oral translation as an option rather than a written version. The guide deals less with the middle school concept and environment than I thought it should. Fulfills Purpose: The guide does fulfill the purpose of clearly describing course offerings and requirements. Im not so sure it is user-friendly enough for many parents and students to make practical use of it. Suggestions: Although the guide does not claim to do so, I would still like to see more of an explanation of the benefits of middle school. The guide does give a description of interdisciplinary teaming, but it seems that the district should explain more and place those explanations near the beginning of the guide rather than near the end Additionally, the guide should follow a conversational format fully as if the reader were visiting a school counselor and discussing the school, course requirements, and scheduling options. A minor visual suggestion - on the front cover, separate the title A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School from LRSD with a space.Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Guide 2000-2001 Audience: LRSD staff I assume. However, I think I did receive a copy of this as a middle school parent. Purpose: A reference guide to the middle school mission, policies, structure, and curriculum. Strengths: One-stop shopping. This document includes all relevant info on middle schools for fairly quick reference. Weaknesses: Minor point, but why are the page number positions alternated? At first, I thought the booklet was only numbered on every other page. Fuirdls Purpose: This is a good resource for staff\"membersand possibly parents who know exactly what type of information they are seeking or choose to use this as a supplement to the Parent and Student Guide to Learning in the Middle School.I Language Arts k READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Recognize and determine main idea and details in reading selections. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Follow written directions. Recognize difference between fact and opinion. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in reading material. , zi - Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information, Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Lite . I Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaunjs, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use predicting, putting events in order, and skimming to increase understanding of reading material. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Use computers and library skills to find information. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals for specific periods of time.  Write about real world, personal, and classroom ex^periences.  Write in complete sentences using varied patfem's including simple, complex, and compound,  Use prewriting and beginning activities.  Explain through writing what is learned in all subjects by use of outlines, categorizing, and writing directions.  Create a first draft with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and logical organization.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other appropriate resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage.  Use computer and human resources to collect and organize information for writing.  Edit and correct errors with Spell Check and Grammar Check on computers. r PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Investigate the effects of magnets on each other.  Know that the Earth is a magnet.  Understand the operation of a compass.  Use a coil of wire and an electric current to produce magnetism.  Build a simple motor.  Describe how an electric current can be made from using a coil of wire and a magnet  LLiisstt tthhee mmaatteerriiaallss ffrrnomm whichn paanpoerr i ois made.  Describe properties of paper and how they relate to its use.  Make paper using the steps in papermaking.  Identify paper as a major renewable resource. Pr- p^r noA c_ re \u0026gt;  Describe the steps in designing different types of paper. .  Observe, describe, and record test results on the strength, transparency, and absorption properties of paper.  Vrcei crp P.-^pC 1 I , LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the basic needs of plants.  Identify the things that affect plant growth.  Describe how plants reproduce.  Describe how light and gravity affect the growth of a plant.  Plant and care for plants.  Control the environment and conditions when the seeds are planted and the plants are growing  Obbsseerrvvee,, mmeeaassuurree, rdieessncrriihbAe, aannrdi record changes iinn plant growth.  E EARTH SCIENCE  Understand that time can be measured using the natural cycles of the sun and moon.  Describe how shadows from the sun can be used to measure and predict the passage of time during a day.  Describe how the phases of the moon can be used to predict the passage of time during a month.  Understand that mechanical clocks can be constructed and used to measure specific intervals of time consistently. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe political patterns in ancient civilizations.  Describe the development of Greek and Roman democracies.  Explain Greek and Roman citizenship and its significance. INTERDEPENDENCE  Explain the interdependence of ancient people with their environment  Locate and describe ancient and early civilizations in Africa and Asia.  Locate and describe life in ancient and early America.  Analyze the impact of trade in ancient/early civilizations.  Locate and describe the way of life in early Europe such as Greece, Rome, and Russia.  Analyze the structure of feudalism.  Explore current event issues in lands of ancient and early civilizations.  Use various methods and processes to explore the interdependence of people of ancient and early civilizations. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE a_- . of- peopic. people  Explain hew the development of agriculture impaated ancient and eariy people.  Use various methods and processes to explore and explain changes in ancient and early civilizations.  Describe the impact of the rise and fall of ancient and early civilizations such as Egypt, Rome, and Meso America.  Evaluate the impact of change overtime.  Investigate how political events have affected the way people live, such as their literature and language.CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Use various sources to explore how ancient and early people transmitted their cultures.  Compare and contrast various and diverse cultures of ancient and early people with respect to location, place, region, and how they interacted with each other and their environment.  Compare and contrast the ways ancient and early people met their basic needs.  Associate ancient and early group leaders with places of origin and beliefs.  Describe contributions of ancient and early groups and individuals(t6s^Iei^ cca-rcM 5ccicU ?  Describe the role ofthe church in early Europe.  Read literature about people/events of ancient and early civilizations. SCARCITY AND CHOICE * Describe and analyze the economic patterns of early people.  Analyze how ancient and early societies dealt with scarcity.  Relate factors associated with economic development, such as technology, population growth, and resources. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Describe the conflicts between early people, such as the Romans and Christians, and Christians and Muslims.  Explain conditions and events that led to cooperation and conflict among ancient and early groups of people. A o t 2. Si Oz UIU X J Language Arts READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Gain information from reading. Put material read into own words. Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Identify kinds of literature and their purposes (literary, self-expressive, persuasive, and informative). Follow written directions. Use logic to follow directions. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material. Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information. Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use compare and contrast skills in reading. Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. V lV y- [\ngjj dic'tioin-ary T Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe the difference between democracy and other forms of world governments.  Compare and contrast the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizens in diverse political systems.  Analyze the characteristics of citizenship as it relates to different countries.  Identify and describe the qualities of citizenship needed to solve todays global problems and issues. INTERDEPENDENCE 9  Use various geographic and reference materials to acquire, organize, analyze, and interpret geographic information and issues.  Identify, locate, and describe physical regions, l^untries' and major cities of the U^A''Canada, Latin America, Europe, Ru^ia. Southwest and East AsiaTAfrica, and Australia. ~  Identify continents by outlines and compare and contrast physical features of continents.  Describe ways people and nations interact with each other and with the environment.  Read, and analyze current event global issues and problems. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe and analyze the impact of human changes to the environment  Demonstrate an understanding of technological changes and the impact on how people live.  Relate an event in history with social change.  Use a variety of processes and appropriate methods and tools to explore and understand continuity and change in the global society. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Describe the elements and factors that distinguish cultures.  Compare and contrast cultural features of regions. Qj-cc-5 . of ccoA  Identify and describe the major cultural regions of the U.S.A., Canada, Latin America, Europe, Russia, Southwest and East Asia, Africa, and Australia.  Determine ways that culture influences peoples perceptions of places and regions.  Identify and evaluate different viewpoints regarding the use of resources.  Examine the relationship between historical events and cultural development.  Demonstrate a respect for different cultural perspectives.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Examine effects of prejudice and discrimination against racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups of the world.  Examine ways people attempt to combat world prejudice and discrimination.  Identify and explain reasons for conflict within and between regions and countries.  Give examples of global conflicts and cooperation.  Relate competition for resources to conflict and cooperation between regions and countries.  Draw conclusions about how regional differences or similarities may lead to cooperation and conflict. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Explore how factors such as technology, population growth, and resources are related to economic development of nations.  Analyze the distribution of goods and resources among nations of the world.  Describe major industries and businesses in the United States.  Describe and compare the economic systems of the world.  Use various methods, tools, and resources to understand, explain, and analyze scarcity in the world. Arkansas Studies CITIZENSHIP  Identify and explain the purposes of Arkansas government.  Discuss and evaluate the concepts of good citizenship, and practice forms of civic participation.  Explain the historical and current impact of American public policy on Arkansas racial, religious, geographic, ethnic, economic, aTidJinguistic diversity ?  Know and understand the organization, function, and operation of local, county, and state governments, and examine methods of influencing policy in a democratic government.  Analyze the characteristics of effective leadership in Arkansas today and in the past.  Analyze and compare opposing viewpoints in creating and effectively communicating solutions to public issues in Arkansas.  Describe and analyze the use, abuse, and limits of power and authority in Arkansas.  Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the geography of Arkansas as it relates to politics. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Describe the various Arkansas institutions at local, state, and national levels that make up economic systems, such as households, business firms, banks, government agencies, labor unions, and corporations.  Examine existing data and research from various viewpoints showing how technology, population growth, resource use, and environmental quality are related to economic development within the state.  Describe the role that location, supply and demand, prices, incentives, and profits play in determining what is produced and distributed by Arkansas companies in a competitive market system.  Propose and evaluate alternative uses of environments and resources in Arkansas.  Analyze and explain how choices made with respect to scarcity in the past have profound influences on choices available today.COOPERATION AND CONFLICT o'  Demonstrate areas of inequity and discrimination based on race, sex, age, physical condition, and socioeconomic status in Arkansas.  Examine the contribution ofthe arts, literature, media, technology, and languages in fostering cooperation and in causing conflict in Arkansas.  Analyze how disparities in power and economic status lead to conflict.  Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of conflict within the state, the nation, and the world.  Identify, explore, and analyze conflict among individuals and groups as well as various methods used to resolve conflict.  Evaluate the role of technology in contributing to the creation and resolution of conflict in Arkansas. INTERDEPENDENCE  Analyze how decisions and events in Arkansas and the world affect each other.  Use various methods to illustrate interactions between the people of Arkansas and their environment.  Relate the evidence of historical and cultural languages to the development of the state.  Analyze and evaluate the history, causes, consequences, and possible solutions to present-d^issues and emerging global issues, such as health, security, resource distribution, economic development, and environmental quality.  Understand spatial relationships and locate places on Arkansas, U.S., and world maps.  Describe and evaluate the role of Arkansas in the global arena. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Investigate the processes and evaluate the impact of change over time in Arkansas.  Explore and explain the changes in developments such as technology, transportation, agriculture, and communications that affect Arkansas social and economic activity.  Investigate how political events, technological changes, and cultural diffusion have affected literature, languages, and arts over time in Arkansas.  Analyze continuity and change in concepts of individual rights (race, ethnic, and gender issues) and responsibilities overtime in the state.  Explore, interpret, analyze, and evaluate various viewpoints within and across cultures related to events and issues. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Examine information and developments in Arkansas and explain how they may be viewed differently by people from diverse cultures.  Analyze the historical perspectives that contribute to the development and transmission of Arkansas cultures through language, literature, the arts, architecture, traditions, beliefs, and values.  Compare and contrast various cultures in Arkansas.  Describe the ways family, religion, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other group characteristics contribute to developing an appreciation of Arkansas heritage.  Identify and describe the various movements or periods of significant historical change within and across cultures.  Explore ways that Arkansas natural and built environments interact with culture.  Analyze and demonstrate the value of both cultural diversity and cohesion within and across groups.  Examine and explain belief systems underlying Arkansas traditions and laws.LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the major characteristics and activities of 9 of' monerans, protists, and fungi. * J monerans, protists, and fungi affect other living things  DDeessccrriibbee tthhee rchhaarraarctoteHriesltiirces. oailll animals ih__a_v__e in c_ ommon.  Classify animals using their characteristics.  Explain the differences between sexual and asexual reproductions.  Draw and eAxpp,lain,, tuh.ec saticaigyecss iInII tmhee lIilfiee ccyyccllee oorf aanniimmaallss ((ssuucchh as egg-caterpillar-butterflv and eoa tartnnio SS Jr rT examptes). Ple-frog).  List the characteristics of plants.  Describe the structure and function of roots, stems, leaves, and flowers  Describe methods of reproduction in plants.  Know how the ecology of the environment is organized, such as population\u0026gt;community\u0026gt;ecosystem\u0026gt;biosphere Describe how the amount of food, water, or other environmental factors affect  Describe how different plants change in an area over time  cZr, -**(-=\u0026gt; as mutuallsn, organisms. commensalism, parasitism).  Describe the process of color vision. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Understand time, distance, and displacement form the basis for  Distinguish between velocity and speed.  Distinguish between velocity and acceleration.  Understand acceleration along curves.  Calculate the acceleration of a falling object.  Describe projectile motion.  Describe how a satellite is a projectile in free-fall.  Understand factors related to the motion of a pendulum.  Describe the characteristics of waves.  Identify the different types of waves (transverse and longitudinal). Explain the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and speed in a wave.  Explain constructive and destructive wave interference.  Describe how sound waves are formed, transmitted, and received. motion. * yo^uT'^^*^'^'^ Doppler Effect (such as how the sound changes as it comes towards you or goes away from  Describe the waves caused by earthquakes.  Identify how light travels.  Describe reflection and refraction of light. Compare and contrast opaque, translucent, and transparent materials.  Examine the visible light spectrum.  Explain the differences between substances, elements,  Describe the physical properties of matter. compounds, and mixtures.  Distinguish between physical and chemical changes and properties * IU nderstand solution__s_ _a_n_dI fra. ct. ors t.h.a.t .a.ffe ct sol. ubility. r r  Describe the properties of acid and base.  Explain how a reaction between an acid and a base produces a salt. Language Arts READING  Practice reading individually and in groups.  Gain information from reading.  Summarize, compare, and put into own words while analyzing reading material.  Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material.  Judge, critique, and defend opinions of reading selections.  Identify different purposes of reading and writing.  Identify styles of authors.  Identify kinds of literature and their purposes.  Follow written directions with increasing difficulty and complexity.  Use logic to follow directions.  Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information.  Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material.  Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information.  Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information.  Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization.  Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures.  Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques.  Increase vocabulary from reading.  Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer.  Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing.  Use compare and contrast skills in reading.  Use predicting, sequencing, and skimming to increase understanding of reading.  Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. WRITING  Write in personal journals, logs, and in other assigned ways in both formal and informal assignments.  Write in class for uninterrupted periods of time on topics from personal experiences and topics assigned in class.  Use freewriting, brainstorming, and other methods for prewriting and beginning activities.  Create a first draft with a central idea and with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and a closing sentence.  Produce a longer, detailed paper using organization and details concentrating on a central theme.  Use appropriate outlines and organizing methods to practice thinking and analyzing skills.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Vary sentence styles to include simple, complex, and compound.  Proofread writing in peer groups and with teacher for information, organization, and style.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage.  Use internet, reference books, library materials, and personal interviews to collect information.  Produce polished pieces of writing to be shared or published and collected in a writing portfolio.  Express awareness of varied cultures and universal issues in writing.  Relate elements, atoms, molecules, and compounds.  Explain the behavior of gases in terms of the particle theory of matter.  Find the relationships involving pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas.  Distinguish among metals, nonmetals, and metalloids.  List elements that are classified as metals, nonmetals, and metalloids and give their uses.  Recognize when chemical reactions have taken place.  Write word equations for reactions.  Describe how energy is involved in chemical reactions.  Classify energy resources as either renewable or nonrenewable.  Compare and contrast types of fossil fuels.  Describe the benefits and drawbacks of using different energy resources.  Describe the operation of a steam generator electric power plant. EARTH SCIENCE  Name conditions that define minerals.  List and describe identifying characteristics of minerals (such as hardness, color, streak, cleavage, and fracture).  Test minerals to identify them.  Describe the value of minerals.  Distinguish between a rock and a mineral.  Understand the rock cycle.  Identify rocks based on their characteristics. United States History Exploration to 1914 CITIZENSHIP  Explain the philosophy of government expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  Analyze foundations of the U.S. Constitution andjS^gnificance. '  Explain the major debates, compromises, and resolutions during the development of the Constitution.  Describe the development of the two-party system.  Outline the principles of federalism.  Compare and contrast powers in the U.S. Constitution given Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the states.  Explain the responsibility of a free press and give examples.  Practice the roles, rights, and responsibilities as participating citizens in a democracy.  Participate in a project designed to serve the community.r INTERDEPENDENCE f  Use diverse map skills and tools to locate places and gain infonriation associated with the growth and development ofthe U.S.  Interpret various timelines related to American/U.S. history.  Read historical documents and narratives of American/U.S. history up to 1914.  Identify, analyze, and interpret primary sources and historical and editorial cartoons.  Summarize the Exploration and Colonization Periods.  Describe the role of early 20*^ century U.S. in world and domestic affairs.  Identify major events in American/U.S. history up to 1914 and evaluate the causes, costs, and benefits.  Read, interpret, and analyze current events. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe the impact of change on places and the movements of people and goods.  Understand the transformation and response to the Industrial Revolution.  Use various methods and tools to explore and understand changes in the nation over time. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Analyze the historical perspectives of different people and groups in American history, and explain factors that influenced them.  Compare and contrast diverse cultures in American and U.S. history.  Analyze the significance of the issue of slavery to society, politics, and economy.  Outline the development and growth ofthe American education system.  Recognize contributions of diverse individuals and groups such as African Americans and women to American life. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Analyze the causes and consequences of wars involving the U.S. to 1914.  Describe the critical developments during the Civil War and their impact.  Outline the causes ofWorld War I. Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: K AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand an, educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the geometry subsection, specify which geometric shapes In life science, specify which body parts In the citizenship subsection, define state symbol ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This document, and all the others designed for grades 1-5, were distributed to parents in November 1999. I cant see what our feedback accomplishes at this late date. There is no mention of these guides being available in languages other than English.Review of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: First AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the writing section, substitute a term such as commonly used words for high frequency words ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Second AUDIENCE: parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under the section on data, probability and statistics, define Venn diagram or use alternate language In earth and space science, place a list the steps of the water cycle in order, in parentheses Under citizenship, explain whetheridentify leaders means by tite -+\u0026lt;+(* such as president or proper name ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Third AUDIENCE: parents PLT\u0026lt;POSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and fiirther subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: In the language arts section, the phrase large core of high frequency words will not have much meaning to parents. It needs to be translated to laymens terms. In the writing section, it is not clear what express cultural diversity in writing means. Does this mean that students are to spontaneously include characters from a variety of cultures in their writing or does it mean that they can respond in writing to an assignment such as, Write five important facts about Kwanza. Under mathematics, two items are confusing. Realize that fractional parts must be equal means? I guess this is in reference to common denominators, but Im not sure. Also, the item that talks about becoming familiar with grouping fractions with numerators of one and the same denominators needs a parenthetical example in order to be understood. In the life science subsection, the five main kingdoms of living organisms should be listed. In the citizenship subsection, list the three branches of the U.S. government. oReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fourth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional lookins. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: Under earth and space science, the rock cycle needs further explanation. The subsection on number sense states that, division notation represents a variety of situations. It is not at all clear what this means. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: noneReview of LRSD Elementary Standards and Benchmarks Document for Parents GRADE: Fifth AUDIENCE: Parents PURPOSE: To explain the districts curriculum content standards. The district intends for this document to enable parents to check on their childs progress and reinforce skills at home. STRENGTHS: It is well organized, categorized by broad subjects and further subcategories, illustrations are super, and language has been simplified from that in the districts curriculum. The entire document is very professional looking. WEAKNESSES: There is a limit to the degree that the standards can be simplified. Some parents will not understand every item, but I think they did a good job avoiding jargon and insider terms. The problem is that it takes a certain level of learning to understand and educational standard. FULFILLS PURPOSE: It does as good a job as one can expect. This is a great document for a parent who wants to understand the standards and help their child in school. The document does not purport to answer all questions, but to serve as a basis for further parent/school communication. It does an excellent job. SUGGESTIONS: The final item under the Social Studies subheading cultural perspective makes reference to demonstrating ways to interact with diverse cultures. Is it demonstrate really the best verb? Wouldnt explain better describe the behavior expected of the child? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: none ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: nonetc received AUG 1 0 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAPONMQIlTORjiijg Program Evaluation For Title I - PreK-3 Literacy Program School Year: 1999-2000 August 24,2000 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-324-2121 Executive Summary Learning to read and write is critical to a childs success in school and later life. One of the best predictors of whether a child will function competently in school and go on to contribute actively in our increasingly literate society is the level to which the child progresses in reading and writing. Although reading and writing abilities continue to develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years - from birth through age eight - are the most important period for literacy development. A lack of pre-school literacy experiences (storybook reading, daily living routines, listening comprehension, vocabulary, language facility) places a child at risk. Section 5.2.1 ofthe Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level. Section 2.7 state that, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of 5? this revised plan\nSection 2.7.1 specifies that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. An assessment of programs outlined in Section 2.7.1 that were not successful in improving the academic achievement of African-American children was conducted by the Curriculum and Instruction staff during the 1998-1999 school year. This assessment included an examination of Title I schools. The results determined that many of the Title I schools had not met their improvement goals which were based on the following:  SAT-9 Reading/Language Arts Grades 3 and Grade 5 - 1997\n SAT-9 Grade 5 Reading/Language Arts - 1998\nand  Arkansas State Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy - 1999. Assessment activities also identified the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of literacy content standards established by the District. These findings contributed to restructuring Title I to support implementation of the District literacy plan to address these problems. This restructuring effort impacted all of the elementary schools with the exception of four magnet schools (Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams), who do not receive Title I funding. The goal of Title I is to provide support so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the District. In response to the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the Districts Strategic Plan, and the finding of assessment of programs, the Board of Directors adopted the PreK-3 Literacy Program during the 1998-1999 school year. The primary goal of 08/10/00 1 4:52 PMthe PreK-3 Literacy Program is that each child learn to read by 3* grade. To measure this goal, the District administered the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment as pre and post measures in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000. K-2 students continue to take this assessment until promoted to 3'^'* grade in order to measure their growth in literacy. The Observation Survey is comprised of 6 literacy tasks. The tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with reliabilities and validities and discrimination indices established in research studies. The Survey is based on the notion of controlled, systematic observation, when a teacher sets aside time from teaching to become a neutral observer of children and to objectively record exactly what a child does on a particular task. Training is considered important for teachers who attempt to use and interpret the observation task da\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":598,"next_page":599,"prev_page":597,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":7164,"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}}]}}