{"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_570","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 law and legislation"],"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/570"],"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(ra' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ij^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03 Background Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan included the following obligation: 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. In response to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District implemented in 1999-2000 a new student assessment plan and proposed to the Board of Education a program evaluation agenda to include the most critical programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 and detailed in Section 5: elementary, middle, and/or high school English language arts and mathematics programs. Each year the agenda has also included the evaluation of one or more additional programssuch as the ESL program mandated by the Office for Civil Rights. Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy A summary of the Compliance Teams interpretation of Judge Wilsons order of September 13, 2002, pertaining to the 2002-2003 programs to be evaluated is a follows: Continue to assess the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students for 2002-03 and through the first semester of 2003-04. Since the District has now eliminated all fall testing, except for certain diagnostic tests that teachers administer without 1 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two reporting to the district the results, this obligation to assess students ends at the end of the 2002-03 school year. The judge stated that he expected the District to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. Therefore, the program evaluations that will be completed as per the 2002-2003 program evaluation agenda will include all available data, including scores from previously administered fall tests, and they will all be completed by the end of the first semester of 2003-04. Each one will answer several research questions, including the one most critical to compliance, Was this program effective in improving and remediating the achievement of African American students? The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan obligated the District in Section 5 to assess students in the following programs, as follows: 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3.2 Primary Reading/Language Arts. g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Intermediate Reading/Language Arts e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Secondary Schools Reading/Language Arts f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. Mathematics Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. The 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda outlined in this proposal includes these required components. Status of the Requirements of the 2001-02 Program Evaluation Agenda The Boards program evaluation agenda for 2001-02 was as follows: Primary Reading/Language Arts Middle and High School Literacy K-12 Mathematics and Science (CPMSA) English as a Second Language 2Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three None of the four program evaluations for 2001-02 has been completed as yet due to the tardiness of our receipt of the States Benchmark scores for literacy and mathematics in grades 4, 6, and 8. The scores arrived on Thursday, October 3, 2002. The Board received an update on the Early Literacy program evaluation in June 2002 based on the Observation Surveys and the Developmental Reading Assessment data. That update confirmed the findings of the 2000-01 report and also documented even higher achievement. The previous evaluation, along with the update, are on the Boards agenda for approval on October 24, 2002. I Staff have planned to produce a brief report with data and analysis as a beginning program evaluation of the grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 literacy programs with a more thorough evaluation report to come at the end of 2002-03. However, without the Benchmark scores, that report has not yet been drafted. The Board has received annual reports on assessment results for each of these programs. Comprehensive program evaluations of the grades K-5 and 6-12 literacy programs will be produced at the end of the 2002-03 school year for Board approval. The CPMSA (NSF-funded project) program evaluation (the fourth annual) will be presented at the December meeting and then will be submitted to the National Science Foundation for their review and feedback. At that time, the staff will bundle each of the previous three annual reports produced thus far, along with the NSF feedback, for the Boards formal approval of these program evaluations. The ESL report was originally scheduled for an October presentation, but we have had to reschedule since we do not yet have the Benchmark data. We anticipate being able to present that study in November. The Office for Civil Rights in Dallas has been very complimentary of our 2000-01 ESL program evaluation and has asked us to assist them in providing technical assistance to other districts on how to conduct this study. When the 2001-02 report is presented, the staff will bundle the reports for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, along with the 2001-02 report for the Boards formal approval. 2002-03 Proposed Program Evaluation Agenda The District will provide for the evaluation of the following programs for 2002-03. 1. Elementary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the elementary literacy program (grades K-5) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the following four literacy programs being implemented in LRSD: Balanced Literacy (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas or ELLA at grades K-2 and Effective Literacy at grades 3Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four 3-5), Balanced Literacy with Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Direct Instruction. This report will be completed and presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. 2. Secondary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the secondary literacy program (grades 6-12) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the Reading/Writing Workshop implemented at grades 6-8 and the English I Workshop implemented in three schools at grade 9. All available data will be used in determining the effectiveness of the overall program. 2. CPMSA (K-12 Mathematics and Science) Staff will issue a final report on and evaluation of the five-year NSF-funded project for grades K-12 mathematics and science, and it will be presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. When NSF (external experts) provides its feedback, that report will be added to the documents submitted to the court. Fiscal Impact The District will be able to complete all the program evaluation requirements outlined in the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda through funds already budgeted, except for the cost of the external experts who will serve on each team. The costs for external consultants to complete the 2002-03 program evaluations are not yet known since the District has not yet had the opportunity to identify who they might be and to negotiate contracts. Recommendations That the Board of Education approve the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda as outlined. BAL/adg 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nPREPARED BY\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nEarly Literacy Program Evaluations Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation\nYear 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data\nPatricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction:  a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement\n a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography\nand  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. 1 An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows\n/s the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness. i To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81)Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three The report included a detailed analysis of all available data\nThe following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement.Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the program's implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3, African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the grovtrth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members' review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAL/adg AttachmentsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY\nI Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nApproval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments\nthe Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4, and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 -ZDOi. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James,. Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Ionnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) Background Information During 1998-99 and 1999-2000 SEDL formed a two-year research partnership with five schools in their five-state region. The project was entitled Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). Southwest Middle School was the only middle school to be selected for participation. The focus areas for the project at Southwest were literacy achievement: mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. The SEDL staff published two evaluations of their work with the five schools and their findings relating to the effectiveness of certain school improvement efforts. Those two reports are attached. LRSD s PRE department through Dr. Ed Williams provided data over the two-year period as requested by SEDL for their analysis. In addition, SEDL conducted informal surveys, observations, and interviews and documented each schools conditions with journal entries (see p. 2, Volume 9, Number f. Issues about Change). SEDL staff, primarily Dr. DeEtte Cowan, conducted the study and wrote the program evaluation. Southwest Middle Schools principal and grades 6-8 teachers participated in data collection and in administering student assessments. Five core issues were identified as having significant impact on the five schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  , leadership. Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Two Although the purpose of the SEDL study was not specifically to determine the  rrQ\u0026lt;'Tn/Anr,r.n _Z___ . rr . . . reform efforts on the academic achievement of African American children, whatever findings were made would be relevant t:..,, Z__L___' Schools students are almost all African Americans. The findings for Southwest found as follows in the Volume 9, Number 2 report: since Southwest Middle are organizational structuresp. 4, first column (year 1) and second column (Year 2) focus of improvement workp. 2, second column (year 1) personal and social dynamicsp. 5, second column (year 1) and p 6 first column  contextual influencesp. 6, second column leadership p. 8, first column (year 1) and p. 8, second column (year 2) In conclusion, when improved academic achievement did not including Southwest, the researchers stated the following: occur in the five schools, While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabilities and goals. Left unaddressed issues of leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynamics can detail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and talented teachers. Most critically, if these /ssues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment (pp. 9-10, Volume 9, Number?). Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the attached research reports on the Facilitatinq Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project / M C* . .Xi_________ X 1   I I I Al I. ... ' ' ' ..UHCU.CIUOUUII UI r\\erorm iiraiegies and lactics (FIRST) project as the proqram evaluations for Southwest Middle School's participation in the SEDL partnership. BAL/adg AttachmentVolume 9, Number 2 2000 Issues . about Change Year One and Year Two: What Do You Do In Comprehensive School Improvement Introduction During the summer of 1998, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) began a partnership project entitled Facihtating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). A two-year initiative, FIRST partnered staff from SEDLs Strategies for Increasing School Success (SISS) program with staff at five schoolsone in each of the five states defining SEDLs service region^Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These initiatives would differ from former models of school improvement. FIRST partnerships would be long-term, broad scale, in-depth. u. joined at the hip partnerships focusing on the identified needs of the schools and including all relevant staff. Identified needs were not hmited to a particular program or organizational aspect of the school, but could encompass curriculmn, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and a consideration of how these parts fxmctioned as a whole to create a particular school culture. For two years, SEDL staff provided information, guidance, and technical support for improvement efforts determined by the school personnel. FIRST schools collaborated with SEDL in conducting interviews, surveys, and observations about the course these improvement efforts took, including major accomplishments and stumbling blocks. The entire school program was examined and prioritized\nspecific academic areas and/or organizational structures were chosen as the focus of improvement work at each of the FIRST schools. The intent of the FIRST project was to develop the capacity of school personnel to plan, monitor, and continue improvement efforts. To that end, technical assistance providers were enlisted and coordinated with SEDL staffs work to assist the schools during the FIRST initiative. FIRST schools represented the regions diversity on many levels\nthree high schools (Banner, Community, and Pelican), one middle school (Tall Pines), and one K-8 school (San Fernando) were chosen. These schools, whose names are pseudonyms, served students across a range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgroimds, and struggled with issues both specific to their schools and common to many schools (e.g. low student achievement, lack of parent involvement). In the course of the research into school improvement strategies and particularly through the first year of experience in partner schools, SEDL staff identified and confirmed the primacy of five core issues for school improvement efforts. The staffs analysis of school issues and strategies for advancing school improvement was framed within these areas: focus of the improvement work, orgamzational structures that support school change, personal and social dynamics of the indi'viduals and organizations involved, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh-Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861widening circles of contexts that influence school work, and leadership that influence all of the preceding can Much of the first year of SEDL staffs work was devoted to becoming familiar -wi-th the school culture and context, and building relationships -wi-th school personnel. First year efforts tended to identify the issues that impeded school improvement. As these issues had often been hidden by routine and low expectations prior to the partnership, many participants became discouraged as improvement efforts caused these issues to emerge or re-emerge. I Major tasks facing the SEDL staff in the second year thus included maintaining momentum in ongoing changa efforts, continuing relationship-building, and celebrating accomphshments as they occurred. SEDL partners had bmlt trust -with school staff in their roles as external changa facilitatorsneutral parties in district, school, and interpersonal pohtics. In order to advance change efforts and maintain this trust, SEDL personnel focused their efforts on each schools identified needs, with particular attention to the five core school change issues. Focus of the Improvement Work Year 1. In order for partner schools to fully engage in the work of school improvement, the focus of the improvement work that was undertaken was identified and chosen with the full participation of staff at each school. The level and root of difficulty in achieving this objective varied from school to school. For example, Barmer High School was reconstituted during the first year of its partnership with SEDL. In its effort to provide students with a sense of community and to encourage personal relationships between students sind teachers, this single large high school was divided into four academies. The focus of improvement work quickly became apparent\nimplementation of the academies concepts and structures. At San Fernando School, SEDL assisted staff in re-viewing achievement data and performing action research. As a result of their learning, staff at San Fernando decided to focus improvement work on student retention of skills, and on curriculum, particularly in mathematics. The SEDL facilitator at Cnm-munity High School conducted student focus groups for faculty observation, supported professional development for faculty and administrators, and assisted in the collection and analysis of data from multiple so-urces in the community and from students. Freshman student success was chosen as the focus of improvement work, and the rest of the first year at Commimity High was spent identifying leverage points and making plans for implementation in the second year. At Pelican High School, issues of communication between the central office and the school inserted themselves into efforts to define the focus of improvement work. These issues were worked on as the facilitator introduced the study of student achievement data and its analysis, followed by tie-fining a -vision focused on student outcomes. While staff and administrators quickly agreed to focus efforts on improving instructional effectiveness, the consensus broke down when the SEDL facilitator pushed for more specifics. The staff ultimately decided to focus on planning^ as a way of addressing instructional effectiveness. Student achievement and other forms of data were collected by SEDL staff and utilized to inform staff at Tall Pines Middle School about the academic needs of students and the factors operating -within the school that impacted student learning. SEDL facilitated development of a shared -vision of exemplary SEDL 2schools through the distribution of researchbased studies on successful middle school reform. With this support and guidance, Tall Pines staff identified four areas for improvement\nhteracy achievement, mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. Year 2. In Year 2, SEDL staff sought to ensure that students remained a visible and vital target of school improvement efforts. At Tall Pines, an administrator from a neighboring school district, trained by staff from SEDLs Program for Teaching and Learning (PITL), developed Uid delivered professional development for teachers that focused on what students learnednot what teachers taught. As part of their year-long staff development in mathematics instruction, teachers at San Fernando were trained in conducting student interviews, in order to gain insight into the process and success of student learning To discover and disseminate student priorities and perceptions, SEDL staff conducted student focus groups at San Fernando School, Community High, and Pehcan High. At Pehcan High School, development of a school improvement plan began as SEDL engaged Pehcan staff in a return to the schools migainn and vision, and led the staff in reflecting on the skills and attributes of an ideal Pehcan High graduate. - These efforts to keep school improvement work focused on students helped to diminish political issues and increase staff enthusiasm and commitment. At Pelican High School, for example, staff who had been adept at blaming external circumstancedistrict pohcy, student socio-economic background^for students lack of success began to see and take responsibility for their impact on students. Staff became both more accountable and more enthusiastic as they planned, implemented, assessed, and revised specific strategies for improved student achievement. SEDL made available the resources of both its SISS and PITL programs, creating and dehvering professional development activities specifi.c to each schools needs\nconducting, analyzing, reporting and guiding revision in response to the assessment of school improvement strategies that were initiated\nleading, planning, and attending meetings of school and/or district staff\nand providing each school an observer and aUy both removed from divisive school issues and fuUy committed to school improvement and increased student achievement. In addition, SEDL staff brought in outside experts and assisted schools in accessing local resources, and devp1 oping relationships between school and district staff, and between the FIRST school and education professionals at neighboring schools and universities. Reflection. Lack of access to and understanding of student achievement data played a large role in the difficulties encountered as each partner school sought to define and maintain the focus of their improvement efforts. SEDL spent time at each school gathering existing data, collecting new data, and training school staff in interpreting data and identifying logical, research-tested strategies for school improvement In the absence of empirical information about their students' achievement, school staff had developed their own rationale for student achievement and lack of achievement. SEDL staff had to address these straw men,' ft including: student socioeconomic background\ngovernment-mandated program .q, standards, and measurements\ninterpersonal disputes\nand other factors outside staff control. SEDL partners pushed school staff to assume responsibility for student learning, and to believe in their ability to positively affect that learning 3 SEDLOrganizational Structures Year 1. During Year 1, SEDL staff famiharized themselves with the organizational structures that existed at partner schools, and assisted in the development of orgamzational structures where there were none. 'The reconstitution of Banner High School into academies required that new communication structures be developed and implemented. Pehcan High School, which had recently been created by the division of a K-12 school into an elementary, middle, and high school, had a similar need to develop new organizational structures, particularly addressing commumcation between central office staff and the school. At Community High and San Fernando School, organizational structures that were already in place were strengthened and supported through the FIRST partnership. At Commumty High, the principal provided meals and, in some cases, stipends, in support of afterschool planning meetings among teachers\nthis was to change in year two. Facffitation of meetings at San Fernando School helped to assure that all staff were included in plannings and all voices were heard at staff meetings. At San Fernando, SEDL also assisted in the creation and operation of action research teams, which collected and presented the data utilized in developing that schools focus of improvement work. Organizational structures at Tail Pines provided little support for change. Systems for routine procedures, such as tracking attendance and communicating hallway duties, were lacking. Communication among teachers and between the school administration and teachers was sporadic and ineffective. Structures such as grade level teams and the schools steering committee, while in place, were not utihzed effectively. Grade level teams collaborated on student discipline, parent/teacher conferences, and planning for special events. The schools steering committee existed primarily to commumcate the principals unilaterally developed agenda to the rest of the staff. Expectations and opportunities for teacher leadership or problem-solving were nearly nonexistent. Year 2. During the FIRST initiatives second year, orgamzational structures remained a focus of attention at partner schools. SEDL facihtators sought to enhance structures and practices that worked and mitigate the effects of structures that did not exist or work well. When funds to provide meals and stipends for professional development dried up at Community High School, SEDL supported the principal in utilizing other school resources to support unprovement efforts. Communication via e-mail helped fill the gap created by fewer meetings\nthe schools video equipment (and students) provided a means to create videotapes of training activities. At Pelican High School, in light of a new school structure, and with the cooperation of a new administrator, SEDL staff supported school personnel in adapting necessary procedures to the new organization and structures. At Banner High School, FIRST efforts targeted one academy of the four (that understood the value of FIRST and articulated interest) created by the division of a large high school. The lack of organizational structure at Tall Pines Middle School remained a .signifirant obstacle to school improvement efforts. The SEDL facilitator at Tail Pines advocated for fuller use of existing organizational structures, and helped the principal realize the strength and skills of the campus leadership team. In addition, the facilitator created opportunities from external mandated policies\nthe district required the completion of a campus plana difficult task given the lack of organization and staff expertise that characterized Tall Pines. The SEDL coordinator volunteered to assist in this effort, and in the process modeled I i SEDL 4inclusion, data driven decisions, planning and communicationand embedded greater capacity for ongoing school improvement into Tall Pines future. District requirements provided accoimtabhity and legitimacy to school efforts at San Fernando School. Here, the SEPT, facilitator utihzed district pressure to align curriculum within the school, and with state assessments helped to unify teachers^by quelling resistanci in taking the next steps in the schools focus on improved mathematics instruction and achievement. Reflection. As a result of two years work in partner schools, SEDL staff learned that they had been too optimistic in terms of organizational structures at partner schools. Partner schools functioned with minimal organization, allowing informal networks and unspoken expectations to guide and define their work, and reinforcing the isolation of teachers in their individual classrooms. Without clear access to information, the means to express opinions, or the assurance that their perspective would be honored, teachers and staff retreated from one another, convinced themselves that school-wide improvement was impossible, and focused their efforts narrowly. SEDL facilitators found themselves  working within organizational structures that were cumbersome and ineffective, or creating new organizational structures with personnel who were often skeptical and occasionally resistant. Facihtators found this work to be critical to maintaining improvement efforts, but also to be quite difficult, thankless, and slow to show benefits. improvement efforts at each school, advanced dynamics that supported those efforts, and most criticallyavoided being drawn into or ahgned with any one side of personal and social conflicts involving the partner schools. At Banner and Community High Schools, personal and socieil dynaTnirs were generally positive. Banner High School was marked by strong, clear, and widespread teacher conTmitrnp-nt. to and knowledge of students. For the most part, this commitment fueled supportive professional relationships between teachers, although there was little opportunity for teachers suggestions to be incorporated into administrative decisions about the new academy structure. At Commumty High School, trust in the principal translated into the ability for teachers to work well with one another, and to ignore small factions that arose in opposition to improvement efforts. In schools where the personal and social dynamics were less positive, SEDL facihtators sought to engage all staff in the improvement effortsand in the meetings eind decisionmaking that informed and shaped those efforts. Nudging teachers to learn one anothers names by asking a group who is missing provided a small but vital fotmdation for teachers to begin talking to one another about instruction at Pelican High School. At San Fernando, providing the opportunity for staff to discuss the issues that simmered between them allowed some of these issues to be resolved. At Tall Pines, attending to organizational structures helped to dispel some of the tensions that precluded the development of strong personal relationships among teachers and staff. Personal and Social Dynamics of Individuals and Organizations Year 1. SEDL facilitators observed the personal and social dynamics that impacted Year 2. For the most part, issues of personal and social dynamics were addressed only tangentially during the second year. SEDL staff maintained their focus on building relationships among teachers and between 5 SEDLteachers and adm i n i strators in the context of professional development and school improvement efforts. When facilitating meetings, SEDL staff worked to ensure that every voice was heard, and maintained professional neutrahty when tensions emerged. SEDL staff utilized emerging teacher leaders and other individuals invested in school change efforts to encourage schoolwide commitment to the project. In this project and in others, SEDL has learned that professional growth, focused efforts toward school improvement, and the academic success of students form the strongest bonds between school professionals. Banner High School and Tall Pines Middle School did provide notable exceptions, where personal and social d5mamics jeopardized improvement efforts. At Banner, three of the four academy principals began to isolate and undermine the fourth principal, and to reduce their commitment to the FIRST project. These three principals ultimately left the FIRST project, and the SEDL facflitator worked exclusively with that fourth principal, in the academy she administered. Issues related to leadership negatively impacted personal and social dynamics at Tall Pines Middle School. A school climate survey was conducted during each year of the FIRST projectall indicators fell in the second year, and the subscale of Collegial support fell most dramatically. Unfortunately, SEDL could do little to directly address these issues until issues of leadership improved. Reflection. Personal and social dynamics is perhaps the least distinctly bounded of the five critical areas the FIRST project identified and addressed. Problems that are rooted in leadership, context, and organizational structures almost always affect personal and social dynamics negatively. Similarly^ advancement in any of the four other areas tends to support positive dynamics. But, while SEDL facihtators acknowledged that personal and social dynamics tended to bleed into and out of the other critical areas, they found it remained an important area to consider independently. one When school personnel know and trust another, the work of school change gets easier. Communicating expectations of respect and participation, bringing parties in conflict together to dialogue, and teaching techniques for assuring full participation and equal representation helped to advance positive personal and social dynamics, which in turn advanced school improvement efforts. Contextual Influences Year 1. Each of the five partner schools operated within a different community and district context. At Community and Banner High Schools, contextual issues were minimal, and easily addressed through assuring clear communication between all stakeholders. This was a central tenet of the focus of improvement efforts, although some attention was required at Banner because of the schools reaction to the community and city politics that were at play. Contextual issues were most significant at Tall Pines, where new state and di strict, pohcies and mandated curricular changes created new roles, relationships, and responsibflities among administrntors, teachers, parents, and students. In addition. Tail Pines operated under a long-standing desegregation order that required careful scrutiny of any changes that might affect the racial composition of the school. A strong teachers union actively monitored the effect of these changes and FIRST improvement efforts on teachers work and responsibflities. At Tall Pines, SEDL sought to connect all these factors to develop a coherent improvement effort. SEDL 6 1Similarly, tensions between the digfrict- and school at Pelican High School were addressed in the first year by providing opportunities for representatives of each orgamzation to meet, dialogue, and problem- solve. The establishment of regular meetings had a powerful and immediate impact on communication and trust between school and district personnel. The students at San Fernando School provided this school its most challenging contextual issue. While most of the core staff at San Fernando were Euro-American, the majority of instructional assistants and students were Native American and T-Tispanic SEDL staff worked to assure that the voices of instructional assistants were included and honored at staff meetings, and brought in research-based materials on connecting school curricula to students ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Year 2. SEDL facilitators continued to assist school personnel in identifying and responding to a variety of contextual influences. Peril a pi more critically, SEDL facilitators sought to maintain school focus on improvement goals and specific activities toward those goals, in order to prevent contextual influences from becoming excuses for stasis. SEDL helped school personnel learn to define their real IS spheres of influence and to handle issues of context. They also provided technical support in the completion of campus improvement plans, offered advice on utilization of Title I funds, and guided professional development in areas of multiculturalisni and age-appropriate teaching strategies. Reflection. While schools are the location of improvement work, they are critically affected for better or worse by the context in which they exist. External change facilitators must have a wide and deep range of strategies and uiformation in oi\nder to be ready to anticipate and address issues of context during improvement efforts. Bringing all parties to the table, where possible, is the best first strategy in addressing contextual issues. In aU cases, more and better communication, and more and better understanding mitigated the negative aspects of context, and allowed stakeholders to begin to imagine context as a strength of, and not a hindrance to, their school. Leadership Year 1. Gathering an accurate impression of each partner school was the first step for SEDL facihtators across each of the five critical arpas for school improvement. Doing so quickly was particularly important in the area of leadership. While shared leadership is acknowledged as a pwerful form of school administration, at the FIRST partner schools, the principals retained most of the power, made most of the admimstrative decisions unilaterally, and thus wielded tremendous influence on the staffs perception of the FIRST initiative and their willingness to fiflly participate. At Community High School, relationships between staff and a d m i m'.gtr a tors were generally positive, and the Assistant Principal was particularly enthusiastic about the FIRST project. His enthusiasm would eventually lead him to overload the project with mitiatives, but at the beginning it served to create momentum, interest, and commitment among school staff. During the first year, tensions between the four academy principals at Banner High School came to a head. When the fm-mer superintendent had made them equals as administrators, she had not provided them with any model for operating as such. The resulting power struggle defused improvement efforts and negatively impacted interpersonal dynamics. The SEDL facihtator sought to assuage hurt feelings and discover and i 7 SEDL Ldisseminate leadership models that might work between these four administrators. She was unsuccessful at finding such a model, and ultimately decided to focus the FIRST project on only one of the academies. Leadership at Tall Pines was a very apparent area for potential improvement. The principal, though well meaning, seemed not to understand the function or practical value of shared leadership. While both a steering committee and campus leadership team were in place, there were no clearly defined areas of responsibihty for each or between the two. The principal rarely shared substantive decisionmaking with either body, and in fact appointed some members of the campus leadership team despite district guidelines calling for their election. When the principal did delegate responsibility, he neither monitored nor followed up to gauge progress or to identify how he could support staff efforts. As a result, many tasks were never completed, or if completed, were not recorded. Within this environment, the SEDL facihtator sought to develop a shared focus and a sense of self-efficacy among the staff. While this approach yielded enthusiasm in small group settings, plans were often jettisoned in responses to some crisis or other, and no coherent improvement plan could be developed and maintained. The principalship at San Fernando School and Pehcan High School changed hands after the first year of the FIRST initiative. At each of these schools, SEDL facihtators began again with new administrators, and built upon the relationships they had established with school staff. At Pehcan the facihtator was able to establish an immediate positive relationship with the new principal, while at San Fernando, teacher leaders maintained continuation of the project and specifically asked the new principal in the hiring interview if she was willing to support the SEDL project. In both instances, this turnover negatively impacted the momentum of the project, but did not completely erase the achievements nor void the plans made for implementation of school improvement efforts. Year 2. SEDL staff worked with FIRST school principals where they were, and in some cases, where they were not. When three of four principals in Banner High Schools new academy structure evidenced a lack of interest in or focus on how SEDL might support them, SEDL shifted its focus to full, supportive cooperation with the one principal who remained active and interested. At Tall Pines Middle School, the need for better management of routine procedures impeded efforts at communication, change, and improvement. The SEDL facihtator worked to develop leadership skills of the principal and of school staff. She advocated for utilizing existing structmes to share decision-making with the staff, and by the end of the project year, the campus leadership team was more involved in important decisions about school personnel and pohcies. In addition, the SEDL FIRST facihtator ultimately met with the school principal behind closed doors and confronted him about the need for stronger management and greater administrator visibihty in the school. The principal was able to accept this counsel, and made changes. At Community High School, one principals enthusiasm for the focus on freshman students led him to overbuild that program, nearly to the breaking point. The SEDL facilitator at Community High advocated for the staff and brought this principal to an awareness ofand sense of humor about^his tendency to take on too much. f i i At two FIRST schools, the projects second year began with new principals. SEDL facihtators took responsibihty for educating these fldTnini.qtrat.ors on the history, purposes. I SEDL 8and progress of the FIRST initiative. At Pelican High School, SEDL consistently supported and advanced the strengths of the new principal, even in trying times of adjustment. The SEDL facilitator pushed the new Pelican principal to define his vision of leadership, and supported the principal in implementing that vision throughout the predictable highs and lows of adjusting to a new school and a new assistant principal. At San Fernando school, the SEDL facilitator explained the staffs choice of mathematics as a school focus, and supported the principal in advancing this focus even as the district pushed for a shift to reading. The SEDL facihtator helped to assure the principals interest in professional development and assessment were incorporated into the school improvement plans, and reminded the principal that change takes time. When this principal also left the school, SEDL began again with San Fernandos third leader, explaining the FIRST initiatives focus, detailing the history and achievements of the staff, and offering continued assistance. Reflection. Through FIRST and other school improvement initiatives, SEDL has developed an abiding respect for the role of leadership in any school change effort. These efforts advance most effectively and smoothly in schools where principals are committed to high quality mstruction leading to success for every student\nare adept at handling both day-to-day operations as well as the crises that routinely break these routines\nenjoy strong working relationships with district and school staff\nand have both the professional security and commitment to advance and utihze teacher leadership. Unfortimately, principals with such broad and deep strengths are few and far between. In addition, all school leaders subject to relocation, retirement, and are reassignment. Shifts in leadership, even when anticipated, can have profound, lingering, deleterious effects on teacher morale and school improvement efforts. SEDL supported principals who had skills and strengthened the skill base of principals who struggled with leadership. Developing personal relationships with these administrators was an important first step. Once this foundation was estabhshed, SEDL facilitators shared professional literature on leadership with principals and coached the principals on leadership strategies ranging from use of active verbs and first person plural (in their communication with teachers) to implementing significant shared leadership. SEDL also sought to connect these school administrators with a wide web of ongoing support, and so assisted in building relationships between FIRST school principals, and supported their professional development and attendance at national and local conferences. Conclusions Through the FIRST initiative, SEDL has developed a body of research on school improvement efforts that includes close study of five schools in the process of change, a widening library of strategies for supporting school change, and confirmation of the critical role change agents can play in schools undertaking improvement and change. As outside agents, change facihtators can develop a clearer view of dynamics that support and impede change efforts, and provide and build resources and abihties. In addition, they can offer assistance that is free of existing power relationships and requirements, can advocate for aU school personnel, md, most importantly, can maintain the focus of improvement efforts on unproved instruction and increased student achievement. While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabihties and goals. Left unaddressed, issues 9 SEDLof leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynetmics can derail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and dedicated teachers. Most critically, if these issues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment. School change is a daunting proposal, and school change professionals must develop and utilize a deep and broad variety of strategies for assisting schools in change and improvement. Change facilitators must be able to respond to the particular issues of a school, and must be willing to devote time and attention to developing a clear understanding of the schools readiness and its cultural ethos, in order to adapt and implement change strategies that are specific to each schools circnmstance In addition, change agents must maintain an awareness of more universal issues in education^including administrative turnover, fluctuating funds, and student populations that are increasingly diverse and face increasing demands, both academic and personal. i i 1 j i Issues.-.about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melissa Capers, consultant\nD'Ette Cowan, SEDL Program Associate\nand Grace Fleming, Tara Leo, and Melanie Morrissey, Program Spedahsts, SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the OfBce of Educational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publication may be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. I i I I I J i SEDL 10Voltime 9, Number 1 2000 Issues . . about Change Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges The report of the 1996 National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future bore a strong message regarding the need for educational change\nSchool transformation cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating conditions in which teachers can teach and teach well. This report, coupled with current nationwide interest in encouraging schools to adopt comprehensive reform strategies or programs, urgently communicates the need for school improvement. Such reform may not be much to ask of schools that are already supported by adequate funding, continuous professional development programs, and active parent involvement. Many schools dont fit that picture however, and are crying out for help. It is with these schools, the ones that are struggling to meet the needs of their students, that SEDL has engaged in the Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project. The goals of this paper are to provide a deeper understanding of how schools experience comprehensive reform and to identify the issues that affect schools efforts at improvement. Taking a Different Approach This project took a systemwide look at comprehensive school improvement while simultaneously working with schools that were undertaking reform efforts. For the purposes of this work, comprehensive school improvement is an inclusive term for engaging an entire school staff in an in-depth study of the teaching and learning process. Emphasis is placed on the examination of all aspects of the school  curriculum, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and so on and identification of how all of these parts can work together to improve student results. SEDL formed in-depth partnerships with five schools, one in each state of the educational laboratorys diverse service region. These partnerships were intended to differ from former models of school improvement in three specific ways. First, the focus of attention and assistance was on the entire school program and all factors that have the potential to affect student learning. This work was in no way to be a quick fix to show a fast turnaround in standardized test scores. Rather, the intent was to develop the capacity of school personnel and to promote their engagement in continuous improvement. Second, the existing and proposed structures and practices at each school site were examined in terms of their expected benefits for student learning. Each schools needs were viewed as individual and unique, which required the creation of a program tailored to that specific site and a process to address specific areas of need. Third, multiple technical assistance providers were coordinated to assist in the improvement efforts at each site during the FIRST project, and also beyond that time, to enable staff to stay informed and current in their practice. Again, because of the individual needs of each school site, the providers and the assistance that they offered varied. Developing Alliances with Schools Similarities existed among the schools in that each entered the partnership acknowledging that it was at risk of fading to meet the learning needs of its students, and each lacked experiences in school change. More important, staff at the five sites expressed their interest and commitment to the partnership as a means of producing meaningful changes in their schools and positively affecting student results. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861Together, the sites- displayed characteristics that are symptomatic of the challenges in pubhc education across the nationachievement scores were consistently low or falling, students were unhappy and/or unmotivated, parents were ignored, community members were disengaged, and school staff did not beheve they could affect student learning. The sues varied in terms of geography and demographics (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, students cultural background), as well as in their capacity for reform planning and implementation. What We Are Learning SEDL staff conducted ongoing informal surveys, observations, and interviews, and documented each schools existing conditions with journal entries. In the process of reviewing the first years work across all five sites, the researchers found five core issues, each of which had signifirant impact on the schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  leadership. While the school sites themselves were more dissimilar than similar, the five core issues were factors at each site, to varying degrees. Such commonalities motivated SEDL staff to examine more thoroughly the core issues and their impact on each of the schools. Each of the core issues is thematic, encompassing a number of related areas in which the schools have needed assistance. The issues are highly interactive and interrelated, some to a stronger degree than others. Growth and progress at each site required that the external agent be aware of the five core issues. Actions were taken to nurture, support, and encourage positive developments within each of the core issues, in attempts to build up the capacity of staff and administration and to develop a system that is supportive of change. Findings regarding these issues have evolved from the experiences, observations, and documentation of work done at the five sites by SEDL staff and by the shared observations and commentary of the school staffs. This paper will clarify and discuss each core issue, using observations from the FIRST sites. While the situation in the schools with respect to these core issues does raise concerns, SEDL staff feel it is increasingly important to assess the overall picture, to acknowledge school staffs weaknesses along with their strengths, in order to knowledgeably facihtate school change. While SEDL staff continue to work on these issues with schools, it is hoped that other external school improvement facihtators will benefit from the insights provided regarding the challenges that all schools may face as they undertake comprehensive reform. Organizational Structures With appropriate structures and processes in place, effective schools run efficiently. At the FIRST schools, many of the necessary organizational supports were lacking, and the result was disorganization, unclear directions and processes, few to no avenues for problem solving or collaboration among staff, and frustrated teachers. Three specific areas within the organizational structures of schools were identified as areas that needed attention: time, communication, and organization. Finding time. One of the schools had regularly scheduled in-services for the whole staff to meet for professional development or collaboration. At the other four sites, faculty meetings were often held after school and were kept short to stay within state or union guidelines. Such meetings functioned primarily as a time to address administrative items, rather an to provide an opportunity for staff to come together as a whole for learning, problem solving, or decisionmaking. The result was fragmented understanding of the schools vision or collective purpose and continued isolation of teachers within their own classroom, grade level, and/or subject area. f 1 Though in-service days and/or daily planning periods of 45 minutes or longer were scheduled at each school site, the staffs tended to use the time SEDL 2 Iindependently for grading, planning, etc. No times or structures were designated specifically to facilitate collaboration among teachers. The inabihty to find time and/or the inefficient use of time greatly affected staffs opportunities to discuss issues regarding their vision, their goals, the school, the students, and the curriculum. 1110 result at each of the sites was a disconnection of purpose, intent, and action. Staff and administrators at each site identified a need for making time to work together as a staff and for using allotted time efficiently. This particular issue required ongoing negotiation and creative problem solving between SEDL staff and the campus administrator(s). In some instances, the large size of the staff and limited time constraints have meant that only, part of a staff was together at any one point. Within this configuration, the staffs were just learning how to use their time most productively so that their collective work has a positive impact on student learning. Communication. Although aU the schools could identify some form(s) of communication between administrators, staff, students, and parents, several of them did not have a regular means of daily or weekly communication of events. Rather, they rehed on word-of-mouth messages and/or PA announcements, which were disruptive and frequently consumed valuable classroom instruction time. Each of the schools lacked efficient methods for regular, ongoing communication regarding events whether scheduled or unscheduled. Such inadequate communication often resulted in last minute scrambhng on due dates, changes in staff or student meetings, and in hasty decisionmaking. At three of the schools in particular, information from the central office was not communicated to staff and/or administrators effectively or in a timely manner. Since much of the communication between schools and the central office is in the form of requests, concerns, or questions, the lack of efficient systems for such communication led to misinformation and confusion. Several of the school sites did not have any consistent means of communicating calendar events to parents, and so parental involvement in school activities was limited. School stakeholdersthe students, parents, and community members were rarely informed of or invited to participate in school activities, especially those that required decisionmaking. Teachers contact with parents was generally in the context of reporting concerns or grievances regarding their students. Parents and surrounding community members were viewed as unsupportive of schools efforts, and yet the staffs did not know how to nurture more positive relationships. Organization. In the time that SEDL staff spent in the schools during the first year, it appeared that few organizational systems were in place for making requests, identifying concerns, allocating materials or resources, or handling necessary paperwork. At one school site, it was not unusual for administrators to be unaware of a students location  during the day, since no system existed for accessing students class schedules. If a parent came to pick up his or her child, or the administrator wanted to talk to a particular student, school office personnel would have to interrupt instructional time by making a call over the PA system asking the child to report to the office. Most office personnel and administrators had not designed an efficient system for filing or accessing pertinent information, whether it was a state mandate regarding curriculum, personnel information, or student records. Focus of Improvement Work Maintaining an undeviating focus on students is central to identifying and articulating purposeful intent for any schools reform work. Such a focus was lacking at the sites. Often, small groups or individuals appeared to have a grasp of the overall intent of improvement work at the sites, but staffwide common focus and effort were not apparent. Also significant were the low levels of teacher empowerment found within these schools teachers ability and willingness to access information, identify needs and potential solutions, and engage in self-study were hmited. The result was inconsistency of purpose, mixed messages, and inefficient implementation of instructional strategies across the sites. Four specific areas of need 3 SEDLwere noted this first year: data analysis, problem solving, access to inrormation/resources, and conflict resolution/celebration. Data analysis. SEDL staff involved each school staff in examining their schools strengths and areas of concern, engaging the entire staff in data collection, analyzing trends, and developing hypotheses. Four of the five sites found it diffimit to provide recent student achievement data for this process, often not having the scores from the past years assessments on hand at the school. Accessing longitudinal dau for interpretation and analysis was even more difficult. When SEDL staff did access student achievement data, the staff were not clear about the usefulness of information gained from examining these data. Teachers and administrators exhibited limited understanding of alternative student assessment techniques, and this restricted their ability to accurately identify the needs of their students. Therefore, SEDL staff began to teach the school staffs how to interpret and analyze testing data. Once data were accessed, and teachers were taught how to read the scores and use them to identify strengths and needs, dialogue about the impact of instruction in the classroom began. Collaborative problem solving. Beyond the examination of data is the opportunity for school staffs to engage in dialogue regarding the needs of their students and their school. Before estabhsh- ing a partnership with SEDL, the five school sites had devoted little to no time to such discourse. As noted in the Organizational Structures section above, there was limited time provided for collaborative work. When administrators or staff attempted to discuss needs, it was often in a context of hurried decisionmaking, without referring to data or acknowledging everyones concerns. Dialogue techniquesallowing everyones voice to be heard without judgementwere not employed at any of the school sites. No clear norms were established for the school personnel to use in group discussions. The result was that a few vocal staff members at each school site were heard, while the test of the group was quiet and less involved. Often the more vocal staff members were aware that not everyone was involved. and yet did not seem to know how to address the problem. On the other hand, the quieter, less involved staff members spoke of feehng alienated from the discussions and decisionmaking, and therefore were admittedly less committed to making things work. The schools, in general, did not spend time identifying the potential for their students, their school, or themselves. Staffs were continually inundated by demands to improve student test scores, improve discipline referrals, or improve something else that was seen by someone else as unsatisfactory. School staffs did not spend any time identifying their strengths, or their vision for their students, schools, or themselves, and therefore they could not collectively relate to their successes or to their potential for improvement. Access to information/resources/training. Only one of the schools had access to and made use of available technical assistance in the form of training or resources. The other sites have either had difficulty in the past accessing outside resources, were unaware of what assistance was available to them, or simply could not identify what kind of assistance would benefit them. Directly related to the schools need for a vision and goals for their improvement work, the schools staff did not regularly seek information by tapping into research or literature regarding best practices. Staffs were more likely to attempt implementation of programs that another school in the district was doing, or what they heard from other teachers about what was working in their schools, rather than investigating the claims first. School staffs often did not receive adequate training in the programs they were trying to implement. An example of this was the implementation of block scheduling at one high school. Though the block scheduling strategy was adopted three years ago, the staff never received training regarding their instructional practices while teaching in longer periods. Conflict resolution and celebration. In any organization involving creative and energetic individuals, a certain degree of conflict will be present. Such friction does not result in negative attitudes or perceptions when there are clear norms and strategies for resolution in effect. SEDL 4These school sites, however, all struggled with conflict and they had limited resolution strategies in place. The results ranged firom the development of factions within a school staff, to complete ignorance of conflict, to individuals resigning their positions and leaving the school or district. Celebration strategies were very limited at the school sites. Since the schools seldom acknowledged their progress, there was no apparent need to celebrate accomplishments, learning, or growth. When one high schools state assessment scores significantly increased this year, the SEDL staff member who had written congratulatory notes to the instructional teams was informed by teachers that the note was the only acknowledgment they had received upon learning of the improved scores. Without celebration of even the little things, staff motivation was low, which in turn affected the students perceptions of school and learning, resulting in disenfranchised staff and students. Personal and Social Dynamics A trustful culture, mutual respect and regard within relationships, and collective engagement of staff and administrators are key components of effective cultures within schools. The personal and social dynamics at these sites varied substantially. Trustful culture. Change of any kind is a very difficult process. SEDL staff recognize that when a group has personal or information concerns, it is unlikely that sustainable progress will be made until those concerns are resolved. At some schools, the staff were open with each other, and a certain level of trust had been established over time. At other sites, however, the culture was distrustfulor at best, unsupportive of staff-wide openness and respect. At each of the sites, there was the need for SEDL staff to establish norms with the group about working together and set some precedence regarding group involvement. Several of the schools displayed a pervasive feehng of distrust toward district office staff. The causes of the distrust are unknown, but the lack of trust and respept significantly affected the ability of the staff to learn to work together with district staff. Relationships. The development of a trustful culture requires strong professional relationships, and the key to developing those ties is to strengthen the personal relationships as well. Too often, the workplace is seen as the place for work, and there is no acknowledgment that everyone has a life outside. Each of the five school sites was limited in the development of relationships among staff members. There were very few opportunities, either within school or outside of it, for staff to do fun things together, learn together, laugh together, or just get to know each other. Relationships that were nurtured occurred primarily, in small groups in grade level or subject area, because of proximity in location or similar scheduling. The groups that did engage in these types of interactions and relationship building worked more effectively together within the school as a result. Collective engagement. Since the school staffs had had few experiences of working together in these schools, it is understandable iat they had not had many opportunities to experience differences, develop mutual regard, or engage in collective learning. Little to no work had been done with school staffs to acknowledge and value the differences in culture, experience, and expertise that they brought to the school environment. Due to the limited interactions between staff, opportunities for building trust and collegial growth were hindered. In several instances, pockets of staff members had worked together over a long period of time and had established some trusting relationships. In only a few instances, however, did staff use these relationships to engage in learning with and from each other regarding classroom practice. Contextual Influences A school does not operate separate or apart from surrounding entities. Four specific areas were found to have the most direct impact on the school staff and their improvement efforts: the school itself, the community, the district, and the state. School context. The most apparent issue at two of the five sites was the quality and maintenance of the facilities and grounds. Each day students 5 SEDLcame to a school that was not well cared for, and the result was a continuing lack of respect for the facilities, displayed by ripped wallcoverings, beat- up lockers, trash on the floors, writing on the desks, and general classroom and hallway disrepair. Such an environment had become so common to school staff that little was done to address the issue of facilities maintenance, either among themselves, with the custodial staff, or with the students. Upon entering the buildings, one encountered an environment that was dismal, unkempt, and drabnot an atmosphere that would encourage positive self-esteem, communicate value and respect, or nurture pride. and parents, which further alienated the two groups and kept them from developing positive relationships and understanding. Finally, the schools teachers and administrators had low expectations with regard to themselves as professionals and as self-learners. This was com- mtmicated in many ways, but the most obvious to the teachers at several of the sites was the reality that resources, materials, and training were not available. Although each of these schools struggled with low funding for such items, teachers perceived the lack of supplies and opportunity as indications of disrespect for their work. Deeply intertwined with the context at the school sites was. the quality of relationships between the students and the staff. At several of the schools these relationships were noticeably strained, and poor commimication, behavior, and morale were the result. In classes and while engaging in one-on-one conversation with students, teachers were frequently disciplining students rather than refocusing them on their work or encouraging then- creativity in class. Students were overheard complaining about how the teachers treated them, and they rebelled by acting out in class or skipping classes altogether. There was significant emphasis on maintaining control through discipline. It was questionable, however, whether such tactics had the intended positive effects on student/staff relationships and student learning. Directly related was a comment made by staff and students alike\nWe dont talk to each other. Since most students see their teachers more than they see their own parents, such unsupportive relationships can be detrimental to student learning, self-esteem, and personal growth. In three of the five schools, there were significant attitudes and/or beliefs among the school staff affecting perceptions of students, parents, and community. Issues of culture, race, and education surfaced in many overt ways. Staff did not appear to acknowledge or understand the cultural beliefs or environmental situations of their students, and community members. This affected the students and their families perceptions of the worthiness and value of the school and staff. Sometimes school staff communicated their own economic or educational superiority to students There were also low expectations held for the students as learners and for the district/community/state as viable support systems. Community context. Every school ftmctions within a community, which can maintain a limited undersunding of the school, how it works, and what its impact is on students. The community comprises the parents of schoolchildren and also the area businesses that support and prosper from the education of the communitys students. To varying degrees, each of the sites struggled with relationships within the community. It was not uncommon to hear that the community held the school in less-than-supportive regard. Often articles appeared in the local media that reflected negatively on the school, the staff, or the students. Active community members and board members at several sites voiced their concerns about their schools effectiveness publicly, which served to further deepen the divide between the school and the community. However, the school staffs engaged in little outreach to encourage more parental or community understanding. The general attitude of the school staffs seemed to be, Theres nothing we can do about it anyway. f f Staff at each site discussed the importance of involving parents and community members, informing them of the work that is done at the school, and enlisting their assistance, but at most of the sites, staff experienced difficulty with this component and were unable to overcome their discomfort in working with parents and community members'. i I SEDL 6District context. Insofar as schools work within a larger system of education, they must be responsive to the requests, mandates, and desires of that surrounding system. District offices, charged with communicating state requirements, often make demands on schools regarding policies, curriculum, discipline, and professional development. With regard to policies, administrative demands, record keeping, facility maintenance, access to data, and availability of resources and materials, the numerous interactions between the schools and their district offices were less than smooth. Until the partnership with SEDL, most of these school sites took ho action to improve the lines of cornmunica- tion between themselves and the district offices. State context. The states demands on these school sites either have changed significantly within the last few years (with the adoption of a new accountability system, for example), or are frequently changing. Therefore, clear communication of pohcies, adoptions, and mandates is very important. While district offices are often the voice of such communication, the inconsistency of messages and constant changes from the state departments continued to cause schools to struggle. Leadership The most critical of the themes emerging from the first year of work was the leadership capacity of the principals. Such administrative development includes the principals ability to communicate a clear vision, inspire others to maintain high expectations, create strong organizational systems for themselves and the school, understand what is possible regard- mg improvement, and develop a culture of murntil respect and regard. In other words, leadership capacity has significant impact and influence on the other four core issues. Clear vision. Strong leadership is a necessary component for successful school reform. In order to provide such leadership, administrators need to be clear in identifying the vision they have for their school, their staff, their students, and themselves. The administrators at these sites simply held a common vision to improve achievement scores. Although this goal is certainly desirable for each of these schools, it was unclear how the administrators envisioned achieving it, and why that goal would be importantboth'necessary components of a strong vision. Without identifying a shared focus for improvement, administrators could not guide their staff in developing and articulating a collective vision for their students or their school. This lack of clarity made it difficult for the administrators to model the image through his or her actions with staff, students, parents, and community. Without strong vision as a path toward improvement, the a schools often lost their way. 11 Expectations. Closely related to the vision are the expectations that a school leader communicates to his/her staff and students. At these school sites, high expectations were rare. There is some relationship between the Personal and Social Dynamics and Contextual Influences in this subcategory, as expectations are often based on historical norms and professional relationships. In the case of one high school, the historical norms took precedence over the principals desire to set higher expectations. Being a new principal, he deferred to the existing norms rather than estabhsh- ing his own strong expectations directly related to a clear vision for improvement. Several of the administrators at the sites spoke of high expectations for staff and students, but they rarely modeled or followed through on such expectations. Decisionmaking. As discussed in the Organizational Structures section, there were few clear procedures for decisionmaking at the school sites. The absence of decisionmaking structures prevented teachers from being involved in long-range planning and resulted in unilateral decisions made by the administrator(s). If issues were brought to the staff, they were often voted on without accurate or thorough information. Organization. School administrators at several of the sites had difficulty organizing the daily tasks and paperwork with a user-friendly system. It did not appear that office personnel were utilized effectively for organizational assistance, and it was difficult to locate something when it was needed for a teacher, a parent, or district office staff. This lack of organization was apparent in plaiming efforts, in meetings, and in daily work. 7 SEDLSystems for communication among staff and between school and home were also inadequate. Both of these forms of communication were mentioned in the Organizational Structures section. Knowledge. One of the most important roles of a school leader is to function as a model for learning. It is imperative that administrators have a deep understanding of student learning and of teaching for learning, best practices, and current educational research. Such a foundation allows them to recognize and model strong teaching strategies for teaching staff. It is also important that administrators be familiar with state and district curriculum expectations and be able to communicate them to teachers and parents. We found administrators to be willing to pursue their own learning in these areas, but too overwhelmed by the daily routine to devote any time to increasing their own understanding. Administrators who were involved in their own advanced studies were more likely to be current with best practice and aware of developing research. This strongly supports the idea that administrators need to pursue opportunities for their own professional growth, in order to increase the effectiveness of their leadership. Administrators who valued continuous learning were more likely to make the cormection between teacher efficacy and continuous improvement in their schools. They were also more likely to admit they didnt always have the right answers and to encourage teacher leadership among their staff. It is crucial that administrators be able to model the will to develop the skill. Culture. The role of the administrator includes nurturing a positive, learning culture of mutual respect and regard among staff setting high expectations, but it also requires commitment to the vision of such a culture. At the schools studied, administrators did not address the culture among the staff and students. In some cases, they appeared oblivious to the needs of the staff or students, or unable to figure out how to respond to those needs. Some of the teachers felt that the principal didnt really know what'was going on in classrooms, but should, and in some cases, students echoed that sentiment. These teachers wanted to see the principal around the school on a daily basis. Administrators also needed to develop skills that would allow them to use resolution or mediation strategies appropriately in times of conflict, whether it was between students, parents, or staff. Too often, conflict was left to resolve itself and became detrimental to the school and/or the staff. Some of the unproductive norms at these sites had arisen from unresolved conflicts that were buried and in turn, had festered into a bigger issue. Finally, the culture of a school includes the parents, and few administrators were comfortable or skilled in communicating clearly with parents and/ or community members. In some instances, parents had been caUing directly to the district office regarding issues or concerns, since they did not feel they received adequate responses from the school administrator. In Summary Although much of the work being done in schools today is called comprehensive, in fact many efforts continue to focus on a quick fix to improve student achievement results rather than addressing the system as a whole and building up the parts in need. Such reforms may suffice in the short term, but they can rarely be sustained over time, or through administrative turnover, staff changes, or legal mandates. i SEDLs FIRST project attempted to address the needs of low-performing schools at a system level and to increase the capacity of staff to address continuous improvement for the purposes of increasing student learning. In order to do that, however, it was necessary to evaluate how these schools were functioning regarding their student results, the staffs professional development, and their capacity for growth. i i This project has found that schools that fail to meet the achievement needs of their students often also lack the necessary structures and skills for initiating and sustaining continual, growth and improvementsupportive organizational structures, focus for the work, attention to human dynamics, ability to wor^ within multiple contexts, and highly skilled leadership. In order to support meaningful t I 1 SEDL 8growth and change over time, significant attention must be devoted to strengthening the schools capacity in each of these areas. Successful comprehensive reform work will necessarily include such a focus. Although results of the identification and discussion of core issues in these schools seem discouraging, we have found them to be an accurate representation of the challenges currently confronting schools that undertake comprehensive school reform efforts. The next Issues.. .about Change paper will report the actions taken by SEDL and school staff at these sites to address the five core issues that emerged in this work. References National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author. SEDL is addressing the challenges that accompany efforts at school reform. The difference between the FIRST project and previous reform efforts lies in this acknowledgment and identification of the issues that affect the schools past and current efforts to make changes. Without addressing the underlying issues, reform efforts will merely scratch the surface and are unlikely to be sustainable over time to benefit student learning. Identification of the core issues provides insights about schools current conditions while engaged in comprehensive reform efforts and proves invaluable in determining capacity strengths and needs at each of the school sites. Comprehensive school reform as it is defined here- ingaging an entire school staff in an indepth, broad-scope examination of the teaching and learning process and working with them to improve student outcomesplants seeds of change that will continue to grow beyond the limits of this project. We hope that other external school improvement facilitators will be informed by the findings of this work and will use this information to promote school staffs grovrth and learning more effectively, and thus have stronger impact on building schools capacity for continuous improvement. We have much yet to learn. True comprehensive reform requires a thoughtful, reflectively adapting pace. As observers and participants in this process, we are learning that continuous reform can be encouraged by practicing tolerance for the investment of time that is necessary, and by nurturing continuous development within the core issues that surface in the process. Issues... about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melanie S. Morrissey, Program Specialist, Strategies for Increasing School Success at SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the Office ofEducational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publicationmay be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. 9 SEDLRECEIVED DEC 1 1 2002 A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge OFRCEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 3, 2002 DNiaOilNOW N011VD3a03S3a 30331330 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2002 I I 330 a3AI333a Dear Ms. Marshall: So that you are aware, we are presenting to the Board of Education for approval at the December 19, 2002, meeting the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for limited-English proficient students. Since it is not relevant to African American student achievement, we have not included a copy for you. If you would like to have one. however, just give me a call. We are also requesting the Boards formal approval of the first three years (1998- 99. 1999-2000, 2000-01) of the program evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, along with the feedback we received on each from the National Science Foundation, and then, for each, the next years Strategic Plan for the project. We are including in that package the program evaluation for 2001-2002 and will be asking the Board to review and formally approve that document as well. Copies of all the CPMSA documents are included in this mailing for your information, although all the documents for the first three years have already been provided to you as part of the exhibits for the court. If you have questions, please let us know. As a review of the progress we have made thus far, the Board will have approved, by the end of December 2002, six of the 14 program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report: 1. Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2 Literacy. 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001. plus the Update provided to the Board in June 2002formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 Mr. Ann Marshall December 3, 2002 Page Two 2. Charter School (first year)formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n3. Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwestern Education Development Lab (Austin)formally approved at November 2002 meeting\n4. Collaborative Action Team (also a partnership with SEDL)formally approved at November 2002 meeting: 5. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Evaluations of the Alternative Language Programformally approved at November 2002 meeting: the 2001- 2002 evaluation will be approved in December\n6. 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievementwill be formally approved at December 2002 meeting. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Enclosures BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller Clay Pendley Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Don Stewart John Walker The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 October 28,2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 RECEIVED y. / 2p eV? DEC - 4 2002 desegregation MONITORING Dear Mr. Paradis, Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policys response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or if I can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross Director / A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action University Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFP NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A, RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON RECEIVED DEC - 4 2002 fje/, 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A A.D. MCALLISTER FAX 870-762-2918 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 4, 2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyQfec.n*! ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hansen Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Ofc of the Attorney General 323 Center Street RE: 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School Districts March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committees proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendky\\LRSD\\deseg\\counseI2 It.wpd/ All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page 2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will deviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the courts March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRSD\\dcscg\\counsel2 k.wpd1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to cunent practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This^evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions'. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31,2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. / 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187  OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry. P A DONNA J. McHENRY' S210 Heoterson Ro.ad Little Rock. .Aekans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Pjs (501) 372-3428 Email: mche1u7d@swbell.net Via Facsimile January 6, 2003 Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JAN -8 2003  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Dr. Lesley: On December 10, 2002 you mailed me a package which I have just received. I enclosing a copy of the address page for your information. am Please note that you have had my correct address for years. I am sending a copy of this letter to Judge Tom Ray because I am not certain whether there are any time response requirements involved, but I do not wish to be disadvantaged by receiving your document almost a month after its mailing. Very truly yours. -''^John W. Walker JWW:js Enclosure cc\nMr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallBonnie Lesley gl 0 W. Markham IRC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \u0026gt;t4 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 501-324-2032 (M C. 19 sw SBfflS K.h't- Hl  i\u0026lt;!\n'Ox .J/ X An Individual Approach (o a ]]7orUofKnonledff I : Mr. John Walker 3601 S. Broadway UUle Ror\nk, AR 72206received FEB 1 1 2003 An Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIHG February 10, 2003 Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 received FEB 1  2003 DESEGREGOAFTFIIOCN** OMFO NITOWNG Dear Mr. Walker: I am attaching four items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for approval at their February 27, 2003, meeting. The four items are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of the Elementary Summer School program evaluation Approval of the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation Approval of the Extended Year Education program evaluation Approval of the Middle School Transition program evaluation The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. Yours truly, A Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc\nKen James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell /Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax\n501-324-2032 u I f 7 -fi  'Xw Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge January 9, 2003 RECEIVED Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 JAN 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker: I received your letter admonishing me for sending my December 10, 2002, mailing to you to an incorrect address. I apologize profoundly, and I want to explain. The address of the packet to 3601 S. Broadway, rather than to 1723 Broadway, was a clerical error. In every other time that I have drafted a letter to you, I have included the address in my file in my draft and then sent it to my administrative assistant to complete and mail. In that particular letter, I just asked her to address it to you and to Ms. Marshall at ODM, and I failed to list the addresses. The address she had in her file was the old one. Neither of us knew that the mistake had occurred until we returned to work on January 6 after the winter break. When the person who delivers mail told me that it had been returned that Monday, 1 was very concerned and immediately requested that he hand-deliver the packet to you that day, which he did. That the package arrived in your office almost a month after its initial mailing, please note, was the result of our being out of the office for the winter break. The letter and accompanying document were related to the Boards approval at their December meeting of the program evaluations for the 2000-2001 ESL program and for the 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 mathematics/science programs (CPMSA). You were advised earlier that these two programs would be considered at that meeting, and, of course, you received the Board agenda materials. Again, 1 apologize for the error, and 1 hope that you see that I sent the information and materials in good faith. Yours truly, L\u0026gt;- Bonnie A. Lesley'Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller I'Ann Marshall Don Stewart Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 6 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 c fax: 501-324-20326^ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone: Communications Office: (501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 DATE: February 13, 2003 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting Thursday, February 13, in conjunction with its agenda meeting. Tire special meeting agenda will include tire review of program evaluations and employee hearings. Tlie meetings will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markliam. Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax * An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge *A Ze % tl 1 An Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge February 10, 2003 RECclVED Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 FEB 1 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker\nI am attaching five items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for review/ approval at a special session on February 13, 2003, the evening of their agenda meeting. (We are asking them to approve four of the eight remaining program evaluations at their agenda meeting and the last four at the regular February meeting.) The five items are as follows: 1. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District: Fiscal Impact 2. Approval of the HIPPY program evaluation 3. Approval of the Campus Leadership program evaluation 4. Approval of the Vital Link program evaluation 5. Approval of the Onward to Excellence program evaluation Please note that all four of the programs evaluated were previously abandoned by the District either due to d ata analysis that suggested program ineffectiveness or due to fiscal constraints. The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. truly, Yoprs truly. Bonnie A. Lesle/ Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc: Ken James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell i/Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL received MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000\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":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":7164,"total_count":81191,"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":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"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":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"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":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"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":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"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":1909},{"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":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"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":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"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":2740},{"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":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"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":197},{"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":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"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":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}