{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_775","title":"Westside Junior High School site","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":["1991/1992"],"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","Westside Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School buildings","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Westside Junior High School site"],"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/775"],"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\nSite Evaluation and Study V/ 'Stside Junior High School L.\\ 'e Rock School District \u0026gt; August 1, 1991 CHILCOTE CARTER GASKIN BOGART \u0026amp; NORCROSS Architects I Engineers STUDY/EVALUATION OF EXISTING WESTSIDE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE This study is prepared to assist the Little Rock School District in determining the feasibility of retrofiting the existing school versus demolition and new construction on the site for an elementary school to accommodate approximately 650 students from 4 year olds. Kindergarten and grades 1-6. The results of this study/evaluation are presented in a format in accordance with our proposal outlined in our letter of July 17, 1991, based on information contained in a request for proposal from the Little Rock School District dated July 9, 1991. A. Structural Evaluation and Basic Modifications Required Existing school consists of two separate buildings of three levels each. Structural systems vary within each buildin, g from floor to floor. In most instances columns are reinforced concrete with floor construction consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs and in some areas, concrete joists with tile fiUer between. In some instances there are concrete beams with one-way slabs while in others, metal pan, concrete joists span between concrete beams. The roof system consists primarily of wood frame structure with 2 x 8s at 16\" on center supporting 1x6 wood decking. Lesser portions of the roof system consist of: - Heavy steel trusses supporting wood framing above the gymnasium with wood frame clerestory windows providing illumination. - Light steel bar joists using chicken wire support for concrete fill. Interior walls appear to be 12\" masonry with one inch plaster each side. All interior walls appear to be load bearing. While interior walls could be added to sub-divide the existing rooms, no interior walls can be removed other than on the top floor since they are load bearing. The possibility exists for the removal of certain interior walls at the third level, provided the appropriate roof framing is utilized spanning between the outside and major corridor walls. This does severely limit the flexibility in changing interior configurations to more appropriately accommodate elementary classrooms.  The resistance to wind loading would take precedence over seismic factors in Little Rocks seismic Zone 1. The buildings appear very stable, with minimal evidence of settlement or cracking.  Major structural considerations, other tha.n the new roof smcmre, would be the requirement to add an elevator for both the east 3 west handicapped accessibility and the additicn of two fire s requirements. uilcm: drs to 25 . m: ide fcr .s:c :x: 1B. Evaluation of Feasibility of Meeting Current Fire and Life Safety Codes, and for Provision of Handicapped Accessibility to the Building The building is considered to be Type II construction. If sprinkled, this structure could contain unlimited square footage per level or unlimited heights. If the building were sprinkled, two fire stairs would be required to provide for the required exiting from both buildings. Without sprinkling, three stairs would be required\nhowever the main monumental stairway on the east side of the east building could be enclosed to provide for the third exit way. One elevator would be required for each building since changes of level by stairway are now required to move horizontally between the two buildings. Handicapped accessibility would be limited to grade level entrances and elevators utilized to provide access to the various levels between the buildings. C. Evaluation of the Buildings Ability to Accommodate an Elementary School and of the Sites Ability to Accommodate Nevp Construction in Related Areas for an Elementary School. Existing buildings contains 84,870 gross square feet of enclosed space, exclusive of court yards.  First level of entire east building is approximately 1/2 level below grade. It would be necessary to \"tunnel\" north and south out of the building to provide grade-level access for 4 year old, Kindergarten, and 1st grade students. The lower level of this building could be modified to accommodate the areas necessary for these age children, including those areas where access would be required. The area of this level appears adequate to accommodate the Media Center (Library), Cafeteria, and Music Areas. Four year olds. Kindergarten, and 1st graders would not be allowed accessibility to the Auditorium, Multi-purpose, P.E., Pal, Gifted and Talented or Art Areas in accordance with State Department of Education requirements that these age youngsters not be allowed above grade level elevations. Request for deviations from this requirement have historically been rejected by the Little Rock Building Code officials and the Board of Appeals.  Modifying thi lower level of the building to accommodate 4 year old Kinderganen and 1st grader facilities would reduc square feet per room resulting in many small, odd-si som: e rooms be onr\nh 909 2The site does not conform to the minimum requirement of acreage for an elementary school however this requirement has been waived consistently by the State Department of Education in the Little Rock area. The school existed in the area before many of the commercial and residential siuToundings, therefore current set-back requirements are undetermined at this time. The existing building and site relationships limit the amount of outside play area however a total of the interior courts and the existing grounds appear to provide the minimum playground space requirements. While parking might be arranged for after-school events on adjacent property through cooperative efforts, general parking available for staff appears to be inadequate with existing building configuration. Four alternate configurations are presented for new structures in the 70,000- 75,000 foot range in accordance with information previously provided by the Little Rock School District. One drawing is provided showing possible modifications of the existing building to provide for the program requirements. The reduced prints provided for our review of the two buildings are of different scales and we are providing new drawings of the three levels of both buildings at the same scale for clarification of study comments. Many of the substantial modifications required to accommodate an Elementary School would not be required if the building was upgraded to current standards for Junior High level students. Several items of significance might be utilized elsewhere if the building is to be demolished, i.e.: the auditorium seating is in remarkably good shape and appear to be useful without refinishing, entablature and frieze trim at main entrance, stone urns at monumental stair - all have intrinsic values as memorabilia. Since the major corridors are twelve foot wide and requirements are for eight foot corridors, a 2 deep storage area could be constructed on each side of the corridor. This would also provide \"pockets\" for out-swinging classroom doors and \"excess\" circulation space could provide supplementary classroom and general storage area or house lockers. 3D. General Cost Analysis between Renovation of Existing Building and Construction of New Two Story Facility 1. Renovation No portions of the electrical, heating, ventilating or plumbing systems are salvageable. Electrical distribution would be through the generous space above the ceilings on each floor and surface mounted on the walls, after the removal of the existing ceiling systems and prior to stripping and furring the existing masonry walls. The utilization of metal supported accessible ceilings would allow for new lighting throughout the building. HVAC could be introduced by the utilization of duct work in the generous above-ceihn^ spaces, however it would appear to more appropriate to utilize hot and chill water distribution from central boiler and chillers to individual room units to provide the required comfort. All plumbing risers, major drain lines and all new fixtures would be required as well as additional toilet rooms to provide for minimum requirements. New food service equipment and support systems would be required.  We estimate the installation of new MEP systems in the existing structure to cost $1,250,000. We estimate the total cost of renovation and reconstruction required within the existing facility to cost between $2,250,000 and $2,500,000. 2. New Two-Story Facility A new two-story Elementary School constructed on this site will require grade level access, an elevator to accommodate the handicapped, controlled outside play areas, and can be expected to cost approximately $47.50 a square foot for a total cost between $3,300,000 and $3,500,000. A flat site, sufficiently large to accommodate the square footage requirements and related facilities for an Elementary School on one level could allow ccnstrucdon costs to bs reduced to appr square foot. iy $40 per ix: 4Current data indicates that life-cycle maintenance and operational costs escalate in instances where there is dilution of building system qualities and energy and quality construction considerations are compromised. We estimate that demolition of the existing structure would cost $110,000. Additional site preparation is not being considered since the exact configuration of a new facility is as yet undetermined. The existing site has a fall of approximately 11 foot along Marshall Street, from north to south\napproximately 3-4 foot fall from north to south along Wolfe Street and is approximately level east to west along 13th Street. Therefore grade-level access and egress could be easily provided if the site were reconfigured closer to the existing, surrounding grades without the loss of tress around the perimeter of the site. E. Summary of the Four Major Factors in the Study and Recommendations  1. Structural Integrity  The roof structure must be entirely replaced and some minor patching of concrete slabs will be required where reinforcing steel is exposed. Other than this the building appears to be sound and stable with little or no evidence of settlement or deterioration. New window and doors together with the new roof structure and roof would restore the building envelope. 2. Code Compliance and Handicapped Accessibility Sprinkling of all three levels of both buildings is required.  The addition of two elevators is required. The construction of two fire towers is required. The above plus the installation of completely new mechanical and electrical systems and fire and smoke alarm/detection systems would bring the building into compliance with current codes with the exception of parking provisions. 53. Ability to comply with State Department of Education Standards and to be Modified for Practical Classroom Utilization. As can be seen from the sketches indicating possible reconfiguration of the existing building (particularly the lower level for 4 year olds, Kindergarten and 1st graders) even with extensive modifications and the introduction of \"tunnels\" out to grade, the building still provides questionable classroom configuration for students 6 years old and under and can not provide for participation of these ages occurring above the first floor (assemblies, special education areas, etc.) and seriously compromises the function of the school for 4 to 6 year old students. 4. Economic Considerations The building can be renovated for approximately $1,000,000 less than demolition and subsequent new construction on the same site and this can be accomplished in less time. The necessity to review all decisions with all the appropriate agencies, resolve the obvious concerns regarding 6 years and under age children confined to the first level and the compromises required to meet bare minimum room size standards would require substantial planning time. Development of food service and the many other support areas that would be required to be located on the first floor with the resulting traffic flow impacts would also necessitate much evaluation and study time, cutting into the time gained by starting with a substantial building shell. Architect/Engineer fees would fall in the 10% range for renovation work. 5. Recommendations We suggest that even if the building were renovated successfully, the heritage of this school maintained, money and time saved, the resulting facility would be a substantial compromise to education standards and functions, and the best interest of the School District and its patrons would not be served. We believe that if this is a desirable location for an Elementary School, the long-range benefits of appropriate new construction outweigh the economic advantages of renovation of this existing facility. 6I ff o a a a 7^ I F T1 3-0 \"1 f/ J v I 3 L 7 I44u si-. d 'i I I nz I -i* lT e JL 4 Tf I 0 0 o 9 0 a 'r 0 Q r. ti  I x) I y l'=b-Hi feXI^TtNC^ Puootx, peA^ L.^\u0026lt;4. Or\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-. oSr-  WG^TSiog-Jri-.H-IMH- school t- ilr^h\\ op-Tl-^ ToTn^ sF - S4-\n\\oo.6o S iril UjG\u0026lt;\n'TSlOS- Jrt-. hh\u0026lt;oAr \u0026lt;ic44-.ou-' NorX-TUr , J i' fi L,. I If L  J L r* J ! li J 'Zl' u li A ir L J\" 5 I ] (pTH \u0026lt;2\u0026gt; Fn-ooA- P c-A^ LcaJ*X^ 'tKr-tx- 'Z.Z,^ oo P t \\aJ\u0026amp;\u0026lt;t'TSiD\u0026amp;'J/T-. kKot+- Sc-*+oo|_ . r ^\u0026lt;^o' -t-\n7 7I ofvrH- / U. low I %oo Sin? j u. 5%o I I I I CoIcA|U~T , IXtO  loSu Ito ' 4Xr.. I  (a\\l. J v l^T loSo %oo i too g\u0026gt;^4 i 'll?, HAVrtt Ko -p-iwin CoOC^ NVjitC, Lao\u0026lt;U\u0026lt; .fi 4lo KT U'i r Ek^+. J C/\u0026gt;ry\u0026lt;roM \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; $ I 5 s I '. I I T I I s 56 AOM^^ s I '\\'fc Mi\u0026lt;3iA tMPV . J c r I b'H^ H\u0026amp;Va/ Fvooi\u0026lt;. PlAtsJ_______ L\u0026lt;.vt3L On-c^ ulesTs^'oe i^'+ scrFoo  - f So'  I I Ho^T(4-.\\ INC 114-1- o. i^a b Cr b OSS tslevJ r- I ihS-A% o : I I SToo. it \\'bo ! ! I l I C-ou*JX M-T [BS AjtfiToiuuM c.roo TA fag. C JUt [14V r A\u0026lt;*--T %4r 1.4^ b \u0026amp; e\u0026gt; lis?' oo- Pl\u0026gt;a^ vjesTSloe r= so't jaauM \u0026lt;\nchool^ fsj O /^'T~ / II tl!i- 1140. tiH 1.45 e\u0026gt; 'll \u0026amp; fc 4 TH 1159 I I '=ltx\u0026gt; 1 1 6Za-cjo4'f ~ 15 3'^ 1 Q N 11 loTrt Soo t-w T5O 5^0 pl [ I w/ Of A u= )\u0026gt; \u0026lt;.Ty- bKJ c\u0026lt;x\u0026gt;cT XAiuo UTrt ^50 ope4 TO A0OlT\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;i^M 5TH v4V 5T4 B4S- fe ?TH I I I ^l ^TAi-e Nv^ Fcoo'^ FLAtvI J'A-. *^+0^1' l*-=5o'i '7/S'^A I H o/2 tf4144U 7 5^.Ga. J,. .GJ. k r 7 O) T !7S^3ar ..^^,-74?. TL|Tf. B I'l 4\u0026gt;3\u0026lt;. JAh i' jii K I I o \u0026gt; o ,2 ^Ac^to^C c\u0026gt;A \"Vcaz* JTTW VJGtT?106 l= 9O' Mv$ - or-= f HtJLK 1^0*1 1(^ 5V. Cou, Cor\\$^lv^ \u0026lt;* ^\u0026gt; {*^ L*. Io $ 2%O* 54\" 5 ITS 'i-/T-l/'\\ 1 IH +1 o O I j+ r I \u0026amp; i\u0026amp; I X Hi 6\\T -siifAU.^ f^7 H 4- mw uiun 1 I  1 J o 3I \u0026lt; ?c-K-oot. ieess*. \u0026gt; U2-SP 1. r I X (? '1. I pToit, ( \u0026amp; c\u0026gt; l%o -'\u0026lt;t c I ? I B Ic. I 4 $ 5 t 4 n I 7 f t fjo A-T rt ^Cof^N AVc^.i/tA I 1 ^A4-t^'4or- 1 C^-Vk . /\"cL Hti+st. tv 1st IS.\" \u0026amp; fo ^.6  . .^ .s,- 2?' 4 l5T UT \\ST. wisjss sfo\u0026gt; I I fUa-Ih-i Coov-4y\u0026lt;Kvtk. T I 1 r I 1 4-\np- f'j.'. k- :---------- Connp.LuU , 'L^ \u0026lt;3 I P. -^s- '.,'X K I ! I :U I Cr r y ^'\\- pAt. o U N D Q \u0026lt;6 CJ! V , I I 1 I I J o 3 Lnrrn I^TH- 5T ujiin ^J\u0026amp;W Sorioou - UP-SP 4.  ^f'fcooS T' WCSTlioe JO-.H-iWH-siTt r^.^' 5?' t I I NoP-THI -4ii3A\" I \u0026amp; \u0026amp; 1 IrA I G-To. t,S-OCAJ ai^aacaeEMgyi^ r wwK^  *a I wrvisfJi!**' -rii' 's'lk 44U c \u0026gt;'A.'r'fA-io 74k t 1 ! 4K C *r'' 4-hA I fc-Hx ^-Tk +k C44\\ no ^. HEW ^g\u0026gt;H-ooU  LA-SO L*mU TwJa v4e5T\u0026lt;\u0026lt;oe J A.. $iT6^ r^r* I  I I K CxUM p i T ^.r. L. A Lb/ec two  U/\u0026amp;5-r*it:e IlE I L^-51^ Hl^H -blT^  L. ^44 2\u0026gt; S L -z. liUlllll I  I tt { 1 t lJe?E.-rH14-th \u0026gt;'n rase, ComP. Ae-r SP.ER sp.ee\u0026gt; SF.Ecj :!5SSS3Sa^\u0026lt;ieS!STJiKE^e3aiSf5395?: I I J 6104- 1 -TH-k k coJu, ------------------ rr^ 4rR. x ^^fTFroejo^q l-rfz. I \u0026lt;I 3!t fc fXc. -/ 5 o 2 I 4 inrm KJ hl\u0026amp;O 4^e\u0026gt;looL  L\\fe^.ok\u0026gt;./^lTE.'PLfcJ'\u0026gt; e=-e\u0026gt;oi ' To-Ya^ ^P, - / I 1 fc\u0026gt; I t 3 J I 5 !=\u0026gt; T + b Jk I 1 I slew scHbot kIo^'th 1*^ I \"ll?f\u0026gt;h\\ t I tJanuary 17, 1992 CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ---------------r INC. \"J--------------- \"Weve Got Heritage? Ms. O. G. Jacovelli President Little Rock School Board 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Jacovelli: The undersigned residents of the Central High neighborhood and patrons of the Little Rock School District hereby submit for consideration by the Little Rock School Board an alternative proposal for the development of an interdistrict school in the Central High neighorhood. We propose creation of a two-campus educational facility--the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park--as the centerpiece of a neighborhood redevelopment initiative. Our proposal also would enable Ish Elementary School to remain in operation as an incentive school, an approach supported by patrons of Ish. The School Board's response to this proposal should be directed to Ethel Ambrose, president of the Central High Neighborhood Association, who can be reached during the day at 370-5950. 7^/z. Qi. Ms. Jacovelli 1/17/92 Page 2 cc: Little Rock School Board Members Dr. Ruth Steele Ann Brown Sam Jones John Walker Steve Jones Richard RoachellDr. Proposal to create the Martin Luther King, Educational Park Jr. and Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative Submitted to the Little Rock School District by residents of the Central High Neighborhood January 17, 1992 BACKGROUND In its heyday during the'first half of this century, 'the area of Little Rock now known as the Central High neighborhood was served by three public schools: - Centennial School, an elementary school built in 1888\n- West Side Junior High School, built in 1917\nand - Little Rock Central High School, which opened in 1927. Only one of these schools--Central High--remains in operation in what now is a predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhood. Children who live in the neighborhood presently are assigned to a variety of schools. Residents of the Central High neighborhood believe the neighborhood would benefit enormously from the existence--once again--of additional educational facilities.Page 2 In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has proposed locating a new interdistrict school, the King Elementary School, in the Central High neighborhood, utilizing the one-square-block (2.2 acre) site of West Side Junior High School at 14th and Marshall Streets. While residents are enthusiastic about the prospect of the neighborhood again being served by an elementary school, the Central High Neighborhood Association (CHNA) opposes the LRSD's plan as proposed. Members of CHNA believe the West Side site is too small for a 696-student elementary school, particularly one that must attract some 250 white students from the Pulaski County Special School District in order to meet desegregation requirements. In addition, members of CHNA, along with historic preservationists and other concerned Little Rock citizens, oppose the demolition of the historic West Side Junior High building, an irreplaceable resource that is an asset to the Central High neighborhood and should be incorporated into revised plans for a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park,\" which canand should--serve as the centerpiece for a badly-needed neighborhood redevelopment initiative.Page 3 DE. MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. EDUCATIQNAI^ PARK Residents of the Central High neighborhood advocate creation of a new educational facility, named for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , which would include a rehabilitated West Side Junior High building and construction of a new school building on the former site of Centennial School at 15th and Wolfe Streets. The new building should serve as the downtown early childhood center, providing facilities for pre-schoolers (6 weeks-3 years), 4-year- olds, kindergarteners, and Ist-graders. The West Side Junior High building should be rehabilitated and converted to use for grades 2 through 6. Additional land, in blocks located adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites, should be acquired to make certain the new educational facility has adequate space for playground areas and parking. Centennial site/Earlv Childhood Center The Centennial School site, located one block south and one block west of West Side Junior High, is bounded by 15th, 16th, Wolfe, and Battery Streets. The site presently is owned and maintained by the City of Little Rock as a public park, but CHNA believes the loss of the park, now frequented primarily by drugPage 4 dealers, would be more than outweighed by the benefits the neighborhood would derive from construction of an early childhood center. CHNA further believes the City would return the Centennial School site to the LRSD for the proposed educational use. center Finally, CHNA believes construction of an early childhood could be funded with the $1 million savings the LRSD would realize by rehabilitating the West Side Junior High building rather than demolishing it and constructing a new school on that site. Constructing an early childhood center on the Centennial site would take the place of the LRSD's current proposal to convert Ish Elementary School, an incentive school, into an early childhood center. The closing of Ish as an incentive school, which would entail reassigning Ish students to Rightsell and Mitchell Elementary Schools, is opposed by Ish patrons and would become unnecessary if an early childhood center were built on the Centennial site. West Side Junior Hiah/Grades 2 thrQuqh._ The West Side Junior High building, a landmark since 1917 in the Central High neighborhood, is structurally sound and a viable candidate for rehabilitation--as acknowledged by the LRSD's own study of the building, prepared last summer by the BlassPage 5 architectural firm. The Blass study further indicates that rehabilitating West Side would cost approximately $1 million less than demolishing it and building a new school. (As noted above. this $1 million savings would build--or at least go a long way toward building--an early childhood center on the Centennial site.) The major obstacle to the rehabilitation of West Side as an elementary school resulted from safety requirements that prohibit children 6 years old and under from occupying anything but grade- level space. Limiting the West Side building to use by children between the ages of 7 and 12 (grades 2 through 6) would solve this problem. The rehabilitation of the historic West Side building. in conjunction with construction of an early childhood center, also would constitute a major turning point for a neighborhood where disinvestment, deterioration, and demolition have been the norm for nearly three decades. The LRSD could lead the way in a neighborhood redevelopment initiative that would dovetail with neighborhood programs presently being developed by the City of Little Rock and major lending institutions.Page 6 Acquisition of Additional Land for Plavgrounds and Parking The Central High Neighborhood Association obviously is sensitive to the problems inherent in acquiring land occupied by houses in order to provide sufficient space for school playgrounds and parking. Nevertheless, CHNA believes additional land could be acquired, with cost, in any of minimal displacement of residents and at modest : several blocks adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites where many houses are some lots already have been cleared. vacant and condemned and The likeliest candidates for whole or partial acquisition appear to be: - Block bounded by 13th, 14th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Wolfe, and Marshall Streets. The north end of the block directly south of the Centennial School site also contains several vacant and condemned houses on lots which might be acquired to expand the site for the early childhood center.Page 7 NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE In conjunction with creating the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park, the LRSD should become a leader in efforts already underway to stabilize and revitalize the Central High neighborhood. The City of Little Rock has designated the neighborhood a target area for revitalization efforts and is developing a \"model block\" program on Dennison Street just north of Central High School. A community development corporation (CDC) created by Worthen Bank is expected to operate in the neighborhood, and the \"Paint Your Heart Out\" program, spearheaded by First Commercial Bank, will improve the appearance of selected houses in the neighborhood. The Central High neighborhood also will be one of the areas investigated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) as a potential site for a neighborhoodbased CDC. Rather than working at cross purposes with neighborhood residents, the LRSD should become active in helping the neighborhood by: - soliciting input from residents on the design of new and rehabilitated educational facilities, including cooperating in efforts to create neighborhood meeting space and a branch library\n- helping to develop a master plan for the neighborhood's redevelopment (a major part of which should be information on thePage 8 LRSD's plans not only for the West Side and Centennial sites but also for Central High School)\n- assisting neighborhood residents in working with the City of Little Rock and financial institutions on creating programs aimed at rehabilitating existing housing stock and constructing new affordable housing on vacant lots in the neighborhood. SU14MARY There is rich potential for the development of a true schoolneighborhood partnership in the Central High area. Such a partnership could develop quality education for the children of this inner-city neighborhood and at the same time improve'the quality of life for children and adults through improved housing and reduction in crime. Such a partnership would be in the spirit of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for and would benefit the entire city.TO\ncz FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST K-ARKH-AM STREET b'c -  Ruth S. Stesle, Superintendent of Schools SELECTION OF WEST SIDE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL For many months the Little Rock School District has engaged in discussion and inquiry regarding the selection of a site for one of the interdistrict schools approved in the Desegregation Plan. Even as early as Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as special master in this case, the West Side site was toured and viewed as at least one possibility to be considered when new schools were constructed in the central part of the city along the 1-630 corridor. Later, on June 29, 1989, the Board adopted a resolution to deed West Side to the State Health Department. Costs associated with asbestos removal and other concerns prevented the Health Department from taking possession of the building. What follows is a chronology of the process since March 20, 1991, by which the parties have reached agreement that an interdistrict school should be located on the West Side site. DATE EVENT OUTCOME March 20, 1991 Hearing on School in local District Court The Court was informed that West Side was one of 4 possible sites for construction of a new interdistrict school.* (see fax p.l5) March 21, 1991 Receipt of Court order from Judge Wright Construction at Forest Heights Jr. High could not begin until \"...the Court receives notice from LRSD that a site for Stephens (King) has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite rationale. plans, site and dates for acquisition. and anticipated dates for the school's construction. completion and opening.\" (see Fax p.8, 9, 10, 11)A r.sw Ki lc Elementary School in downtown Little Rock (14th \u0026amp; Marshall). (See fax p.l2) May 30, 1991 Letter from Chris Heller to the parties and the desegregation monitor The parties and the monitor were notified of our intention to begin asbestos removal and demolition of West Side. The parties and the monitor were asked to notify Mr. Heller if they had any questions or July 19, 1991 Official notification to the Court from Mr. Heller regarding West Side August, 1991 Review of Preliminary study by architectural firm regarding construction of West Side. November 4, 1991 Letter from Dr. Randall L. O'Donnell from ACH regarding its interest in purchasing West Side. concerns actions. response. about There these was no The Court was informed that all parties had agreed to the construction of an interdistrict school II at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets near Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock. II The Court was told that construction would begin no later than June 1992 and be completed no later than August 1, 1993. (see fax p. 5, 6) After discussion of possible renovation, a determination was made that a new school would be necessary for the student population which the school would serve. Conversation between Dr. Steele and Dr. O'Donnell regarding the timing of the request to purchase West Side in light of other events having taken place since March.O V r. to zucrs to discuss plans for King. that the Tns raspcnse was land area small and we could was not initiate construction in the middle of the lot. However, we would attempt to save scroll as much of the work and other building trim as possible and incorporate that into the building design. November 7, 1991 Second letter from Dr. O'Donnell regarding the building of a new King school on the old West Side site. Dr. O'Donnell committed the support of Arkansas Children's Hospital to the District in the event that a building was constructed, (see letter November 7) November 8, 1991 Meeting with Ann Brown and Bob Morgan to discuss interdistrict school sites. The issue was raised by Ms. Brown that problems pertaining to the use of the King site, e.g., parking, would need to be addressed to the Court's satisfaction prior to the District approval to go receiving forward with the project. proposal A for consideration of Woodruff a s one o f the interdistrict schools was discussed. November 11, 1991 Meeting with Ms. Ambrose's committee and Doug Eaton Mr. Eaton was shown pictures of some of the trim items and agreed to buy and incorporate them into the construction of the building.pat\nCUTCCMP ^-3 _ November 19, 1991 by the Ce High Neig' :cc-i T -3 Association to request renovation of West Side and stoppage of demolition plans. Special Board meeting to discuss the concerns of the Central High Neighborhood Association.M C . X J I U  X -* I k X\\J1 X* X s, t 4*J \u0026gt;.\u0026lt;. SR.TCMCU M. rR.DAV. R.A, . 9. CLARK OBt* V. L'O*'^. *'* IVLIAM M. SUTTOn. R.A, A-ea **. HooPE vwOM M, cise-A-*, j-..  oc o. \u0026gt; C'.u.   rBIDAT, EIDHEDGE A CLAEK A rARTNERSHIB QF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIIT \u0026gt;. BMArci*. 1' N tC *411: 3500 FIRST COWMEROIA:. au'uONO WiLl'ah m. oriff THQmaS n. rose, IN III, OM   Cl. S. MOORC .M 1.  f iC.-\u0026lt; :l.272Ou 4 -io. Oi-27 S.-iiA' AMS c. c \u0026gt;.O-A OWN .A- AUX a. CCN-aH !. , A. AHRT W. tun Ka, \u0026gt;. A. . WTC KUI F F N la ftCT. J R.. R.  AM eft COWARb WARR. , BHikXiR mauCOM. R.A. AMES M. SIMOSON, R.A. lERCOiTrt A CAtLCTT. R.A. AMES M. SAXTOr4.  A. . SHERNCRB RU9*CLL lit )ONXI,O M. BAOON. A.A. riLLIAM TMOMAB AMTCR.  MLTKR a, RAUL0ON |l. R.A. lAARY K. COPLIN, P.A. liOHARO 0. TATLOR, P.A. lOSCRH 0, MUPSf. JR.. R.A. LIEAOCTW 4. ROSBCN, R.A. :KRiaTORHER MELLCR. R * 'o^ -i-O ! h. iHARLXa 9CMWn0. .ir. SeOTT H. rUCKCR JOHN OUAYTON ANfiOt.RH OUY ALTON WAOC RRlOe e. AARONCR TUOHAfl MECX J, WICHACL PIOKCNO TONIA R. JONCS OAVie 0. WIL9OM JCFFRCY H. MOOr eOJHBCX WILU'AM 4. SMITW WILLIAM A. ELOnCO^e. JRi WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P. WITR IR* . Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1506 Re\nWestside Junior High School Dear Dr. Steele\nI am writing to provide you a chronology of the process by which the parties agreed that an interdistrict school should be located at the Westside Junior High School site. ~ 'g  At a hearing on Kdicu 20, 1951, I told the district court that LRSD and the other parties were considering four potential interdistrict school sites: The Philander Smith Campus\nthe Stephens school site\nthe King The following day, the March 1991 school site\nand the Westside school site. . . _ district court ordered that construction at Forest Heights Junior High School could not begin \"until the Court receives notice from the LRSD that a site for Stephens has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite plans, rationale, and dates for sits acquisition and anticipated for school's dates the Copies of the relevant pages construction, completion and opening. of the transcript of the March 20, 1991 hearing and the Match 21, 1991 order are attached. In LRSD filed a proposed desegregation plan on May 1, 1991. that plan, the first interdistrict school to be built in LRSD is called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\". The plan says that LRSD \"proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little  -.A copy of the relevant page of II Rock (14th and Marshall Streets). the May 1, 1991 proposed desegregation plan is attached. H On May 30, 1991 I wrote to the other parties in this case, with a copy to the Monitor, to notify them of LRSD's intention \"tou n. ot.uuux ^1 M M begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior - st'.-ar the rartiss 2*.d the Monitor to notify me ir C 9 Ci iO urr tha senco- A .1' old Westside Z 0 C Z. 5 school ta Icca cr. July IS,\nf ar. inter-dis at 14th \u0026amp; Kar ii We Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock also notified the court that construction would begin no later than June, 1992 and be comoleted no later than August 1, 1993. A copy completed fl of the \"Notice of Site Selection and Construction schedule\" is attached. As you know, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that \"no retreat should be approved\" from the requirement that the parties operate \"the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed time table\". Slip Op. November 14, 1991, p. 5. 7 9  I recall touring Westside during Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as  . . \u0026gt; * L - 5^ _ 1  m-U yii 1 AS 1 nrre  special master in this case, but I have not located any pleadings, . z,-------ju.j _iwhich specifically concern other than those described above, -------- The present status is that all Westside Junior High School. xs parties have agreed to the location of an interdistrict school at the Westside Junior School site and the district court has been formally notified of that agreement. Yours very trulv Christo: er slier CJH/k Enc.1 i ' i y y i M y : i 0 0/0^X4 / 'O OM i r 1 RJi L n dUUUMX VX5\u0026gt; TRSCHEV H. FRIOAr, F. s. CVaRR IBCRT V. L'OHT. B.A. LLtAM H. button. F.A FKIDAY, ErDEEnOS * CXXEK PARTNERSHIP OP INOtvlOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC!ATIONS .M C\u0026gt; W. ICC. B  eo  \u0026lt; attorneys at law 2000 R:R3T COWmCRCIAL BVILDm\u0026lt;3  TC wes- CA*i*Ov 0AN\u0026lt; e. ,C^ 8. M9\u0026lt;8AC C-' I C.    A\nZ U? 722Ot-J * 5^1 H A, dC!- kRVW. auRK.  A. NI8SCT, JR., .A. KMC8 CDWARO hARRK. RHlUkl* MAUCOM, R.A. hMO M.aiMR8OH, R.A. CRCO\u0026lt;TM n. dATUlTT. R.A. LMCa H. SAXTOH, r.a.  hcrmcro RusatuL III ONAUO H, BACONt R.A. IbUIAM tMOMAa BAXTCA. .A. AbTC\" A. RAUVaON H, R-A. aRRV K. CORVIN. R.A. IQHARO O. TatVOR. R.A. OaCRH 8. MVRST. JR.. VJZABCTM J. rObbCN. MRI3VORHCR MKVLtR, R.A. May 30, Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock', AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 7S 2\n-** * T  7 .  t. tA pO -SL-** J. LS a4CNN H. CHARVCB O3e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;WBN9. JR. marrt a. viort aeOTT H. TWCKCR JOHN CVAVTON ranOOvRm OUT AVTOH WAOC RRtCS C. 9ARON CO THOMAS R. HCCKS J. MICHACV RiQKCNS TONIA JONCB OaVIS D. WIVSQN JCRRRBT H. M9ORC WtVViAM SMITH WtVVIAM A. \u0026lt;VBRE0OG. JR., B. WILLIAM Li terry WILLIAM L Ratton, jr., r.a. 0*1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Interdistrict School 370-1506 r nxi^Ai M U 4  d S a ' Dear Counsel\nIn accordance with our agreement that the Westside Junior High School site will be the location of a new interdistrict elementary school, the Little Rock School District intends to begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior High School, LRSD will also hire an architect to begin planning the new school so that we can be sure the school will open on the date set forth Please let me know if you have in our proposed desegregation plan. any questions or concerns about these actions. Yours very truly/' Christopher, Heller CJH/k cc: Ann Brown Chip JonesXX Xy yX uy\nxo O'OMl J/0.\nX4/ rniUAi LA MK.'l -*-* L K :\u0026gt;cnooi uist w~ 1^005 V, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA3TE31I CTSTRIC OF ARKANSAS iSION LR-C-82-8S6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Uli ,1.9 1991 I ,1 1 -.K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF SITE SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE For its notice, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties have agreed that the first interdistrict school constructed in LRSD should be called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\" because the present Stephens school site is under consideration for the location of the second interdistrict school. which would logically be named \"Stephens\". 2. LRSD hereby notifies the court that a definite site for the location of the King Interdistrict school has been selected and approved by all parties. That site is the old Westside school site located at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock. The site is presently owned by the Little Rock School District. The construction of King I p ii B J J  u M X n \u0026lt; X' n\\Ji .M O interdistrict School will begin no later than June 1992 and be 1 p cc than Au: c. fc. 1532 . c\u0026lt; Iha Kino Interdistrict LITTL2 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Selection I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Site and construction Schedule has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 So^oetlan 2 li ly yi oy: IB '0501 37B:\n147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Dlst 1^007 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. IC 14 West Third a arr C of Ksn i tor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 9 Christopher Heller bUAloo 3 ii-iy-yi Uy: IB O'BDi 3702147 tKlUAi LA\" HK.'l L K SCHOOL UI St 1^)008 0 5   r COJST filed Mi.? 2 1 ^53J '8A* L. V. CCL C J NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL district no. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS KRS, LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS Q R-P E R Bafor* the Court ia a motion filed by plaintiff Dittla Rock school District (LRSD) seeking approval of construction projects at eight schools. On March 20, 1991 the Court held a hearing on this motion to discuss each construction project and its impact on the desegxegation plane. Construction projects at Rightaell Incentive School, Mitohell incentivs School, Cloverdale Junior High School, Cloverdale Elementary School, Geyer Springs Elementary School, Woodruff Elementary School, and Western Hille Elementary sohool are approved. However, the Court is concerned that at least some of the projectB reveal a certain lack of foresight as to the long range consequences of increasing the capacity of these schools. For example. the plaintiff states in paragraph 19 of its notion that \"[n]o change in the assignment of students to Geyer Spring* . . . will result from the construction project.\" This assertion is contradicted by language in the following paragraph which indicates that students Who reside in the schools attendance zona will oooupy only 65% of the school * s capacity, thus1 i' 11  y 1 '00 Mi .J/0^14/ r Ki PAI LA nK.n L K i\u0026gt;cnooi uist 009 r.ec*^ s:. 5 C3 id* .- ar.i: by tbn 3 3 nsr.: cJ s-\na. O i2 u y\ni / ( / 1 / r a : i .4 M 4 acconunodatecf at neJ.^jibarlng' l^akaflsld Slaniatitafy Schaal which is presently operating at 99% capacity\" (smphasis added). The Court expressed similar concerns during the hearing over the expansion at Woodruff which, after grandfathering ends, will be filled to only 60% capacity by etudenta raaiding in the eehools attendance zone. The propriety of expanding the capacity of a particular school always must be evaluated within the larger context of the desegregation plans and with a view to both imroadiate and long term impact. Since the settlement plan specifies that ''[s)tudents will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones,\" LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol, II at 1 (zlsS) , a proposal to expand the capacity of any school must be made with a clear understanding of how ths new capacity will be used and where the students populating the additional space will coma from. The parties to will present to the Court at the end of March 1991 a document delineating proposed \"adjustments\" between the settlement and Tri-District plans. in view of the construction already underway (without ths prior knowledge or approval of ths Court), the Court expects the March transition document to reflect that much oaraful thought has been given to the proposed changes in school capacity. Thadocument must demonstrate clearly the link between any proposed changes in school capacity and (1) the c.Ed V X V* identified needa which justify the capaolty expeneion, (3) the specifio, anticipated use of the expanded apace, and (3) how attendance zones will be redrawn to aaaure that \"all LRSD students ,  Xr_'' r The c curs or s.:. can b3 c nt in a sd 1 a a e  fc a 5 34 tGlying on this provision of the plan and know with certainty which school their children will attend, the court expects that there will ba aojne redrawing of attendance zones so that the proposed changas in school oapaoity logically align with attendance zones end with the numbers of students reaaonably anticipated through M- to-M and desagragation tranefora. However, the Court admonishes the LRSD that, as is the case with busing, the burden of changing schools due to redrawn attendance zones should not fall disproportionately upon black children. The proposed construction at yorast Haights Junior High School will be approved contingent upon (1) inolusion in the March 1991 transition document of the specifie information requested above as it rslates to expansion at Forest Heights and (3) the sBleotion of a definite site for the location of the stephene interdistri^ school. Construction at Foreat Heights may nob begin until the Court receives notice from ths lrsd that a site for steohens has  _ -- . _  ' \"  ~ - been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite P2\u0026gt;n, rationale, and dates for site acguialtion and anbioipated dates for the schools oonstruation, oomplgbion, and opening. If, after a reasonable time, the parties cannot agree on the 3uy\ni / ii lyyi *0*0 Ui 0/D.:i4/ rKIUAl LA** MKM -*-\u0026gt;-\u0026gt; L K ijcnooi VIST l^uil . / :n tsph-87iJl  X?. i ar, nay 'pttitiori the Court rc_ , :.cr. X?.o Qz ft *t.pcr.x a-.. soil / IT IS SO 0KD2KSD thia ^7day of Haroh, 1991. UNZTED STATEB DISTRICT Jti DSS -4- a11 ly yi oy: IS 1'5(11 37B2147 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM L R School Dlst 1^012 Vr ifl uae- it aa the Ingtegucfeienal -*u. rd a:  ch a o 1y-e a-a-nr 19^-01 Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of -free 96 students.* It sexrves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock CLlth and Marshall Streets). The facility, in anv case,., would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to seirve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. *Include5 four-vear-old program Res 02231, 02232 Page 25811  ly-Hi uy: IS 'O'si.ii jzei'i-iz tKiUAl LAW HK.'l L K scnooi DI st 1^1013 ghe pag^iea-hove had diacuaaiona wifeh pealtoga J The new_Kinq School should be constructed in time for use beginning with the 1993-94 school year. 3'h e ,QfiM Stephens School should be constructed for use beginning with I the 1994-95 school year. I Re\n02232 I Page 2591 ii y  y i i.iy: I.*! 'QOlJl\nj7b\n'147 FRIDAY LA\" FIRM L R School Dlst 1^014 55 area that wo ware considering far that school. When the plan th^h stop\ne:i .or ik -.3 District Court ordsr was i.-i 3y January 2nc we . had the Tri-Diatrict Plan, which also called for the -- a look at the capacity question and the enlargement of incentive schools and the location of a new school in central or east Little Rock. So, at some point, I had some discussions with folks from th Monitoring Office and the parties, and at some point 10 there was a general consensus that even before the Court of 11 Appeals order in December, that a school at the Philander Smith 12 campus would be appropriate under either plan, and since we were 13 essentially waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule and not 14 really pursuing the site location for either plan, we thought 15 we'd go ahead and work towards that one school, because that 16 seemed to ba the one thing that could be dona in terms of 17 construction which would work under either plan. 18 We did as this memo shows, we did have an architect 1$ do several drawings of how a Stophens school would fit on th 20 Philander Smith campus, and talked with President Titus at 21 Philander Smith about that proposal, but we werent -- wo were 22 really, I guess, a little bit premature in what we did. We 23 didn't work out an agreement. We're still now trying to do 1 I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 w a li r \u0026lt;i\ne c u e G , ef f tl a wn \ni s . 1 I i i I I i I 24 that, and we've got three other sites identified, as well, which 25 could potentially bo used to build one or both of those schools.1119-91 09:19 0501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM --* L R School Dlst 56  015 1 An:J the other three are ths present Stephens Schoo 1 location, 1 E 1 t Kins Schoo 1 I coition, r.s prise.' Westsica I I 4 i I But theres even some consideration now of perhaps a I 5 project, if we could reach an. agreement with Philander, of a 6 school on the Philander Smith campus which would ba combined 7 with the school on the Westside site with primarily early 8 childhood through some young grade at the Westside site, and the 9 upper elementary grades at the Philander site, because Dr. .Titus 10 has said that his goal is to make that school a very strong 11 teaching school, a teacher education school, and we think that 12 gives us some optimism that we might be able to reach a joint 13 use agreement. 14 15 16 there. THE COURT: Well, I see some interesting prospects I now have some concerns that 1 really want to just call concerns. Some of them will be expressed in the form of 17 questions to you, but others are really just concerns that I 18 want you to talk with Miss Hart and Miss Brown about, because 1$ they arise from difficulties I have with the Settlement Plan 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I'm supposed to be implementing. is grandfathering. And one of these concerns And I'm not going to go into the details right now, but Miss Brown has researched this and has given me a I memo that Im sure she will share with you on ths difficulties of determining grandfathering under the Plan, and when it ends. and also sibling preference in grandfathering. I Iii'iy ai '0'51.11 3 7 (5-.HZ FKID.IV LA\"' FIRM L R School DIst 1^016 1.1 y\n19 S7 i And It is not easy, and I don't think that reasonable : 1 \u0026gt; c u K 1 don't think five reasonable people co I. i read these previsions and all come up with the same conclusion about just what they mean, And so, what I would suggest you do is meet with the other parties and determine what it means and put it in, maybe, your modified Settlement Plan or any other stipulation you might give me that would be incorporated in that Plan so our school patrons will know. just think that that's one thing parents want to know. 10 And 1 personally don't care what it is but, you know, 11 when the deadline is or when youre going to cut it off, but as 12 13 a parent. I know I'd like to know whenever it is, other parents would, too. And I am sure And so, if you can just get together J 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 1 I 14 on that, it would be good. 15 MR. HELLER? And the intent was - I have talked with 1 6 Ann Brown about that, and I agree that you can't find a cutoff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 date in the Plan. Our intention, I know, was -- it says, \"those presently enrolled in the schools.\" So our intention was whan the Plan was approved, those presently enrolled there could stay! there, but I think we can do better in the modification to make it clear that that is a onetime event which occurred on December 12th and it's not going to be continued. THE COURT: Okay. preference, sama thing. But anyway, the sibling I believe I brought up sibling 25 preference in the Aerospace Magnet Hearing and, again, this is\\ f I DECEIVED NO'/ -4 1S93 OHi-i'CE Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Medical Director Phillip K. Gilmore. M.S.. MH A Administrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Chief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Development and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; Clinks William J. Bogle Ella Christopher. R.N. Scott Gordon. LC.S.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President James E. Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside III Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert. MD. Chief of Staff Guy Amsler. Jr. Brenda Ashmore John Bale. Jr. Walt C. Bennett David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Stuart Cobb Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Craig Douglass Harry C. Erwin III Herschel H. Friday Betty Gilbert Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert MA. Jackson. M.D. Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Larry C. Wallace Harry P. Ward. MD. SOOA^arshaii Street, Little Rock, Arkansas /2202-3591, (501) 320-1100 November 4, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Dr. Steele: Arkansas in 72201 Children's Hospital (ACH) has long held an interest obtaining the West Side Junior High School building property as a logical southern completion of our campus. you know, the and As we have had a variety of informal discussions over years regarding possible options for us to obtain property from the Little Rock School District (LRSD). events suggest that your efforts to build a new King tary School have picked up speed\nfinal request of you to consider selling this Recent Elemen-and, thus, we are making a the Vest building and property to Arkansas Children's Hospital Side and constructing the new elementary school on another site within the 1-630 corridor. Our interest has many aspects including, servation among others, preto Little of a building of historical note and significance Rock, and various ACH programs. conversion of this space for use by We are prepared to meet at your convenience to explore purchase of this property. Please call me to let us whether property. or not we can. together. work to preserve our know this I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely, Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer cc: Little Rock School Board Members Emeritus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R, Meeks Louis Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Randall L O'Dcrneil, Ph.D. Qbef E.-.scutivc Oncer Betty A. Lowe, M.D. A^edkai Director Phillip K. Gilmore, M.S., MH A Auministrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Otief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Oevebpment and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; CSnia William J. Bogle Ella Christopher, RH. Scott Gordon, LCS.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President  James E Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside HI Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert, M.D. Qii^ of Staff Guy Amsler, Jr. John Bale, Jr. Walt C. Bennett Kathy Bentley David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Hany C. Erwin III Tern' Erwin Herschel H. Friday Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert I'AA Jackson, M.D, Betty A Losve, M.D. Mahlon Martin Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall U O'Donnell, PhD. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Phil Schmidt Lany C Wallace Hany P. Ward. M.D. Rosie Wilson % iV^fshali Sa LiSSe Reck, .Vkansas 122.Q2 ?,5i\\, (501) 320-1100 November 7, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: In follow-up to our phone conversation yesterday afternoon and my letter to you of November 4, I understand that there may be no other option to the Little Rock School District building the King Elementary School at the old West Side Junior High site. I assure you that, should that be the case, Arkansas Children's Hospital would be very supportive of your improving that property. We certainly would be pleased to cooperate in bringing this improvement to our neighborhood. Let us know if there IS assistance we can offer in arriving at a solution. Sincerely, any Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer RLO: jcin Emerftus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R. Meeks Louts Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences\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":"loc_rosaparks_48526","title":"[Young men in military uniform marching in a parade] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","Inscription on back of print: To Rosa. Love always, cousin Alvin. 1/2/91."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":["Parades"],"dcterms_title":["[Young men in military uniform marching in a parade] [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.48526"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_906","title":"Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark.","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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1994"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Maps--20th Century--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark."],"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/906"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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\n "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0025","title":"Oral history interview with Charles Johnson, December 29, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Chatham County, 35.70258, -79.25535","United States, North Carolina, Chatham County, Siler City, 35.72347, -79.46224"],"dcterms_creator":["Johnson, Charles"],"dc_date":["1990-12-29"],"dcterms_description":["Charles Johnson was the principal of Jordan-Matthews High School at the time of this interview. Here, he describes his ascension to the position, management style, discipline policy, use of funds, and other details of the position. He loves his job, but he sees some problems with education in a post-desegregation environment. He makes an extra effort to project an aura of professionalism, because he thinks that some people have difficulty accepting direction from a black authority figure; his demeanor is also an effort to reverse a decline in courtesy and diligence. While he says that his race has not affected his treatment from his superiors, it has affected his approach to his job. This interview offers some insight into a black principal's effort to rebuild the authority of the black educator.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American high school principals--North Carolina","African American school principals--North Carolina--Siler City","High schools--North Carolina--Siler City--Administration","Education, Secondary--North Carolina--Siler City","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Siler City"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Charles Johnson, December 29, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0025/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 10, 2008).","Interview participants: Charles Johnson, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 01:27:56.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Johnson, Charles"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0003","title":"Oral history interview with Bennie Higgins, December 28, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":["Higgins, Bennie"],"dc_date":["1990-12-28"],"dcterms_description":["Bennie Higgins, an African American education professional in Greensboro, North Carolina, ascended from a teaching job in 1965 to a citywide administrative position in 1990. Much of this interview focuses on his tenure as principal of Smith High School. The interviewer questions Higgins about the daily administration of a principal's job, including hiring and cafeteria management. Researchers interested in these kinds of management details should look to the text in its entirety. Those interested in the role of race in Greensboro's public schools will find a few passages of particular interest, including excerpts about desegregation's impact on Higgins's career and the status of principals in the African American community in Greensboro. Toward the end, Higgins reflects on the role of black educators in desegregated schools, and the complex relationships between black and white students, teachers, and administrators. He sees much room for improvement in how teachers and administrators deal with race in the classroom, but also great opportunity for positive change.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--North Carolina","African American school principals--North Carolina--Greensboro","High schools--North Carolina--Greensboro--Administration","School integration--Political aspects","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Greensboro","Race relations in school management--North Carolina--Greensboro"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Bennie Higgins, December 28, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0003/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 10, 2008).","Interview participants: Bennie Higgins, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 00:50:54.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Higgins, Bennie"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0027","title":"Oral history interview with Robert Logan, December 28, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Alamance County, 36.04407, -79.39951","United States, North Carolina, Alamance County, Burlington, 36.09569, -79.4378"],"dcterms_creator":["Logan, Robert L."],"dc_date":["1990-12-28"],"dcterms_description":["At the time of this interview, Robert Logan was the principal of Hugh M. Cummings High School in Burlington, North Carolina. He responds to the interviewer's checklist of questions, describing his practices as a supervisor, his involvement in instruction, disciplinary practices, transportation, and building upkeep. Logan also manages to share more of his views on race and education than do other interviewees in this series. He reflects on the unkept promises of desegregation, and what he experiences as the steady decline of opportunities for black administrators and the rise in racism since a brief period of balance. He received job offers only at schools in crisis as his white counterparts took prestigious positions. This interview offers some insights into the role of race in modern education and the way in which huge issues like race and desegregation mesh with smaller ones, like administrative problems, to create frustrating challenges for educators.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American school principals--North Carolina--Burlington","School principals--North Carolina","Hugh M. Cummings High School (Burlington, N.C.)","High schools--North Carolina--Burlington--Administration","Education, Secondary--North Carolina--Burlington","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Burlington","Race relations in school management--North Carolina--Burlington"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Robert Logan, December 28, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0027/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on December 16, 2008).","Interview participants: Robert Logan, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 01:40:27.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Logan, Robert L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0011","title":"Oral history interview with Johnny A. Freeman, December 27, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Alamance County, Alamance, 36.03514, -79.48585","United States, North Carolina, Alamance County, Burlington, 36.09569, -79.4378"],"dcterms_creator":["Freeman, Johnny A."],"dc_date":["1990-12-27"],"dcterms_description":["Johnny A. Freeman became principal of Marie McIver High School in Littleton, North Carolina, in 1964 and stayed there for three years before moving to Burlington, North Carolina, eventually taking a position at Hugh M. Cummings High School, where he stayed for two decades. Freeman dealt with the turbulence of desegregation and its effects in Burlington, and while he maintained discipline during the desegregation process, he encountered some difficulties in its aftermath. He remembers an unequal black school system that relied on fundraisers to provide basic services to its students, but he also recalls a close-knit community that looked to educators as leaders and cheered for successful sports teams and a rousing band. Desegregation equalized facilities to some extent, Freeman recalls, but black educational traditions eroded. This interview reveals some of the complexities of the black community's response to desegregation through the eyes of one educator.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American school principals--North Carolina--Burlington","School principals--North Carolina","African American schools--North Carolina--Burlington","High schools--North Carolina--Burlington--Administration","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Burlington","School integration--North Carolina--Burlington","Race relations in school management--North Carolina--Burlington"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Johnny A. Freeman, December 27, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0011/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on November 21, 2008).","Interview participants: Johnny A. Freeman, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 01:25:34.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Freeman, Johnny A."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_abaker_4256","title":"Letter, 1990, Julia E. Hill to Augusta Baker","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["Hill, Julia E."],"dc_date":["1990-12-19"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Julia E. Hill, Museum Programs Specialist at South Carolina State Museum, to Augusta Baker, confirming their telephone conversation, in which Baker agreed to host a program at the Museum and relating that she will touch base with Baker in the near future. Enclosed with the letter is a copy of her business card."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 2, Folder 146. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998--Correspondence","African American women librarians","Children's librarians","African American librarians","Women librarians","Hill, Julia E.--Correspondence","South Carolina State Museum","Museums--South Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1990, Julia E. Hill to Augusta Baker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/4256"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/2025"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence","business cards"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item","2 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","Hill, Julia E."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_l-0064-3","title":"Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, December 13, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["McColl, Ann","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Pollitt, Daniel H."],"dc_date":["1990-12-13"],"dcterms_description":["This is the third interview in a nine-part series of interviews with civil liberties lawyer Daniel H. Pollitt. In this interview, Pollitt continues his discussion -- begun in the second interview -- about the faculty of the University of North Carolina School of Law: their character, their work both on and off campus, and their interactions with each other. He describes changes in the faculty as well as the student body during the late 1950s and 1960s, offering particularly revealing statements about the role of African American and women students. With both groups in the minority during his initial years as a professor at UNC, Pollitt witnessed some marked changes during his tenure. Of particular interest to researchers is Pollitt's retelling of how Julius Chambers, the top law student in the early 1960s, became the first African American editor-in-chief of the North Carolina Law Review. Pollitt goes on to explain that although more African American and women students were finding opportunities at UNC, they continued to experience an \"icebox\" atmosphere there. Pollitt concludes the interview by discussing some of his own interactions with students, particularly as a leader of the YMCA on campus, and he describes his participation, as well as that of UNC students, in the 1962 movement to desegregate the Chapel Hill movie theaters.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Law teachers--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","University of North Carolina (1793-1962). School of Law--Faculty","University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. School of Law--Faculty","African American law students--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Women law students--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. School of Law--Students"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, December 13, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/L-0064-3/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 12, 2008).","Interview participants: Daniel H. Pollitt, interviewee; Ann McColl, interviewer.","Duration: 01:17:00.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Pollitt, Daniel H."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_809","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, ruling","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":["1990-12-12"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, ruling"],"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/809"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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":"pth_bcja_metapth611471","title":"A Wake-Up Call For The American Dream","collection_id":"pth_bcja","collection_title":"Barbara C. Jordan Archives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dc_date":["1990-12-06"],"dcterms_description":["Text for a speech given by Barbara C. Jordan at Northside High School in Memphis, Tennessee, about African Americans and the \"American Dream.\""],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":["local-cont-no: TSOU_0447-012-006"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["ark: ark:/67531/metapth611471"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["ark: ark:/67531/metapth611471"],"dcterms_subject":["African American women politicians--Texas","Speeches, addresses, etc.","African Americans--United States","High schools--Tennessee--Memphis","African Americans--Social conditions","American Dream"],"dcterms_title":["A Wake-Up Call For The American Dream","Texas Senate Papers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Texas Southern University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611471"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["speeches (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":["7 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1019","title":"\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-12"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia"],"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/1019"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nA CURRICULUM AUDIT OFTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School D1str1ct Board of Educauon Center Conducted Lnder the Auspices of the NATIONAL Ct:RRICULUM AUDIT CE TER Na110nal Academy for School E.tccu11vcs 180 l orth Moore Street Arlington, Virginia 22:0Q R. Gerald Melton Executive Director c C.-1.C/NASE December, 199\\l AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR SCHOOL EXECUTIVES NATIONAL CURRICULUM AUDIT CENTER Members of the Audit Team: William K. Poston Jr. Lead Auditor Department of Professional Studies Iowa State University Larry E. Frase Professor, Educational Ad.ministration San Diego State University San Diego, California 92116 Charlsie A. Hina Director, Principal Assessment Kentucky Department of Education Frankfurt, Kentucky 41014 Michael K. Maryanski Deputy Superintendent Ravensdale School District Ravensdale. Washington 98051 Mada Kay Morehead Director, Research and Evaluation Kyrene School District Tempe.Arizona 85284, Ames, Iowa 50011 Jayne Hartman Director Research and Evaluation St. Lucie County Schools Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Glenn Holzman Research Associate School Improvement Model Projects Ames, Iowa 50011 Clifford E. Mohn Assistant Superintendent Independence Public Schools Independence, Missouri 64055 Constance M. Pace Principal Niagara Falls High School Niagara Falls,NY,14301 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Background, Purpose and Scope of W orlc Background Purpose Scope of Work II. Methodoloc\ny PAGE 1 2 3 4 The Model for the Curriculum Audit 5 Standards for the Auditor 5 Data Sources 6 Standards for the Curriculum Audit 7 III. Findings of the Auditors 8 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Control 8 Finding 1.1: Administrative Stability Has Been Sparse 10 Finding 1.2: Line of Authority is Fragmented and Disordered 12 Finding 1.3: Long Range Planning is Inadequate 17 Finding 1 .4: Board Policies are Outdated 19 Finding 1.5: Board Member Relationships Disrupt Operations 23 Finding 1.6: Board Members Intrude Into Administration 25 Finding 1.7: Professional Negotiations Agreement Limits Control 29 Standard 2: The School District's Objectives for Students 32 Finding 2.1: Melange of Curriculum Guides Exists 33 Finding 2.2: Curriculum Documents Inadequate for Instruction 35 Finding 2.3: Curriculum Development and Revision is Faulty 44 Finding 2.4: Written Curriculum Procedures are Deficient 44 Finding 2.5: Articulation and Coordination is Ineffective 45 Standard 3: The School District's Program Consistency 48 Finding 3.1: Allocation of Resources Inconsistent and Inequitable 49 Finding 3.2: Monitoring Practices are Inconsistent 54 Finding 3.3: Placement of Students is Inconsistent 55 Finding 3.4: Promotion-Retention Practices are Faulty 64 Finding 3.5: Staff Development is Inadequate 65 Finding 3.6: Collection and Use of Data is Erratic 67 Section Standard 4: The School District Use of Results finding 4.1: Testing Program is Inadequate Finding 4.2: Test Scores Show Mixed Trends Finding 4.3: Assessment Program Delimits Decision-Making Standard 5: The School District's Productivity Finding 5.1: Revenues Exceed Expenditures Finding 5.2: Budgeting Limits Participation Finding 5.3: Management Shows Inadequate Control Finding 5.4: Budgeting Follows Traditional Format finding 5.5: Disparities Exist Among Schools Finding 5.6: Productivity is Jeopardized TV. Recommendations of the Auditors Page 68 70 72 86 90 91 92 93 94 94 97 100 Recommendation 1: Create a Sound Board Policy Framework 100 Recommendation 2: Reorganize the Administrative Structure 101 Recommendation 3: Establish Management Stability and Integrity 105 Recommendation 4: Adopt Policy For Improved Governance 107 Recommendation 5: Purge Parts of Professional Negotiations Agreement 108 Recommendation 6: Improve Educational Facilities 109 Recommendation 7: Develop and Implement Functional Curriculum Documents 110 Recommendation 8: Develop Process for Participative Curriculum Management 112 Recommendation 9: Consolidate Curriculum Functions 114 Recommendation 10: Establish Functional Assessment and Expand Testing 115 Recommendation 11: Establish Consistency and Equity in Programs 117 Recommendation 12: Modify Budgeting Practices 119 Recommendation 13: Develop and Use Long Range Planning 121 V. Summary Appendix A: Curriculum Management Policy Model Appendix B Background of the Auditors 123 124 126 Table of Contents: Lanie Rock Cumrulum Audit Pagdi O December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: Il.1.1.1 Ill.1.1.1 lll.1.2.1 III.1.3.1 ill.1.3.2 III.1.4.1 Ill.2.1.1 III.2.2.1 III.2.3.1 III.3.1.1 III.3.1.2 ill.3 .1.3 IIl.3.1.3 III.3.3.1 Ill.3.3.2 Ill.3.3.3 Ill.3.3.4 III3.3.5 ill.3.3.6 IIl.3.3.7 III.3 .3.8 III.3.4.1 IIl.3.4.2 III.4.1.1 III.4.2.1 III.4.2.2 III.4.2.3 III.4.2.4 III.4.2.5 III.4.2.6 III.4.2.7 III.4.2.8 III.4.2.9 III.4.2.l 0 IIl.4.2.11 Ill.4 .2.12 III.4 .2.13 ill.4.2.14 III.4.2.15 III.4.3.1 Ill.5.1.1 III.5.1.2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Title o[ Exhibit Page A Schematic View of Quality Control 5 Little Rock Superintendents 11 Current Table of Organization 16 Employee Percentage of Black Children 18 Employee Percentage of White Children 18 Individual Board Requests 28 Rating of Curriculum Guides 37-40 Summary of Curriculum Guide Ratings 42 Distribution of Curriculum Guides 43 Comparisons of Library Books 50 Comparisons of JHS Faculty Racial Composition 52 Comparisons of Teacher Experience in Selected Schools 53 Comparisons of JHS Student Racial Composition 54 Placement Criteria Comparisons: HS Gifted and Talented 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons: Elementary Gifted and Talented 57 Regular and Enriched JHS English Racial Distributions 59 Regular and Enriched HS English Racial Distributions 60 Comparisons of Blacks in Special Education and Total School 62 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Percentages 62 Annual Long Tenn Suspension Rates 63 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons 63 Percentage of Grade 1 Students Retained 64 Comparisons Between Schools in Retention of Grade 1 Sr..:dents 65 Matrix of Tests Administered in the Little Rock School District 71 Comparisons of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Reading 72 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 7 Reading 74 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 10 Reading 74 MAT-6 Reading Achievement Scores 75 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Math 76 MAT-6 Math Achievement Scores 77 MA T-6 Language Achievement Scores 78 Comparisons of Black and White Students: MA T-6 79 Change in Percentile: Cohort Groups 80 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Math 81 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Reading 82 High School Ranks on American College Test 83 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on American College Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on Scholastic Aptitude Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on SAT: Math 85 Schools with Less Than 85% Passing: AMPT 87 Revenues and Expenditures 91 Revenues and Expenditures Trend 92 Table of Contents: Little Rock Curriculum Audit Page iii  December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: lII.5.3. l III.5.6.1 Ill.5.6.2 IV .2.1.1 Table of Exhibits, Continued: Title of Exhibit Sample of Teacher Changes Student Enrollment Trends Private School Enrollments Recommended Table of Organization PHOTOGRAPHS VIEW Little Rock School District Board of Education Center Central High School Elementary Art Student in Action Underutilized Library During School Hours Kindergarten Children at Work Elementary School Colleagues Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Children Sorting and Classifying Objects Caution: Children on Task Small Group Reading Lesson Boy and a Book Regular English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Enriched English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Elementary School Classroom Instruction High School Students on Computers Elementary Pupils Completing Worksheets PAGE Title 1 10 14 20 25 31 34 36 46 51 58 58 69 95 109 Page 93 98 98 104 Table of Contents: Little Rock Cumculu.m Audit Pia\u0026lt; iv o Dca:mbcr 21, 1990 I. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit CCl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page I This document constitutes the final report of a curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. The audit was requested by the Little Rock Superintendent of Schools and was commissioned by the Little Rock Board of Directors in July of 1990. The audit was conducted on site in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the time periods of September 16-21, 1990, and October 3-4, 1990. BACKGROUND Little Rock is the capital city of Arkansas. Located in the central part of the state, it comprises an important commercial center for the surrounding region, and is home for several major national corporations. The Arkansas River, the moderate climate, and an energetic, resourceful population have helped this city grow and thrive in industrial, service, and economic enterprises over its history. The principal industries in the region are agriculture and commercial distribution of goods and services. The Little Rock School District has served the Little Rock community for nearly 125 years. It is the largest school district in the state, and has 51 schools serving over 25,000 students. The annual budget of the school district exceeds $100 million, and the district employs nearly 3500 people, including about 2000 teachers. Central High School  Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 2 The Little Rock School District has been in the process of providing equal educational opportunity for all of its students, and the superintendent states that academic growth and progress is a major focus throughout all district programs. The school district has elementary schools (grades preschool - sixth grade), junior high schools (grades seven through nine), and high schools (grades ten through twelve). A seven-member Board of Directors, elected by voters from seven geographic zones, govern the Little Rock School District. Directors serve for three years on a staggered schedule. Current members of the Board include the following individuals: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Board President Ms. Oma Jacovelli, Board Vice President Ms. Robin Armstrong, Member Ms. Patricia Gee, Member Mr. William D. Hamilton, Member Mr. John E. Moore, Member Mr. James L. Rutherford, Member PURPOSE The newly-structured Board and brand-new administrative team of the Little Rock School District have expressed a desire to provide the highest quality of educational service to its community by requesting this assessment of services and programs of the district. Although most of the factors examined were preexistent to the new Superintendent, the audit was requested to help the administration implement changes necessary to be productive in instruction and fiscal management. The Little Rock School District conveyed this desire to the National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia to undergo a curriculum audit to objectively analyze and assess their efforts toward productivity. The Little Rock School District would be then able to determine if their efforts have been appropriate and effective, and if there are any areas for growth or improvement. Hopefully, this would tie the district's purposes to the responsibilities of the leadership team. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure that the Little Rock School District taxpayers, and the State of Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 3 Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. SCOPE OF WORK The curriculum audit is a process which was first used in the Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools in 1979. The audit was provided through the auspices of the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. The audit is based upon generally accepted ideas pertaining to what it takes to provide effective instruction and curricular delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as \"effective schools research.\" Curriculum audits have been performed in many states including Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vrrginia, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and Arkansas. The methods used in the curriculum audit have been reported in educational professional literature in the past decade, and also described at many national seminars and conventions. Curriculum audits are now conducted by professionally trained auditors, who are officially certified by the National Curriculum Audit Center. The National Curriculum Audit Center is housed within the National Academy for School Executives, a division of the American Association of School Administrators, in Arlington, Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area. This audit for the Little Rock School District was conducted under a contract between the Little Rock School District and the AASA-NASE National Curriculum Audit Center. II. METHODOLOGY THE MODEL FOR THE AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. Dccember21, 1990 Page4 The model for a curriculum audit is shown in Exhibit Il.l. The model has been published in Curriculum Management, by Fenwick W. English, and published by Charles C. Thomas, Publishers (1987). Quality control in a school district assumes that at least three elements must be present in the district's operational and planning functions for it to be successful: (1) First, a work standard must be defined (policy, goal, objective), (2) Secondly, activities and operations of personnel and work must be directed toward carrying out or accomplishing the work standard (or policy, goal, objective), and (3) Third, and most importantly, measurement (feedback) must be obtained for determining how well the district is reaching or attaining its established standards. Over time, a school district must be able to track progress toward attaining more and more of its established standards within its financial constraints. Basically then, the school district (and in this case, the Little Rock School District) becomes more and more proficient at its essential tasks, and it can demonstrate the \"spiral\" of upward attainment publicly. Within the Little Rock School District, and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control should reveal the presence of: (1) a written (planned) curriculum which can be effectuated into the work of teachers in classrooms, (2) a taught (implemented) curriculum which is shaped by the written curriculum, and (3) a measured (tested) curriculum which consists of testing or assessment tools of pupil learning which are linked to both the written (planned) and taught (implemented) curricula. In this way, the Little Rock School District, and any other school district can get better at delivering teaching and learning as time goes by. Exhibit Il.1 A SCHEMA TIC VIEW OF Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;:l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 5 CURRICULAR QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS FOR THE AUDITOR IHE WIITTII CIJIIICULUW [WDll PU.ii CIJIIJCUL.U QUALIIY CDHTlDL THI TISTID ClJIRIClJLUW (WUSUIEMEJl'T) Principles which govern a curriculum audit, which are not unlike those of a financial audit, include the following: 1. Technical Expertise. Auditors must have had experience in conducting school district affairs at all the levels audited, and they must have demonstrable understanding of the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management. 2. Independence. Auditors must have no vested interest in the findings or outcomes of the audit. 3. Objectivity. The auditors must be able to verify observable events in the audit with documents, interviews, and site visitation. Essential facts of the audit must be triangulated by the auditors. 4. Consistency. The auditors must use essentially the same methcxls used from one audit to the next. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (C) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 6 5. Materialicy. The auditors must exercise broad authority in exploring, investigating, examining, and selecting for analysis all aspects of the operation being audited which are more important than others. 6. Full Disclosure. The auditors must reveal all information that is important to the users of the audit, such as the Board of Education (Governing Board or Board of Directors), the administration, the teaching staff, students, parents and taxpayers. DATA SOURCES A variety of data sources are ordinarily used during a curriculum audit to determine if the elements of effective teaching and learning are being delivered, and if the elements are appropriately interrelated. The audit process also establishes whether or not pupil learning has improved as the result of effective utilization of curricular quality control. The major sources for the audit of the Little Rock School District included the followin2: 1. Documents. These consisted of Board policies, curriculum guides, reports, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, budgets, or any other written source of information which would reveal connections between elements of the planned, implemented, and tested curricula. 2. Interviews, Interviews were conducted to obtain further information on the same elements and their interconnections. Interviews were held with most of the members of the Board of Education, top level administrative staff, building principals, other administrators, teachers, parents, and other relevant persons. 3. Site Visitations. Site visitations were made to reveal the context in which curriculum is being implemented and to obtain important contextual reference information for contrast with documents or unusual working conditions. The auditors visited all schools in the Little Rock School District. STANDARDS FOR THE CURRICULUM AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 7 The auditors utilized five standards against which to compare. verify, and comment upon the Little Rock School District's existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices, as well as utilized in the previous audits in many other school districts around the country. While any set of such standards does not reflect perfection or an ideal management system, the standards do represent working characteristics that any complex organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clientele. A school district that is using its human and financial resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of those objectives over time. The five standards employed in the Little Rock School District curriculum audit included the following: 1. The school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs and personnel. 2. The school system has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school system has documentation explaining how its programs have been developed, implemented, and conducted. 4. The school system uses the results from district designed or adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school system has been able to improve its productivity. III. FINDINGS Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 8 Standard 1: The School District is Able lo Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Although educational program control (direction) and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control rests with the school board and top-level central administrative staff. Quality control is a fundamental element and is one of the major premises of local educational control in a well managed school system. The critical premise involved is that the will of the electorate is carried out by the local governing board by establishment of local priorities within state law and regulations. The local governing board is the responsible body for accountability to the general public. Through the development and construction of policy, a local school board provides the focus to direct the operations of a school system through delegation to administrative staff. In this way the expression of popular will is assured, and the district is enabled to be responsive to its patrons and clients. It also enables the system to meaningfully assess and utilize student learning as a critical factor in determining its success. Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, the operations of a school system rest with the governing board and its top level management staff. What the Auditors Expected To Find In The Little Rock School District A school district meeting Standard 1 would be able to demonstrate the existence of:  A clear set of policies that reflect state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use achievement data to improve school system operations *Documentation of sound planning by the Board and top- level management staff for the attainment of goals over time  An administrative structure that was functional and facilitated the design and delivery of the district's curriculum *Sound curriculum coordination and articulation within all school buildings and across all levels within the school system Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 9 * A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from the school board/superintendent to principals. teacher leadership roles, and teachers * A clear mechanism to control change and innovation within the school system * Administrative and staff responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found a fairly secure school system that has weathered some very difficult times and that has come through many complexities and challenges of desegregation. The Superintendent is relatively new to this position, but has considerable experience in administration within the state. The Board has recently gone through an election with resultant restructuring of its leadership, and individually the members of the Board all indicate commitment and allegiance to the improvement of educational opportunity in Little Rock. As testimony to the district's efforts toward improvement, the district recently received voter approval of additional financial support for its educational program. Community support seems to have turned in favor of the school district with few exceptions. Overall, the Little Rock School District is a rather well-run school district in terms of practices and general operations. The Little Rock School District has enjoyed a reputation among parents and the public that finances are generally managed prudently and usually in the best interests of student . The Little Rock School District appears to have benefited from the lengthy service of some key persons, including faculty and other employees. Yet, there are many areas where improvements can be made, and that is the purpose of this audit. The Board and Superintendent agreed to have the curriculum audit conducted in the Little Rock School District, precisely to find the areas where the district falls short of its intentions for quality control in educational operations. The audit is not intended to itemize or list the virtues of the Little Rock Schools. There are many aspects of the district which deserve commendation, reinforcement, and continued support. However, the audit aims to focus only on some of the problems incurred in quality control, and there are a number of those. For example, the auditors found inadequate direction and precepts for management of the district's curriculum\ninsufficient long range planning for change\nand uneven monitoring of educational program delivery in schools. The findings follow in detail: Fledgling Art Student in Action Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 10 Finding 1.1 Top-level and building-level administrator stability has been sparse in the Little Rock School District. A measure of stability in school districts is found in the average length of tenure among the districts' chief executive officers over time. Surprisingly, the Little Rock School District has had (QJ.rr_ different superintendents in the four year period from 1986-1990, resulting in a remarkable dearth of stability in top level leadership. In the last twelve years, the governing board has appointed five individuals to the position of superintendent or interim superintendent. One person was appointed to the chief executive officer's position twice, but not during consecutive years. The turnover rate has been highest during the last 39 months with three individuals occupying the position of superintendent (see Exhibit Ill.1.1). Exhibit III.1.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 11 SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1978-90 NAME SCHQQL YEAR Mr. Paul Masem 1978-82 Dr. Ruth Steele 1982 Dr. Ed Kelly 1982-87 Mr. Vance Jones 1987 Dr. George Cannon 1987-89 Dr. Ruth Steele 1989-Present As if to exacerbate the situation, there has been a 52% turnover in administrative positions between the principal and superintendent levels since school year 1986-87 and 41 % since school year 1988-89. The rapid turnover in upper level management positions, particularly the superintendency, is viewed by teachers, administrators, and community members as a major weakness for the district and has resulted in cynicism and a lack of confidence. The following quotations reflect these attitudes:  \"The district has suffered from changes (turnover in superintendency) and it gives the public a strong sense of instability.\"  \"This superintendent is too good to last very long.\"  \"Don't know from day to day if they are going to be there.\"  \"This is a rudderless ship''  \"We'll just play 'around' with (this) directive because it will change next year.\"  \"They (superintendents) all disappear sooner or later.\"  \"It's hard to work in all the turmoil -- removal of superintendents.\"  \"Becomes confusing with new initiatives from each new superintendent.\"  \"They all have their own program and there is no follow-up.\" Exceedingly high turnover in the superintendent's position precludes leadership continuity in the Little Rock Public Schools. The turnover led to excessive turnover in other central office administrative positions, and along with court decisions regarding desegregation, may be chiefly responsible for the following organizational dysfunctions: tack of an effectively used strategic long range plan\n*lack of teacher trust in the board, administration, or school curriculum programs\nsense that change is based on politics, not what's best for the youth\nconfusion and cynicism among community members\n*disorientation and conflict among board members about curricula and operations\nconfusion among school district staff, and patrons upon roles and responsibilities\nand *inadequate board policies, regulations, and adherence to board policies in the following areas: evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services, policy AF\nevaluation of school board operational procedure, policy AF A\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit c, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 12 evaluation of superintendent. policy AFB. item 3: evaluation of instructional programs, policy AFE \u0026amp; IM\nschool board member ethics, policy BBF, paragraphs 6 \u0026amp; 11\nevaluation of the superintendent, item 3, policy CBG\nreview of new initiatives and curriculum offerings, policy IFB\nand approval of curricula prior to addition of new courses, policy, IFD. Employees and community members search intensely for definitive direction from a superintendent backed by the Board of Directors. This can only come with a long-term superintendent working in harmony with the board of directors. Without that support, the staff will \"do their own thing\" and essentially ignore administrative directives. The result is confusion and a weak. disjointed curriculum throughout the district. Finding 1.2. Linc of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented.  Administration of curriculum activities, including design and delivery of instruction, is a critical function in an effectively operating school system. In Little Rock, the administrative functions were examined by the auditors, and several criteria were utilized to determine the level of appropriate organizational procedures and the level of effectiveness in managing the curriculum affairs of the school district. Primarily, the auditors found that the top managerial personnel were well prepared for their assignments\nhowever, incongruence and disorderliness of direction was evident among individuals assigned responsibility for supervision of the educational activities of the district. For example, the following points were noted: Parents, teachers, principals, and board members complained of the \"bureaucratic\" difficulti in communicating within the district regarding educational issues. Some felt that the administration couldn't make any contribution to the improvement of instructional quality because of the disheveled lines of communication. Board members and key instructional personnel unaware of some course modifications at the junior high and high school levels prior to implementation, and principals often reported a dearth of supervision and direction for day-to-day operations of the instructional program. Many principals did not identify supervisory activities germane to improvement of instruction, and accepted little or no direct responsibility for key instructional tasks and duties (staff development, selection of teacher materials, disaggregation of assessment data, supervision of teachers, etc.). Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 13 Key administrative personnel indicated little or no involvement in setting budget and programmatic priorities of the district. Infrequent administrative collaboration was evident in long range planning, staff development program design and implementation, and assessment utilization and planning. Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction, lack of articulation between grade levels, comparability with other schools and school districts, and the impotence of teacher and parent participation in instructional program development. Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities included the following: a. Elementary classrooms with inordinately large amounts of student \"seat work\" and exceptionally few direct instructional activities. b. Grouping practices which demonstrated linle flexibility, insubstantial rationale, inequity and ineffectuality. c. Teaching with inadequate reference to recently adopted curriculum guides and excessive use of the text book for direction. d. Librarians presiding over severely underused library facilities. Few examples were found where librarians actively teach the student body under their direction on a regularly scheduled basis. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 14 High School Library During School Hours e. A vast majority of classrooms with no interactive, cooperative, or direct instructional activity. (in most classrooms visited, students were doing \"seat work\" which was busy work with worksheets or workbooks or textbooks and too few teachers were observed actually teaching a lesson). These observations point out the overall ineffectiveness of the administrative organization to respond to educational needs and to implement growth producing instructional supervision. Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District. Moreover, the administrative organization is dysfunctional. As shown in the attached organization chart, organizational precepts of quality are lacking. The auditors examined the organization of the Little Rock School District with the following criteria and principles: 1. 2. 3. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 15 Principles of Sound Organizational Management Span of Control Effective supervision on a day to day basis requires direct responsibiliry for not more than 7-12 employees Chain of Command No employee should have more than one supervisor Logical Grouping of Tasks of similar nature should be grouped together Functions 4. Separation of Line and Line positions (principals, teachers) should be separate from Staff curriculum design, and program assessment functions 5. Scalar Relationships All positions shown at the same level must have similar responsibiliry, authority and compensation 6. Full Inclusion All central functions, particularly functions facilitative of qualiry control need to be included in the organizational structure In summation, the auditors reviewed the Little Rock School District Organization Chart (on following page), and made the following determinations: 1. Instructional supervision of teaching and learning is inadequate and ineffective. Principals are not appropriately supervised, and support for school operations is inadequate. 2. The superintendent's span of control is too great for qualiry control. 3. Responsibility for curriculum design and assessment use functions are woefully absent. 4. Scalar relationships and the chain of command are inappropriate and inaccurate. Job roles are confused and lines of communication are obscured. 5. Instructional functions for quality control are not appropriately included. Overall, the organizational relationships in Little Rock Schools are insufficiently defined and inadequately configured to offer sound and appropriate leadership for improved teaching and learning in the district. I Planning, Research, I \u0026amp; Evaluation Manager for Support Services Budge! Development Purchasing Data Processing Transportation Food Services Plant Services I Board of Directors I 1 Superintendent I Communications I j Deputy Superintendent I I I I Contract/Labor jl I Human Resources 11 Contr I Relations I New Futures I oiler I I Associate Superintendent Associate Superl -- ----------- for Educational Programs ~--------- for Desegregation ntendent Monitor\u0026amp; Stall Development . elopment I I I I I Assistant I Principals I I Superintendents Educational Programs: English PE/Athletics Social Studies Exceptional Children Malh Vocational Ed. Reading Adult Ed. Science Instructional Technology Foreign Language Library Media Programs Art/Music Stall Development Ing \u0026amp; Program Dev I ____ _J Student Assign ments ms/ nlstration Federal Progra Grants Admi Pupil Personne I Services Magnet Revie w Committee Community Pr ograms (JTPA. VIPS ) Early Childho od Programs t'\"\" n ~ E\ntrl .... ::,\n) ,_. 0 IC t:) 0 ~, 0.... n IC '\"1 ~ --'CJQ en CGl-l r.i n E!. = 0 N 0- r....i. 0 0 t ... 0= I:'\"\"' ... no ::r - ~~ 6 C - z ::: 0 ~  :,:0\n:t\u0026gt; $l (./),... P1 w ::,- 0 ~ \"~ 0 8\n .~. 5. ~ ~ n C :\n3. _., n C 0 2:\" .\",C 3 \"c1 \u0026gt; C .\"..\".. ~ II II Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit !tl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 17 FINDING 1.3 Implementation of long-range planning or strategic vision is inadequate to direct efforts to improve quality of the Little Rock School District. The auditors found that \"everything is a crisis\" in the Little Rock Schools, and \"nothing is routine.\" Wellthought out plans ahead of time are incomplete, despite hundreds of pages of \"plans.\" The following plans were examined by the auditors: Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District (January, 1990) Long Range Plan for School Facilities - Little Rock, Arkansas (September 1988) Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87 - 1991-92 (August 1985) The auditors found that the plans were not instrumental in guiding the day-to-day operations of the Little Rock School District. Most Board members and administrators did not indicate any acquaintance with the provisions of the planning, nor any involvement with delivery of the planned activities. Dese~e~ation Plan. An exception to ineffective planning is the planning pursuant to desegregatio activities, where the district desegregation staff gathers a number of activities under its umbrella. However, the desegregation plan confounds many school operations, not so much from its intentions or purposes as from its implementation. Teachers and principals reported too many surprises in educational changes attributable to the desegregation plan. Board members and parents complained about the abolishment of homogeneous classes (tracking) at the secondary level, indicating little acquaintance with the sound and extensive rationale for such practice. Communication and involvement of district stakeholders (parents, teachers, others) is insufficient to foster appropriate \"ownership\" of the plan throughout the school community. Control in implementing the plan was inadequate as reflected in these findings: Staff development is prescribed to \"focus ... (the staff) to address the racism reality.' A noble goal, but in operation, the auditors found no teacher or principal who was aware of a comprehensive needs assessment of staff employees designed to match training with individual differences among teachers or administrators. Student assignment was planned to provide impartial and nonpolitical procedures to \"desegregate schools .. :, but many complaints were heard by the auditors of unfairness and partiality in implementing the student assignment process. As an example, magnet schools were alleged to have a disproportionate Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit \u0026lt;0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 18 number of children of employees. To evaluate the allegation, a sample of the population was tested by the auditors with the following results: Employee Percentage of Black Children - Gibbs Magnet 1990 p6.95% 93.05% Employee Percentage of White Children - Gibbs Magnet1990 92.47% D Employees  Other D Employees  Other The distribution of a disproportionate number district employee's children among magnet schools would be an indicator of inequitable or political practices. The results are inconclusive with just one school, but the perception (or misperception) among community members remains in place and the problem demands resolution. Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 19 Of course. the plan is in response to orders from the U.S. District Court, and its evaluation of effectiveness rests with those charged with such responsibility. Nevertheless, the auditors found that the desegregation plan affects many areas of operation, but it does not serve as a rationale instrument of guidance for actions among school personnel as it should. The purpose of strategic plans is to organize and focus district resources to meet future student needs. A strategic vision is the organization's vision of its desired future, and thereby provides guidance for curriculum decisions. Such a plan provides a district with criteria and processes for confronting problems and managing the district. At this time, the district has no strategic or formal comprehensive plan for education in the Little Rock School District. Without a well developed plan, the Little Rock Schools will be directed by crisis and bullied by politi activists. Finding 1.4. Board policies are outdated and generally ineffective in establishing curricular quality contro1. The auditor examined the following policies of the Little Rock School District: Policy Code Content Date AD Philosophy June 26, 1980 ADA Mission Statement January 26, 1984 AFA Evaluation of Board June 26, 1980 AFE Evaluation of Instructional Program June 26, 1980 CH Policy Implementation March 24, 1983 GCL Staff Development June 26, 1986 IF Curriculum Development October 29, 1981 IFD Curriculum Adoption Nov. 19, 1981 L\"M: Program Evaluation Dec. 17, 1981 The policies fail to establish a framework for sound curriculum planning, configuration of courses, specific curricular outcome statements, relationship of testing or test data to such outcomes, or lead to the creation of any plan reviewed by the auditor that could be called comprehensive, despite the fact that the Little Rock board policy (AD-#1) required one. The policies did not indicate or mention any sense of curricular priorities which could be measurable or related to content.  l ,ttlc Rock \u0026lt;\nchool D1stnC1 Curriculum Audit ~ '.'-i .. .\n.S.E. Decemt\u0026gt;er 21. 1990 Pag:c 20 No clear operational guideline cxi,1- for tht: dcv, it1pmcnt , ir evaluation :if curriculum in the district. Board Policies (AD, AD:\\), The Phii,1~oph) \u0026lt;10J \\! i~~ion \\tatcmenl arc \\!,t:neral and somewhat vague statements. For instance, no ch.:a1 direCLion i5 offered [or measuring the requirement that \"the instructional program should provide each student with lhc: opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development, whcn:in each student compdes with his own potential. These statements were not cited once by anyone a~ valuable references in curriculum decision making. Board Policy (* AF A), Evaluation of School Board Operational Procedure. indicates that an appropriate plan should be in operation for many areas including policy. However. operational procedures as they relate to curriculum policy are not available. Specific criteria for the development of curriculum objectives and an appraisal system of such has not been established. Kindergarten Children At Work Board policy (AFE), Evaluauon of Instructional Programs. is concerned with the purpose of evaluating instruction. This is to be done by determining the educational needs and providing information for planning. Checks of strengths ,rnd v. eaknesses of the programs must he undertaken. However, there is no mention of what the definition of needs. ,trengths or weaknesses are. \\!or is there any direction as to the method which should be used 1r\nproviding, information for planning. The policy also requires that evaluation of instructional program be programs in terms of community requirements\". What does Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;0 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 21 \"suitability ... in terms of community requirement\" mean. Does it refer to the desegregation plan? Or does it refer to changing needs of occupational pursuits and directions in the community? There is no clear method as to how planned instructional programs are uniformly evaluated. Board policy (CH), Policy Implementation, requires that administrators and supervisors are responsible for informing staff members of existing policies and are to see that such are implemented. However, many sources indicated that policies and regulations are not effectively communicated. Thus a direct, unintem1pted line of authority does not exist. Often times when directives and procedures are communicated, with the intent to achieve an \"effective and efficient\" running school system, there has been evidence that opposition has occurred which leads to confusion. For example board members were aware of the implementation of a new program, \"Learning Foundations.\" Even though the program is in place, continuous attempts by some board members to increase opposition to this program were apparent. Even though the policy indicates that \"all board members, district employee, and students are expected to abide by (them).\" Board policy (GCL), Staff Development, deals with technical assistance to employees in the implementation of curriculum. However, during many interviews with administrators, teachers and noninstructional employees it was apparent that limited training is actually offered. Need surveys, long range planning, training of staff prior to implementation of new initiatives are not adequately undertaken. Staff described the district's efforts as \"knee jerk and window dressing\". Assistant principals, for instance felt that they were not given ample preparation or training in how the multi-cultural curriculum guides were to be used. However, they were expected to evaluate instructional staff on the use of such documents. Board policy (IF), Curriculum Development, requires that the superintendent establish \"curriculum committees for the study of curriculum improvements.\" However, minimum building level staff are actually involved in the development of curriculum. Presently, a ratio has been established with the union, as to the number of teachers and central office administrators who will make up these committees. Building level administrators are omitted even though they have involvement in evaluating the actual implementation of said curriculum. There were also instances when central office administrators solely developed changes in curricular pursuits because of time constraints. An example of this was when the Board forced an immediate implementation of a gifted and talented program, over the recommendation for a three-year phase-in by a community advisory committee, which caused severe financial and educational difficulties. With the occurrence of minimum or no building level staff involvement the final results produce what has been Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (rJ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 22 referred to as an average to below standard curriculum which is not used in an effective manner. Teachers and other staff members are apprehensive and somewhat resistive to implementation. In some schools, teachers continue to use former guides even though programs have changed. The expectation that \"all teachers will make a contribution to curriculum committee work\" is not being followed. Board policy (IFD), Curriculum Adoption, sets forth the requirement that the superintendent shall \"suggest and implement administratively, changes and improvements in curriculum offerings\" but such \"shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation\". Several board members indicated that changes in program/course offerings were never reported to them, for example PAL, or the gifted and talented program. Board members were not aware that there was a course adoption policy. This policy has been in effect since November, 1981. Additionally, during interviews held with the Biracial Committee, parents and board members, evidence was gathered that curricular sequences have been changed abruptly, with little planning taking place. Student courses of study have been effected without broad participation in the decisions, and this has created problems for students attempting to complete their requirements for graduation. Board policy (IM), Program Evaluation, requires that the district must \"establish an evaluation process\" in order to obtain objective information regarding instructional program and the performance of personnel\". However, no standardized framework has been established for this to occur. No uniform method exists of how instructional programs and personnel performance are to be evaluated. During interviews the auditors found only one central office administrator who developed and consistently used documents to evaluate principals assigned to her department. The auditors found no evidence of coordination or articulation among other central office administrators to evaluate in the same manner. In fact, several principals complained that they had been evaluated by a top administrator from the central office, despite the fact that the evaluator had not visited their school during the period of their evaluation. This policy further indicates that an established evaluation process must be conducted by \"professionals, but little direction is provided. o evidence existed to indicate that there was use of evaluation data by the board or district to determine educational needs. Evaluation and resultant changes often seem to be tied to the desegregation plan. The policy also indicates there should be a relationship between stated goals and actual accomplishments. Goals and long range outcomes change often thus limiting the possibility of such correlation. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ti) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 23 The policy further required the district to use evaluation to \"improve the performance of personnel\". However, personnel are not involved or informed of appropriate training. Personnel reported this hampers the development of their skills. No teachers reported direction from supervisors as to training tied to perceived or measured effectiveness in the classroom. Throughout the district many schools and staff members were found \"doing their own thing\" without coordinated direction from the school administration, thus established control was lacking, and consi~tency and guidance were absent.. The district is unable to tell whether or not a program, a teacher, or a set of learning materials is effective or productive. No standardized methods have been established by which district staff can use assessment data to evaluate student progress, and the district lacks a way to assess the adequacy of the curriculum or its comparability. The board has not established any policy which requires curriculum to be developed in the district that was internally consistent or demonstrated coherency around a core. The district has not established a definition of a core curriculum. FINDlNG 1.5 Board member relationships with the superintendent and administrative staff disrupt management operations of the Little Rock School District. Despite board policies and precepts which call for support and cooperation with top level administration, board member actions and activities provide frequent and disruptive interventions into the managerial operations of the school district. Policies, presumably established to provide appropriate board roles, reflect the following: Board Policy AFB. \"Evaluation of the Superintendent\" states: \"The Board of Directors shall: Determine the duties of the Superintendent ... and~ him. or. bs\u0026lt;r ill th.e dischar~e Q.( ~or.~~ (emphasis added). Board Re~ulation BBA-R, Duties and Responsibilities. states: \"Board members and the Superintendent should tt!al eaci! other~ courtesy and~ bQth ill pyhlic and ill priya_te\" (emphasis added). As an example of dysfunction in regard to these policies, the auditors observed one board member, at a parent meeting at Pulaski Junior High School, who publicly ridiculed the district administration before parents. When a parent questioned the principal on why the school district doesn't extend the school day (in order to improve learning), the principal said, \"That is a Board matter.\" Immediately, the board member interrupted the meeting and loudly stated to the entire group, 'Well, the administration tells us Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 24 that the attention span of kids is only 20-45 minutes, and we can't do anything like that (extend the school day) until we (board members) get a straight answer from the administration.\" Why this board member chose to make such a self-effacing comment is anybody's guess, but the premise was faulty. Extending the school day IS a Board matter, and it has nothing to do with the attention span of children. Such caviling statements only serve to denigrate the integrity of the Board, administrators, and the Little Rock School District as a whole. Further, community leaders interviewed by the auditors indicated serious concern over troublesome board member behaviors. Their concern centered on the long term good of the Little Rock community. The feeling is that the combative nature of the governing board and the contentious disputes that board members seem to cultivate are harmful and jeopardize the future of the entire community. The logic was, as the schools go, so goes the major social institutional foundation, so goes the community, so goes the economy. One leader's statement was that \"unless the Board quits the negative and destructive battling, and begins to heal the hurts of the school district, the whole community could go down the river.\" Auditors carefully reviewed policies, procedures, district records, and communiques. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, board members, and parents. The auditors found board members to be in flagrant violation of Board Policy AFB and Regulation BBA-R. Board members frequently publicly rebuke and embarrass managerial employees including the superintendent, other central office administrators, and building level staff. Elementary School Colleagues Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!:) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 25 Teachers, administrators, and parents perceive the divisiveness caused by board members as one of the district's greatest weaknesses. Examples of improper public statements by board members include the following: \"I'm going to get that sorry son-of-a-bitch\" (reference made to an associate superintendent)\n\"She is a PR disaster. Don't let her out in the schools, on TV, or in the newspapers\" (reference to the superintendent)\n\"She is incompetent\" (reference to an top level administrator)\n\"She has skinny little lips and shouldn't be on (sic) the media\"\n(reference to superintendent) \"The administration has not really studied this, they do no planning.\" These comments not only violate board policy and regulations, but they are signs of disrespect, mistrust, lack of confidence, and cynicism which creates open divisiveness within the school district. This divisiveness renders the Little Rock School District ineffective in carrying out its mission. Teachers and administrators stated that the divisiveness caused by the lack of trust and respect shown by board members has contributed greatly to the excessive turnover in superintendents. They further believe that it has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of the central office team, teachers, and principals. The effect of divisiveness is illustrated by the following comments by employees: \"sad to see the way they treat each other\"\n\"it contributes to the instability of our school district\"\n\"this divisiveness spills over into the community\"\n\"as an employee I get very discouraged\"\n\"this perpetuates the bad light we have been viewed in\"\n\"it perpetuates lack of confidence in administrators\"\n\"it upsets the teachers\"\n\"this causes poor public relations\"\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 26 \"it shows lack of confidence in administration and leads to the demise of public confidence\"\n\"too many embarrassing and belittling remarks made\"\n\"to the public it looks like the kids are not our focal point and the public loses confidence. Board members' public humiliation and belittlement of the staff members and district greatly weakens the power and ability of the administrative team to influence and lead the organization productively. Finding 1.6 Board members intrude into administrative roles and disrupt the operations of the Little Rock School District. Board Regulation BBA-R states, \" ... when board members receive complaints or criticism ... they should encourage the person making (the complaint) to take (it) through the channels of procedure set under Board policy.\" The auditors learned that this aspect of Board Regulation BBA-R is frequently not followed. Instead, it is common practice for board members to receive complaints and criticism and take them directly to an administrator. Moreover, the auditors found that board members do not adhere to the section of Board Regulation BBA-R, \"Processing Requests for Information\" which states, \" ... when a board member wants information about a particular program or area, he or she should direct the request to the superintendent or one of the two associate superintendents.\" Board members frequently bypass the superintendent and the associate superintendents to make inquiries and to request information from middle management and teachers. Several administrators, including principals, alluded to the confusion board members create with such practice. Lines of communication within the organization are confused. When asked whether she felt she should comply with Regulation BBA-R, one board member stated,  ... no!, I'll investigate it myself.\" In addition, the \"Processing Requests for Information\" section of BBA-R lacks a process for ranking requests and determining which, if any, requests will be pursued by the administration. This causes the administration to be chasing individual board member demands without Board action. Such individual Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!:\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Pa~e 27 board member action is violative of sound principles of educational management and state law which limits board member authority to only such times as the Board sits, deliberates, and acts as a body. The following quotations by teachers, CT A Officers, and administrators, other than the superintendent and two associate Superintendents, confirmed that one or more board members frequently do not adhere to Regulation BBA-R. Such statements further illustrate staff members' perceptions of board members' behaviors. \"The board calls me to check on things and sometimes other people.\" \"Board members bring questions (directly) to principals and it causes problems.\" \"They call my staff directly and make requests for information and they call me at home.\" \"A board member called me to have a drink tonight and \"discuss\" business.\" The auditors also found that board members act in violation of Board Policy BBA, \"Duties and Responsibilities,\" which states, \" the Board of Directors \u0026amp;hall: .... 10. ~ authority a.s ~ members o!lb'. fillell ~ a.s a ~ ~ in session, or as legally directed by the board. . ... 12. Exercise !lQ administrative responsibility ~ individuals with re.speg to the~- 13. Re1ram individuals 1roni commandin~ the ser:vke.s of .any S:C.l!ool employee  ( emphasis added). Teachers, administrators, and community members perceive that individual board members are playing administrative roles. Some believe that this has increased greatly with the turnover in superintendents. Others believe that \"all the meddling causes confusion.\" The auditors found that individual board members command services of administrators by giving selfinitiated directives to administrators. Board members also exercise administrative responsibilities without board approval. Examples of these behaviors range from ordering the public relations staff to keep the superintendent off TV and out of the newspapers, to directing other administrators in their conduct of committees. The latter includes giving orders as to \"which decisions\" the committees \u0026amp;hould make. Board members also direct administrators to complete numerous and time consuming reports, which is another example of individual board members commanding services of school employees, exercising administrative responsibility, and exerting authority without support of a board vote. Information and report requests by individual board members in the Little Rock School District are out of control. The auditors found that board members make excessive numbers of requests for information and that these requests demand large amounts of administrators' time. As stated Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 28 by one administrator, \" the board does not fully appreciate the time required to respond to their problems.\" Demands for reports are communicated to administrators other than those designated in board Regulation BBA-R via the telephone and at board meetings. Some board members make such demands to the administration with a FAX machine from their employer's office! All of these requests are in violation of Board Policy BBA and Board Regulation BBA-R. Board member individual requests and demands upon the organization for \"reports\" are mind-boggling in quantity. After attending one board meeting and reviewing lists of requests for reports made at board meetings during the past year, the auditors found that these requests severely limit administrators' time to perform their formally assigned duties. Sixty-five nxrnests for information or directives from individual board members were made in seven board meetings reviewed by the Auditors as shown in Exhibit IIl.1.4.1: Exhibit IIl.1.4.1 Individual Board Member Directives and Requests for Reports .lwru:li Meetin,~ Q.ate August 28, 1990 July 9, 1990 June 6, 1990 March 16, 1990 May 18, 1990 September 21, 1990 September 28, 1990 Number Qi Reg_uests Total 15 4 5 13 7 11 10 65 Auditors reviewed examples of the types of requests and directives from individual board members which are provided below: 1. VIPS hours for McDermott and Fulbright schools\n2. annual operating cost of the IRC, administration annex building\n3. information on the checks written to the various office supply companies\n4. report on buildings where academic disparities do not exist or are minimal\n5. report on teachers who had been placed on the wrong salary scale\n6. report summary of the District's excess property and short and long-term plans for it\n7. report on all existing policies of the music department\n8. report on all the students who had been through \"Changing Directions\" to see how they are doing\nLittle Rock School Oistnct Curriculum Audit q:, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 29 9. report on how Metropolitan can be better utilized and report on how Metro grads fare in the job market - are they employable\n10. study by the Biracial Advisory Committee on all secondary schools similar to the one conducted at Central High last fall\n11. report on number of volunteer hours at each school\n12. report on number of schools that have active PTA'S or PTSA's--survey schools to see how many rooms do not have a home room parent\n13. report on breakdown of volunteer hours worked in incentive schools, area schools, and magnet schools\n14. report on why Bobby Chapple could not participate in choir performances\n15. report on break down of staffing at the restructured schools\n16. report on the following aspects in incentive schools: enrollment, classes with 1-20 ratios, and vacancies\n17. estimate on costs of refurbishing Quigley Stadium\n18. report on adequacy of maintenance staff\n19. report on athletic eligibility requirements in neighboring six states\nand 20. report on how the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District gate receipts are distributed. On the face of it, some of this requested information appears to be appropriate for Board utilization, and it is. However, such demands for information are not appropriate from individual board members unless the board member makes a motion to receive such information, and after debate and passing the motion, the Board as a whole takes action requesting the information. The auditors found that many of the requests were frivolous, and that board members were trying to respond to some small segment of their constituency, or to \"second-guess\" the administration, as several staff members put it. Responding to these idiosyncratic requests consumes large amounts of administrative anc! secretarial time and severely infringes upon administrators' time to carry out their duties. Many requests serve only the political interests and self-serving needs of individual board members and do not represent the interest of the total board. The result is a rudderless organization, drifting and darting sporadically as board and community politics warm-up and cool-off, and as board members pursue short-term individual gains and sacrifice long-term district gains. Effective school districts base decisions on \"what is best for students,\" not individuals' political interests. FINDING 1.7 The Board's professional negotiations agreement with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association inhibits Board control of educational programs. Board Policy ADA, \"Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District, states: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 30 \"The mission of the Little Rock School District is to ~ a!! educational pro~am tl!fil ~ ~ chi!..d 1.Q achieve ~ ~t potential.\" The auditors found provisions in the \"Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\" which inhibit board control of educational programs and achievement of its mission for every child within its care. These provisions include the following:  length of the work day Article III.A. \u0026amp; XXII.C.1 \u0026amp; 2)\n duties (Article XXII.B. \u0026amp; F.)\n class-siz.e limits (Article XXI.A.)\n employment of teachers (Article V.A.)\n meetings (Article XXX.A., B., \u0026amp; C.), and  teacher rights regarding instructional methodology (Article XXXI.D.). Each of these constraining and unreasonably delimiting provisions is detrimental to community control of its educational programs and institution. The length of the work day is set at 5 hours and 15 minutes per day in Article ID. A \u0026amp; XXII. C. 1, 2, \u0026amp; 3).A with an additional fifty-four (54) minutes for planning, for a total work day of six (6) hours and nine (9) minutes. This is an extraordinarily short teachers' work day. When combined with provisions which restrict the length and number of meetings teachers may be required to attend and the duties to which teachers may be assigned, it severely limits board flexibility in use of instructional time for improving the quality of educational programs. Low class siz.es are generally accepted as beneficial to the educational program. However, sophisticated research studies establish a broad range of acceptable class sizes. Lowering class sizes to a point still within the range does not result in increased learning. The class-siz.e provisions provided in the Agreement place undue educational and financial restrictions on the board. The board needs flexibility in determining and implementing educational improvements through differential configurations of numbers of students. Further, the board must have authority to require the use of certain teaching techniques and behaviors. Researchers have made significant findings regarding teaching techniques for delivering Board-adopted curricula. Restricting the authority of the board and administration to prescribe appropriate instructional techniques significantly restrains the board's ability to improve educational programs for students in the Little Rock School District. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 31 Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Finally, Article V establishes seven years as the maximum allowance granted to new hires for previous teaching experience. This provision severely and unnecessarily restricts the district's ability to recruit the highest quality teachers. The research literature in industry and education is replete with evidence that selection of an employer is frequently based on salary. The educational literature also states that teachers' mobility is severely limited by salary caps based on years of teaching experience. The Little Rock Public Schools may be inadvertently failing to hire high quality teachers due to limits on the number of years of experience granted on the salary schedule. The Little Rock School District Board has been too generous in giving up its authority in the management of teaching practices in its schools, creating a restrictive and detrimental artificial environment for quality control in teaching and learning. The negotiations process has provided undue constraints on the elected Board to represent the public and to act in accordance with appropriate educational outcomes and guidelines. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!) N A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 32 Standard 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Student A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set them into a workable framework for their attainment. Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be any cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in any one dimension. The lack of clarity denies to a school district the capability of concentrating its resources through a focused approach to management. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are essential to attaining local quality control under the governance of the Board of Education. What the auditors erpected to find in the Little Rock School District: The auditors expected to find a clearly established, district-wide, set of goals and objectives in all subject matter areas and for all grade levels adopted by the Board of Education. Such objectives would set the framework for the operation of the district, its sense of priorities, and explicit direction for the superintendent and the professional staff. Moreover, the auditors expected to find evidence of resources (people, time, materiel) directed toward accomplishment of established goals and objectives. Inherent in such direction would be found evidence of long range planning in instructional decision making, and precision in district efforts to define its mission through policies, regulations, reports, curriculum guides, and other documents. Basically, without defined outcomes (targets), organizational activities (arrows) can be misdirected, fragmented, and inadequately focused. Good school systems have defined what they stand for, and what must be evidenced to show accomplishment of the things for which they stand. What the auditors found in the Little Rock School District: The auditors found curriculum documents that listed objectives for many subjects on a K-12 basis, but these were not linked to Board-adopted central goals or standards for learning. In some cases, the auditors found that changes in the curriculum were unknown by the Board, or had created a surprise for board members when they learned about the changes. District curriculum documents are not very Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum t\\ud1t 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 33 effective in providing teachers the information necessary for guiding instruction or for giving supervisors any clear direction to help them monitor and manage the instructional process. The auditors found large gaps between the written curriculum and what is actually taught. The auditors found inadequate planning for systematic curriculum development in the Little Rock School District. The district has developed a number of multicultural guides in recent years\nhowever, this was done as a result of the desegregation plan rather than as a part of a comprehensive curriculum dt::clopment process. As in several other areas of district operations, the desegregation efforts drive district curriculum planning, leaving control of pivotal curriculum quality to random action. No written procedures exist regarding curriculum changes at the secondary level. As a result, confusion exists regarding what steps should be followed, who is involved in the decision, and what criteria is used in making the decision. In addition, a lack of curriculum articulation and coordination exists in the district. Curriculum guides in the Little Rock School District exists in many different forms within and between curriculum areas. Formats were perplexing and non uniform, which contributed to the limited use of guides by teachers and principals. Guides found range from the locally developed guides to those produced by the state department. Generally, the guides are not effective management documents. Finding 2.1 A voluminous melange of curriculum guide documents exists in the Little Rock School District. The auditors were given and reviewed over 200 curriculum guide documents which are currently being \"used\" in the Little Rock School District. These varied in format within and between curriculum areas. Multicultural curriculum guides for grades K-6 were implemented during the 1989-90 school year. The auditors were told by district supervisors and central office staff that these guides would replace previous curriculum documents and were to be used to direct instruction in the classroom. In addition to the multicultural guides at the elementary level, the auditors reviewed district secondary guides (7-12) which were written prior to 1989. However, district guides have not been written for all course offerings at the secondary level. The auditors were told by teachers and supervisors that state guides were to be used in the courses for which district guides had not been developed. Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 34 The district recently developed multicultural guides [or several curriculum areas at the secondary level. Teachers are expected to begin using these guides during the current school year. !\\1ulticultural guides were not developed at all grade levels for each core curriculum area. In addition, some of the multicultural guides were designed to be stand alone documents, while others were designed to supplement district guides which are currently in use. The variety of guides plus the [act that they are being used for different functions is confusing to both staff and administration. This was evident when the auditors asked staff members and administrators what was used to direct instruction. The answers varied greatly. Children Sorting and Classifying Objects As an example of the diversity 1)f wswers. when one teacher was asked how he determines what content to teach in his class. he tapp\u0026lt;!d the ~ide of his head a couple of times without verbal comment. Some department supervisors indicated that the stale guides were being used lo direct instruction in grades 9-12. Other supervisors stated that l11e teachers were probably using the teacher resource book that goes along with the text. When the question was posed 10 huilding administrators, one response was as follows. \"The basal textbooks direct instruction.\" The auditors round that teachers follow any of a number of things in selecting content to teach. tncluding course content guides, state guides, the new multicultural Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 35 guide, the district guide or the text to direct instruction. Little congruity was found in content determination at the school level. To add to the confusion, the auditors found that there was not a comprehensive list of curriculum guide documents. School officials provided the auditors what was stated to be a comprehensive set of curriculum guides, prior to their visit to the district. However, on several occasions, the auditors found teachers using curriculum documents which the auditors had not seen. Upon request, district officials did provide the additional guides, but it was clear that there was confusion regarding what guides were actually being used. Finding 2.2 Curriculum guides in most curriculum areas are inadequate to direct instruction. The auditors reviewed and rated the curriculum documents provided by the school district personnel. The guides varied in quality within and between curriculum areas. A summary of the curriculum guide rankings appear in Exhibit III.2.1. The guides were analyzed using five criteria which support sound curriculum management. The evaluation of the guides pertained to the following criteria: (1) clarity and validity of a guide's objectives, (2) congruence of the curriculum guide to the testing/evaluation program, (3) delineation by grade level of the prerequisite essential skills upon which to initiate instruction, (4) delineation of the major instructional tools in the forms of textbooks and supplementary materials, (5) clear examples for classroom application. For a curriculum guide to be an effective management tool, it must focus the efforts of the teacher in the classroom. Furthermore, in order to result in sound curriculum management the guides should connect classes vertically and horizontally across grade levels and schools. Curriculum guides should be \"user friendly.\" A teacher should be able to understand and use them without any additional information or training. A curriculum guide is considered excellent if it receives a composite score of 13-15 points. There were no district guides that scored in this range. There were, however, several curriculum guides which scored a 12 rating. These guides appear to be effective curriculum documents which could be used as models for the other curriculum areas to emulate. The remainder of the guides were rated less than adequate to very poor. Lmle Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ :--1.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 36 Generally speaking, the district curriculum documents were strong in stating the objective, providing the text and supplementary material to be used and giving practical suggestions to classroom teachers in teaching the content. The guides were generally weak in specifying the necessary prerequisite skills, knowledge and attitudes upon which to initiate teaching and weak in identifying methods of assessing student learning related to the objectives. Caution - Children on Task EXHIBIT III.2.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 37 RA TING OF CURRICULUM GUIDES DEVELOPED IN THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Guides Listed in Rank Order of Quality) CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE RA TING BY CRITERIA TOTAL Published LEVELS 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS Language Arts 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 7-9 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 10-12 2 1 3 3 3 12 Reading 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 7 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 8 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 9 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 10-12 2 l 3 3 3 12 Art Survey 7 2 2 3 3 2 12 Crafts/ Fibers 11-12 2 3 3 3 12 Intermediate Alg 1989 10-12 2 3 2 3 2 12 Social Studies 1989 K-6 2 2 3 3 11 Pottery 11-12 2 3 2 3 11 Drawing II 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Drawing III 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Biolab 10-12 2 3 3 2 11 Chemtech 11-12 2 3 3 2 11 Regular Math 1989 7 2 l 3 2 2 11 Study \u0026amp; Learning Foundations 1990 7-9 2 0 3 3 3 11 Exploratory Music 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance II 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance III 2 3 l 2 2 10 Ort'hestra Level D-E-F 2 3 0 3 2 10 Pottery-Ceramics 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Jewelry Techniques 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Print ma.king 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 AP Studio Art 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Art History 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Drama 11-12 2 2 2 3 10 History of Theatre 2 3 0 2 3 10 Life Science 7 2 3 0 3 2 10 Geography 1990 7 2 1 0 3 3 9 American History 1990 8 2 1 0 3 3 9 Dance I 2 3 0 2 2 9 Music Theory I 2 0 3 3 9 ~lusic Appreciation 2 3 0 3 1 9 Photography 10-12 2 3 2 l 9 Mime 2 2 0 2 3 9 Classic Scene Study 2 2 0 2 3 9 Science Target Concepts/ Slcills 1989 K-6 2 0 3 3 9 Mathematics Multietbnic Guide 1989 K-6 2 2 3 2 9 Regular/ Honors - Geometry 1989 10-12 2 2 2 2 9 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Advanced Algebra - Regular 1989 11-12 AP Calculus AB/BC 1989 Family Life Ed.New Futures 1990 K-o Honors Algebra II 1989 9 Psychology Jewelry Techniques 11-12 Dance Techniques Earth Science 8 Physical Science 9 Enriched Math 1989 7 Regular Math 1989 8 Regular Algebra-J.H. 1989 9 Algebra 1-H.S. 1989 10 Enriched Algebra I 1989 8 Pre-Algebra 1989 11-12 Concepts of Geometry 1989 11-12 Regular Algebra II 1989 10-12 Trigonometry Regular/ Honors 1989 11-12 Greek I-III 1989 Latin I-II 1989 AP Latin 1989 French I-IV 1989 AP American History Sociology Concert Band Stage Band Acting Children s Theatre Science Technology Earth Science - Multicultural 1990 8 Physical Science - Multicultural 1990 9 :,,,tarketing Mgmt 12 Marketing 11-12 Intro to Marketing 10-12 Music 1989 K-o Music History 10 Music History 11-12 Dance History 10 Spanish I-IV 1989 Life Science - Multicultural 1990 7 Statistics Unified Physics I-IV German I-IV 1989 Computer Applications - Spread Sheet 11-12 Computer AppLications - Data Base 11-12 Computer Programming - RPG 11-12 Computer Programming - Cobol 11-12 Computer Programming - Adv. Basic 11-12 Computer Technology - Inf. Systems 10-12 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 38 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 0 3 3 9 2 2 2 2 9 2 1 0 2 3 8 2 3 0 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 I 8 2 1 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 3 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 0 3 7 2 .2 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 3 I 7 0 2 3 7 0 1 2 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 1 1 3 7 2 0 0 3 6 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 3 5 2 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 4 0 2 I 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE Computer Technology - Introduction Word Processing I \u0026amp; II Typewriting I Typewriting II Office Tech. Lab Office Procedures Cooperative Office Ed Record Keeping Computerized Acct I Computerized Acct lI Accounting I Accounting II Intro to Drafting Exploratory Business Carpentry Basic Welding Intro to Computers - Data Processing Automotive - Technology II Auto Body Basic Electronics American Government - Civics American History Contemporary American History Economics Global Studies World Cultures World Geography World History Family Life Ed - New Futures Food Production Mgmt Child Care Guidance-Management Parenting Human Development Housing. Home Furnishings Foods \u0026amp; Nutrition Consumer Education Oothing \u0026amp; Textiles Child Development Independent Living Family Living Home Economics I Personal Living Skills Exploratory - Home Economics Home Economics - Practical Arts DATE GRADE Published LEVELS 9-12 l0-12 7-12 9-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 10-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 9-11 11-12 11-12 11-12 9-lO 9-lO 10-12 1990 7 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 39 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 l 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 :? 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Industrial Arts-Technology Ed 7-S Exploratory - Career Ed Career Orientation Radio Broadcasting Health Occupations Computer Repair - Technology Printing 89-90 Suspension-Steering Specialist 1987 Brake Specialist 1987 Electronic - System Specialist 1987 Automotive Technology -Technician 1987 Cobol Commercial Art I-II 1987 10-12 Printing Press - Operations Industrial Equipment - Maintenance 1987 10-12 Basic Drafting II 11-12 Cosmetology T.V. Production Computer Technology II Commercial Foods 1-11 Structured RPG Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. DeccmbC'r 21. 1990 Page 40 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When the district curriculum guides were separated by subject areas, the results were even more revealing regarding strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit III2.2 gives the average scores of the district curriculum guides in each subject area. The curriculum areas are listed from highest average to lowest average. Also listed are the total number of guides rated in each content 3Tea along with the highest and lowest rated guide. The strongest curriculum guides were in language arts, while the weakest documents were in vocational education. Since there are different types of curriculum documents being utilized, it appears appropriate to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each type of document. These are as follows: A) Multicultural Guides Strengths - Generally speaking, these guides were strong in stating the objectives, delineating the text and supplementary material, and providing examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom. Weaknesses - These guides were weak in the respect that they did not identify methods of assessing student learning and the majority of guides did not specify the necessary prerequisite skills expected of students (language arts and reading were the exception). B) State Guides Strengths - These guides did state the objectives to be taught. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ NA.S.E. December 21.1990 Page 41 Weaknesses - Since these guides were designed more as a resource than a stand alone document, there are several weaknesses when used as the curriculum guide. These guides lack the following components: An assessment or evaluation piece, a listing of required prerequisite skills, delineation of major instructional resources and a linkage to classroom utilization. C) District Guides (Non multicultural) The district guides vary more in format and content than the other two categories. As a result, it's more difficult to generalize their strengths and weaknesses. The reader should take this into consideration when reading the following summary. Strengths - The guides stated the objectives to be taught, listed the text and supplementary materials, and provided examples of how to approach key concepts and skills (although this was limited in several guides.) Weaknesses - Although some guides provided an assessment component, the majority of the district guides were lacking this criteria. The majority of the guides also did not articulate the necessary prerequisite skills. As mentioned above, several guides lacked examples of how to approach key concepts or skills. EXIDBIT IIl.2.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 42 SUMMARY OF CURRICULUM GUIDE RATINGS BY CONTENT AREA LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTENT AREA I TOTAL I HIGHEST I LOWEST CONTENT I GUIDES I RATED I RATED AREA I REVIEWED I GUIDE I GUIDE AVERAGE I I I RATING LANGt:AGE ARTS I 9 I 12 I 12 12 READING I 11 I 12 I 12 12 STUDY \u0026amp; LEARNING I 3 I 11 I 11 11 FOUNDATIONS I I I ART I 11 I 12 I 8 10.2 DRAMALTHEA TRE I 6 I 10 I 7 8.7 I I I MATHEMATICS I 24 I 12 I 5 8.7 SCIDICE I 17 I 11 I 4 8.3 MUSIC/DANCE I 21 I u I 6 7.6 SOCIAL STUDIES I 20 I 11 I 2 7.2 FOREIGN LANGUAGE I 6 I 8 I 4 7 FAMILY LIFE ED-NEW I 8 I 9 I 2 8 FUTURES I I I VOCATIONAL I 66 I 7 I 2.6 ED\\XATION I I I Moreover, significant gaps exist in the coverage of curriculum with appropriate guides. In Exhibit ill.2.3, one can see the auditors analysis of the scope of curriculum. With such disproportionate distribution of guides, it is impossible for the Little Rock School District to connect student learnings from one level or school to the next. Art Business Career Education Computer Science Consumer Sciences Drivers Education English. Lang. Arts family Life foreign Language Guidance Health Industrial Arts Learning foundations Math. General 'vlatn Algebra Math. Advanced 'vlusic Photography Phys. Educ .. Dance Psychology Reading Science. BiolO!!ical Science. Physical Science, General Social Studies Speech and Drama Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 43 Exhibit IIl.2.3 Distribution of Curriculum Guides by Subject Matter and Grade Level Little Rock School District K\\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I s I 9 I i I l l l 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 l I l I l 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I l I 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 l 1 l I 1 l 1 l 1 l I 1 1 l l I l I I I I I 2 I t I l 1 2 T 2 l I I 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I l I 1 I I 1 I I I 2 2 1 4 10 I 11 I 12 I n I 4\\111111 I 1 I 14 I 14 I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 3 2 1 l 1 6 l 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 5 8 7 2 1 1 5 Note: Numbers in the cells indicate the oumber of curriculum guides provided to the auditors at a given grade level or subject matter field. Cells which are empty have no curriculum guide at that grade level for that subject matter field. Gaps and overlap are evident in the distribution of curriculum guides, indicating little or no coherence, or 'flow\" of teaching and learning throughout the system. Connections, if any, among grade levels, subject areas, schools, etc. would be random and determined by caprice or whim rather than soundly developed reason or rational planning. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 44 Finding 2.3 There is no systematic plan for development and revision of curriculum in the Little Rock Public Schools The auditors found no systematic plan for curriculum development in the Little Rock Public Schools. Although a majority of staff members interviewed indicated there was no such plan in existence, a couple of administrators thought the district did have a written plan. When the auditors asked to obtain a copy of the plan, they were given a copy of the Arkansas schedule for textbook adoptions. When interviewing supervisors it was evident that such a process was not currently in place. One department supervisor indicated that her department reviewed the curriculum for revision after textbook adoptions. A second supel'Visor said his department does not follow this procedure. It is obvious that clear expectations regarding a comprehensive plan for curriculum development have not been establishe A systematic plan for curriculum development would identify what areas of curriculum would be revised how goals and objectives would be re-validated\nhow curriculum materials (including textbooks) would re-evaluated\nhow test and assessment data would be utilized to strengthen the curriculum\nand how curriculum monitoring would be incorporated in the curriculum development activities entailed in the plan. The auditors found no documentation that addressed these very important areas in the Little Rock School District. The auditors did obtain a copy of a memo to the Superintendent dated 24 May 1990 from the planning, research and evaluation department which provided a sample plan for curriculum review. This would appear to indicate that the administration is aware of the need for such a plan and is considering steps for implementing a comprehensive district curriculum review process Finding 2.4 Written procedures are deficient to direct additions or deletions of courses or program changes at the secondary level. When the auditors asked for written procedures for adding, deleting, or changing course offerings at the secondary level. they were given a page of the board policy related to curriculum development (IFD) which states, Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 45 \"Changes and improvements in the curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the Superintendent of Schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation ... \" This policy does not state what procedures should be followed, rather it gives the administration authority to implement changes when necessary. The auditors asked several staff members what procedures would be followed if a teacher wanted to replace an existing course with a new offering. Responses were varied and included reactions as follows: Building Principal - \"Course changes go to the Associate Superintendent and then to the Deputy Superintendent.\" Curriculum Supervisor - \" .... first go to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent and then to the senior management team ..... not sure if it then goes to the Board.\" Assistant Principals indicated that it would first be presented to the principal, then to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent, and finally to the Superintendent. Assistant Superintendent - \" ........ a committee would be formed as stipulated in the professional negotiations agreement. The department supervisor would review the recommendation with the Associate Superintendent. The Associate Superintendent would meet with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent. The final step would be to present it to the Board for approval.\" It is evident from the explanations above that there is not a clear understanding among the administrative staff regarding procedures to be followed when requesting a change in the existing curriculum. To further complicate the issue, the auditors were made aware of the fact that an AP Chemistry course was approved for this year at one of the high schools as a result of parents coming directly to a Board meeting. It appears this particular course adoption circumvented any formal procedure. In summary, confusion exists regarding what procedures to follow and criteria needed to recommend a course change at the secondary level. Fmding 2.5 Curriculum articulation and coordination is ineffective in the Little Rock School District. The auditors found little evidence of a coordinated and articulated curriculum. Such a curriculum would have continuity from grade level to grade level and consistency across grade levels and between school buildings. The district has not established a central curriculum body to ensure that coordination and articulation exist in the educational program. Furthermore, no key administrative officer has assumed this responsibility in the Little Rock School District. Small Group Reading Lesson Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 46 The elementary and secondary programs appear to function separately with very little communication from one level to the other. When supervisors explained the curriculum development and textbook adoption process, they described elementary committees and secondary committees working separately without knowledge of what was being done al the other level. For example, the language arts multicultural guides were developed by a K-6 committee and a 7-12 committee which worked separate from each other. The committees were not brought together to discuss issues or coordinate the use of instructional material. An example of lack of articulation can be found in the textbook adoption process for science textbooks implemented in the 1989-90 school year. District documents identified three committees, K-6, 7-9, and 10- 12. The committees functioned as separate decision making groups. There was no evidence that they met as one group to discuss content, assessment or instructional issues which cross the identified grade level groupings. When supervisors were asked about curriculum articulation and coordination, they were aware of the problems, One supervisor stated, \"There is no communication between elementary and secondary teachers.\" A second supervisor indicated, \"Articulation K-12 is a problem. There is no sequencing or little Rock Scnool District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 47 coordination. The fifth grade teachers have no idea what the eighth grade teachers are teaching or visa versa.\" A third supervisor shared that teachers have expressed concerns about the lack of a K-12 scope and sequence. The Board of Directors appear to be concerned about this problem as well. When the auditors reviewed minutes of the March 23, 1989 meeting, they found the following statement: \"Board members expressed continuing concern that there is not a unified curriculum ...... .\" Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 48 Standard 3: The School District Has Documentation Explaining How Its Programs Have Been Implemented, Developed, Conducted A school district meeting this curriculum audit standard is able to show how its programs have been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of learning. In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that as a whole, it is more effective than a simple sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combination of programs or schools does not equate to the larger school district entity. The purpose of having a school district meet this standard is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and consistent program for students, both to enhance learning by maximizing pupil interest, and by utilizing economies of scale where applicable. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Little Rock School District The auditors expected to find a highly developed, articulated and coordinated curriculum in the district that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs. Such a curriculum would be: 1. Centrally defined and adopted by the Board of Education\n2. Demonstrably consistent with a coherent rationale for at least content delineation within curriculum\n3. Clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building level administrators\nand 4. Monitored by central office personnel and building principals. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found historical evidence of many individual programs which were designed to address specific curriculum needs and inequities. While these programs, as designed, reflect current best practices, they are plagued by inconsistent implementation at the school, principal, teacher, and student level. Multiple and separate program efforts compete for staff attention and for district resources. There is Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 49 inconsistent implementation across schools, programs and grades of the designed curriculum and the programs which support curriculum delivery. Moreover, the auditors found a distinct pattern of \"tracking\" which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of \"resegregation\" and inequity in some cases, particularly in English and mathematics \"enriched\" and \"regular\" classes. Such practices demonstrate inconsistency of curriculum management and direction within the school district. For example, the district has a policy, imposed by the Federal courts, that \"no school shall be racially identifiable.\" Several factors within the schools are not consistent with this policy, and the policy is impotent as a predictor of school curriculum practices as shown in this audit section. Finding 3.1: The allocation of resources to support curriculum implementation is inconsistent and inequitable The auditors found inconsistent and inequitable implementation of the curriculum linked to the following variables:  inequity of facilities  inequity of curriculum materials  inequity of staff expertise and assignment Inevi,ity Q[ Facilities. There is tremendous variance in the quality of facilities and the status of repair and disrepair across area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools. Staff reported that magne schools receive first priority and that requests for repair for area schools are not treated equa . Staff also indicated that a visit by a member of the Governing Board often triggered installation or repair of a long requested improvement in basic facilities. This discrepancy will be discussed in more detail in a later section of this document under Standard 5. Inequity Qf Curriculum Materials. An example of inequity in distribution of curriculum materials is the allocation of library books to schools. While each school meets minimum North Central standards for the number of books per student, there is a marked inequity in library holdings. Exhibit III.3.1.1 illustrates these differences across schools. Library book distribution at the elementary schools, organized into categories of area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools, shows that an average allocation for an elementary school is 24 library books per pupil, with a range in allocation is from 15 books per pupil to about 54 books per pupil. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit Cl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 50 Library book allocation per student across junior high schools averages about 16 library books per student. The range is about 10 books per student to about twenty-three books per student. Library book allocation per student across the high schools averages about 13 books per student. The range is about 11 books per student to about 19 books per student. Library book allocation for all schools is about 25 books per student on average, with a range of 10 books per ~tudent to 54 books per student. These are unusually wide variances for a school district striving to gain equity and consistency across educational sites. N u m Exhibit Ill.3.1.1 Comparisons of Number of Library Books Per Pupil - Little Rock Schools b 100 e r 0 r B 0 0 k s ..\n!4 s 10 Elementary 1!1?3 -16 e Junior High Level of Buildings 9 -3 1 High School :~ Mean I I  High j I These differences in library allocation parallel many other observed differences in distribution and allocation of resources. The difference in the allocation of library books per student across elementary, junior high school and high schools was mirrored across supplies, furniture, equipment and buildings. Another example of inequity in curriculum materials is the distribution of maps and globes to support the social studies curriculum and the new multicultural curriculum. Auditors observed marked differences in the availability of these basic tools across the schools. Many staff reported that they did not have the materials called for in their curriculum guides and did not know when basic classroom tools such as maps and globes would be a priority in school budgets. Lntle Rock School D,stnct Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 51 There is evidence. however. that there is equity in some textbook allocations. All classrooms at all elementary sites which were visited appeared to have complete sets of the basal reading series and the supporting materials. Both regular classrooms and special education resource programs had adopted reading materials. Most sites have the new social studies textbook and supporting materials\nhowever, there was evidence that some sites were not using these materials. Young Scholar With a Book Inequity cl Silll Eiq2ertise llilll Assiiwment. The auditors found evidence of inequity of stall expertise across school sJtes. Experienced staH are more likely to transfer to magnet schools and new inexperienct:d staff arc mor::: li\\.:dy tone assigneii to area scnoob. In addition, some school's faculties are not reflective o[ the district's faculty composition and characteristics, which indicates inconsistency or disagreement betwern district policy and school-level practices. As an example nf the inconsi~tcncy in staff a~signrnenl. the auditors looked at schools and the composition of their faculty compart:d to their student body. Junior High School faculty compositions reflect imbalance in '. cacher assig:nment by race as shown in the following Exhibit lll.3 .1.2: Exhibit III.3.1.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 52 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Faculties - Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt PulskiH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar ClovrDI 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 White Tchrs = Black Tclirs From the above exhibit, it is easy to determine that their is a big difference in the racial percentages of faculty at the various schools. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High has the smallest percentage of black teachers of all the schools and is a full 13 percentage points less than the district average. The question of whether this is intentional or not on the part of the administration is less important than the question of why such discrepancies aren't predicted by official school district policy. If the district policy were applied consistently in the case of the junior high schools, faculty assignment would be no less \"racially identifiable\" than the policy specifies. There is also a difference in the level of expertise assigned to various schools. In the following exhibit, Exhibit III.3.1.3, the average number of years of experience of the teaching faculty at junior high schools was examined, and the differences were noticeable. One school, Cloverdale Junior High School has a ..___ very inexperienced faculty, and the average faculty member is nontenured. Such discrepancy in assignment of teaching expertise represents inconsistency given no policy requirement for the distribution of experienced teachers faun . District Southwt PulslriH Exhibit 111.3.1.3 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 53 Comparisons of Teacher Experience  Little Rock Junior High Schools 1990 i=================================.-----~ -!::===============================================::.--~ MannM I i:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,-------~ Mablvl ~---------------~ Hndrsn ,\n:==========================================-.-----~ ForstHt Dunbar t====:.:.:.-:.-:.-:.-_-_-_-_-....,----------~ OovrDI -=======\n===--~-----,-----+----------, 0 2 4 6 8 10 Average Years of Experience Distribution of students is shown in the Junior High Schools in Exhibit Ill3.l.4. There are also discrepancies between schools in the racial composition of schools, but in this case, such discrepancies were documented in accordance with plans and policy of the district. However, the auditors found that in actual practice, the magnet concept provides an incentive at the junior high level for a composition of white/black students which favors an inordinate percentage of white students. The auditors heard from many sources that the magnet junior high school is highly sought after by white families, and that more white students than black students are admitted into the magnet junior high because of greater 'political\" influence on district assignment processes among white parents. The pupil assignment office procedures were not a part of the audit. nor was a clear finding determinable. However, the racial composition of the various junior high schools might appear to support the complaints heard from parents and teachers, as shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit UI.3.1.4 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;l) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 54 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Students Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt Pulsk.iH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar OoVTDI 0% - ------------ - - --- --- ----. - . -- -- - 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finding 3.2: Curriculum monitoring practices arc inconsistent 0 White Students = Black Students Some principals monitored teachers' lesson plans for incorporation of curricula objectives\nhowever, man principals had no strategy for determining the degree of classroom implementation of the prescribed curriculum. Teachers also reported wide discretion in selection of teaching content, and reported little direction from some principals in curriculum or determinations of what to teach. A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum. Only about onethird of the principals routinely checked each teacher's lesson plans for incorporation of multicultural objectives. Teachers' lesson plans, in the schools where principals monitored, consistently reflected integration of multicultural objectives into instructional plans. However, in many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. urthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives. Specific level tests have not been developed and the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test samples multicultural objectives prior to the scheduled sequence for instruction in the Little Rock curriculum guide. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 55 Finding 3.3: Placement of students in programs and classes is inconsistent Gifted and Talented Classes. The Little Rock School District has provided instruction for gifted and talented students at each of its schools, but placement of students does not appear to follow any clear cut guidelines or procedures. Teachers complained that procedures to group students for \"GT\" instruction, as it is called, were inconsistent and undependable. The auditors found that the pattern of criteria used for placement of selected students to be erratic and without common patterns. According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were grohibited from bein~ racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. In a move toward equity, the district has provided a chance for nearly every student in the district to get into the talent pool for consideration. Criteria for placement include the following: Gifted and Talented Nomination Criteria Total Battery on the MAT-6 (50%ile or above) Recommendation for inclusion (any source) Gifted and Talented Selection Criteria Academic Ability (MAT-6) Creativity (Torrance Test) Motivation (Teacher Referral) Additional Data (Biographical data, etc.) Placement by the School and District Placement Committees Placement records examined by the auditors did not confirm a consistent pattern of compliance with any objective criteria. For example, below is a comparison of the selection profiles used in placement of selected gifted and talented students in high schools and in elementary schools. Students were scored according to three criteria: Metropolitan Achievement Test, Version 6\nTorrance Test of Creative Ability\nand teacher rating of potential for success in the program. As shown in the following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.3.1) , the profile of these four randomly selected students is inconsistent. No similarity of test/rating information appears among the group. Exhibit III.3.3.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 T ..... ~ 90 - T * T t I ~ I i  MAT-6 80 t I   Test/Rating I I I 70   I  TTCA Score 0-100 60 1 .\u0026amp; I AT. Profile 50 40 WMale BMale WFcma BFcma Little Rock High School Students II these four randomly selected students were representative of the high school student population enrolled in the gifted and talented program, the criteria for placement stated by the Little Rock School District would be violated. Looking at the chart, the white male has a lower teacher recommendation profile than the black male, yet the MAT-6 six scores are similar. No such similarity exists between the white female and the black female. According to the Little Rock School District's published criteria for placement in the Gifted and Talented program, the students selected above apparently qualify for eligibility for screening. Any student with a 50th percentile (50%) or above on the MAT-6 or any student who is recommended for inclusion is eligible for consideration. As lo placement in the program, the decision is made centrally by a review and placement committee, which is empowered to place students in the Gifted and Talented program at any school in the district. More information is available as the efficacy of this placement process. The following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.32) demonstrates the range of abilities placed in the elementary gifted program: Exhibit IIl.3.3.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 57 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 - ' 90 -   !  80 !!! I  MAT-6 Rdg Test/Rating 70 ! I A.TICA Score (0-100) T i 60 l  T  T. Profile I l I 50 A A' 40 WMale BMale WFema BFema Little Rock Elementary School Students In the elementary examples given above the range of achievement on the MAT-6 is spread out considerably from the 65th percentile or so for the females, and at the 95th percentile for the males. Discontinuity in placement is obvious from the data given. Inconsistency of placement procedures can be a threat to equity in the Little Rock School District unless the rules and procedures governing student placement are clearly defined. As the auditors found, little or no consistent rationale was found to be established in the placement of gifted and talented students. If the inconsistency were observed with a corresponding balance in racial distribution among classes, such an inconsistency could be construed to help the school district avoid racially identifiable classes. However, the auditors observed that the racial distribution of students in gifted and talented classes and in \"regular\" classes followed no such pattern. Note the racial composition of the classes in the pictures below: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 58 SluJenls c1l Pulc1ski Heights Junior High School: Gifted and Talented (Enriched) English Students al Pulaski Heights Junior High School - \"Regular\" English Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 59 Staff also reported that black high school students were frequently counseled to enroll in Gifted and Talented courses rather than Advanced Placement courses. This counseling practice and/or placement decision creates inequity in future opportunity for post-secondary schooling. Physically Handicapped Pro~ams. Placement practices for integration of physically handicapped students are dictated by the physical inaccessibility of many schools and programs. While the physically handicapped are a low incidence population, their educational needs have greater legal protection than those of the non-handicapped. Many schools in the Little Rock School District are not accessible to the physically handicapped. The opportunity of this population is restricted by the absence of physical access at many sites. Decisions regarding their programming are influenced by the condition of school sites. The inequity in facilities produces greater inequity for this population than for others. Reeular and Enriched Classes, Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. For example, in the junior high schools, the percentage of black students in regular classes is dramatically higher than the percentage of black students in enriched classes. Both types of classes have a racial distribution of students different that the distribution of the entire student body. Exhibit III.3.3.3 shows the difference among these classes across junior high schools. 85 P 75 + C r 65 - C C 55 - n 45 - I a 35 1 g C 25 - 15 Exhibit IIl.3.3.3 Junior High School Racial Distribution in Regular and Enriched Classes: Little Rock Schools, 1990 All Classes Regular Classes Enriched Classes  Black 0 White High school English classes also renected inconsistency in student placement. The percentage of black students in regular English classes far exceeds the equivalent percentage of the total student body. High Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 60 Schools are also dissimilar in this regard. A black student has a greater likelihood, on a percentage basis, to get into a gifted English class at McClellan and Parkview High Schools, and much less of a chance to receive the same opportunity at Hall, Central, and Fair High Schools. These discrepancies in English classes amount to \"resegregation\" or \"tracking\" of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in educational opportunities for minority students. The distribution of students and comparisons between high schools are shown in Exhibit III.3.3.4 as follows: CHS-Gift CHS-Reg Exhibit III.3.3.4 Comparisons of Pupils by Race in 11th Grade Gifted and Regular English Clasacs. Little Rock. High Schools 1990 FHS-Gift _!!! ___ , FHS-Rcg HHS-Gift HHS-Reg MHS-Gift MHS-Reg PHS-Gift PHS-Reg --- - -----.- --- --- --- 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Students 350 i O White I I  Black The auditors found that junior high school principals were not cognizant of these discrepancies. No principal complained about the imbalance of racial groups within the regular and enriched classes. The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities. Special Education Proiuams. Placement in special education programs is inconsistent. The percentage of black students in special education is discrepant from the percentage of black students in the school district, and the discrepancy is very noticeable at some schools. The district percentage of black students is about 64%, but the percentage of black students placed in special education is about 70%, indicating inconsistency in placement practices at the school level. Not all principals indicated that they participate Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 61 in the placement process, since some principals reported that they delegate the responsibility for school placement process teams. Principals perform unevenly in the capacity of controlling consistency in placement of special education students. As an example, two junior high schools, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, demonstrate major discrepancies in the special education placement practices between blacks and whites. In these two schools, a larger percentage of blacks is placed in special education than the total school percentage of blacks would indicate should be the case. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High School has a total school population of 721 students, of which 454 students are black comprising a black percentage of 63%. However, the special education student placements number 65, of which 53 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 82%. Forest Heights has a total school population of 808 students, of which 538 students are black comprising a total school black percentage of 67%. However, the special education student placements number 73, of which 59 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 81 %. Other schools do not show such dramatic differences in total student body and special education percentages of black students. These discrepancies were not explained by the principals. Central office administrators indicated that such distributions were inconsistent with district policies and desegregation mandates from the federal courts. The abdication of principal's control results in inconsistency and inequity. The racial distribution disparities between the total school populations and the special education populations are illustrated in the descriptive exhibit (Exhibit III.3.3.5) which follows: p E R C E N T Exhibit IIl.3.3.5 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 62 COMPAIUSONS OP BLACK ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGES SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND TOT AL SCHOOL STUDENT BODY: UITU! ROCK SCHOOLS 85 I so l\na i) ! 0 75 T C I I ..,., 70 t I I I I   I  SPED 6.5 l iJ Ci I I  60 t  ID SCHOOL ss T so I I 4s l I 40 a ... \u0026lt;n1 Dm,t,u Pcwadl - MAbd - Pawltl SoaWea JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The discrepancy between junior high school special education black student percentages and total student body black student percentages is mirrored in high schools as well. Central High School has 58% black students in the total student body, but has 84% black students in special education programs, with a 26 percentage point discrepancy. Parkview High School has 54% black students in the total student body, but has 64% black students in special education programs, with a 10 percentage point discrepancy. Differences in the high schools are shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit lll.3.3.6 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Black Student Percentages: Little Rock Hi~ Schools, 1990 Special Ed Total School High School Black Black Students Students JA Fair 58% 56% McClellan 69% 59% Parkview 64% 54% Hall 64% 53% Central 84% 58% Such discrepancies as shown in the exhibit above establish that the placement pra, School District are inconsistent, and inequitable for students across the school sys Discrepancy: Total% - Spec Ed% -2% -10% -10% -~ C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 63 Suspensions and Drop Outs. The rate and nature of suspended students and the number and nature of students who drop out varies across schools as well. For example, students are twice as likely to drop out of McClellan High School as they are from Parkview High School. In addition, students are far more likely to be suspended for misconduct from McOellan High School as from Fair High School. These data are illustrated in the following exhibits: Exhibit Ill.3.3.7 Annual Long Term Suspension Rates 1989-90 p e 1.50% +---------------------.-------------- ,, C 1.25% -----------------/-. ___\"_ ' __________ e 1.00% ...._ ______________\" \"/_ ____' -_,,,,_ _________ n / '\"' t 0.75% --------------,-,,---------------- a 0.50% +-I-----..,.-.,-\"--.-------,------------------ e 0.25% ,----------s,-------,,,\"~-------------------- g 0.00% _\n__ ____________ __,_ ________ -+----- 30.00% 1 p e 25.00% 1 C 20.00% - e n 15.00% - a 10.00% 1 g e 5.00% - 0.00% Central Fair Hall McClellan Little Rock High Schools Exhibit III.3.3.8 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons: 1988-89 Central Fair Hall McCtelln Little Rock High Schools Parkview Parkview  Total U White  Black Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 64 Consistent school district practices would be predicted if there were an established policy, framework for decisions on suspension, and uniform drop-out processing. No diversification of services among high schools was found to attend to measured differences in the student body clientele, nor were consistencies noted among schools in methods for handling such problems. Such absence of predicted configurations in school district practices reflect the inconsistency of policy and practice in the Little Rock School District. Finding 3.4: Promotion-retention practices are inconsistent Staff in schools report applying the same criteria when making retention and promotion decisions. In a random sample of retention reports from six elementary schools, there is a marked difference across schools in the results of the application of the reported criteria. Exhibit Ill.3.4.1 shows the differences. Grade one was selected for analysis. The percent of students retained ranges from a low of 52% to a high of 52%, with an average retention rate in the six sample schools of 22%. p 60.00% T e 50.00% 1 r C 40.00% - e 30.00% n T 20.00% ! a 10.00% .!. g e 0.00% Exhibit III.3.4.1 Percentage of Grade One Students Retained - Six Sample Schools: Little Rock, 1990 52.00% n 22.00% 5.20% Low Mean High Retentions vary significantly from school, particularly in grade 1. In several selected elementary schools, the number of first grade students retained in 1989-90 was particularly disparate, indicating inconsistency. This discrepancy in retention prac\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":725,"next_page":726,"prev_page":724,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8688,"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}}]}}