{"response":{"docs":[{"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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_489","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District, Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, First quarter report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["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 School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District, Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, First quarter report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/489"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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-r .u Little Rock School District February 25, 1991 TO: LRSD Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 1 5001 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Report for the Incentive Schools. The report summarizes the findings from the first monitoring visits to the incentive schools. Each incentive school principal was asked to respond to the concerns listed in the monitoring report. review. Ho concerns were listed for Rightsell. The responses are attached for your 810 West Markham Street *  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374.3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Prepared By PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas December 1990 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring of the Incentive Schools by the Little Rock School  *   The committee is required to District Biracial Committee. monitor each incentive school once each quarter. Using a monitoring form developed by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, the Biracial Committee conducted Each team school visits during October 1990 and November 1990. reviewed a school profile which contained basic information related to current conditions in the schools. This report is a summary of the school visits conducted by the LRSD Biracial Committee. 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs At each school the monitors expected to see: * Racially balanced staff which reflects appropriate percentages * Racial/gender balance in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade level * School enrollment to be within the appropriate racial/ethnic range prescribed by the court order * Racial/gender enrollment of classrooms and courses to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school * Racial and gender enrollment of extended educational programs to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school Findings: All chools were within appropriate percentages for ertified staff, although the Rockefeller team noted the low number of black teachers assigned to Rockefeller. Noncertified staff percentages extend from 71% black at Stephens to 100% black at Ish and Rightsell. A scarcity of INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 2 black and white male teacher role models for students at the elementary level was evident. TABLE 1 INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF BY RACE 1990-91 Teachers Black White #/% Other #/% Total Non Certified Black #/% White #/% Total Garland 14/50% 14/50% 0/0% 28 9/53% 8/47% 17 Ish 12/57 o 9/43% 0/0% 21 13/93% 1/7% 14 Mitchell I \nhtsell Rockefeller Stephens 15/60 Q. 10/40% 0/0% 25 14/100 0/0 14 11/52% 9/30% 14/52% 10/48 20/67% 13/48% 0/0 o, *6 21 15/100% 0/0 15 1/3% 0/0% 30 33/83% 7/17% 40 27 12/71 6 5/29 17 Black Teachers may constitute 25-50% of the certified staff TABLE 2 INCENTIVE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT COMPARISON BY RACE (10-31-90) 1990-91 Pre-K K -6 Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell P I ack n/% 11/ 58% 13/ 93% White /% 7/ 37% 1/ 7% No Program No Program 41/ 41% Iv-.y T!/ o8 % 6/ 32% Other /% 1/ 5% 0/ 0% 1/ 1% 0/ 0% Total 19 14 100 19 Black /% 16/ 84% 16/ 100% 31/ 86% 32/ 97% 11/ 56% 28/ 90% White H/i 3/ 16% 0/ 0% 5/ 14% 1/ 3% 26/ 44% 2/ 7% other S/% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 1/ 3% Total 19 16 36 33 59 31 Black 192/ 90% 124./ 98% 153/ 88% 158/ 99% 159/ 76% 163/ 95% White /% 13/ 6% 1/ 2% 21/ 12% 0/ 0% 4 5/ 22% 8/ 5% Other 9/ 4% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 1/ 1% 5/ 2% 6/ 4% Total 214 127 174 159 209 171 Grand Total 252 157 210 192 368 221 The acceptable range for black student enrollment (K-6) in arfia schools is 51 percent - 76.5 percent. All schools exceeded the acceptable range for area school student enrollment except Rockefeller. The student enrollment at Rockefeller is 68% black, 30%'white, and 2% other.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 3 Responses from Principal(s): 2.0 The principal at Ish School understood that one of her roles was to recruit white students. she has tried to do so with little success. She said that The school biracial committee was devising a plan to sell the school to white families. Curriculum At each school the monitors expected to see: * A culturally diverse curriculum that mirrors the student population * A scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias free curriculum * An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the curriculum * Varied teaching strategies that match the learning styles of the students * Current and accurate documentation of student progress * Teachers demonstrating an understanding of a multiculturally infused curriculum * Displays, bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population r'xndings: The Garland Biracial Committee visited five classrooms and responded positively to all items in this area. Additional comments from teachers interviewed indicated they had adequate materials, including multicultural curriculum guides. Displays of student work, bulletin boards and teachers plan books verified the implementation of the multicultural curriculum. Monitors observed students actively engaged in classroom instruction. At all incentive schools, the seating patterns in the classrooms observed, promoted interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds to the degree possible. Total realization of this goal was hampered by the low enrollment of white students.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 4 student records at Garland, Rightsell and Stephens were current and complete. However, it was reported that Academic Skills Development Plans (ASDPs) at Ish and Mitchell were not available in all observed classrooms. At Mitchell, an ASDP located in the student's permanent record folder did not show documentation of mastered skills. Reports from Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Stephens indicated that the Student Educational Plans (SEPs) were The Rockefeller team reported developed for each student. that in most classrooms visited student Individual Education Plans (lEPs) and Academic Skills Development Plans were not current or complete. The Ish team reported that materials and equipment were excellent, that the multicultural guides were in every classroom visited, and that all children were However, a need for participating in classroom activities. more black publications on natural sciences was noted. At Mitchell the team reported that multicultural guides were visibly in use and that teachers and students expressed pride in the content. The team believed the bulletin boards and displays in the school and classrooms were excellent reflections of the implementation of the multicultural curriculum and various teaching strategies to accommodate different learning styles. The Rockefeller staff members reported having adequate materials to deliver the curriculum. During the team's classroom visits, students were very actively involved in classroom instruction with a great deal of student interaction occurring. The team reported a variety of materials reflecting the racial/gender difference of the student population. Monitors noted that teachers observed at Stephens had and were using the multicultural curriculum guides. Multicultural materials were in use in most classrooms visited, and a wide variety of ethnic and multicultural These displays art was displayed throughout the school. were representative of the racial/ethnic and gender  ' ' The classroom seating differences of the student body. and while patterns provided for racial/ethnic interaction, students were involved in classroom instruction, monitors noted that \"some II were more actively involved than others. The majority of teachers visited maintained current and However, some student magazine . ...mplete student records, tests were unavailable. Short term goals were listed on the Student Educational Plans (SEPs) in all monitored classrooms .INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 5 Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that fifty students attended the LRSD summer school for either enrichment or to maintain skills. The tuition for these students was paid by the LRSD and was included in the school Saturday school serves only a few children budget. because the District does not provide transportation. Therefore, practically all of the children who attend are ones who can walk to school. On Saturday, November 3, thirty-one children attended\nfewer than thirty-one attended on previous Saturdays. 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards At each school the monitors expected to see:  A variety of awards and honors * Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards  Methods for communicating requirement to all students * A process to evaluate the honors and awards program * Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities - Visible evidence that non-athletic awards and honors are .* valued as much as athletic awards and honors (secondary schools) Findings: were All teams reported that a variety of awards and honors provided for academic achievement and citizenship. The Stephens team reported that a variety of simple incentive programs were used to ensure wide participation of most students. It was reported by the Rockefeller team that more awards could be encouraged. It was reported by all teams that procedures were evident to ensure that students were apprised of The Rockefeller requirements governing honors and awards. principal made personal announcements and conducted meetings inform students about award opportunities.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 6 The Stephens team reported that students were aware of and knew the requirements for academic and behavior honor rolls. According to the Stephens team, procedures were evident to assure that students were apprised of information regarding the various opportunities in educational programs\nthe school initiates its own academic competitions based upon the philosophy of the principal. Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Ish commented that in order for more students to be eligible for an award, the principal awarded certificates to those students who had been present ninety-five (95%) percent of the time. 4.0 Committees At each school the monitors expected to see: * Racial/gender composition of committees generally reflects the school community Findings: As evidenced by information listed in the school ,\u0026lt; t\u0026gt;j.ofiles, committees appointments reflected that members had knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. Committee members were selected on a voluntary basis and by request, according to interviewed staff at some schools. Responses from Principal(s): (None given) 5.0 Extracurricular Activities At each school the monitors expected to see: * Extracurricular activities generally balanced by race and gender leadership positions generally balanced by race and gender when appropriate ' Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races in extracurricular activitiesINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 7 Findings: Five of the six monitored schools (Ish, Garland, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) reported that participation in extracurricular activities included activity in a Host and Hostess Club and a Just Say No Club. These activities generally reflected the schools' population. The Mitchell staff reported to the monitoring team that an adequate job was being done in the area of student participation in extracurricular activities, and that by the next monitoring visit, additional activities would be developed. Responses from Principal(s)\nIt was also reported by the principal at Ish that the Incentive schools were in the process of developing an athletic program where skills could be learned in sports such as tennis, and schools would compete against each other, this area. There were no other team comments regarding 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment At each school the monitors expected to see: * All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly X . * Evidence that graduation/promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement. * Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups Findings: When test results were examined for the visited schools, evidence was not available in the monitoring reports that the achievement of white students remained stable or increased as black student achievement improved. Monitors reported that data to compare students, year to year, was not readily available at 'me schools. Some monitors stated that a comparison couldn't be made until the 1991 test scores were available.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 8 Goals and strategies were developed to decrease the achievement differences between black and white students at most of the monitored schools. strategies, as documented in the school profiles, given for the norm referenced test, the Arkansas Achievement were Minimum Performance Test. Strategies for improving student achievement were described for various subjects and grade levels in the Annual School Improvement Plans. When retention rates were examined and compared, no differences were evident between identifiable groups of students at some of the schools visited. Very few students were retained at some schools as evidenced in the school profiles. In schools where differences were evident, the identifiable groups were most often black males and/or first grade students. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Ish reported that an intense effort was being made to work individually with at-risk students to remediate necessary skills and to get them on level, both relative to test scores and grade level work. Students who need additional assistance are identified\nthe teachers provide appropriate teaching strategies\naides work with the students, and if indications are observed that this is not providing necessary instruction, the Pupil Services Team considers the _Ludent's situation and appropriate actions are taken by the team. 7.0 Special Education At each school the monitors expected to see: * Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures * Special Education facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences * Strategies to decrease any overrepresentation of minoritiesINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 9 Findings: Monitoring reports from Ish and Mitchell schools reflected all positive responses in this area. In these schools monitors noted that the special education facilities were comparable to other classrooms, were appropriately located in regard to the total school environment and were adequately furnished with materials and equipment. Teachers at these schools reported that the referral system involved the Pupil Services Team (PST) and other teachers who monitored and assessed student needs. At Ish, teachers interviewed believed that there were no students with special needs that were not being served. There is no special education classroom at Rightsell. The special resource teacher is assigned to Rightsell and a nearby elementary school on half-time basis. At Garland, the self-contained classrooms were well integrated into the total school (located on different levels). The special resource teacher was not interviewed because the half-time schedule provided for these services in the afternoon only, responses were positive. All other The special resource teacher at Rockefeller was not interviewed, but the monitors responded positively to all items in this area. The committee report for Stephens contained only one comment. This was in regard to strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education. They reported that, according to the principal, students were carefully screened before being placed in special resource classes. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Garland indicated to the monitors that resource students and Community-Based Instruction (CBI) students participated in several activities such as: collating and stapling materials and newsletters for distribution, awards for most improvement, the KGAR radio station and other school functions. The principal at Ish said that students in the self-contained class participated in many programs including art, music, and assemblies.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 10 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education At each school the monitors expected to see: * Students identified through referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff * A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of minorities in gifted and talented programs * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class * Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Findings: The team monitoring Rightsell neither visited the classroom for gifted and talented students, nor the teacher\ntherefore, no responses are available concerning the Gifted and Talented (G/T) Program at that school. In all of the incentive schools, except Stephens and Rightsell, monitors reported that strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to G/T programs are evident. However, teams from Mitchell, Stephens, and Garland were the only ones that reported the enrollment of white students in the G/T program. Three of the eleven students in the G/T class at Ish are male. The monitors at Stephens indicated that although all students are screened on the same basis for entrance into the G/T Program, the low white population makes it difficult to draw a conclusion relative to eliminating disproportionate student assignment to that program. All monitored G/T classrooms have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, ording to observations reported by the monitoring - jMS . The facilities for G/T students are comparable to those of the campuses in general and are designed to meet the needs of the students served.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 11 With the exception of the G/T classroom at Mitchell, monitors considered the classrooms as integrated into the total school environment. ' The facility at Mitchell is housed in an extension to the building and is separated from the other classrooms in the main building and from the ones located in a separate building on the campus. Responses from Principal(s): (None given) 9.0 Staff Development At each school the monitors expected to see: * Staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the school mission and purpose * Staff development provided at a variety of places and times * Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan * Documentation of staff development participation Findings: The monitoring reports revealed that staff development related to educational equity had been provided. However, the monitoring reports did not indicate how many staff members were involved in the training, nor the kinds of staff development that had been made available. At Rockefeller the teachers expressed a need for more training in the use of the multicultural curriculum guides. Responses were limited regarding staff, development activities related to equitable staffing practices. At Mitchell it was shared that staff development in this area was sufficient, but at Garland evidence was nonexistent. Responses from Principal(s): me principal of Ish reported that in addition to the twenty days of staff development and the District-wide Desegregation Inservice days, staff development inservices i-re presented at each monthly staff meeting, which included but was not limited to, testing preparation and conflictINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 12 It was shared that the topics selected were the management. results of a survey conducted by the Director of Staff Development in the spring of 1990. The principal of Rockefeller expressed concern that time was not available for staff development activities related to equitable staffing practices, and that there were no plans to include these activities into the schedules. Garland the principal stated that she had no control over hiring. At 10.0 Parental Involvement At each school the monitors expected to see: * Evidence that the school reaches out to all segments of the total parent population * The school provides a continuous flow of information to parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance. * School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups * Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups s  * Transportation provided for parents who need the service when financially possible it Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited * School functions scheduled in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents Findings: Overall parental involvement of all identifiable groups of parents at the incentive schools was limited. The major concerns were more involvement from black and non-black parents, lack of transportation for working r^arents, and an inactive or unorganized PTA. The turns' team indicated that many strategies were being uoed to solicit parent participation, but the process bad produced very little success.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 13 Documentation regarding methods to encourage parents in school and in home supported educational activities was evident at all incentive schools, schools reported that some contact was made with All parents to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student achievement and/or behavior. At Garland the teachers stated that they were making an attempt to make positive as well as negative contacts related to student behavior. At Mitchell a procedure had been established that required each teacher to make two positive calls before any negative calls could be made. According to the reports of Ish, Garland, Mitchell, and Rockefeller, patrons and/or parents of the incentive schools did actively participate in the writing of the local school plans. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Ish indicated that each teacher was to make one positive phone call to a parent each week regarding student achievement/behavior. It was also shared that every letter or bulletin that was sent home was numbered with a tear-off section at the bottom for students to return. this section was returned, documentation. it was kept on file as When The principal further reported that Ish had established a parent center that is utilized by all identifiable groups of parents.  These same parents chaperone field trips, tutor, serve as room parents, and participate in PTA. She also shared that there was 100% participation on student conference day. The School profile from Stephens suggested that very little parental involvement was apparent. The principal expressed in the report that he did not believe in the hands of parents\" to encourage involvement. holding that parents should be responsible on their own. He feels He stated also that the opportunity for involvement is always present, but the patrons and parents of that particular school community were not responsive. 11.0 Student Discipline At each school the monitors expected to see: * No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzedINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 14 * Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management * The discipline program monitored, evaluated and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students by race and gender Findings: Monitors of all incentive schools indicated that information related to student disciplinary policies has been distributed to parents and students. Garland School sent a handbook to each parent. Ish School has on file forms signed by parents and students indicating receipt of handbooks. posted in most rooms. At each incentive school classroom rules are Suspension and expulsion rates are generally representative of the student population, according to the monitors at all incentive schools except Rightsell. The team at Rightsell felt that the school enrollment should be considered and did not draw any conclusions regarding these rates. expulsions. Ish and Garland reported no suspensions or Monitors indicated that classroom instruction in all incentive schools proceeded in an orderly manner. However, the team at Stephens considered the observation time too short to allow the monitors to fully observe the ' progress of instruction. In all of the incentive schools except Stephens, the monitoring teams indicated that the teachers were very active and visible in directing/controlling students. The team that visited Stephens stated that it needed to return to the school for further observation. With the exception of Garland and Ish, where the principals intentionally stayed out of the halls to allow the monitors free access to classrooms, all teams indicated that the principals were also very active and visible in directing/controlling students. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate sanctions among identifiable student groups are evident at f.tsell. Garland, Rockefeller, and Ish, according to monitors. The teams at Mitchell and Stephens declined to draw conclusions relative to the evidence of such strategies.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 15 Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that all referred discipline problems are handled via a conference with the parent, oftentimes with the parent, student, and principal participating together. 12.0 Building Leadership/Management At each school the monitors expect to see: * Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals * Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly states expectations and norms for student conduct and that these policies are distributed and explained * Documentation of school-home communication and contact * Parents from all identifiable groups active in the decision making process * Evidence that an on-going review of procedures regarding expectations for student conduct occurs * A physical environment that supports the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti X * Strategies established to prevent one-race classes and review of the strategies to determine effectiveness a * Evidence that the principal monitors the curriculum * Strategies to increase the number of minority students in upper level courses/class groups * Evidence which indicates that all students are served by the guidance program * A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program Findings: All six teams responded positively that the schools had clear, concise, well-written statements of specific improvement goals. One monitoring team said that mere specifics regarding inservice for new staff could be added to the school improvement goals.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 16 All monitoring teams reported that the schools had appropriate strategies for attaining improvement goals. Although the Ish team members said that this was difficult to measure at this time. Five positive responses were made regarding the schools having an effective home/school communication program. At Ish school a memorandum was sent home with children each week\nand at this school, a parent survey was conducted at the end of the first nine weeks. Rockefeller the team said that the staff effort to At communicate was commendable. At this school notes were sent home about open house\nnumerous letters went home from individual teachers, and special announcements were sent home telling parents about the awards assembly and criteria for awards. At Stephens there was no apparent two-way feedback between staff and parents. There also was no effort to assess the effectiveness of the communication process prior to this monitoring visit. All monitored schools had available student handbooks which published clear statements of expectations for student conduct. At one school there was evidence that students and parents had signed a form stating that they had read and understood the student handbook. Evidence was seen at two schools that expectations for student conduct were posted in the classrooms. Comments about the campus and buildings were very positive. \"beautiful II If Very pleasant, and II It \"cheerful,\" excellently maintained fl II colorful, It were used to describe the campuses and buildings. orderly and the students were well behaved. The hallways were All positive responses were recorded related to the friendliness and helpfulness of the office staff. In schools where one-race classes existed, strategies to prevent or eliminate one-race classes were evident. Some reports mentioned impetus from the Little Rock School District central office staff was needed to eliminate one-race classes. All six monitoring teams reported that there was vidence curriculum monitoring occurred. Three school reports indicated that the principals had made specific efforts to monitor in the classrooms.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 17 The Garland team members said that strategies to increase the number of minority students enrolled in upper level courses were evident if you consider the extended day and Saturday activities as enrichment. Regarding this issue, the Ish Principal reported that the staff tries to inspire students to prepare so that they will be able to take upper level courses as they progress in school from grade level to grade level. The Ish staff also encourages students to participate in the Mathematics Olympiad and gifted programs. The team consensus for Mitchell School said that this item was not applicable to the school. The Rightsell monitoring team reacted positively to this issue\nbut they made no comment on this item. The Stephens team members gave no positive nor negative response to the item\ninstead they wrote not applicable. The Rockefeller team members reacted positively to the item, but they also wrote not applicable unless you include gifted in which case there was good evidence. At Mitchell school the counselor was not available on the day of the visit. Other teachers mentioned that the counselor visited all classrooms and worked with students help. out of the classrooms when they needed individual One team mentioned that one counselor to three hundred student ratio was a problem. At Rockefeller school the counselor was unable to take students from class for one-on-one help. The Incentive School Plan calls for no pullouts. According to the monitoring team, it was difficult for the counselor to do one-on-one and group work with the children. ------*  ' --------- School three days per week. The counselor is assigned to Rockefeller' Most staff monitored were unaware of the availability of information from former students to improve the program. At Ish school the parent surveys helped with a little data for this area. Responses from Principal(s): Principals identified the following monitoring activities: review of plan book review of grade distribution at the end of each grading period conferences with students and teachers The Ish principal reported that the Ish teachers had a major role in setting the goals of the school.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 18 She also said that when a student had a discipline problem and was sent to the school office, she reviewed the appropriate part of the discipline policy allegedly violated. The parent surveys at the end of the first nine weeks at Ish School included some items relative to curriculum monitoring. She did not say specifically what data was collected relative to this issue. All Ish staff, according to the principal, try to inspire students to prepare for upper level courses. Ish staff also encouraged students to participate in the Mathematics Olympiad and gifted and talented program. The Ish principal also has plans to generate a survey that will obtain information from former students. She has quite a few former students who come by the school to discuss their education at Ish School.\ndid not report specific data collected from former students. She Other Concerns/Comments: The school teams identified other concerns that were not related to specific items on the monitoring form, concerns are as follows: Those There is a need for direct recruitment of white students by central office personnel. Although no incidents have been reported, there are safety concerns for students and staff because of the dismissal time for the extended day during the central standard time period because it is dark when the students leave. There was concern for teachers and principals in all incentive schools \"holding up\" and Saturday activities. under demands of extended day The team for Mitchell stated: \"The environment at Mitchell is very positive and effective. We cannot help but say if other schools were like Mitchell, it would have a positive effect on teaching and learning and narrow the racial imbalance. 11INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES 1!To\nFrom: Subject: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Cheryl A. Simmons, Principal Date: /U4- Response to Concern Identified During November Sth Monitoring Visit November 30, 1990 Please find the identified concern listed below with the response following. 10.1 Parent involvement is on a limited basis. Will utilize PTA Council to get PTA organized. Garland's parents are involved in their children's education through working cooperatively with teachers in formulating Student Education Plans. Garland's parents also serve on its Bi-racial Advisory Committee, School Improvement Committee, Guidance Committee, and Discipline Management Committee. Parents have also been trained as APPLE facilitators and will be leading APPLE workshops this year, parents have attended Parent Center workshops. Several Garland Mrs. Essie Middleton, of the Little Rock PTA Council, is holding a workshop/planning session for Garland parents from 6:00-7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 4th to organize and plan for Garland's PTA for the 1990-91 school year. With the assistance of Mrs. Middleton and Mrs. Delores Egeston, Garland's parents will devleop a plan to organize a strong PTA which will provide continuity from year to year and serve as a valuable tool in recruiting parental involvement and improving communication.ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR December 3, 1990 TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development FROM: Lonnie S. Dean, Principal RE: Monitoring Team Visit - Response(s) 1.0 Non-certified staff has been all black since Ish School opened. They were allowed to remain when all other positions were vacated, try to fill vacant positions as needed with non-blacks. I will 1.2 The Bi-Racial Team is working on strategies to recruit more white students. We have enrolled two (2) white students since the team's visit. (We now have a total of five white students and one-hundred thirty five black students in Grades K-6). 1.4 The enrollment for Extended Day classes is one-hundred ten (110) out of a total of one-hundred twenty three (123) students enrolled in grades 1-6. Only thirteen (13) students do not participate in the Extended Day classes Monday through Friday. Our Saturday enrollment represents 83% of our walking students. District does not provide transportation for Saturday classes. Our 2.2 All ASDP's are available in each classroom now. Grades 4, 5, and 6. 2.5 Staff have displayed additional pictures in the areas of the sciences: i.e., medical field, lawyers, engineers, scientist, politicians, educators and businesses. 8.1 We are in the process of adding two (2) black males to the Gifted and Talented program. All paper work is completed.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 24 \u0026amp; Battery Streets Phone 375-6931 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM December 3, 1990 James Jennings. Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development hita Hudspeth, Principal fchell Elementary Response to Monitoring Concerns of November 8 First, I would like to express my appreciation for the comments registered in this report. While there is always room for improvement, I am proud of the program we have in place. The written student education plans in the format requested are new for most teachers. I am continuing to work with staff members individually and in groups to ensure that the plans are relevant and helpful. could vary depending on the student and teachers. Initiation dates All teachers, however, should be documenting when students have completed identified skills. with teachers individually. Again, I am working Part of the December faculty meeting will address these concerns. The need for increased parental Involvement is ongoing. We have increased attendance at meetings this year as well as a dramatic increase in volunteer hours thus far. While we have made improvement, we will continue to work in this area. jB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17th Phone 374-1226 Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72206 To: .1 m III B a .1 e n n i n g a , Navembtr 27, 1990 Aaaocialt Sup er i n tun dent far Descgregat i an Koni tor i ng and F-'ragrain DkvkI opnient From: Anne Mangan', Principal, Packafel 1 er School Sub j ec t\nResponse to concern of f i rat mon i tor i nej visit f r oni the Little Roel-: School District Biracial Advisory Commi ttet? On November 9, visit from the 1990, Pocb:efeller Bchoal had the LRSD Bi racial Advi sor y Commi tt?t?. first, monitoring On the conf tir ent.B, there was on!y one area of cancern Nineteen classes were visited and I was told that e:i pressed ' ei: i t to me. four teachers did not have records current or Educat i onal understandi ng. Equity Monitoring they report. were i ncomp1et e. further ver i f i es T fl e t fi a t on all answers which As I read the report I see that we received II would iiave indicated a yes H except the one mentioned (2.2). There were comments positive response on several i terns and a concern only at the end of the request to comment on the concern regarding report. I here is no safety or on the fact that the materials needed to be prepared for the monitoring team was sent, to the school only four days before the scheduled visit. This was not. enough time to adequately compile all documentation. You have been selective would like for me to for me to determine in choosing the criteria respond to in this report. i terns It is that you d i f f i c u 11 comments were selected flow they were chosen and others not. since-? some I wi 1 1 areas wi til i terns requested. respond to those 1.0 The i nterviewi ng i ntervi ewi ng staf f team. at Rockef el 1 er Bchool was seiec ted Each staff member by an process. Two of the went through an extensive original staff decided that they could not commit to tlie incentive were bl ack. Seven new black teachers or speci ali sts members v4io school plan were selected to be a part, of the Rockefeller staff. Of the seven new bl ack cer t i f i ed change to another fl a 1 a n c e t fi e s t a f f. staf f, four were allowed school file result by Numan Resources to with no regard for the need to racially a staff which is 297. black. It. is my understanding that this percentage, is in a n a c c eptable many black applicants range. vacancy. I have kept, in I plan to continue although not desirable. are available whenever close contact to interview as I have a teaching w i t f I Robert R o b i n son and interviewed every applicant me in the past. that he or Numan Resources has sent 2. 1 The? comment made about the need for nci ghb or hood and community l3 y k i n d e r g a r t e n younger children and to first grarie teachers awareness be-i'nre be taught more about being expected ntudy about the world was the general -feeling of those teacher to Thf'?y arf? r e q u i red t o folio w 11) e however and do so as directed. about using the required materi als. multi cultural They have had agreement of they teach. They just curri culum gu ides adequate inservice are not in total before school plus its appropriateness for the very young children that Twenty days of inservice have already been provided one other additional day. I am, at the determi ne if present any are not t i me, checking all teacher Mastery dates will be checked current, up-dated, and on a regular basis. records to complete. 2. S.vf I have suggested that a to better plan lessons would be desirable. usi ng staff development inservice on how t he mu 11 i cu 11.ur a 1 curriculum guides very helpful i f the .1 have also stated that I think it would be curr i culum supervisors could cross ref erence the material in different, subject areas. It. is my understanding that the January staff development day for incentive schools will be devoted to the indivi dual needs for teachers to feel to tie the school, 3, 1 More offered to year, turn in I suggestions which their greatest need. awards, than we have ever will gi ven students at Rockefeller School for i nd i cate before, have what have the 1990-91 asked they been school Students with straight A's and honor roll students for the first, nine weeks grading period have their names boldly displayed on the front hall wal 1 , week A reception students following the end of the first were invited to attend Thc-3 students were presented school Student II P. T.A,) , a and sti cker/badge. ch i1dren their parents. were in their honor was held the nine weeks. Parents of these and a large number Principal 's honored. were present, achievement ribbons (purchased by the Award penci 1 and a Refreshments followed for This activity PIans to was very have a Super all students well received. 87 recept i on students will be repeated at ttie end of each nine weeks. for honor each A I good Monday citizen of the week is announced over the intercom receiving morni ng, a students are gol d star The to be students chosen are honored with a further recognized Super Citizen II worn during by having the day/week, at lunch on that day. sign and helium balloons a special table by The set a centerpiece the Classes that playground all display good behavior in the week are awarded an extra period at the end of the contest time. cafeteria and on 15 minutes recess Students, i n behavior chart for some classes. who have no the week:, checks are allowed to bring their on their 1 unch trays to the classroom and have lunch with their teacher. Plans have been made with our partner. the Arkansa Gazette, to take the 6th grade honor students to the Gazette at the end of the yoar for a tour and lunch.Tbi? Arkansas Bazettt? wi 11 mine tc5 the make picture badge tor the honored students. awc^rds reception and help by providing some of the refreshments, to get special T-shirts for the Straight A They will al so They are also trying students. Bf.udnnts check V'jIio have proven to end oT the on citizenship on the report he good cards Oi tt aeppi hy having no will be honored at the year. Grades wi11 not be considered in this area. Perfect attendance awards will also be given. The monitors from businesses. suggested long term incentives uch as scholarships proposals that, have not I believe that this is one of the controversial date. I personally have no been approved by the courts as of this would certainly welcome any way of offering such an i ncenti ve. one of the monitoring team scholarships that could be offered members or obtai n such an offered to all i ncenti ve students on but feel an very cost. 1 y. suggestions about how that, it would have to equitable basis and it might I by to be be 7. P 1 e f t I am not aware Rockefeller or of any student. white nr black: who has plans to leave for reasons of special education needs met. team have members mentioned this not been able to identify I as not having think that, one of the monitoring being a student any s u c f i s t. u d e n t. in speech but I 10. 1 c1 assroom f unct i ons Teachers simply and was parents 1i mi ted. stated bei ng t. h a t a fl 1 e parent partici pation to Th i s i B participate 1 n in the school families have both away to volunteer p arent s work i ng i n t fl e partly di.ie to the fact that classroom. and they are Some tr ansportati on problems but. whenever this problem unable to parents do many get. have transportation has been o f fered pl armed. Act. i vi t i es to the parent. or is identified, a home visit is such ct 55 P. T.A. and after regular working hours open houses are held 10.2 the Whenever vi si t for anyone are to our total unable to the parent. ti me there 12. 1 a home visit, is made immediately stated, qi.iestion the purpose. c o n c e r n a n d i n t. e r e s t come to the it might We never try school, be no phone. members. Inservice on General are 1 the purpose and reason for There is A home i n 11 r e absolutely no reason vi si t student the school to make a c a n reinforce If a parent is can certainly come to surprise visit and the unannounced is j f there 1 55 an individual basis is held for information is assisted on their given as a only great, need and all new Staffneeds as determined by their assigned grade level and group but. teachers i n51.r (..icted on the assi gnment.12,3 Every effort is made to provide communication program at Rockefeller- an effective home/school School . will have to -further a goal. dates to ex p 1 cAi n i'low our- The monitoring team ef-forts are failing, to meet We are constantly notifying parents of up-coming events, aval 1atale, acti vi ti es .1 nf ormat i ve remember, acti vi ties t o P. T.A. meetings of i nterest.. articles are and In attend, entertai nment, sent to addi tion, parent, and news seminar5 any bul1et i ns other wi th from teachers, every Thursday. Parents parents and numerous letters I fail to see are sent a behavior report on their child anything but promote good home to school how any of these things could do communicati on.i-z ROCK SCHOOL D ISTRICT Stephens Elementary School 3700 West 18  Phone 663-8374  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 December 3, 1990 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development FROM: Stanton L. Strauss, Principal, Stephens Incentive School SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO CONCERNS FOR FIRST MONITORING VISIT 1.1. There are five black males on the staff: one P.E. teacher, one music substitute, one instructional aide, and two custodians. I followed the interview process as established by LRSD as well as reviewing personnel files in the department of Human Resources. The District has hired a full time employee to rectify the recruitment problem of lack of black males as well as black females in the District. 2.3. All students are involved through direct questioning, guided practice. and independent practice. More explanation is needed for ..more 'actively' involved... than others.\" Communication between student and teacher is to be done according to individual learning styles. Consideration also needs to be given to the amount of time the observers were actively\" observing whole classroom instruction and what teaching strategies were being used. X . 3.2. 3.4. report Stephens is in compliance with article 2.3. According to the According to the appraisal form Stephens's students do know the requirements for academic and behavior honors, yet this still is a concern. I don't understand these conflicting statements. to promote academic success. The entire focus is I see this as a very positive goal. Steps toward achievement must be taken one at a time. Teachers must start where the students are and not where we want them to be. can get all students working at grade level, that will be quite an accomplishment. Then we can go up from there. Here again I am reading conflicting statements. difficult. with article 3.4. If we Responding to this is According to the monitoring report Stephens is in compliance A statement reads that recognition of as many students as possible.\" attention is given to as possible how can more effort be given. If we are doing as much Stephens recognizies students through academic success, behavior success, good deed success, is done both publicly and privately. This LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas September 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs 2.0 Curriculum 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 4.0 Committees 5.0 Extended Day Educational Opportunities 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 7.0 Resource Education Programs 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 9.0 Staff Development 10.0 Parental Involvement 11.0 Student Discipline PAGE 1 1 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 9 Key: SP = School Profile O I D Observation Interview DocumentationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1991-92 SCHOOL Grade Level(s) DATE PRINCIPAL NUMBER OF CLASSES VISITED MONITOR(S) Observers are recruired to complete the comment section for each criterion. Please print observations and evidence in sufficient detail to indicate positive practices and areas in need of improvement. Observers should review the School Profile prior to completing this form. CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs SP 1.1 The composition of the school staff ensures that students have access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. COMMENTS: YES NO 2.0 Curriculum The school provides a curriculum that is reflective of cultural differences. Local and/or state-developed. course content guides enhance multi-cultural content in all curriculum areas. O/I 2.1 In classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver and use the multi-cultural curriculum. COMMENTS: YES NO \\Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 2 2.2 Current and complete student records are maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner, (i.e. grade books, reading folders, math folders. Permanent Record Cards, interim reports, report cards, student educational plans and Academic Skills Development Plans) COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.3 All students are actively involved in classroom instruction. COMMENTS: ____________________ _________ YES NO 2.4 There is evidence that the multicultural curriculum is being implemented. 0 2.4.1 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions throughout the school (including the media center) reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.4.2 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions in the classroom reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.4.3 Evidence of student achievement which reflects varying teaching strategies is widely displayed. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring \" for Incentive Schools Page 3 O/I 2.5 Hands-on discovery and exploration approaches are used to enhance the learning of science and math concepts. COMMENTS: _____________ ___________________ YES NO 2.6 I Special activities such as academic clubs, field trips, etc., are used to reinforce the academic program. COMMENTS: YES NO O/I 2.7 Achieving students who work well with other students, as well as students with outstanding academic averages, are used as peer tutors. COMMENTS: YES NO 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards The school ensures that no student is denied access to being selected for honors and awards through establishment of non-biased and equitable policies and procedures. SP A variety of awards and honors is provided in areas such as scholarship, citizenship, sports, school and community service, choral and instrumental music, attendance, clubs, and organizations. COMMENTS: ' ' . - YES NO 0/D 3.2 Procedures are evident to assure that students are apprised of requirements governing honors and awards. COMMENTS: YES NO 3.1Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 4 I/D 3.3 Procedures are evident to assure that students are apprised of information regarding various opportunities in educational programs. COMMENTS: _____________________________________ YES NO I 3.4 The offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student needs. COMMENTS: ________________________________ YES NO 4.0 Committees SP/I The school staff ensures that appointments to all school based committees are made in a non-biased and equitable manner which results in committees that have knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. COMMENTS: _________________________________________________ YES NO 5.0 Extended Dav Educational Opportunities The school provides and encourages participation by all students in extracurricular/co-curricular activities. D/I 5.1 Extended day activities are directly related to the objectives of each SEP and adjusted to meet the  needs of the students.  COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 5.2 The majority of the student population participates in extended day activities. COMMENTS: ________________________ YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 5 D 5.3 Parents are adequately informed about extended'day activities. COMMENTS: YES NO 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment The school staff implements non-discriminatory procedures for administration, analysis, tests. and use of standardized SP 6.1 When test results are examined, achievement of white students remains stable or increases as black student achievement improves. COMMENTS: YES NO SP 6.2 Goals and strategies are developed and implemented to improve student achievement using the following measures: ... norm referenced tests ... Arkansas Minimum Performance Test ... grade distribution ... Classroom Monitoring Report COMMENTS: YES NO 7.0 Resource Education Programs 7.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education are evident. COMMENTS: YES NO 7.2 In special education classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 6 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education SP/I 8.1 Strategies to increase the number of students assigned to gifted and talented are evident. COMMENTS: _______________ YES NO O/I 8.2 In gifted and talented classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. COMMENTS: __________________ YES NO 9.0 Staff Development The staff development plan for the school demonstrates commitment to educational equity. I 9.1 Staff development activities related to educational equity have been provided and are ongoing. COMMENTS: ____________________ YES NO SP/I 9.2 Staff development activities in teaching strategies for multi-cultural curriculum delivery have been provided. COMMENTS:  _____ ____ ______________ YES NO I 9.3 Staff development activities related to effective strategies to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population have been provided. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 7 SP/I 9.4 All teachers have participated in the following staff development activities:  PET  TESA  Classroom Management  Effective Schools COMMENTS: YES NO 10.0 Parental Involvement The school provides equitable opportunities for parental involvement in the district. SP/I 10.1 All identifiable groups of parents are actively involved in school functions. COMMENTS: YES NO D 10.2 The school keeps a record of the different methods (memo, letter, phone, home visits) used to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 10.3 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student behavior. COMMENTS: . '  YES NO D/I 10.4 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student achievement. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 8 SP 10.5 School patrons and parents are given an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local school plans. COMMENTS: ______ ______ _______ YES NO D/I 10.6 Parental involvement strategies are modified as needed to ensure communication with parents who ' are difficult to reach. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 10.7 Meetings with small groups of parents are held at community locations such as churches, community/ recreation centers, homes, etc. COMMENTS: YES NO 11.0 Stud-en Discipline The school ensures that student disciplinary policies and practices are non-discriminatory. D 11.1 Information in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures is distributed to all students and parents. COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 11.2 Strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions, and/or disciplinary referrals involving black males. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 9 0 11.3 Classroom instruction proceeds in an orderly manner. COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 11.4 A mentoring program is_^ used to meet the needs of at-risk students. COMMENTS: I 11.5 Students have access to community based support programs. COMMENTS: YES NO 12.0 Building Leadership/Management SP 12.1 The school has a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific improvement goals in accordance with the incentive school plan. COMMENTS: YES NO SP 12.2 The school has appropriate strategies for attaining improvement goals. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 12.3 Counselors are actively involved in addressing the needs of at-risk students and assisting parents, as needed, in obtaining services from outside agencies. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 10 D/I 12.4 There is evidence that the guidance program provides equitable services to all groups of students. COMMENTS: __________________________________ YES NO D/0 12.5 The school has published clear statements of expectations for student conduct. COMMENTS: __________ __________ YES NO 0 12.6 The campus and building are clean and free of debris and graffiti. COMMENTS: YES NO O 12.7 Hallways are orderly. COMMENTS: YES NO O 12.8 The school office has friendly and helpful personnel. COMMENTS: ______________________________ YES NO Is there anything unusual or of interest or concern which you want to report? COMMENTS: YES NO Send completed document to: Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR  72201  TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: T LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 10, 1991 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Update on Desegregation - August Please find enclosed the update on desegregation for the month of August, of June and July. I did not prepare updates for the monthsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas December 1991 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs , 2 2.0 Curriculum 3 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 7 4.0 Committees 8 5.0 Extended Day Program 9 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 11 7.0 Special Education 13 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 14 9.0 Staff Development 15 10.0 Parental Involvement 17 11.0 Student Discipline 18 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 19LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring for educational equity in all schools in the District. The monitoring is conducted by the LRSD Districtwide Biracial Committee and Planning, Research and Evaluation staff. Each team conducts one school visit each quarter using a monitoring instrument developed by the Biracial Committee, the three school districts in Pulaski County, the Arkansas Department of Education, and the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visits with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. Visits by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff are scheduled cooperatively with each principal. Visits by the Biracial Committee are scheduled by the Office of Desegregation. The teams report quarterly to the superintendent the progress or lack of progress in the following areas: Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors/Awards Committees Extended Day Educational Opportunities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/ManagementEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 Each team, using race and gender as the unit of analysis, reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviews with school personnel. This report is a summary of the first quarter visits conducted between October 7 and November 20, 1991. The school reports identify conditions that were evident on the day of the visit. Many acceptable conditions were observed by the monitors during the visits. However, the intent of this 'report is to identify the degree to which each school is progressing towards the goals of desegregation. At the conclusion of each visit, a conference is held with the building principal or designee to review the findings of the team. The principal's comments from this conference are included in the reports for clarification. In addition, the Office of Desegregation requires a written response from each principal detailing a plan to eliminate any identified problems. Therefore, current conditions may be different. 1.0 EQUITABLE PLACEMENT BY RACE/GENDER IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS At each school the monitors expected to find: * Racially balanced staff which reflects appropriate percentages as established by the Court A Racial/gender balance in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade levelEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members Three of the LRSD biracial teams monitoring reported a negative reaction to the item dealing with acceptable staffing range. The Mitchell biracial team indicated that there were only three male certified teachers. The Mitchell team also said that the support staff was black, except for one person (perpetrating stereotypical black roles). The Rockefeller biracial monitoring team identified a lack of males in the teaching staff at the school. The Stephens biracial monitoring team saw no black certified males, no white instructional aides, and stereotypical black non-certified staff. Response from Principal(s): None. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists LRSD/PRE Specialists reported that all of the incentive schools were within the acceptable staffing range. 2.0 CURRICULUM At each school the monitors expected to find:  A culturally diverse curriculum * A scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias free curriculum * An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the curriculum  Varied teaching strategies that match the learning styles of the studentsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 4  Current and accurate documentation of student progress  Teachers demonstrating an understanding of a multiculturally infused curriculum * Students participating in heterogeneous groups that utilize peer tutoring * Displays of bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the multicultural curriculum * Use of hands-on discovery and exploration teaching strategies  Academic program enhanced by extracurricular activities FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teaun Members Deficiencies in record keeping were noted by the LRSD Biracial Committee (BRC) monitors at five of the seven incentive schools. Student records were reported as not current and complete in some classrooms visited at Franklin, Garland, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. Other deficits noted follow. Franklin (10-8-91) Some SEPs did not have dates initiated or evaluation procedures. Some ASDPs did not have strategies to address deficit skills. Garland (10-9-91) Most SEPs reviewed lacked parent signatures, instructional strategies and evaluation procedures. No instructional strategies were listed on any of the ASDPs that were reviewed. Ish (10-10-91) Some signatures were missing on some student records. Mitchell (10-24-91) Some SEPs did not include evaluation procedures and/or initiation dates. One ASDP did not have instructional strategies.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 5 Rightsell (10-6-91) In two classrooms, all of the SEPs were the same with one minor exception. Some SEPs lacked evaluation procedures and some ASDPs lacked instructional strategies. Rockefeller (11-14-91) SEPs were not found in some files. Stephens (10-28-91) Dates initiated needed to be added to SEPs at the first and third grades. Two of the six ASDPs reviewed did not have instructional strategies. The Biracial Committee monitors indicated that at Rockefeller there was no evidence that teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver and use the multicultural curriculum. The report stated that the multicultural guides seemed too complicated and that there was no tool to show how to use the multicultural guides. All students were not actively involved in classroom instruction at Rockefeller. Monitors observed some students'who were \"listless\" and/or inattentive. At Rightsell, the Biracial Committee monitors noted that while exhibits in the halls were very good, most classrooms did not have displays that reflected the multicultural curriculum. Monitors found that the displays of student work did not reflect varying teaching strategies. Displays were of workbooks, basals, paperwork with no hands-on or innovative strategies evident. Some classrooms did not have science resources in evidence. No classes were observed working on science. Most teachers visited had not taken their studentsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 6 on field trips to reinforce the academic program and some had not yet planned field trips. The sixth grade teachers at Stephens did not have the district's multicultural curriculum guides. Monitors found that grades 4 through 6 had very little, if any, student work displayed. Also, teachers visited indicated a need for more science equipment, some of which had been ordered. Response from Principal(s): The Stephens principal stated that she was monitoring records and she would take care of all students' records. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The Planning, Research, and Evaluation monitoring team found the following deficiencies at the incentive schools related to curriculum. In every incentive school, in some classrooms visited, student records were reported to be not current and complete. Additional findings related to teacher/student records follow. Franklin (11-4-91) Reading magazine tests had not been given in two classrooms. Mathematics tests, ASDPs, and parent/student discipline contracts were not available in some classrooms. There were no displays of student work in some classrooms visited. Garland (11-5-91) Some SEPs and ASDPs lacked parent signatures. A grade book was not available in one visited classroom. Grades were available for only one subject area in another classroom. Ish (11-6-91) Parent notifications were not available in PAL folders. Some SEPs lacked parentEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 7 signatures. Interim reports and parent/student discipline contracts were not sent home in one classroom visited. 3.0 Mitchell (11-11-91) Rightsell (11-12-91) Rockefeller (11-13-91) Stephens ((11-14-91) Reading folders were not available in one monitored classroom. signatures in one classroom. ASDPs lacked parent Some parent notifications were not signed or available in a PAL classroom. Some ASDPs and SEPs lacked parent signature. In PAL classes, some parent notifications were not signed and available. Reading magazine tests and mathematics tests had not been administered for the first nine weeks in one monitored classroom. Student/Parent discipline contracts were not available in one monitored classroom. Reading magazine tests had not been administered and recorded on reading folders in some monitored classrooms. Some ASDPs did not have parent signatures. In some classrooms visited at Franklin, there were no displays of student work reflecting varying teaching strategies. Although instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in the monitored classrooms at Garland, some students displayed disruptive behavior, therefore, they were not involved in the instruction. SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to find:  A variety of awards and honors * Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awardsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 8  Methods for communicating requirements for receiving honors/awards to all students * A process to evaluate the honors and awards program * Plans to eliminate any gender/grade level inequities relative to distribution of honors and awards FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeun Members The Biracial Committee team reported that four of the seven incentive schools had no available evidence for distribution of honors or awards. Procedures for apprising students of the requirements and of information regarding various opportunities in educational programs was in place as observed by Biracial Committee team and PRE monitors. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Plannincr, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors indicated that all information for this area would be available after the first nine weeks for all seven schools. However, procedures for apprising students of the requirements governing honors and awards and of information regarding opportunities in educational programs were in place at each school. 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to find: * Racial/gender composition of committees generally reflects the school populationEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 9 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members Members of the LRSD Biracial Team reported that the composition of each school based committee generally reflected the staff/parent population in six of the incentive schools. Although the school based committees at Garland generally reflected the staff/parent population, there was limited parent involvement and participation. At Rockefeller, school based committees did not reflect the staff/parent population. Monitors said there were no parents on the Biracial Committee and only two parents on the Parent Advisory Committee for this school. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The composition of each school-based committee generally reflected the staff/parent population in each of the monitored incentive schools. 5.0 EXTENDED DAY PROGRAM At each school the monitors expected to find:  Provides parents with adequate information regarding extended day activities * Recruitment practices to promote participation of all students in extended day activities  Meets the individual needs of the students (SEPs)EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 10 FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The Biracial Committee teams reported that all seven schools informed parents of the extended day activities by sending surveys, fliers, and parent-teacher conferences. Six of seven schools informed the Biracial Committee teams that the majority (3/4 - 80 percent and over) participated in extended day activities. These six schools also indicated to the Biracial Committee teams that the extended day activities were adjusted to meet the needs of all students. Only one school (Rockefeller) reported that less than one-third of the students participated in the extended day activities. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors reported that all seven schools informed parents during registration and at PTA meetings. Fliers and survey forms were also sent to parents to be signed and returned to each school. The PRE monitors reports indicated that the majority of the seven schools student population participated in extended day activities ranging from 52-71 percent (according to each schools' student population). The PRE monitors also reported that all seven schools extended day activities were related to the objectives of each SEP and adjusted to meet the needs of the students.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 11 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to find:  All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly * Evidence that promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement  Test results used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and reported in a manner that is clear and helpful to administrators, teachers, students, and parents * Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeun Members When test results were examined, overall achievement of students did not remain stable or improve at most of the incentive schools. Two of the incentive schools, Ish and Mitchell, demonstrated improved test results for overall student achievement. Goals and strategies were developed and are being implemented at most of the incentive schools to improve student achievement. Monitors at Rightsell reported that no evidence was provided on goals and strategies to improve student achievement. Promotion/retention rates reflected the school population at five of the incentive schools. At Rockefeller, the promotion/retention rates did not reflect the school population, according to monitors. The monitoring team forEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 12 Rightsell said that data was not provided on the promotion/ retention rates. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists Most of the incentive schools did not demonstrate stable or improved test results overall for student achievement. At Franklin, there was improvement on the Minimum Performance Test (MPT), but three grade levels had decreased scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test-Sixth Edition (MAT-6). There was an overall decrease in student achievement on the MPT and MAT-6 at Garland and Ish. Although there was an increase in student achievement scores on the MPT at Rightsell, there was an overall decrease on MAT-6 scores. Monitors at Rockefeller reported that third grade students demonstrated improved scores on the MPT, while sixth graders had decreased scores. On the MAT-6, there was an overall decrease in test scores at Rockefeller. Two of the incentive schools, Mitchell and Stephens, demonstrated improved scores overall on the MPT and MAT-6. All of the incentive schools had developed goals and were implementing strategies to improve student achievement. The retention rate reflected the school population at each of the incentive schools, except Franklin. The monitors reported that the retention rateat Franklin, 16 males and 1 female, did not reflect the school population according to gender.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 13 7.0 SPECIAL EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find:  Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures  Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences Strategies to ensure equitable services by gender and grade level  Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members There were no areas of concern regarding special education reported by the Biracial Committee monitors at Franklin, Garland, Ish, or Stephens. No observations were made at Mitchell, Rightsell or. Rockefeller. The special education teacher was not available at Rightsell and the teacher at Mitchell was absent on the day of the visit. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors found no areas of concern regarding special education at Garland, Ish, Rightsell, or Stephens. The Franklin report noted that materials and equipment were not adequate to deliver the curriculum in the special education classroom. The monitors observed that the number of male students enrolled in special education at Mitchell was disproportionateEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 14 to the school enrollment. Strategies to eliminate such disproportionality were not available in the School Profile. Monitors obseirved special education facilities at Rockefeller to be adequate\nhowever, the staff reported that the facilities were not adequate for the needs of the students served. Response from Principal(s) : The Franklin principal stated that there was a new teacher in special education. There had been some concern about how pull-outs for special education would be handled since Franklin was an incentive school. He said he was working on this situation along with the Special Education Department. 8.0 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find:  Students identified through referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff * A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of identifiable groups in gifted and talented programs  Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class * Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment  Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students sei-vedEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER 1991-92 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 15 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Tezun Members There is not a teacher for gifted and talented (G/T) students assigned to Ish, according to the report submitted by the LRSD Biracial Committee. The report also indicated that the principal is attempting to locate a teacher for this position. No observation of the G/T programs at either Mitchell or Rockefeller was conducted by the monitors. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists Students in the G/T program at Ish were not serviced during the first nine weeks.because there was no teacher for G/T education. At Rockefeller, the student enrollment in G/T was disproportionate to the school population\nfemales comprised 73 percent of the students assigned to the program. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that there was a teacher for G/T students during the first three weeks of school, and G/T services were provided to students. At Rockefeller, the principal stated that additional students have been recommended, but approval for assignment to the program must come from the G/T central office. 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the district/school mission and purposeEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 16 Staff development provided at a variety of places and times Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan Documentation of staff development participation FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The data from the Ish report revealed that strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery and training related to educational equity had not been provided during the first nine weeks. The report from Stephens reported that less than half of the certified teachers had taken advantage of staff development activities to enhance teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery, and only three teachers had received training in educational equity. Some monitored staff members at Rockefeller indicated that their staff development plan did not provide for development to increase the achievement of a diverse student population. There were no areas of concern at the remaining schools. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members According to monitored teachers, the staff development plans demonstrated a commitment to equity by providing the appropriate and/or selected inservices. There were no areas of concern. * * *EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 17 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Documentation of school-home communication and contact * Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited tt When financially possible, transportation provided for parents who need the service  School functions conducted in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents  School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups  Provision for regularly infoirming parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance * Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeua Members The reports from Ish and Rockefeller showed that there was no evidence to support that parents had participated in the development of the School Improvement Plan. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The team from Mitchell indicated that monitored teachers expressed that actual parent involvement was extremely limited, but emphasized that all parent groups had been adequately informed.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 18 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE At each school the monitors expected to find: * No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzed * Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management * Discipline program monitored, evaluated, and updated * Community based support programs  Mentoring program * Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly states expectations for student conduct and that these policies are distributed and explained FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members At Ish, the LRSD Biracial Committee was not able to determine from a review of the School Profile if strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions and/or disciplinary referrals involving identifiable groups. These same strategies were not included in the School Profiles of Rightsell or Rockefeller, according to the reports submitted. At Rockefeller, the Biracial Committee determined that there was no evidence that all students and parents had been given information, including the school's expectation for student conduct, in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student*disciplinary policies. The committee that monitored Rockefeller reported that there wasEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 19 no mentoring program established to meet the needs of at-risk students, nor was there evidence that students have access to community based support programs. The report did not specify if strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions and/or disciplinary referrals involving identifiable groups. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Ish stated that the plan was in place. but he has not had a need to suspend or expel any students. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The parent/student contracts in the discipline handbooks were either unsigned or unavailable in some of the monitored classrooms at Rightsell, according to the monitoring report. 12.0 BUILDING LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals * Physical environment supports the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti * Evidence that the principal monitors the curriculum * Strategies to increase participation in upper level class groups * Evidence which indicates that all students are served by the guidance program * A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program * A safe and secure campus for all students, LRSD employees, and visitorsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 20 FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The LRSD biracial monitoring teams from Garland and Rockefeller reported no written, clear, concise statements of specific improvement goals. The LRSD biracial team reported that the Garland Counselor was on an extended leave with no replacement. The biracial team from Stephens School said that the office media center needed new carpeting. There were loose wires hanging inside and outside the Stephens building. Stephens also had a broken fence along the playground area. The biracial monitoring team from Rightsell found that the office staff rather than being friendly and helpful. seemed \"on edge.\" The biracial team from Rockefeller found no form for use in monitoring the curriculum or any other evidence that curriculum monitoring occurred. The Ish, Rightsell, and Rockefeller biracial monitoring committees could find no evidence that strategies were developed to increase the number of minority students in upper level classes. The Rightsell and Rockefeller biracial teams found some problems with security at the schools. At Rockefeller, the visitors were able to walk around without name tags. At Rightsell, a student opened the outside door to let the monitor (stranger) into the school.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONI'^ORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 21 Response from Principal(s): The Ish principal stated that the item dealing with strategies to increase the number of minority students enrolled in upper level courses/class groups did not apply to the elementary level. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists A few security problems were found at some of these schools by the LRSD/PRE program monitoring team. At Mitchell School, all the visited classroom doors were unlocked. At Rightsell, one outside double door was found unlocked. This was a rear entrance double door between the library and the annex classroom for four year olds. At Rockefeller, three outside doors were unlocked. At Stephens School, two outside entrance doors were unlocked. Also the back door to the girls' restroom was open. Some graffiti was observed on the wall of a portable building at Stephens. Response from Principal(s): The Rockefeller principal said that the outside doors near the cafeteria, were unlocked for a short time during lunch when students go outdoors and back inside with adult supervision. The Stephens principal said that she would have the graffiti removed. She also said that she monitors the building throughout the school day to keep the doors locked. Some students and staff continued to leave doors open. The school staff was working to correct the problem.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 October 22 1991 Franklin Davis, Principal, Franklin School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services \"^fony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visits - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 8, 1991. P--- respond to the concernCs) listed below by Friday, November 1, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) Your response(s) should be Please listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. 2.2 Some of the SEP's did not have dates initiated, evaluation procedures, and/or parent signatures. Some of the ASDP's did not have instructional strategies to address deficit areas. cc: Larry Robertson Arma Hart l-'FRANKLIN INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1701 South Harrison TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock, AR 72204 December 13, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Franklin Davis, Principal, Franklin School First Monitoring Visit - Concerns A copy of the attached memo was sent to all teachers whose SEPs were found to have areas of deficit. I personally reviewed each teachers SEPs and I have a copy of what was given to each teacher in his/her file.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Robert Brown, Principal, Garland Incentive School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visits - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 9, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by November 1, Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below Your responsefs) should be forwarded to my 1991. will be addressed, office. 2.1 Some teachers would like to have an additional Black History course. 2.2 Most SEP'S did Interim reports appeared to be in order, not have parent signatures or dates of initiation^ most SEP'S did not have evaluation_procedures. Th were no instructional strategies listed on any of the Also, There 12.1 cc: ASDPs that were reviewed. 2.4.1 3.2 4.1 5.1 10.1 10.4 10.6 Media center needs more bulletin board space. Library needs remodeling. Did not see evidence of requirements in profile. Limited parent involvement and participation. Students must remain during the full extended day. Limited parent involvement. Not reflected in profile. Not at this time. However, in discussion with Not in profile. . _ principal, he has very definite goals for this school. Larry Robertson Arma HartGarland 3615 W. 25th Little Rock. AR 72204 Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown. Jr.. Principal ' Phone: {501)671-6275 'Simply Tran^ormational'' 4% J TO: December 5, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM:(A^^obert L. Brown, Jr., Principal, Garland Incentive School SUB J: Response to First Monitoring Visit Concerns The following responses reflect an update of what has occurred since the Biracial Advisory Committee's monitoring visit. 2.1 An attempt was made to assess staff support for the purchase of an African American Video Encyclopedia Program. The staff vote produced only three (3) responses in favor of purchasing the program. The staff feels that the Little Rock School District does not approve of, or support those The programs recommended by this administrator\ntherefore they express discomfort in supporting that which they feel that the District does not support. A few books have been ordered that will provide teachers with access to some information that has been suppressed concerning the African/African American struggles. 2.2 SEP'S were not completed or properly initiated and still reflect serious deficits to this date. Teachers have been informed of their requirements to meet the obligations stated in the Desegregation Plan. Providing an adequate assessment of SEP'S by this administrator is hampered by a lack of inservice time needed to fully understand the essential components of a proper SEP. Some ASDP's contained instructional strategies from the previous year, but strategies developed by the current teachers had not been done, The teachers have been made aware of the concerns.  Garland 3613 W. 38th LttOeRock, AR 73304 Bobcats Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. Principal Phone\n(SOI) 671-6373 3.2 4.1 5.1 10.1 10.4 10.5 School The needs of the Library are correct. The facility is too small to conduct a full size staff meeting with an appropriate setting. The individual in charge of awards had not communicated the requirements to the students. and the situation is being corrected. The concern has been shared There is limited parent involvement and participation. Parent involvement has been significant at three events. PTA Meetings are held each month, but the attendance has been low. Students were required to remain during the full extended day program. This requirement has been eased since it doesn't meet the approval of the team. Equitable opportunities exist for parents to be involved in school activities, but few parents choose to become involved. Some of the school patrons reflected on the profile are also employed in various capacities within the school. Two meetings with community church. p a. J. till L o have been held at a local Documentation and dates are available. 12.1 Although the school's plan does not reflect specific improvements in line with the Incentive School plan, recommendations for programs that would address several However, aspects of educational equity has been made by this administration. those recommendations have not been approved by Central Office Administration. cc: Larry Robertson Arma Hart Tony Wood LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 November 11, 1991 Stan Strauss, Principal, Ish School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 10, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Friday, November 29, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response!s) should be 3.2 No evidence of the procedures found in the school profile. 3.4 3.5 9.1 9.2 No evidence is offered in the school profile showing that honors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student needs. Cannot be determined from the school profile. The staff development program participation level of certified staff does not demonstrate commitment to district desegregation education plan. A very few of total certified staff have completed multicultural curriculum which is designed to help staff implement the districtwide desegregation plan.Ish School First Monitoring Visit-Concerns Page -2- 10.4 After reviewing school plan, was not able to see evidence of parent participation in developing local school plan. 10.6 Records at school did not reflect that parents participated in school meetings at local churches, community or recreation centers, etc.ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Comnunity Services FROM:^Stan Strauss, Principal DATE: December 2, 199 1 RE\nFirst Monitoring Visit - Concerns 3.2 The Parent/Student Handbook is being revised to include honor requirements. At the first honors program, requirements for academic honor roll, academic achievement award, behavior honor roll, and perfect attendance award were explained verbally to all students. 3.4 Honor awards are checked each nine weeks by the principal and are recorded in the School Profile. the first nine weeks was October 31. The monitoring team came October 10. The end of All students, those working at or above grade level and those working below grade level have the opportunity to achieve at least one of the awards mentioned in 3.2. In addition to the school awards, individual classroom teachers have been instructed to present classroom awards in order to provide a greater opportunity for a student to be presented with an award. 3.5 Honor awards are recorded in the School Profile each nine weeks. The monitoring team visited October 10. was October 31. The end of the first nine weeks 9.1 All certified staff participate in two building level staff development meetings. One meeting is addressed to the entire staff and focuses on an area of instruction based on teachers' individual improvement plans. The second meeting focuses on instruction and methodology, but is directed at primary teachers one time and Intermediate teachers another time, second meetings also discuss current concerns and issues dealing with curriculum and instruction. These 9.2 All certified staff members have participated in District meetings concerning content and delivery of the multi-cultural curriculum guides. 10.4 The School Improvement Plan for Ish was written by the staff and the previous administration. When the new administration took office, the plan was reviewed and revised by the principal and the staff. It was important for the staff and administration to understand each other and the plan before parents were brought in to help write. Parents will be included on any future revisions and the writing of the plan for next year. 10.6 At this time no meetings have been held at community locations outside the school.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 October 31, 1991 Donita Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Hzy Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services si Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit -Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 24, 1991. respond to the concern(s) listed.below by Friday, November 15, 1991. \" Please Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response(s) should be 1.1 Support staff is black except for one person (perpetuating stereotypical .black roles). 2.2 Most of the SEP'S were in excellent shape. There were a few cases, however, where SEP's did not include evaluation procedures and/or initiation dates. the ASDP' did not have instructional strategies. One of cc: Arma Hart Larry RobertsonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 2410 \u0026amp; Battery Street Phone (501) 375-6931 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1.1 2.2 November 18, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegration MUoj,pixbring and Community Services a Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell School First Monitoring Visit - Concerns The number of black support staff, to be sure represents an imbalance. Since I was already cognizant of this situation, I attempted to recruit white applicants for the additional instructional aides position. I did recruit two (2) white appliants, but was only able to recommend one for employment. Other positions/personnel have been in place for some time. Many staff members assume initiation dates for strategies written are the beginning of school. ~ ' and/or initiation dates will be added. Evaluation procedures Two students' records who now have ASDP's did not arrive until early October. Their plans were completed in their entirety by Mitchell School. Those plans now have Instructional strategies. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 29, 1991 TO: FROM: Bobbie Goodwin, Principal, Rightsell School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services \"THROUGH: Ti, ?ony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD SUBJECT: First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 15, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by November 11, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, office. Your response(s) should be forwarded to my 2.2 Most of the SEP'S were in excellent shape. In two of the classrooms reviewed, however, all of the SEP's were the same (one minor exception), tain evaluation procedures. have instructional strategies. Some SEP'S did not con- A couple of ASDP's did not 2.4.1 Several classrooms had excellent evidence. Most 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 3.3 6.2 6.3 did not. Hall exhibits were very All classrooms did not reflect. good. All workbooks, basal, paperwork (all books). No hands-on or innovative strategies evident. Some classrooms didn't even have science resources in evidence, science. No classes observed working on Not in school profile. No evidence provided. Not provided.Incentive Schools Monitoring page 2 10.5 The principal did not provide evidence of outreach to parents in this area. 10.6 Principal said no. 11.2 Not available in school profile. 12.3 Not available. 12.6 Seemed on edge. Didnt bend over to help. I 12.Q *Not in school profile. 12.10 Student opened outside door to let stranger in. classrooms unlocked. Several ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MONITORING VISIT: Appalling lack of emohasxa. evidenced in test ?cores^ plaved showed lack of studentfdtv Not enough writing practices. on science and'social studies. Examples of writing skills dxsjt with the language. Look temporary. not ^Trailers lack adequate bulletin boarcjs^ ,------- conducive to learning... Ghildten bflng away from ina\nq school not good.. cc: Larry Robertson Arma HartLI KBBBBI ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Rightsell Elementary School TO: 911 West 19\" Street Phone 324-2430 November 11, 1991 FROM: RE: 2.2 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. James Jennings - Associate Superintendent Mrs. Bobbie H. Goodwin, Principal First Monitoring Visit Concerns Concerns are being shared with staff. students, with a few exceptions, are the same. Usually, the needs of Primary I Teachers have been instruct-ed to list instructional strategies, if needed on ASDPs. 2.4.1 All teachers have been requested to show evidence that the multi-cultural curand 2.4.2 riculum is being implemented by bulletin boards or other displays in the classroom. 2.4.3 Concern is being shared with staff. display hands-on-materials used, and/or Language Arts. Staff has been encouraged to use and The observation occurred during Reading 2.5 One classroom at each level (3-6) is receiving materials and supplies for a science lab. Science classes are scheduled after lunch. 3.3 Extended Educational Programs are listed in the school profile. Students and parents are apprised of this information through oral and written communication from the staff. 6.2 Our school improvement plan is in the folder with the School Profile. Goals and strategies are listed to improve -student achievement using the measures listed. 6.3 Students retained are listed by grade, race, and sex in the School Profile. 10.5 I shared with the team that every effort is made to ensure communication with all parents. Our staff utilizes written correspondence, telephone calls, home visits, early arrivals and late departures to accomodate parents. 10.6 The team was made aware of meetings coordinated last year by the Incentive Schools Parent Coordinator. We also shared with them that surveys were being made by our Incentive School Services Coordinator and meetings/workshops would be planned and implemented this school year. I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas October 31, 1991 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 72202 Ann Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSp First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 14, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Tuesday, November 12, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, warded to my office. Your response!s) should be for- 1.1 The student profile reflects that there is a lack of African males. Only staff Also, European American males. American male. custodian (1) European male (1) African 2.1 There is no tool to show how multicultural guide is used. 2.2 No SEP' found in some files. Some students seemed ft 1istless ff and/or inattentive. All students should participate in class or be made to participate. 2.4.1 But doesn't reflect student population. Should be more reflective of African American community. 2.4.2 Yes, hut. sliould be more reflective of the student population. 2.3Rockefeller Page -2- Concerns 3.1 No, program needs to be started. 3.3 No evidence. 3.4 No evidence. 3.5 No evidence. 4.1 No parents on biracial committee. parental participation. There is a lack of No evidence of involvement. 5.1 No evidence, one flier. 5.2 No, less than one-third. 9.3 Plan doesn't address diversity issue. 10.1 No evidence of staff and parent interaction. 10.5 No evidence. 10.6 No evidence. 11.1 No evidence. 11.4 Working on it, right now only African American woman. 11.5 No evidence. 12.1 No evidence. ( 12.7 No form or evidence that curriculum monitoring occurs. 12.8 No evidence. I cc: Arma Hart Larry RobertsonTO: FROM: JAMES JENNINGS, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR DESEGREGATION MONITORING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ANNE MANGAN P^RINCIPAL, ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL RE: RESPONSE TO FIRST MONITORING CONCERNS AS REPORTED BY THE DISTRICT BIRACIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ OCTOBER 14,1991 VISIT DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1991 The first visit of the Bi-Racial Monitoring Team was held on October 14, 1991. A copy of the responses made by the team was delivered to my off ice on Friday, November 15, 1991. An exit conference was held with me at the end of the visit and only a few serious concerns were reported to me at that time. The only two things that I felt would be addressed was the lack of male staff members and the fact that a mentoring program had not been fully implemented at that time. To have twenty-three concerns and twelve of those responses listed with n no evidence tl was a shock and If the team assigned to monitor Rockefeller totally beyond reason. School saw no evidence, I would have certainly expected them to ask for it from a staff member or the administration. During the exit conference, the team appeared to be rushed and in a hurry to leave. I feel that if there had been that many serious concerns - and only a few were mentioned to me - they should have been made known to me at that time. documentation was I keep accurate and up-to-date records and all available for inspection. I have notebooks. files, and documentation in my office or with the teachers in every area being monitored. clarify anything questionable. If any part was unclear, I was available to In response to the concerns: 1.1 There are three African American males - custodians (3) There is one African American male instructional aide (1) There is one European American male - certified teacher (1) I will continue to search for additional males to add to the staff and interview any who have applied for positions with LRSD. 2.1 The tool used to determine if the multicultural guide is being used by the teachers is to monitor the lesson plan book. The teacher plans instruction with the textbook and the multicultural materials as a guide. Plans are monitored by the administration. The comment on the report that the multicultural guide appearing to be too complicated should not be a negative response about the program at Rockefeller but rather a comment made to those that have supplied the guide to all teachers in the district and directed all teachers to use it on a regular basis. We also should not be held responsible for the fact that the textbooks do not reflect enough about African Americans. 2.2 ' their This is an absolutely false statement. All teachers have in possession the SEPS prepared for each student and I personally have copies of those SEPs in my office.2.3 If some students seemed. \"listless  or inattenti ve, have been being referred an underlying reason. Not knowing which children there may to in this report, i t is very di f f icult to we re say. There are some children who are allowed to stay up until all hours of the night and we sometimes have to do everything possible to keep them awake. There are teachers do everything keep students on tasks. other extenuating circumstances but in their power to stimulate interest and 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 The bulletin boards and the school and classroom I change as the focus of study changes. They do reflect the multicultural curriculum as well as all aspects of the curriculum being studied -art work from all cultures, handwriting, language arts, 3.1 science, social studies, math, etc. All children who were good citizens during the month of September were honored with a special sticker and a popcycle. same reward was given at the end of October. There is an (( The Honors Reception (t at the end of each nine week period. The first of these receptions was held on Friday, November 15, 1991. Parents of students making either all As or the A/B honor roll were invited to the reception and approximately 50 parents attended. making straight As were awarded a School fl If Students I am a STAR at Rockefeller tee shirt, a bumper sticker and a coupon for a kids meal at a local restaurant. The A/B Honor students were given a bumper sticker and a coupon for the Jr. Frosty at Wendys. A large sheet cake, cookies, and punch was served to those attending. The students with perfect attendance for the first nine weeks received a coupon from McDonalds. Parents and students had been made aware of the awards that would be provided at the beginning of the year during meetings with the students and also explained fully at Parents Night and P.T.A. 3.3 I believe. if one were to check. Rockefeller was the only incentive school to provide an information sheet for parents during registration for the past two years. It fully outlined the educational opportunities that would be provided during extended day. Then, a survey was developed, listing possible selections, to determine interest in the various offerings. After this survey was completed, the programs most frequently chosen were offered during the extended day. 3.4 and 3.5 At the time of the monitoring visit. the list of recipients for honors and awards had not even been turned in. As soon as they were submitted to the office, an evaluation for equity most definitely was conducted. No new awards are necessary since the numbers of those awarded were reflective of the student population. 4.1 There is no school bi-racial committee set Rather, there are two parents on the Incentive up this year. Committee as directed by the district. It is School Advisory beyond me how anyone could report that there is a lack of parental participation when we have a very active P.T.A. and the executive board meetsregulnrly once a month. There is n listing of volunteers on in the office. There was a approximately 275 parents in attendance. highly successful Parent Night file with We had an Early Childhood 50 parents attended the Parent Night that was very well attended. I certainly do not think that this merits awards reception. a comment of \"No evidence of involvement. tf 5.1 If a member of the monitoring team had asked for evidence of information sent home to parents about the extended day activities, they would have seen that we began giving them information during registration and continued to keep them informed up until time of implementation. The information included offerings, hours, registration for the number of days they wanted their children to attend, bus schedules, procedure for registration for CARE if they needed to stay beyond the ending time for extended day, etc. There IS more than enough evidence to substantiate this statement. 5.2 There are approximately 280 students attending Rockefeller in the f irst through sixth grades. These are the only grades attending extended day activities. 227 students are registered for extended day. This is 81% of the school population-not one-third. 9.3 I think that a few of the following staff development inservices might be considered activities that would address effective strategies that would enhance the achievement of a diverse : Students, student population: Self-Esteem, Manipulatives, Behavior Classroom Management. 10.1 Whole Learning group instruction, and Discipline, Styles At Risk Inventory, Stress Reduction, Math and Parents of all identifiable groups are involved in any and all school activities invited to  P.T.A., resource speakers in the classrooms. parent volunteers. become scouts, attend meetings, go on field trips, etc. There is no discrimination when providing equitable opportunities for parent involvement. 10.5 At last count, over 35 home visits had been made by various staff members. basis about student conduct, academic achievement notices. Teachers send home notices to parents on a weekly Several teachers send home weekly Teachers arrange their schedules to be able to meet parents at a time that is convenient for them even if it is well beyond the teachers regular working hours. 10.6 No meetings have been held up to the present date at a local church or recreation center. However, I have made contact with Rev. Banks at the Metropolitan Church which is in close proximity to Rockefeller School and asked about the possibility of meeting in his church in the near future. He was very receptive and helpful. It is my understanding that Mrs. Catherine Gill will be arranging to have some of our future incentive parent meetings at community locations, also.11.1 The Rockefeller School Handbook was sent to every family and provided pertinent information relative to our school. Also, the new Students Rights and Responsibility Handbook was taught and Al so , Students distributed to every student attending Rockefeller. Every family was provided a copy and they had to sign a page stating that they Those forms had read the policies and had received the booklet. are available and on record at the school. 11.4 We do have several mentors presently working in our building. Also, a list of eleven African American males were submitted to Mrs. Catherine Gill, Incentive School Coordinator, who is working with VIPS to establish a mentoring program in each incentive school. There will be a group of Central High students coming to Rockefeller once a week to be mentors to some of our students. Mrs. Mary Mross comes once a week to work with several students. A grandparent, Mrs. Ora Bunch, is a retired teacher who volunteers in our school. 11.5 Students have had the opportunity to go to the Arkansas Arts Center, Museum of Science and History, paten, the airport, the UALR planetarium, the community programs. A program sponsored by Georgia Pacific, \"Tree Wishes\", will be provided for the 5th and 6th grade students on Monday, The 5th and 6th grade students from Ish have the pumpkin patch. the planetarium. zoo, and other program Pacific, November 18, 1991. been invited to join us for this presentation. Scout troops were taken to the State Capitol for an investiture ceremony one Saturday. The Mobile Classroom Dairy was brought to the school and all children were given the opportunity to participate in a planned program/presentation. These are just a community that have been made available for Rockefeller few of the support programs students. 12.1 for Please refer to the Rockefeller Incentive School Annual Plan the clear and concise goals, strategies, evaluation procedures for the 1991-92 school year, very clearly coincide with the desegregation plan. time lines. and The plans made 12.7 The principal and vice principal monitor teachers' lesson plans on a regular basis and make classroom visits daily to monitor the curriculum being presented. Inservice meetings with supervisors teachers. conducted. in the different curriculum areas are provided to the So far, an inservice for science teachers has been meeting. teachers The Reading Supervisors has come for an inservice The teachers in Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd and Social Studies in 3rd, 4th, 5 th, afternoon, November 18, 1991. and 6th grades will meet on Monday 12.8 minority at We have no upper level Rockefeller courses. Incentive White students are School. There are in the parent recruiters hired by the district who bring parents and students to visit the school and when impossible because of a prior they come, unless it 1 s commitment, the principal. totally vice principal or another staff member takes time to accompany the visitors and encourage the parents to enroll their students.In conclusion, I would like to voice my concern about several other comments made on this monitoring report,: 2.5 More science equipment than could ever be hoped for has been regular purchased for Rockefeller School and is being used on a Each Science teacher on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Sth grade basis. levels have their own supplies and materials that allow students hands-on opportunities. kinds of hands-on materials for math: In addition, we have in bur building all base ten blocks, geoboards. Cuisinaire rods. etc. method of extending/enhancing the concepts. The computer definitely is not the only learning of science and math 2.6 All children experience field trip opportunities. children are involved in a club if they attend extended day All on Wednesdays since that is the day designated in the desegregation plan as the day for clubs. 11.2 Suspensions are based on the rules set out specifically in the Rights and Responsibility Handbook. In reference to the two students who had been in a fight one white and one black the black student had been in other fights as documented in the office disciplinary book and it was the for the white As stated in the Rights and Responsibility Handbook, first offense student. on the first offense, the student has a conference with the principal. On the second offense, the student is suspended for 3-5 days. In this case. as in all other cases, I conferenced with the student and warned that further offenses would result in suspension. I was in total compliance with the directives of the LRSD guidelines. I follow the rules established by the district when administering all consequences for offenses. Other comments written on the monitoring report: \"?Gangs, why do teachers need staff development for gangs. (Elementary School). Why? students Teachers need inservice on gangs because we have in our school who are in gangs. because our school IS located within a few blocks of the home-based 11 21st Street Posse\", and because our neighborhood children are influenced daily by gang members and being tempted by them often. We, as a staff, must be alert to the signs and behavior to look for so we can identify existing or potential problems. 11 All positions of leadership at Rockefeller are basically white f emales. At last count, there were two administrators at Rockefeller. The principal, Anne Mangan, is white and the vice principal, Lillie Carter, is black. That is a 50/50 ratio. We have a very good working relationship and share administrative duties quite well.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 November 11, 1991 Lonnie Dean, Principal, Stephens School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 28, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Friday, November 29, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response(s) should be 1.1 2.1 No black certified males, no white instructional aides, support staff-typical black roles. Sixth grade teachers do not have the districts multicultural curriculum guides. 2.2 Most of the SEP'S and ASD\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":"suc_abaker_4588","title":"Letter, 1990, Alida von Krogh Cutts to Friend","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Delaware, New Castle, Newark, 39.68372, -75.74966"],"dcterms_creator":["Von Krogh Cutts, Alida"],"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Alida von Krogh Cutts, Executive Secretary for the United States Board on Books for Young People (USBBY), to Friend, regarding the expiration of Baker's membership."],"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":["Von Krogh Cutts, Alida--Correspondence","United States Board on Books for Young People"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1990, Alida von Krogh Cutts to Friend"],"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/4588"],"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"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Von Krogh Cutts, Alida"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-615","title":"Video Recording of Andrew J. Young's Christmas Celebration with Family,1990","collection_id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh","collection_title":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Andrew J. Young papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","African American civil rights workers","Atlanta (Ga.)","Families","Christmas"],"dcterms_title":["Video Recording of Andrew J. Young's Christmas Celebration with Family,1990"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://youtu.be/f6qTMW4aZzM"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-615"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 hr, 00 min, 57 sec."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Young, Andrew, 1932-","Young, Jean Childs"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_33","title":"The Voice Newsletter, December 1990","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["The Voice Newsletter, December 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/33"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_gravely_160","title":"William Gravely audio notes, 1990 December","collection_id":"suc_gravely","collection_title":"William Gravely Oral History Collection on the Lynching of Willie Earle","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Greenville County, Greenville, 34.85262, -82.39401"],"dcterms_creator":["Gravely, William"],"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":["A personal tape by William Gravely documenting his progress and process in investigating and collecting oral histories concerning the lynching of Willie Earle. Several details are included from the Furman symposium on the lynching of Willie Earle, as well as notes from several conversations with local law enforcement agents."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. Department of Oral History, University Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Call Number: GRA 015","William Gravely Oral History Collection on the Lynching of Willie Earle"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews","Civil rights--South Carolina","Lynching--South Carolina--Greenville","Trials(Murder)--South Carolina--Greenville","Greenville County (S.C.)--Race Relations--History"],"dcterms_title":["William Gravely audio notes, 1990 December"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/gravely/id/160"],"dcterms_temporal":["1946/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual research purposes only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: Department of Oral History, University Libraries, University of South Carolina."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["19:26"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Gravely, William","Earle, Willie, 1922-1947"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_l-0064-2","title":"Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, November 28, 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":["1990-11-28"],"dcterms_description":["This is the second interview in a nine-part series of interviews with civil liberties lawyer Daniel H. Pollitt. In this interview, Pollitt focuses on his decision to accept a position at the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1957. Pollitt had previously refused to sign a loyalty oath at the University of Arkansas and sought employment at a university that would be more receptive to his interest in issues of civil liberty. Pollitt begins by describing his interview at UNC, his warm reception there, and his initial perceptions of the faculty. In describing the establishment of the law school at UNC in 1920, Pollitt notes that most of the faculty had been hired in the 1920s. In addition to discussing his decision to accept the position, Pollitt describes in detail faculty members such as Maurice Taylor Van Hecke (who was serving as dean in the mid-1950s), Robert Wettach, Freddy McCall, Herb Bauer, William Aycock, Henry Brandis, and John Dalzell. In describing these professors, Pollitt sheds insight on the history of the UNC School of Law from the 1920s through the 1950s, ties between the law school and the broader community, and the relationship between the UNC School of Law and the African American law school at North Carolina Central University.","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"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, November 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/L-0064-2/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. 13, 2008).","Interview participants: Daniel H. Pollitt, interviewee; Ann McColl, interviewer.","Duration: 00:34:52.","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":"noa_sohpcr_l-0064-1","title":"Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, November 27, 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, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Pollitt, Daniel H."],"dc_date":["1990-11-27"],"dcterms_description":["This is the first interview in a nine-part series of interviews with civil liberties lawyer Daniel H. Pollitt. Pollitt begins the interview with a discussion of his family history. Born in 1921, Pollitt was the son of World War I veteran and lawyer Basil Hubbard Pollitt and Mima Riddiford Pollitt. After describing his father's career as a professor and lawyer, Pollitt explains his mother's pursuit of her own legal career. In 1938, Pollitt's mother earned her law degree and went to work for the Justice Department. Shortly thereafter, she divorced Pollitt's father and became the sole provider for her family, working as a civil liberties lawyer well into her eighties. Pollitt describes how he met his wife, Jean Ann Rutledge, and offers a brief overview of her family history, noting that both Jean Ann and her father were lawyers, as well. Pollitt then turns his attention to his own decision to pursue a degree in law. After serving in World War II, Pollitt -- though not initially drawn to the legal profession -- earned a law degree at Cornell University in 1949. Following his graduation, Pollitt worked for the law firm MacFarland and Sellers for one year, where he helped to represent the National Association of Manufacturers. In 1950, Pollitt went to clerk for Judge Henry Edgerton at the United States Court of Appeals, hoping to establish credentials appropriate for the pursuit of a career in legal education. After his clerkship, Pollitt went to work with Joseph Rauh, head of Americans for Democratic Action, and spent the next several years defending liberals accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) of having communist ties. Pollitt devotes considerable time to a series of lively anecdotes regarding the loyalty and security cases he worked on during the early McCarthy era. In particular, he describes his work in defending the Brooklyn Eagle (a newspaper that HUAC accused of communist affiliations), playwright Lillian Hellman, and the United Auto Workers, and he briefly outlines the \"passport hearings\" of former communist Max Shachtman. The interview concludes with Pollitt's discussion of his decision to become a professor at the University of Arkansas in the mid-1950s, at which time he joined the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and also became involved with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In 1955, Pollitt refused to sign the state's required loyalty oath for educators because it asked teachers and professors to disclose involvement in groups like the NAACP.","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":["Public interest lawyers--United States","Law teachers--United States","Practice of law--Political aspects--United States","United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities","Civil rights--United States","Anti-communist movements--United States","Internal security--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, November 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/L-0064-1/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. 13, 2008).","Interview participants: Daniel H. Pollitt, interviewee; Ann McColl, interviewer.","Duration: 01:33:20.","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":"suc_abaker_4434","title":"Article, 1990, Unedited Copy of Voices of the South by Dianne Young","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["King, Karren","Young, Dianne"],"dc_date":["1990-11-26"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Karren King, Administrative Assistant in the Editorial Department for Southern Living, to Augusta Baker, enclosing an unedited copy of Dianne Young's story on Baker. She requests that Baker review the story and respond with any feedback or errors in need of correction. She relates that the earliest the story would appear in Southern Living is March 1991. The article is enclosed with the letter, entitled Voices of the South."],"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","King, Karren--Correspondence","Young, Dianne--Correspondence","Periodicals"],"dcterms_title":["Article, 1990, Unedited Copy of Voices of the South by Dianne Young"],"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/4434"],"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":["articles","correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item","13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","King, Karren","Young, Dianne"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_l-0144","title":"Oral history interview with William C. Friday, November 19, 1990","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Link, William A.","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Friday, William C. (William Clyde)"],"dc_date":["1990-11-19"],"dcterms_description":["William C. Friday served as the president of the University of North Carolina system from 1957 to 1986. This interview is part of a longer, multi-part interview conducted with Friday in 1990. Here, Friday focuses primarily on his relationship with and perception of preceding presidents of the university, including Frank Porter Graham and Gordon Gray, as well as his work with other leading university administrators, including William Carmichael. Friday begins the interview by describing his first interactions with Frank Porter Graham when Friday served as the student body president of North Carolina State University during the 1930s. In 1950, Friday campaigned for Graham during his senatorial bid, and he explains how the vitriolic nature of the opposition's campaign dissuaded Friday from pursuing his own career in politics. During the 1950s, Friday worked as then-president Gordon Gray's assistant, priming himself to take over as president in 1957. Friday describes his appointment to the position, emphasizing the importance of the University of North Carolina's Board of Trustees in the relationship between state and university politics during the late 1950s and into the 1960s. In addition, Friday discusses the process of desegregation during his years of service to the University. Likening his own position to that of Frank Porter Graham's, Friday focuses on how he believed that the University needed legal precedent in order to effect change and that winning over the \"hearts of people\" was crucial to the success of desegregation. Friday concludes the interview by discussing the formation, structure, and function of the North Carolina Board of Higher Education, his perception of various members of the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, and his professional relationship with Governor Luther Hodges.","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":["College presidents--North Carolina","University of North Carolina (System)--Administration","Higher education and state--North Carolina","University of North Carolina (System)--Presidents"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with William C. Friday, November 19, 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-0144/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 May 7, 2008).","Interview participants: William C. Friday, interviewee; William Link, interviewer.","Duration: 01:28:43.","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":["Friday, William C. (William Clyde)"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"auu_auc-076_auc-076-2067","title":"From Protest To Politics 25th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act\" Conference, November 16, 1990","collection_id":"auu_auc-076","collection_title":"Voter Education Project Organizational Records","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-11-16"],"dcterms_description":["Materials from the Voter Education Project's 25th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act Conference. The conference featured many events and speakers that honored the legacy of voting rights activism underlying VEP. VEP's work helped to pave the way for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was responsible for spurring the most significant expansion of American democratic processes in the last half of the 20th century. However, VEP still faced challenges in the form of persisting social restraints to successful biracial politics and even some remaining legal barriers to the ballot. Nonetheless, the VEP made significant progress in expanding voting rights for African Americans, and its work was essential to ensuring that all Americans have a voice in our democracy."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Voter Education Project Organizational Records||http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/fa:076"],"dcterms_subject":["Political participation","Meetings","African Americans--Civil rights","African Americans--Politics and government","Voter registration"],"dcterms_title":["From Protest To Politics 25th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act\" Conference, November 16, 1990"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/auc.076:2067"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["archival materials"],"dcterms_extent":["211 page"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":725,"next_page":726,"prev_page":724,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8688,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}