Outrage (Part 2)

After 11 days and two follow-ups with the interim superintendent, I received this from Karen James (Director of Elementary Literacy, Little Rock School District) regarding the Little Rock School District's not teaching cursive:

"LRSD has always had an expectation to teach handwriting.

"Handwriting instruction (manuscript and cursive) should be occurring every day, in every classroom, in every school.

"Following your inquiry, I looked into the concern. I certainly thank you for bringing this to our attention.

"While there are no handwriting books, the instruction in cursive should, and will, begin in third grade and include the formation of letters and beginning of linking letters to form words. There are materials available in the writing process/materials.

"Cursive instruction will continue throughout fourth and fifth grades with a focus on developing efficiency, legibility and reading cursive writing."

Just so we’re clear, my complaint was never with our stellar teacher or principal, as I know they value cursive and would/will do everything in their power to see that it’s taught. My complaint was/is with the central administration for seemingly forcing individual schools to have to carry the water alone on such an important issue.

While I am pleased with the news, I have to wonder about a managerial atmosphere which created this disconnect in the first place and if the individual schools are being fully supported (with materials, resources, etc.) by the district. I also have to wonder if I am being told the whole truth on this issue, particularly since it took so long to get an answer to such a basic question.

Words

My use of the word "immoral" regarding the inaction of the Little Rock School Board on behalf of our students at the conclusion of my The More Things Don't Change post (Friday, February 25, 2011) has been challenged by a member of the Little Rock School Board. Here's the context:

"If a child cannot read at grade-level by the time he/she leaves third grade, the chances of ever catching up are remote at best. Rome is burning, and the board's continued fiddling is inexplicable and, in my opinion, patently immoral."

I have not, and will never, call anyone immoral, nor do I have any interest in the demonizing personal and partisan politics which characterize so many of our elected bodies and our public policy discourse. 

However, it is every citizen's responsibility to call out individual and/or collective actions (or in this case, inaction) when it is decimating the futures of those with no advocates.

I choose my words carefully and stand by what I wrote.

No Recall

Unlike some other elected officials, a member of the school board may only be recalled for a felony conviction or for not attending meetings. This restriction is likely a byproduct of the low voter turnout philosophy which gave us and perpetuates September school elections decided by, in the case of the Little Rock School District, hundreds of votes.

A typical recall of an elected official, without cause, might require petition signatures of registered voters equal to or greater than 35% of those who voted in the last election.

In the case of Zone 4, where 57 votes were cast for the unopposed candidate, that would mean only 20 signatures would trigger a recall election. Such a low threshold would likely keep our public schools in constant turmoil because of the threat of or actual recall.

Changing the school election to the general election, however, could restore representative government to our schools, while also giving our citizens the fundamental right to recall our public officials.

Arkansas School Board Association Calls for All New Board Elections in 2012

In a February 8, 2011 memorandum to school board members, superintendents and co-op directors, Dan Farley, Executive Director of the Arkansas School Board Association (ASBA), laid out the School Board Zoning Requirements and Procedures, A.C.A. 6-13-631.

Paul Blume, ASBA General Counsel of ASBA, outlined what districts "must do to meet the obligations of state and federal law." In short, after zones are redrawn based on the 2010 census, hold new school board elections in 2012.

A representative of the Little Rock School District has already said, "We're not going to do that."

The Little Rock School District belongs to the citizens, not the board and its representatives. The people should demand that the district follow the recommendations and the law.

Further, Little Rock has a choice of either having five zoned positions and two at-large or continuing with seven zoned positions. According to the memo, that determination must be made by the board at least 90 days before the 2011 school election. In other words, by mid-June of this year.

I am researching if that decision may be made by the people, rather than incumbent school board members with a vested interest in keeping their current positions.

More information may be found at www.arsba.org. Meanwhile, here's the memo:

Since December, ASBA has participated in several meetings hosted by the Arkansas Department of Education to discuss the obligations of school districts to implement board zones or redraw zones to reflect the results of the 2010 U.S. Census. Others involved in those talks were the Governor’s office, the Attorney General’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, and the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators (AAEA).

As a result of those meetings, Paul Blume, ASBA General Counsel, has outlined what you must do to meet the obligations of state and federal law. Following are the steps for currently zoned districts and the steps for districts to be zoned.

STEPS FOR CURRENTLY ZONED SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1. Upon issuance of new 2010 Census figures, the district should either hire a demographer or use the services of the offices of the Arkansas Secretary of State, if available, for the purpose of establishing new zones, if necessary.

2. The zones must be drawn so as to be substantially equal in voting age population. (Note:The statute refers to total population, but the Voting Rights Act cases refer only to voting age population in reference to drawing zone lines.)

3. The zone plan must be filed with the County Clerk so as to enable the Clerk to establish which voters belong in which zones.

4. At the next school election, or no later than the regular school election of 2012, following the redrawing of the zones, all school board positions must be up for election, including any at‐large positions.

5. Upon the board members being elected, the newly elected board members draw lots for length of terms so that, to the extent possible, no more than two (2) positions are up for election in any subsequent year.

STEPS FOR DISTRICTS TO BE ZONED

If, after the 2010 Census figures are prepared and released, a school district now has 10 percent or greater minority population, A.C.A 6‐13‐631 requires that, if it has not already done so, it must be divided into zones for the election of school board members.

1. At least 90 days before the 2011 school election, the board adopts a resolution to authorize members being elected by zone, with either 5 or 7 zones, or with 5 zones and 2 at‐large positions, at the discretion of the board. The entire process must be completed in time for the 2012 election. Based on our interpretation, all positions, including both zone positions and at‐large positions are up for re‐election.

2. The district is divided into zones (5 or 7, or 5 with 2 at‐large) of substantially equal voting age population. The information must be provided to the County Clerk. Therefore, the sooner the zones can be established, the easier for the Clerk to prepare the voter rolls for each zone. The district should hire a demographer to draw the zones based on the 2010 Census, or, if available, use the resources of the Secretary of State, which has software that some schools have used to establish or adjust zones.

3. The board members will have 5‐year terms, to be staggered by the drawing of lots after the 2012 election so that, to the extent possible, no more than 2 members are elected per year thereafter.

We encourage each board to consult with its legal counsel for advice and guidance with state and federal law regarding zoning.

Please see attached for important information from the Arkansas Geographic Information Office.

INFORMATION FROM THE ARKANSAS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OFFICE

In an effort to serve education officials with the redistricting process, the Arkansas Geographic Information Office and Secretary of State Redistricting Office developed a contract template for redistricting. The document was designed so that it could be modified to be used by County Election Commissions, City Councils and School Boards. It covers the technical information necessary to employ the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to conduct the analysis and mapping. (NOTE: This template will be linked on the ASBA website: www.arsba.org.)

The detailed Census population information will flow from the Census to the Arkansas Board of Apportionment (Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State) on February 11, 2011. Shortly after, the Census will make it electronically available on their website, and the Arkansas Geographic Information Office will publish it on GeoStor, the state’s GIS platform, from which the Census blocks and population data can be downloaded. (NOTE: A link to this resource is contained in the template mentioned previously which will be on the ASBA website: www.arsba.org.)

Additionally, the Arkansas Geographic Information Office assembled a series of supplementary GIS files that can be used to support the process. These are also linked in the template.

Questions Regarding Redistricting:

Arkansas Secretary of State’s Office
Tim Humphries, General Counsel
State Capitol Rm. 256
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201‐1094
Phone: 501.682.3401

Questions Regarding Geographic Information Systems (GIS):

Arkansas Geographic Information Office
Shelby Johnson, Geographic Information Officer
1 Capitol Mall
2nd Floor 2B 900
Little Rock, AR 72201
501.682.2767

The More Things Don't Change...

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

I have more respect for public officials with whom I disagree who vote their convictions, than those who publicly talk one way, then vote another.

Last night, the Little Rock School Board voted 7-0 to approve a 1.5% pay increase for teachers and most other district employees, increasing the disparity between starting and veteran teachers. Little Rock currently ranks 78th in Arkansas in starting teacher salaries, while the experienced teacher schedule is in the top ten in all categories.

For the record, I believe Little Rock should be number one in all categories and setting our sights on national rankings, but only if in in pursuit of one of the six target areas of the strategic plan - "recruitment and retention of a high quality staff."

Board Vice President Jody Carreiro (Zone 5) was quoted in this morning's (2.25.11) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette by Cynthia Howell:

"...I want to express my disappointment with our negotiators on our side. This board has a voted-on strategic plan that very clearly states that one of our objectives is to get the starting salary up. From everything I can tell, our negotiators did not put forth our stated goal."

Then he voted for it.

If the district's negotiators "did not put forth our [the board's] stated goal," they should be fired. If the board did not give the negotiators their stated goal, its members should accept responsibility and explain why they didn't.

Again, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Board President Melanie Fox (Zone 3) said,

"We cannot, until the [2009-12 teacher] contract is up, totally change the salary schedule, but we've got to start moving in that direction."

Then she voted for it.

Board Secretary Michael Nellums (Zone 2) was reported to have issued a "public chiding," and said he hoped that in the future a plan would be developed for getting the district to the salary goal "and not have these bits and pieces tossed at us along the way."

Then he voted for it.

At least Cathy Koehler, president of the Little Rock Education Association, was consistent, saying after the meeing that she thought the $40,000 salary was an "admirable goal." But, "I don't want to do it in a way that experienced teachers will feel that they aren't valued or that puts them on hold."

Who shouldn't feel valued today are the students who will continue to suffer from Little Rock's continued commitment to being non-competitive in the recruitment of, not only the best and brightest in Arkansas, but world-class talent from across the country. 

The LREA's clients are the existing teachers of the district, not the unrepresented prospects the district needs to recruit.

While a percentage increase is best for existing teachers, continuing to widen the gap between new and experienced teachers is not student-centered.

You can bet the LREA negotiators knew their client's stated goal.

For every day and every decision the Little Rock school board defers its leadership responsibilities - blaming negotiators, waiting for a new superintendent, waiting for implementation of the strategic plan, waiting for parents to come back to the district - more students fall behind, increasing their chances of failure, not only in school, but in life.

If a child cannot read at grade-level by the time he/she leaves third grade, the chances of ever catching up are remote at best. Rome is burning, and board's continued fiddling is inexplicable and, in my opinion, patently immoral.

We're Number...78?!

The Little Rock School District ranks 78th in required minimum starting teacher salaries ($32,793). Not in the world. Not the in the nation. But in Arkansas.

For those beginning with a Masters, Little Rock is 44th ($37,743). 

Wrap your head around that. Forget competing nationally or internationally. The largest public school district in the state has chosen not to compete for the best and brightest in Arkansas.

And lest you think this disparity is confined to the Little Rock district, North Little Rock ranks 68th, while Pulaski Country Special is 99th.

Further supporting this apparent bias against new talent, those at the top of the BA schedule earn $54,941 a year, while those with a Masters and 15 years experience earn $54,139. That's $802 less for a higher degree. Talk about an incentive to stay average.

On the flip side, Little Rock ranks 10th in the state for teachers with the highest degree on top of the schedule ($63,290).

What does all this tell us? Recruit average talent. Reward them for longevity. Discourage professional development. Grow salary so high, teacher will never leave.

Yesterday (2.22.11), the Little Rock Education Association voted to perpetuate this system by approving a 1.5% across the board increase. The Board is expected to act on the proposal at the 5:30 p.m., Thursday, February 24th board meeting. If approved, the pay raise is retroactive.

A percentage increase will only continue the absurdity. What students in the Little Rock School District need is a board committed to the attraction of world-class talent, not retention of...the same. Members should figure out what a 1.5% across-the-board increase will cost the district, then give comparable lump-sum (not percentage) raises to new BA and MA teachers to at least get us into the state's top ten in all categories.

I can't believe I just wrote that. Get Little Rock into the top ten in Arkansas. How sad is that?

For the record, I believe Little Rock should be number one in all categories and setting our sights on national rankings, but only if in in pursuit of one of the six target areas of the strategic plan - "recruitment and retention of a high quality staff."

Across America, thousands of teachers are being laid off because of dramatic of budget shortfalls. Unfortunately, because of non-student first labor contracts, those with the least seniority are the first to go. Last in, first out, no matter their performance.

Because Arkansas is one of only three states in the union with a balanced budget, we have a once in a generation opportunity to recruit the best teachers from across the country. Let's seize it by making the Little Rock School District a magnet for creative, competitive talent.

In all things, we should ask: Who benefits from this? If the answer is the students, we should do it. If it isn't, we shouldn't.

I'll leave you with the salary breakdown for Little Rock and the highest in the state, Springdale (out of 239 school districts):

Little Rock

BA: 0 Years - 78th - $32,793

BA: 15 Years - 6th - $49,189

BA: Top of Schedule - 11th - $54,991

MA: 0 Years - 43rd - $37,743

MA: 15 Years - 8th - $54,139

MA: Top of Schedule - 10th - $63,883

Springdale

BA: 0 Years - 1st - $43,220

BA: 15 Years - 1st - $53,565

BA: Top of Schedule - 1st - $65,096

MA: 0 Years - 1st - $45,744

MA: 15 Years - 1st - $56,295

MA: Top of Schedule - 1st - $71,720

Source: Arkansas Department of Education Teacher Salary Schedule Analysis School Year 2010-2011, Updated 1/27/2011

Kudos...

...to Dianne Curry (Zone 7) and Dr. Katherine Mitchell (Zone 1) for their timely and supportive responses to my inquiry regarding the district's not teaching cursive writing and reading. Sunshine goes a long way in eliminating absurdity, so I'm hopeful they and others will raise the issue at the next board meeting, Thursday, 2.24, 5:30 p.m.

I would, but my children have two conflicting basketball games, one of which I’m coaching.

Speaking of coaching, all skills begin with fundamentals and repetition, whether in athletics, academics, arts or any other discipline. When fundamental building blocks are skipped or ignored or devalued, it has a detrimental domino effect on developmental excellence.

Move School Elections to General Election

In the September 21, 2010 school elections, of 224,109 registered voters in Pulaski County, 3,651 voted - a shocking 1.6% of registered voters.

By contrast, of 226,754 registered for the November 2, 2010 general election, 111,411 votes were cast - a more respectable 49%.

With a general election following just two months after school elections, it makes no representational or financial sense to run two elections, particularly when the earlier one draws such anemic numbers. This deliberate or apathetic inattention is destroying the Little Rock School District.

The reason this dysfunctional, unrepresentative system continues is because of a strong, statewide public school leaders' lobby (board, administrators), which believes (I think mistakenly) that the best way to pass millage increases is in a low voter turnout environment.

Consider what this disenfranchising approach has done to the Little Rock School District over the past three years. Four of our seven elected school board members were elected by a total of 1,492 votes out of a possible 2,121. The lowest votes any candidate received was 57, while the highest was 581.

Literally hundreds of people are determining the present and future of public education in Little Rock and thus the global competitiveness of our community.

In Zone 4 of the Little Rock School District, Greg Adams ran unopposed and was elected with just 57 votes.

In Zone 2, a contested race with an incumbent, 644 total votes were cast - 373 for Michael Nellums and 271 for Mike Daugherty.

In the September 16, 2008 school elections, 857 votes were cast in Zone 1 - 581 for Katherine Mitchell and 276 for Lee Nayles.

In Zone 5, 563 votes were cast - 481 for Jody Carreiro and 82 for Barry Vuletich.

Immediate, radical change requires sunshine on absurdity. Just as it is morally indefensible for a student to languish waiting for improving teachers, principals and/or administrators, the citizens of the Little Rock School District can no longer wait for student-centered leadership from its elected officials. We must recruit or run, and if required, recall. Then repeat.

Note: 2009 election results for Zones 3, 6 and 7 are not posted on the Pulaski County Election Commission website. I have inquired and will post upon receipt.

Rosa Parks on the School Bus

In Ohio, Kelley Williams-Bolar, a 40-year-old African-American mother, served nine days in jail on a felony conviction for lying about her address so her two daughters could attend better schools.

Every year, parents in the Little Rock School District are doing the same thing - lying about their addresses and/or the custody of their children, to get those children in preferred public schools.

It is unconscionable that a failing system has forced parents to break the law just to educate their children. Read Kevin Huffman's story on Ms. Williams-Bolar below.

The Washington Post
Rosa Parks on the school bus
By Kevin Huffman
Monday, January 31, 2011

Answers

Finally, I'm getting some clear answers to the questions I posted earlier: 

Question: For the 2010-11 school year, what number and percentage of Little Rock School District teachers are in the union? 

Answer: As of January 2010, 1,426 teachers (67%) were members of the Little Rock Education Association, while 796 (33%) were not. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (2.19.11),

"The (teachers') contract requires that the association's membership include more than 50 percent of the teachers in the district.

"The association has to present that membership number, as audited by a certified public accountant, to the district in December of each year except when there is a multi-year contract - as is currently the case. When there is a multi-year contract, the association must present an audited membership count in December of the final year of the contract, which would be December 2011 under the current contract."

Question: What percentage of union teachers is required for the union to retain its collective bargaining status? 

Answer: 1 over 50%. For 2010, that would have been 1,112. 

Question: With unitary status and new census information, when will the Little Rock School District board zones be redrawn, who will do it, and what will be the process for electing board members to represent the new zones? 

Answer: At present, the Arkansas School Board Association, Department of Education, Governor's Office, Secretary of State and Attorney General are meeting to determine which districts in the state, based on 2010 census data, will need to be rezoned.

Legally, school boards have until June 2012 to redraw zones to equitably represent the population. Under Arkansas law, school boards may have five or seven members. If a community has over 10% minority population, the school board must have zone representation. That begs the question: what if a minority is a majority in a respective community?

With a seven-member board such as Little Rock's, a community may have either five zoned/two at-large or seven zoned, as is the case with Little Rock. For more information on the law regarding school board representation, see Arkansas Code Sections 613, 631 and 630. Only in the case of radical redrawing are new elections held.

Outrage

I discovered disturbing information at our Friday, February 11th parent/teacher conference which was confirmed by our principal yesterday (Wednesday, February 15th).

The district does not furnish any handwriting materials to teach cursive writing. It is certainly a skill that has been debated due to the fact that technology is our future.”

The principal furthered, “We are in the process of making a decision as to how we can incorporate this ‘important’ (in my opinion) skill in our very short, already packed instructional day. Our instructional team is considering purchasing cursive handwriting books (out of our own school budget) so we can implement the skill starting at the third grade level. Many schools do not teach it.”

Last week, as I initially heard the news from the teacher, I was incredulous as my eyes traveled to the capital and lower case cursive alphabet displayed at the front of the classroom.

I, and I’m sure most of you, learned to read and write cursive in the second grade. Even if a child never writes in it again, are we to believe that there is merit in a lifelong inability to read cursive text – letters from grandparents, teachers’ notes, employers’ instructions, etc.?

If the rationale were consistent on the future of handwriting, then only reading would be taught, as everything else would be keyed.

Regarding technology and the future, I recall when everyone thought computers would make the world go paperless, when in actuality, because of the ease of technology, we generate more paper than ever before.

I have reached out to the interim superintendent in hopes that what I have learned can be immediately corrected, as I would hate to think our children are on a path to partial illiteracy.

As it stands, two of the three fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic seem to have been misguidedly gutted and without notification. Sure glad I asked.

By the way, "the future" (keyboarding) is not taught until the sixth grade, years after students are already expected to be using computers, while developing bad, hard-to-correct habits along the way. Talk about cart before the horse. So without change or independent instruction, our children will enter sixth grade as printing-only hunters and peckers. Good luck on that global competitiveness thing.

I suppose all signatures will now be essentially the same - save unique flourishes like dotting with hearts or putting those decorative dots on the ends of letters - which should make life much easier for forgers.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

I've tried several sources (Arkansas Attorney General's Office, State Department of Education, Arkansas Education Association, among others), but have yet to find definitive answers to the following. That said, I do believe I'm on the path of discovery, and will post the answers as I receive them.

1. With unitary status and new census information, when will the Little Rock School District board zones be redrawn, who will do it, and what will be the process for electing board members to represent the new zones?
2. For the 2010-11 school year, what number and percentage of Little Rock School District teachers are in the union?
3. What percentage of union teachers is required for the union to retain its collective bargaining status?

Unfortunately, there may be those who will read adversarial intent into one or more of these questions (assuming anybody is actually reading this). If so, knock yourself out. My goal is sunshine for a representative governmental entity.

And for the record, I'm a 20+ year member of two unions. Unfortunately, there may be others who will read adversarial intent into that. Being a partisan is tough when you can't fit everybody into a box of preconceived notions.

Michelle Rhee's Students First

Inform, enhance and empower your advocacy on behalf of Little Rock's Public School students.

From www.StudentsFirst.org

Led by Michelle Rhee, the former Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools, StudentsFirst formed in 2010 in response to an increasing demand for a better education system in America. Our grassroots movement is designed to mobilize parents, teachers, students, administrators, and citizens throughout country, and to channel their energy to produce meaningful results on both the local and national level. United For Children Advocacy is doing business as "StudentsFirst: a movement to transform public education" and is a 501(c)4 organization based in Washington, D.C.

If you have any questions about our organization or our mission, feel free to contact us. If you are a member of the media and would like to speak with our public relations representative, contact media@studentsfirst.org.

Consolidate, Close, Construct

A new West Little Rock middle school is just one piece of a larger goal to close, consolidate and construct schools and facilities to equitably serve the population. Consider what decades of apathetic or deliberate inattention have wrought:

1) All seven Little Rock School District middle schools are within 3.6 miles of another middle school.

2) Five of seven middle schools (Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Henderson, Dunbar and Mann) are within 7.8 miles of each other.

3) Two middle schools - Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights are only 1.6 miles from each other, while Dunn and Mann are only 2.1 miles apart.

4) Three board members have two middles schools in their zones (Mitchell, Zone 1 - Mann, Dunbar; Fox, Zone 3 - Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights; and Curry, Zone 7 - Mablevale, Cloverdale).

5) One board member has one middle school in his zone (Nellums, Zone 2 - Henderson).

6) Three board members have zero middle schools in their zones (Adams, Zone 4; Carreiro, Zone 5; Armstrong, Zone 6).

7) Current middle schools extend from: North - Forest Heights (5901 Evergreen), South - Cloverdale (6300 Hinkson),  East - Mann (1000 East Roosevelt), West - Henderson (401 Barrow) and Southwest - Mablevale (10811 Mablevale), with Pulaski Heights (401 North Pine) in Hillcrest and Dunbar (1100 Wright Avenue) in Central.

8) Of the seven middle schools, three are magnets - Mablevale, Mann and Henderson, one is a charter - Cloverdale, and two are zoned enrollment - Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights.

9) Roberts Elementary was the first Little Rock School District school to be built west of I-430 since 1978 (32 years).

10) There are 32 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District and five high schools.

New West Little Rock Middle School (Part 4)

This response to Mr. Adams' latest:

Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Greg,

While I disagree with your position, I respect it and encourage you to state it at every opportunity. When you understand the complexities of the big picture, I'll look forward to your decision.

Meanwhile, please know I am not a one-issue advocate. While I support the building of a new West Little Rock Middle School, it would only be a part of one of my goals for the district's facilities. That would be constructing, consolidating and closing schools and facilities to track population trends.

Thanks again for your consideration, and please let me know if I may assist you in your efforts.

Sincerely,

Gary

New West Little Rock Middle School (Part 3)

This in response to the latest from Mr. Adams:

Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Thank you, Greg. I truly appreciate our dialogue.

You're my representative, so I will do all in my power, whether as a cheerleader, nudge or adversary, to help you be successful in representing the citizens of Zone 4.

Political capital comes from those who elected you, not your equals on the board. Your effectiveness with, and respect among, your colleagues will come from ethically and zealously representing those you serve.

With all due respect, particularly with no opposition, you should have been up to speed on complexities of the issues and understanding and appreciating the history, investments and perspectives of others in the district from day one. That doesn't mean you should, or will ever, know all there is to know. It simply means time's a wastin'. President Obama didn't wait. Neither has Congressman Griffin. You better believe our term-limited freshman legislators are getting after it.

My first concern about your approach was raised when, before a couple hundred of your constituents, you didn't seize such a red meat political issue as unequivocal, immediate support of a new West Little Rock Middle School. Our citizens hunger for decisive leadership, accompanied by the nimble political skills to see vision to reality. What I heard that night was an inexplicable defense of where we are, not an impassioned voice for where we should be.

From where I sit, I would rank at least two other board members ahead of you in depth of commitment to the school, and this is a school which would serve those you represent.

But respecting your process, I would be very interested in knowing your method and timeline for becoming a full-voiced, fully participating, fully equal member of the board.

While my responses thus far may have seemed adversarial, I assure you that they reside fully in the role of nudge. Believe me, I can't wait to pick up the megaphone and be your cheerleader. And the same holds true for each of your six colleagues.

As always, thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary

Public vs. Private

I have received a request asking that I share the email responses of Messrs. Adams and Carreiro. It's a fair request and an issue which I've given great consideration.

Since the communications are with public figures, ethically, I could make them public. But strategically, I don't think that would be in the best interest of achieving ultimate goals. Both men communicated with me immediately and personally, so I'm choosing to keep that line of communication open and confidential.

I also believe publishing their responses without forewarning would lessen the chances of receiving direct answers from the other members of the board.

My encouragement would be for all citizens to ask comparable questions, either personally or publicly, to get and keep our public representatives specific and on the record.

Four days after writing, I have yet to hear from Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Nellums, Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Curry. So, I encourage others to give it a go.

The reason I have chosen to post my responses is that for too long I have remained on the sidelines, complaining without action, and leaving advocacy to others I perceived as better suited. I could no longer, in good conscience, encourage others to engage if I was unwilling to do so myself. At a micro level, it's about my children. At a macro, it's about our community. At a moral level, it's about giving every child the opportunity to succeed, no matter the impact on those staff members, teachers, administrators, board members or citizens charged with publicly educating them.

For too long, we have allowed our public school system to be run by the few hundred people who show up to vote in September. How can we expect excellence and accountability of our representatives and institutions when we're unwilling to demand it of ourselves.

New West Little Rock Middle School (Part 2)

Last evening, I received another response from Little Rock School District School Board Greg Adams (Zone 4). Again, I prefer to let the members of the board speak for themselves, but here's my response. I have yet to receive responses from the remaining five members of the board.

Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Thanks, Greg, for your thoughtful response.

I empathize with your desire for system-wide support and consensus, but ultimate support for the district will come from excellence and satisfaction at the points of delivery.

Students don't attend and/or graduate from the Little Rock School District, they attend and/or graduate from Washington, Forest Heights and Central.

The citizens of Zone 4 and all of the Little Rock School District hunger for visionary leadership, accompanied by the interpersonal and political skills to implement that vision.

You're already five months into a 36-month term. There is no time for or value in thinking of yourself as the new guy. In many ways, your and Mr. Nellums' freshness give you more credibility with the public than veteran members. I strongly encourage you to exercise that political capital before you're lumped in with the status quo.

Yes, implement the strategic plan. Yes, select and hire an exceptional superintendent. Yes, build a new middle school in West Little Rock. But do them concurrently, without waiting for completion of one before tackling another.

I would venture that Roberts has kept or attracted more students in or to the district than any one action in the past 30 years.

The same will hold true for a new middle school.

And the same will hold true for a new high school.

Fighting choice (legally challenging charters), artificially propping up Forest Heights with 70 additional West Little Rock families, and/or refusing to serve the city's fastest growing population for fear of pulling higher achieving students from Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights are fear-based solutions to symptoms, not effective answers to the district's stagnant or declining enrollment and increasingly disproportionate demographics.

My wish for my children and all the students of Little Rock is that they attend schools which reflect the economic and cultural diversity of Little Rock, not necessarily their respective neighborhoods. My wish is also that their respective schools engender support from their respective proximate communities and inspire a renewed school spirit among their student bodies and parents.

If we aren't bold in our progress, there is a very real chance that the legislature will step in and impose solutions. I firmly believe in local control of our district, but we must understand the realities of the statewide political climate when it comes to Little Rock's getting its public education house in order.

Being a thoughtful, trustworthy and collaborative board member is not antithetical to leading with clarity of vision and purpose. I truly believe all members of the board are well intentioned. However, if I'm paying attention and still have no idea how any member intends to achieve his/her respective intention, then how can you or any other board member expect community-wide support?

Finally, you shared that you were more encouraged by the Middle School Task Force's presence than the thought of its absence. To me, this speaks to the very root of what's wrong with the district.

By your and Mr. Carreiro's own admission (on a PowerPoint slide, no less), the group has no stated purpose, has met less than a handful of times in two years, and officially consists of only two parents among more than 10 times as many professional educators.

To this observer, it's a rudderless, deferral of responsibility which seemingly assuages the board into believing it's addressing the issue. Quite frankly, when I saw the slide describing the group, I thought it was meant to point out its absurdity. That's why I remain dumbfounded that you and others seem to find its existence encouraging.

I appreciate your receptiveness to my opinions and thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

New West Little Rock Middle School

I left the Tuesday, February 8, 2011 PTA meeting at Roberts Elementary without hearing direct answers from the Little Rock School District's board members in attendance (Jody Carreiro, Zone 5 and Greg Adams, Zone 4) regarding their positions on building a new middle school in West Little Rock. So, the following day, I emailed both and asked them to respond directly to four specific questions.

I encourage all citizens of the Little Rock School District to do the same.

Katherine Mitchell, kat-mitchell@hotmail.com (Zone 1)
Michael Nellums, michaelnellums@yahoo.com (Zone 2)
Melanie Fox (President), melaniefox@windstream.net (Zone 3)
Greg Adams, gregadams.lrschoolboard@yahoo.com (Zone 4)
Jody Carreiro, jbcarreiro@sbcglobal.net (Zone 5)
Charles Armstrong, charles.armstrong@lrsd.org (Zone 6)
Dianne Curry, currydianne0405@yahoo.com (Zone 7)

Notice I said "citizens," and not "patrons" or "parents." The future of the Little Rock School District is directly tied to the future of our entire community, whether or not you have children in school (public, charter, private or home), rent and/or pay property taxes. Quite simply, without an effective public school system, we cannot be competitive economically.

I'll not post the board members' responses, but let them speak for themselves. However, below I offer my responses to theirs.

Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Greg and Jody,

Thank you for being at the meeting last night at Roberts Elementary and for your service on the board.

Unfortunately, I believe plans for a West Little Rock middle school were lumped into overall middle school performance in the district, and therefore, no clear answers were given on your respective positions on the construction of a new school. So, I'll ask directly.

1) Would you vote, and work to gain the votes of your fellow board members, to build a new middle school in West Little Rock?

2) If yes, what is your time line for completion?

3) If yes, what are your major obstacles to completion?

4) If no, what would have to happen for you to support construction?

Roberts Elementary provides the ideal beta test for impact on the district by assessing the following:

1) How many Roberts students entered for the first time or returned to the district this year?

2) If Pre-K with older siblings, how many Pre-K students were in Roberts this year who have siblings who were outside the district last year?

I believe building a West Little Rock middle school and raising overall middle school performance should be conducted contemporaneously and are not mutually exclusive.

I am a son of a superintendent and a guidance counselor, a product of public schools in Mountain Home, Fayetteville and Lebanon, MO, a brother to teachers in both rural and urban districts, and father of two third graders.

While a native Arkansan, we returned to Little Rock from Los Angeles 5 1/2 years ago to raise our children. We chose to buy property in the Little Rock School District. We chose to attend Fair Park Pre-K because of its quality and diversity. We attended an overcrowded Fulbright because it was our zoned school. And now, we are at Roberts for another 2 1/2 years.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'll look forward to your responses.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

After receiving Mr. Carreiro's response, I responded with the following:

Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Jody,

Thank you for your prompt and thorough response. I particularly appreciate your direct answers to my direct questions.

I come at this not only as a father, but as a community/economic developer... Without a competitive public school system, effectively educating all children, we will be at a crippling disadvantage when it comes to retaining and expanding the region's economy.

Because of my role at [my employer], I have deferred professional involvement in the district's affairs to [my colleagues]. Please know, my opinions are my own and in no way represent [my employer].

However, as a citizen, father and champion of the community, I am willing and able to serve where my experience and skills will be most effective.

When I began my career...in 1983, the Little Rock District's lawsuit was in its infancy. At the time, my aunt was director of special education for the North Little Rock District, so I had a front row seat to early litigation. I left in 1988, and as I mentioned earlier, returned 17 years later. Upon returning, it was my great disappointment that the district remained under federal court supervision. Achieving unitary status offered optimism, but that has been tempered by a seemingly dysfunctional board and administration.

I'm encouraged by the strategic plan and implementation, as well as the prospect of an exceptional superintendent, but still believe the board, individually and collectively, should be bold and immediate in its vision and leadership. Just as our children shouldn't have to wait for ineffective teachers to become effective, the demographic trends of our district show that, without an immediate, dramatic change, our district will become one of only the economically disadvantaged, gaining no support from the larger community. It's no longer an issue of white flight; it's economic flight.

On another front, sports, band, drama and student government were key components of my own public school experience, so I am keenly interested in helping revive the district's extracurricular offerings and success. For example, one of the primary reasons the Little Rock School District doesn't engender school spirit and community support is that there is no middle school/high school coordination athletically. In successful districts, junior high and middle school coaches implement the systems of their respective high schools so athletes are not re-learning systems when becoming freshmen. It's not an issue of talent. Little Rock has the talent. It's all about the system. That's why Little Rock's private schools and Northwest Arkansas' public schools have now become the dominate athletic programs in the state

And lest anyone think that athletics and other extracurricular excellence are in competition with academic achievement, they should visit Dr. Fitz Hill and hear why athletics is a fundamental building block of Arkansas Baptist's miraculous success, particularly with African American men.

While I have yet to meet Mr. Nellums, I am acquainted with all other members of the board and understand the delicate political dynamics. My own sister-in-law was president of the Oakland, CA school board, so I am very aware of institutional, professional and individual resistance to meaningful change. I am reassured that everyone's ultimate goal is the same - world-class education for all children. It's the means to that end that trips everybody up.

My encouragement to you and your colleagues would be to clearly and consistently state your priorities and follow them with your every action. Roberts Elementary has empowered an army of motivated parents who will not accept status quo or a return to mediocrity. I would encourage every parent in the district to tour Roberts so they will be equally motivated for, and demanding of, quality.

Achievement and facilities gaps should never be narrowed by bringing down or limiting the strong, but by raising up the weak.

Finally, your own description of the Middle School Task Force rendered it inconsequential. With only two parents and a host of professional educators, its akin to putting together a customer focus group without meaningful input of the customers. At its root, that is why the public is so frustrated and disillusioned with the district. Smart, educated parents' eyes glaze over when constantly confronted with indecipherable educationese and bureaucracy. It's as if a clubby, Orwellian language has been invented to numb and disconnect those with the most at stake.

I consider myself a radical pragmatist, so I'm ready to serve in a meaningful way, whether from within or without.

As always, thank you for your consideration and service.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

And then this response to another from Mr. Carreiro.

Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Thank you, Jody. ... The Governor says it best: "Education and Economic Development are inseparable." In the past five years, Little Rock has had the greatest economic development success in our history. Just imagine what we will do in the next five with one of the highest performing urban school districts in the nation.

I then heard (twice) from and responded to Mr. Adams. 

Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Greg,

I would be very interested in knowing your specific priorities for the district so I can get a clearer sense of what has to happen before you vote for and encourage your colleagues to vote for the middle school.

The Middle School Task Force, as described last night, engenders no hope whatsoever, as it has no stated purpose, doesn't seem to meet, and consists almost exclusively of professional educators.

After your answers last night and your emails, I am disappointed that the representative of the very zone in which the school would be located is not its greatest, immediate, unqualified champion.

For the record, I've bought in - with my children in their fifth year of public school, five years of property taxes, and my chosen community and profession. However, that buy-in dictates that I will not support a continued patchwork approach to restoring the district. True change requires a bold, clear vision, with a pragmatic approach
to implementation.

The needs of the students should be the only priority. All other community interests will be properly served if the district truly becomes mission-centered on a world-class education for all children.

As always, thank you for your consideration and service. I'll look forward to working with you over the course of your term.

Sincerely,

Gary Newton

Last night (February 9, 2010), I sent a comparable initial email to the remaining five member of the Little Rock School District Board asking the same questions of them I did of Messrs. Carreiro and Adams.

Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Members of the Board,

Last night, I and approximately 200 parents attended a meeting of the Roberts Elementary PTA, where your colleagues Adams and Carreiro discussed the proposed building of a new middle school in West Little Rock.

Unfortunately, I believe plans for the school were lumped into overall middle school performance in the district, and therefore, no clear answers were given on their respective positions on the construction of a new school.

So, I followed with an email to both Jody and Greg this morning asking the following questions. They answered promptly, so I write tonight asking the same questions of you.

[The rest is essentially the same as the initial email.]