The Present and Future of Public Education in Little Rock

The State Takeover of Little Rock School District and the Aftermath

 

October 2, 2016

Greg Adams
LRSD Board President
at time of the takeover

Concern for public education

  • Objective measures (NAEP) show public education students steadily improving since 1973
    • Highest gains for African-Americans
    • Gaps between whites, AAs, and Hispanics have narrowed
    • Progress has leveled off since 2008
  • Comparisons with other countries are worrisome—although US non-poverty students compare well
  • Stakes are higher today as more education and greater learning skills expected for workers

No Child Left Behind law (NCLB)

  • Federal law passed with bipartisan support
  • Signed by President George W. Bush in 2002
  • Increased emphasis on standardized tests with consequences for failure to make required progress
  • Tested students in grades 3-8 in math and literacy
  • Goal of all students being proficient by 2014

State Board of Education (SBE)

  • Nine members of public appointed by governor for seven-year staggered terms
  • Legal authority to takeover a school district beginning in 2003 (AR Code 6-14-430)
    • Established “academic distress” designation (AR Code 6-14 425)
    • Up to SBE to define “academic distress” (AR Code 6-14-431)
  • Similar to state taking responsibility of a child who is being neglected by parents
  • State is ultimately responsible for insuring that children are provided an adequate education—affirmed by Lakeview vs. Huckabee decision in 2002

State flexibility with NCLB

  • Waivers given to states in 2011
  • Percentage of schools not meeting NCLB goals was growing
  • No states were going to meet NCLB goals
  • Testing of math and literacy continued under a new system

Three kinds of distress that can lead to state takeovers

  • Financial Distress—this was the case in the Pulaski County Special School District
  • Facilities Distress
  • Academic Distress—based on standardized test scores
    • Advanced
    • Proficient
    • Basic
    • Below Basic

Academic Distress

  • Before 2013: 75% or more students in a district scoring below basic
  • Beginning in 2013 with Act 600:
    • 49.5% or less of students scoring below proficient or advanced over 3 years
    • Same potential consequences for a district if at least one school was found in academic distress (as defined above)

LRSD in 2014

  • 6 of 48 LRSD schools were found in academic distress:
    • Baseline Elementary (taken off distress list in 2016)
    • Cloverdale Middle School
    • Henderson Middle School
    • Hall High School
    • JA Fair High School
    • McClellan High School

Multiple reasons offered for academic underperformance

  • Poor leadership at school and district level
  • Inconsistent leadership at all levels
  • Union protected poor teachers
  • Administration did not effectively use disciplinary process for problem employees
  • Lack of resources
  • Lack of focus
  • Inconsistent strategies and/or poor implementation
  • High poverty, English Language Learners, Special Ed populations
  • Best-performing staff transfer to other LRSD schools
  • Middle and upper-class students transfer or leave district
  • Self-fulfilling prophecy—reinforcing cycle

Part of the context: History of Supt-Board conflict and turnover

  • Long history of short tenures for superintendents
  • Chronic lack of consensus between board members and between board and superintendents
  • Board became majority African-American under Roy Brooks and continued through takeover
  • In my 4+ years on the board, I worked with 4 superintendents (counting interim)
  • Dexter Suggs was hired with a 6-1 vote in 2013, but his contract was extended in 2014 with a 4-3 vote
  • Two of the four votes were defeated in 2014 board elections

Part of the context: Loss of desegregation funding

  • LRSD initiated negotiations to end desegregation funding in 2013
  • Desire for stability, certainty and local control—increasing concern for loss in court
  • Unanimous vote to end funding
  • Three additional years of continued funding plus one year of funding for facilities (2017-2018)

LRSD Response

  • Worked hard to follow recommendations of school improvement staff from the AR Department of Education (ADE)
  • Asked for a meeting with the SBE Academic Distress Committee and the LRSD Board and Superintendent to better understand expectations to avoid takeover—fall 2014

SBE position

  • LRSD met the criteria for state takeover, but the SBE had options:
    • Continuing to work with district
    • Replace Superintendent
    • Dismiss Board
    • Change boundaries of the school district
  • If Board is dismissed, Commissioner of Education functions as the Board for the LRSD

Reasons supporting takeover

  • Six schools in academic distress
    • 3 of 5 high schools
    • Possible for students to go from elementary to high school always in a school in academic distress
  • These schools had poor test scores for many years
  • Doubt that the Board members and Superintendent could effectively work together to meet academic and budget challenges

Reasons against takeover

  • LRSD had made significant progress in these schools over the years and was working hard with ADE to follow recommendations
  • Board had differences but was able to work together
  • Most Board members and the Superintendent were new or fairly new—deserved a chance to make progress

SBE meeting in January 2015

  • Motion for the ADE and LRSD to work together to develop and follow an improvement plan failed on a 4-4 vote.
  • Motion for state takeover approved on a 5-4 vote.
  • Board was dismissed
  • Superintendent stayed but left in April after evidence of plagiarism surfaced
  • Baker Kurrus appointed as new superintendent

Additional SBE takeover points

  • Some in Little Rock supported the takeover—especially some in the business community
  • Some saw the takeover as racially motivated because the Board was majority African-American and/or because of disapproval of new Board members
  • We can speculate but don’t really know the individual reasons for the 5 votes for takeover
  • For at least 2 of those votes, lack of confidence in the Board was a major reason (my view)

LRSD Civic Advisory Committee

  • Not part of state takeover law
  • Established by SBE to have a vehicle for community input and voice
  • Large committee
    • Board zone representatives (7)
    • Philanthropic organizations (2)
    • Teachers from distressed schools (12)
    • Students from distressed schools (12)
    • Additional co-chair (me)
  • Met monthly April 2015-May 2016

House Bill 1733 in 2015 legislative session

  • Would have allowed the state education commissioner to place academically or fiscally troubled school districts or schools in the control of private nonprofit entities
  • Widespread opposition
  • Governor supported bill
  • Bill eventually was withdrawn—did not get a vote

Takeover and charter schools

  • Some see takeover as start of a plan to change the LRSD into a district of charter schools
  • Some see takeover as providing an opportunity for charter school advocates to exploit (my view)
  • Political conservatives tend to be more supportive of charter schools and “school choice”
  • Governor appointed new Commissioner and 3 new SBE members (7-year terms) in 2015
  • Two more new members starting in July 2016
    • Ouida Newton
    • Dr. Fitz Hill

Charter schools rationale—AR law

  • Improve student learning;
  • Increase learning opportunities for all students, with special emphasis on expanding learning experiences for students who are identified as low-achieving;
  • Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods;
  • Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site;
  • Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system; and
  • Hold the schools established under this chapter accountable for meeting measurable student achievement standards.

Rationale for more and expanding charter schools

  • More choice is better
  • Traditional schools are failing students
  • Families are expressing the desire for more choices
    • Reported long waiting lists
    • Families leaving district or choosing private schools
  • Economic model—greater competition will lead to greater quality in all schools

Concerns for effects of charter schools on existing public schools/LRSD

  • Nationally, charter schools overall have not proven superior in fair comparisons
  • Locally, the largest charter schools take mostly successful students and do no better than similar students in traditional public schools
  • Student mix greatly differs comparing poverty, English language learners and Special Education
  • Loss of achieving students increases challenge of making district-wide progress
  • Loss of funding has district impacts on budgets and schools

Charter schools in the LRSD

  • Covenant Keepers
  • Estem elementary, middle and high
  • Exalt Academy of SWLR
  • LISA Academy and LISA high
  • LR Prep and elementary
  • Premier High
  • Quest Middle
  • Rockbridge Montessori
  • SIATECH High
  • Total students—3745
  • New total with approved expansions—6702

Controversy on recent expansions of Estem and LISA Academy

  • Proposal to basically double capacity of Estem and LISA Academy
  • Expansion proposal was approved
  • No concern expressed for consequences for students left in LRSD
  • No concern expressed for students left on reportedly large waiting lists
  • State chose to favor charter systems over traditional system in distress—all of whom were under their control

Comparisons of LRSD, Estem and LISA

comp-table

Comparisons of LRSD, Estem and LISA

  • Estem and LISA had no Special Education student who did not participate in the regular classroom
  • Comparison of elementary schools controlling for affluence shows that Estem and LISA do not out-perform LRSD schools

Supt change following charter expansion controversy

  • Baker Kurrus was appointed as a non-traditional superintendent—not a professional educator
  • Mr. Kurrus advocated for the LRSD against the proposed charter expansions
  • Shortly afterwards, it was announced that he would not have his contract extended

Progress with Baker Kurrus

  • Improved communication
  • Improved teamwork and morale
  • Improved relationship with LREA
  • Early indications of academic progress
  • Opening of west Little Rock middle school
  • Beginning plans for new southwest high school
  • Increased hope and confidence in the district
  • Reorganization for efficiency and effectiveness
  • Confronting hard realities leading to consideration of possible school consolidations and closures

Community Advisory Board

  • By statute, can be established in second year of takeover if progress is being made
  • One member per board zone
  • Commissioner presented slate of 7 to SBE for approval on July 14
  • Meet monthly with Superintendent until return of local governance and new elections

LR area Public Education Stakeholder Group

  • A consequence of calls for a holistic plan for public education in LR during charter expansion debate
  • Appointed by the Commissioner and SBE Chair
  • Help design a study of public education for better education overall—traditional and charter schools in LR area
  • Members: Tommy Branch, Tamika Edwards, Ann Brown Marshall, Jim McKenzie, Antwan Phillips, Leticia Reta, Dianna Varady

Options for SBE

  • State to assess ACT-Achieve test scores by fall
  • State Board will have all legal options to consider—same as time of takeover
  • More perceived interest that SBE and Commissioner may want to return to local control sooner than later
  • Pause in designating schools in academic distress
  • New standards for academic distress to be developed

Concerns for the future

  • Poore—effectiveness and district stability
  • Facilities
    • Consideration of consolidations/closures
    • SWLR high school
  • Charter schools—moratorium on new or expansions would be appropriate in the current context

Current advocacy groups

  • #StandUp4LR Coalition: A broad collaboration among organizations and individuals who came together in 2016 to respond to charter expansions and protest various decisions made about LRSD without public input. Contact StandUp4LR@arpanel.org or Marion Humphrey, Jr. at Mhumphrey@nea.org.
  • Reclaim Our Little Rock Public Schools: A grassroots coalition that formed during the state takeover in 2015 to restore local control and work toward equity in education in Little Rock. Visit them at reclaimlrpublicschools.org. Contact Neil Sealy at nsealy@arkansascomm.org
  • The Open Book Project: Giving high-interest books, practical resources, love, and encouragement to our teachers and students in LRSD’s secondary schools who need them most. Follow on Facebook at www.facebook.com/theopenbookproject
  • Volunteers in Public Schools: ViPS links community volunteers with teachers and staff members in need of assistance to improve education in our schools. Contact Debbie Milam at Debra.Milam@lrsd.org