Arkansas Blog

As a marvelous old lady down at Monticello used to say, "It's just too terrible to talk about."

And, of course, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Daugherty will make sure they are careful not to eliminate too many African American teachers or administrators, you know... all regardless of competency, of course.

Don't be too quick to award that doctorate to Mr. Daugherty, PVN.

Sounds like they're using the Patrick Henry Hayes philosophy of governance:

1. Tell em late.
2. Schedule it when they can't or don't want to attend.
2. Ah, F*&k em.

Tonight is the regularly scheduled Board Agenda Meeting.

PVN - It's much more complicated than that. It all depends on which sorority you belong to. The pecking order is Alpha Kappa Alpha (Dr. Watson, Dr. Mitchell, and many other administrators) and then Delta Sigma Theta (many of the high school and elementary principals). These two black sororities (Alphas and Deltas) are also present in every school as teachers. The Alphas and Deltas control the LRSD which explains why it's in the shape it's in.

ARK. BLOG: The special meeting will follow the agenda meeting. It wasn't called until shortly before noon today. The agenda on the district website contaIns no details on what the superintendent wants to put to a vote.

Damn, I knew belonging to Tappa Kegga Bru wouldn't be the fraternity to help me with school leadership.

Jake -

Long time, no see!!

You can verify that the sisterhood has been running the show for a while in the LRSD.

Just ask Roy Brooks.

Hey Sly!! It's good to have your counsel again.

As to Roy, I've got some things on the backburner that are just waiting for the right moment. Been doing some homework and have a bit more to do.

If Watson continues to ignore those on the Board who want ineffective programs and upper level administrators cut, then she is the first one they need to cut to show the rest of the district and the public that this school board means business in getting LRSD back on its feet, fiscally and acadedmically. I'm very tired of her stonewalling what needs to be done.

It seems that six out of seven board members have doubts about her openness with them and in her abilities.

Mene mene tekel upharsin

From what I saw while working in the district, much of what PV says may not be far off the mark. I wouldn't go as far as saying they "run" the district, but the cliques look out for each other and pass info that helps each other, much the same way I'd expect others who share similar affiliations.

I'm a Sigma Nu alum, and I noticed recently the national fraternity now has 'career connection' online for members and alum. On our local chapter board there's also a spot for people advertising job leads for fellow brothers in need.

No different from being at the LRCC swilling scotch and talking shop. If you can afford to be there, you'll reap the benefits.

Oops, gave PV credit for Sly's insight. My bad...

And Sly forgot to mention the Delta Iota Kappa fraternity brothers who worm their way into leadership positions - DIK-Heads, we call 'em.

Jake - That is one of my favorite Bible phrases - "You have been weighed and found wanting."

Calmwriter - It is true. They DO run the district. Isn't there a difference between a public entity (like a public school) and a private corporation (like the ones the guys at the LRCC work at)?

Gee, what a shock!!!!! Someone thinks that just maybe linda watson doesn't know what she is doing. Since classroom instruction is not what the current administration of the LRSD is all about it will be interesting to see what they propose and pass. I would be surprised if the lion's share of cuts come from the 'captain dunsil' administrators who make the big bucks. I wonder if anyone is asking why the school district has lost so many patrons? I wonder if anyone will address the role of the LRSD to provide employment for achievement-challenged administrators?

Might want to be careful about revealing such a bad memory. I've been getting after Watson over the past 2-3 months, if not longer, for not living up to promises and not doing right in the financial cuts.
And, although I miss now and then, I try to limit collateral damage when I go after a target. I prefer smart weapons over full-scale nukes. And I don't say I love something with one breath and personally try to destroy with the next breath.

BTW - a reminder, that research shows that the 1950s had the highest teenage birthrate of the entire 20th Century (91 out of 1000 births). Also, more babies were given up back then for adoption instead of remaining with their natural mothers which is the current trend.

Sometimes you just fire duds.

Glad you brought it up again, Jake. I read your data. I also read some other data. The difference is that the problem today involves very young teenage girls who are UNMARRIED vs earlier when the situation involved older teenage girls who just happened to be, for the most part, MARRIED when they got pregnant. You see, in the 50s people tended to get married a lot earlier than they do today.

I lived through the 50s in Little Rock and I can tell you first hand that I know of NO girl who had to drop out of school due to pregnancy. What do you think that people who attend high school would say today? I guess I should qualify that to also include junior high school. Please don't lecture me on a time that I experienced first hand.

I hear at one high school faculty meeting classroom numbers were being used as a possible way to eliminate teachers in the schools. Any classes where there were fewer than 15 students were to be cut, ultimately resulting in teacher layoffs.

Of course, they're juggling the numbers. At the begining of school there are tons of kids in the classrooms, so they need the high number of staff. However, as the school year progresses, student numbers drop. Many just stop showing up to school. Others end up at learning centers of one type or another. Or they get expelled, or move. In this way, it looks as if there are too many teachers, when in reality they are needed to cover the overloaded classes for the first 5 months.

So in this way, administration can make it look like there are too many teachers, and that lay offs are needed at schools, thereby saving their own jobs.

Also, in many high schools, the scheduling is awful. In one class a teacher may have 27 students and in another class 10. This is because of poor scheduling by building administrators. So by saying classes less than 15 will be cut, central office administrators can take advantage of skewed numbers to again lay off teachers and save their own jobs.

linda watson was NEVER of the caliber to be a superintendant. You may have been critical but due to your avid support of LRSD it sure appeared to me that you were a fan. My mistake and I will take that back if you were. The loss of students will continue and the problems that beset LRSD will only get worse and more difficult. To put a 'caretaker' in that position who does not even remotely have the requisite skills is irresponsible. However, some of the shool board also greatly deserve our disdain for their lack of leadership and direction for the district. Enabling a school system to continue in its failure in order to promote a political agenda is a disservice to the patrons of the school system and the taxpayers of Little Rock.

I hear at one high school faculty meeting classroom numbers were being used as a possible way to eliminate teachers in the schools. Any classes where there were fewer than 15 students were to be cut, ultimately resulting in teacher layoffs.

Of course, they're juggling the numbers. At the begining of school there are tons of kids in the classrooms, so they need the high number of staff. However, as the school year progresses, student numbers drop. Many just stop showing up to school. Others end up at learning centers of one type or another. Or they get expelled, or move. In this way, it looks as if there are too many teachers, when in reality they are needed to cover the overloaded classes for the first 5 months.

So in this way, administration can make it look like there are too many teachers, and that lay offs are needed at schools, thereby saving their own jobs.

Also, in many high schools, the scheduling is awful. In one class a teacher may have 27 students and in another class 10. This is because of poor scheduling by building administrators. So by saying classes less than 15 will be cut, central office administrators can take advantage of skewed numbers to again lay off teachers and save their own jobs.

And don't lecture me when I gave you data to read last nite and you haven't looked at it. It refutes your current premises also. Anecdotal evidence has its limits which you fail to notice at times. The report gives the median age of marrriage for females in the '50s to be 20.3 and there's a lot more but you don't seem to be interested in FACTS, you just want to give us your memories and recollections.

Having grown up during the 50s and then seeing you write something that is totally inaccurate gives me plenty of right to lecture you so cram it, guy. I'll nail your ass anytime I want for being wrong and don't go crying about it when I do. You were 180 degrees wrong in your statement last night and don't have the balls to admit it.

It's always a pleasure to set people straight about someone's misinformation, lies, and bad logic. And that's something you've yet to take away. For someone who claims to have been a debater, all this lecturing and using facts comes with the game so get used to it 'cause there's gonna always be more where this came from.

Jake!!

Take a deep breath and count to ten. . . .

On second thought, rip him a new one.

Hi Sly....

Am gone. BP is too damn high and I'm not needing this hassle. Will watch football game to calm me (?!) and stay away from blogging until tomorrow.

Jake

Jake -

they make drugs for the high bp. i'm on atenolol, zestril, and norvasc. But it just takes one asshole to screw everything up and I'm through the roof too.

I'm curious as to what the board outcome will be. No LRSD-TV here in Conway. I guess I'll have to read it in tomorrow's ArkDemGaz.

Yea, you nailed me like you nailed me defending the LRSD when data came out proving that the school district is an abject failure. I haven't heard you eat that yet, hot shot. But then again, anyone that would defend the LRSD has got to be a hot headed kid who doesn't spend a whole lot of time dealing with the truth. Little Rock had no teen pregnancy problem in the 50s. You don't have to be a genius to know that. Surely in that vast bank of experiences and knowledge that you have you can find enough people who lived during that time to tell you that.

I tell you what, kid, try selling your theory that Little Rock had a teen pregnancy problem to someone who lived in Little Rock during the 50s. After they quit laughing then maybe you can sell them on what a great school system we have in Little Rock today as opposed to the 50s. Then they will understand the reason why you asked the first question.

Here is a portion of testimony before the House of Representatives for you to chew on hotshot:

A publication of the National Marriage Project, 1998. Please contact marriage@rci.rutgers.edu or 732 445 7922

Teen Pregnancy
An American Dilemma

Testimony before the House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Empowerment, Washington, DC, July 16, 1998

David Popenoe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With its very high teen pregnancy rate the United States is seriously out of line with other developed nations. Each year in this country almost one million teenagers become pregnant, and approximately four in ten girls become pregnant at least once before reaching the age of twenty. This is twice the rate found in the next highest nation, Great Britain, and nearly ten times the rates found in Japan and the Netherlands. Although the teen pregnancy rate in the United States has dropped some in the past few years, it is still substantially higher than in the early 1970s and the drop should not deflect us from grappling with this urgent national problem. Indeed, with many so-called baby boom echo children now entering their teenage years, the total number of teen pregnancies is expected to increase significantly over the next decade.

Perhaps the most alarming trend associated with teen pregnancy concerns the decline of marriage. In 1960, a time of marriage at younger ages and more restricted sexuality, the percentage of unmarried teen births was only 15%. Since then, the increase in out-of-wedlock births has been staggering. Today, some 80% of teen pregnancies and 75% of teen births are to unmarried girls. These girls typically lack the maturity, the skills, and the assistance that are necessary for good parenting.

There is a straightforward reason why the unmarried teen pregnancy rate has increased so dramatically-teens are having more sex, at earlier ages, and without the use of contraceptives. In 1970, 35% of girls and 55% of boys reported having had sex by age eighteen. By 1988, the figures were 56% for girls and 73% for boys. Today, if the data were available, the amount of teen sexual activity undoubtedly would be still higher. This is despite a slight decline over the past few years, reported by some studies, in the stated acceptance of casual sex by young people.

"I lived through the 50s in Little Rock and I can tell you first hand that I know of NO girl who had to drop out of school due to pregnancy. " Posted by: strangelove January 8, 2009 07:38 PM

"Give me a break with the anecdotal comments." Posted by: strangelove September 26, 2008 10:20 PM

So what does that mean? I should ignore what I know. Do you realize how big of a sample size the school system of Little Rock represented in the 50s? Little Rock was small enough so that you knew what was going on but large enough to be a representative size to sample of the teenage population. I really doubt that if we had the teenage pregancy rate that you have today that I wouldn't have known about it. I am simply speaking the truth as it applied to Little Rock during that time period. If you don't like it then refute it. It is so typical of liberals who must shore up a bankrupt idealogy that you make such silly and absurd arguments. Ask someone who lived in the city in the 50s if it had a teenage pregnancy problem. Just be prepared to hear the truth. I lived in a world that you can not fathom by today's standards.

LRSD has been spending money hand over fist (paying people to go away, settling lawsuits counsel thought we were winning, adding money to Watson and admin downtown, going to San Fran for school board mtgs) all the while knowing that a budget blowout was on it's way. Now they want to cut teachers, block schedule, security, etc... All things that will directly effect students and tank AYP even more, which will cause more enrollment drop etc..
Watson-get your head out of the sand and start with downtown cuts. The (somewhat) educated public is quickly loosing what little confidence we had in you.

As one who has critiqued LRSD and its personnel (most often the administration), I am comforted to know that I have continued to make recommendations and suggestions which I believe would improve the school system. Usually I have cited research to support such considerations. I've admitted to seeing problems that LRSD needs to fix and personnel it should remove and that there are academic problems in certain areas.
Likewise, I've tried to balance this with a presentation of good programs, good schools, and good teachers. There is plenty of evidence to show that quality education does occur in the district. I've tried to work toward the goal of building a better district, not destroying it.
Unfortunately, some would rather participate in the destruction of LRSD rather than its reconstruction. Those who really want to help or do the right thing will offer solutions for the troubled, thanks for the successes, and service to the children in whatever way they can participate.
Those who wish ill for these children and their teachers will continually cry out that the sky is falling and use foolish labels like "abject failure." They care not if the collateral damage from their ill-chosen words harms the innocent as well as the guilty.

Jake, in business we know that if you don't know that you have a problem you can't solve it. We also know that when you discover you have a problem then you must define the root cause and correct it. The prescription that you provide for the LRSD is a bandaid. The problem that the school system has is a rotting corpse that requires resurrection. The system is in a state of hemorrhaging and a bandaid won't save it.

Characterizing someone who correctly identifies the gravity of the problem as being an enemy of the children is a very pathetic attempt at manipulation. If your way holds sway the system will never recover and get even worse---if that is possible. All of the metrics scream for a radical return to the quality and good common sense that prevailed at one time in the system.

Again, where have you offered solutions, if any? I took the time to go to the department of education web page and there are segments that show a very significant increase in scores over the 2005-2007 period (notably Algebra 1 End-of-Year results. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind requires a huge leap in scores, not a significant. In that three year period of time, one could say that there was a 50% improvement overall in test reults.
NCLB number-crunching expects all students to all be perfectly proficient in a brief period of time. Noble? Yes. Realistic? No.

Much of the problem lies in the methodology used in this ratings system as well as in the struggle that faces urban school districts to deal with inner city environments. Also, you are wrong to label certain things as my "way" when I've repeatedly said there needs to be many changes and have provided research suggesting what those better ways are.

If you are going to try and defeat my arguments, at least have the decency to use arguments I have presented, not ones you have fabricated for me. It is not a lie or stretch on my part to characterize your positions on LRSD as extremely negative and derogatory, both in part and often as a whole. Countless times you have lumped everything under the heading LRSD and condemned it all, lock stock and barrel.

That is blatantly unfair and untrue. So, let me repeat the challenge that shows whether you have real concern for the children in the district: what have you offered as a solution that will help them and what research backs up your choice. BTW, take it as a given that certain personnel need to be changed (or their positions elimimnated) and we both are in agreement basically on that issue; therefore, provide some program and policy changes that will benefit the academic needs of these children, still meet budgetary requirements, and have some research evidence to back their efficacy.

Vouchers, merit pay, and other non-academic oriented plans cannot be used since they either go against public schools by nature or do not have any academic plans associated with them.

4th paragraph should start:

"That condemnation is....."

This simple test will prove my point about how LRSD is being maligned be overblown criticism. Click on name and it will take you to the Ark Dept of Ed performance reports. Do the work so that you have the state report card and the LRSD report card on your screen at the same time. Grade-by-grade, you will observe the following: there is little or no difference between state and district scores for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians. In LRSD vs state scores, African-Americans are slightly lower, Caucasians are slightly higher.

If one follows the rationale given by Strangelove, then the whole state of Arkansas therefore is an abject failure because LRSD by race is on a par with the state. What explains the furor if the scores themselves are practically the same as the state average?

In the final analysis, LRSD has kept pace with the rest of the state despite a larger number of African-Americans and economically-disadvantaged students which has been the documented indicators of problem urban school districts.

This doesn't mean that there are not serious problems: the discrepancy between black and white scores must be reduced, parents must become more involved, inner city violence and gangs must be dealt with and their influence reduced greatly, teaching and teachers must be given plans and training to reach the children more effectively, and school boards and head administrators need to streamline their budgets & find leaders to implement needed changes in policy and doctrine.

So, the data definitely shows Arkansas and LRSD on a par as far as results go when one compares data by race. This is the truest reflection of LRSD's academic performance.