LITTLE ROCK — Little Rock School Board members took another step Thursday in its process of evaluating Superintendent Linda Watson, asking her in a private session to describe her accomplishments as the chief executive in the 26,700-student district.
Each of the seven board members plan to complete and submit their evaluation forms by Monday evening,board President Charles Armstrong said after the nearly hour-long meeting with Watson.
After he receives those forms, the ratings will be compiled and the tallies reported back to the board and Watson, at which time the board will have to decide how to proceed.
In question is whether the board is going to vote to extend Watson’s contract beyond its June 30, 2011, expiration date or use the 2010-11 school year to embark on a search for a new superintendent.
Arkansas school boards typically extend a superintendent’s contract after the completion of each work year so the chief executive has the security of a full three-year contract. Failure to extend a contract beyond the current year is generally seen as a symptom of problems between a board and a superintendent.
The Little Rock board did not vote to extend Watson’s contract last year, leaving her with only two years on her contract. If her contract is not extended by the board at any time during the coming weeks and months, her tenure would come to an end in June 2011.
“The board has some options,” Armstrong said Thursday night. “We can extend the contract, we can do nothing or we can vote not to extend it. Doing nothing would mean the same thing [as voting not to extend it], which means we would be looking for a new superintendent.”
Watson, 56, who earns $198,000, has been superintendent of the state’s largest district, which has an annual budget in excess of $300 million, since August 2007.
She was an interim superintendent the first year in the wake of the board’s decision to remove then-Superintendent Roy Brooks from the job. In March 2008, a racially split board voted 4-3 to hire Watson on a long-term basis without opening up the job to other applicants.
Watson’s tenure as the district’s chief has been marked by frequent School Board member challenges to her proposals, resulting in divided or negative votes on them.
But Watson has had unusually strong support from district employees, who historically have publicly challenged whoever was superintendent. Watson’s support has come primarily through the Little Rock Education Association, which is the new name for what was the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, and its membership of teachers and support staff.
The board met with Watson at the end of its regular monthly meeting, which some of Pulaski County’s government, church and teacher leaders attended to commend the district for raising student achievement.
Without making many specific references to Watson’s tenuous job status, several urged the board against making any disruptive changes.
Former state Rep. Linda Pondexter Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said the district’s facilities are in good shape, it is financially sound and student test scores improved this past year. She also said the district and its employees have a good relationship and that the superintendent has been active in all parts of the community.
“You are ahead of the curve,” Chesterfield told the board.
State Sen. Tracy Steele, D-North Little Rock, whose legislative district includes portions of all three Pulaski County school districts, said his two children attend Little Rock schools and he was “elated” by the improved student scores.
But he was even more pleased with the committed leadership he sees at the schools. He said the district deserves credit for its accomplishments at a time when independently run charter schools are drawing some the district’s “best and brightest” students.
Mary Louise Williams, a former Little Rock district employee who is longtime Pulaski County Quroum Court member, told the board, “I hope you don’t make the mistake of making change for change’ sake.”
Little Rock attorney John Walker, however, issued a cautionary note to the board, saying that any analysis of the status of the school district must be based on more than just the scores on state Benchmark Exams.
He said it is “pretty clear” that the state, which is trying to end almost $70 million a year in desegregation payments to the three Pulaski County school districts, has an interest in presenting test scores of Pulaski County area students in a good light.
Arkansas, Pages 11 on 06/25/2010