Bill to extend Little Rock district takeover gets new life in Senate panel

Bid gains two votes

Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, discusses SB668 as opponents of the bill look on during a Senate Education Committee meeting on Friday. More photos are available at www.arkansasonline.com/ 46genassembly/
Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, discusses SB668 as opponents of the bill look on during a Senate Education Committee meeting on Friday. More photos are available at www.arkansasonline.com/ 46genassembly/

A Senate committee on Friday resurrected a bill that would extend by up to four years the time that the Little Rock School District and others like it could remain under state control.

Current law requires the state Board of Education to either annex, consolidate or reconstitute a public school district within five years of taking it over, but Senate Bill 668 by Sen. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, would allow the board to extend that time for two 24-month periods if a district hasn't demonstrated compliance with the criteria to exit state control.

The legislation, needing five votes, failed 3-3 in the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday with two Republicans not voting.

Both those members -- Lance Eads of Springdale and James Sturch of Batesville -- said Friday that they now support the proposal, giving it the needed five votes to pass.

While the Little Rock School District isn't mentioned by name in the bill, it loomed over Friday's hearing. The district has been operating under state control, without an elected school board and under the direction of the state education commissioner, since January 2015.

Friday's discussion drew a long procession of Little Rock parents, teachers and community leaders, including a representative for Mayor Frank Scott Jr., to fight the bill, pushing for the district to instead be returned to the control of a local school board.

[RELATED: Complete Democrat-Gazette coverage of the Arkansas Legislature]

Bill Kopsky, executive director of Arkansas Citizens First Congress, told the committee that the state hadn't demonstrated the ability to help struggling schools improve and that SB668 would be another misstep. The group describes itself as a multi-issue, nonpartisan coalition of groups "who work together for progressive changes in state policy," according to its website.

"What we are doing now is not working," Kopsky said. "And doubling down simply prolongs the failures of what we're currently doing."

Little Rock's seven-member school board was dismissed and its superintendent placed under the direction of the state education commissioner in 2015 after six of its then 48 schools were labeled as academically distressed for chronically low scores on state-required math and literacy tests.

Three of those schools have since had the distress tag removed, although the state school accountability system has been overhauled and no longer labels individual schools as "distressed."

The Little Rock district is labeled by the state as "Level 5 - in need of intensive support" under the new accountability system. Individual schools receive A to F letter grades based on state test results, achievement gains on those annual tests and on other factors such as student attendance and graduation rates.

Little Rock has eight schools that have F grades based on the 2018 test. The window for the 2019 tests opens Monday.

As part of the criteria to regain local control, the eight Little Rock schools that have F grades must improve achievement on April's ACT Aspire tests compared with the 2017 test scores.

The number of students scoring in the "close," "ready" and "exceeds" categories of achievement on the Aspire tests in math and English/language arts at each of those eight schools must also surpass the total number of students in the lowest, "in need of support," category.

In addition to Little Rock, the Lee County, Dollarway, Earle and Pine Bluff districts are also operating under state control.

Hammer said his bill would address both situations when a school district needs a little more time to be ready to regain independence and when districts are "running out the clock." He said the five-year mark doesn't necessarily mean a district is ready, and SB668 could set districts up for a "soft landing."

Hammer also noted that his legislation wouldn't require the state to extend the takeover of a district.

"It's kind of like a child walking," Hammer said. "You get them almost to where they can walk and then we turn them loose whether we want to or not. They fall back down again."

Little Rock attorney Antwan Phillips said that if the state Board of Education couldn't accomplish its goals in five years, an additional four years wouldn't make a difference either. He echoed a sentiment by Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, who opposed the bill in committee earlier this week: Little Rock residents are being subjected to taxation without representation.

"Our country is founded on democracy," Phillips said. "Every day there is not local control of our school district, we are violating the democratic principles of this country."

A parent of a Little Rock district student spoke in favor of the bill, saying the district before state control had been failing to provide proper support to dyslexic students. She also raised concerns that an effort may be underway to form a new, separate school district in west Little Rock once the state relinquishes control of the district.

Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, asked state Education Commissioner Johnny Key if there have been talks to create such a district.

Key pointed to public discussions about cooperating with the Pulaski County Special School District about new schools in the area, and he said private discussions had been along the same lines.

Key also noted that there couldn't be any boundary changes for the Pulaski County Special School District until it is released from federal court supervision of its desegregation efforts.

It wasn't feasible to consolidate or annex a district of Little Rock's size, he said, but come next year, the district could be reconstituted in a variety of ways, including limited local control.

SB668 must still pass the full Senate, House committee and full House. The bill's biggest challenge is perhaps time, as legislative leaders hope to adjourn next week.

Information for this article was contributed by Cynthia Howell of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Metro on 04/06/2019

Upcoming Events