Board votes to pause formal partnership with Academies of Central Arkansas after budget, fidelity concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
After extended debate about costs, program fidelity, and possible effects on career-technical offerings, the Little Rock board voted Nov. 20 to pause its formal partnership with the Academies of Central Arkansas Foundation until further notice.
The Little Rock School District Board voted Nov. 20 to pause the district’s formal partnership with the Academies of Central Arkansas Foundation (AOCA). The action followed a lengthy public and board exchange about funding, program alignment and whether the Ford NGL model used by AOCA fits district operations.
A board member moved a pause for the 2025–26 school year with quarterly reporting and a directive to report back on efforts to formally partner in 2026–27; after debate and a failed amendment to remove the reporting timeline, the board ultimately adopted an amended motion to pause the partnership until a time to be determined.
Why it mattered: Superintendent and staff said the pause reflects multiple concerns — not only cost but broader issues of alignment with district practice — and emphasized the district’s career and technical education pathways and academy-type programs will continue. Several board members and community speakers warned that pausing the foundation partnership could risk losing valued business partners and CTE opportunities; others said fiscal constraints and lack of a clear return on investment required the pause.
What was argued: supporters of pausing the partnership pointed to the district’s limited budget and the administration’s assessment that the partnership, as proposed, lacked sufficient benefit relative to its cost. Opponents described potential damage to relationships with businesses and to student opportunities and pressed for concrete alternatives or narrower service contracts rather than a full partnership.
Next steps: the board paused the formal AOCA partnership and left the door open to future talks; staff were asked to report on partnership discussions and potential alternative partnership models, though the final adopted motion removed the earlier quarterly reporting requirement and left the timeline open.
