North Little Rock board pauses proposed high‑school schedule change after student petition and staff concerns
Loading...
Summary
The North Little Rock School District board paused consideration of a move away from the A/B block schedule after administrators cited low student outcomes and a consultant audit estimated roughly $1.3 million in savings, while students and several board members urged more data and community input.
The North Little Rock School District board on Tuesday paused a proposed change to high‑school scheduling that administrators say could free up funding for teacher pay.
Board President Rochelle opened the budget workshop by reminding members this was a fact‑finding session. Finance staff had presented a consolidated list of cost‑saving items, and an audit by scheduling vendor Cardonics suggested converting the high‑school block schedule to a 7‑ or 8‑period day could reduce planning time and absorb up to 20 full‑time equivalent positions, producing a conservative estimated savings of about $1,300,000.
Superintendent Pawlowski and his leadership team stressed academic urgency. The superintendent cited recent interim data showing high percentages of students scoring below proficiency across core courses and a graduation rate reported in the meeting at about 60.76 percent, saying the board should weigh outcomes for students when considering operational changes.
Students and community members raised concerns about shorter class periods, the logistics of partner programs and whether struggling students would lose instructional time. One board member reported a student petition with 581 signatures — 191 freshmen, 187 sophomores, 155 juniors and 48 seniors — opposing an 8‑period day and outlining specific practical objections.
Several board members said they lacked sufficient staff and student input to make an informed decision now. "If we're not going to reassess it, why keep it lingering?" one member asked; others said the board should collect comparative salary data, historical achievement data from before and after the block rollout and clearer counts on how flex time is being used (administrators said 43 staff were not assigned to flex periods and that many classes have low enrollment, e.g., hundreds of classes with fewer than 10 students cited in the audit).
After extended discussion, the board reached a consensus to pause any schedule change for the immediate term so counselors can proceed with scheduling and staff can compile additional data requested by board members (including teacher‑salary comparisons with peer districts and more detailed analyses of flex usage and class enrollments). The board asked staff to return with the requested information and set deadlines for a future review.
Next steps: staff will provide the requested comparative salary and program data and incorporate student and teacher feedback. The board scheduled a retreat for June 12 to develop a decision framework and timelines for budget choices and will revisit the schedule question after receiving the requested materials.
