{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1225","title":"Oral deposition of Herbert J. Walberg, Chicago, Illinois","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1984-07-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Herbert J. Walberg, Chicago, Illinois"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1225"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District. Herbert Walberg, a research professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago and consultant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) l Plaintiffs, ) Office of Desegr ga11on Mona1.1,uiw ) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants. ) ) No. LRC 82-866 ) ) ) ) ) ) The deposition of HERBERT J. WALBERG, called by the Plaintiff for examination, taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before THERESE A. KOZEL, a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, at Suite 900, 208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 26th day of July, A.O. 1984, at 3:30 p.m. \u0026lt;'Wo[f I!., c:Ro~l!.nbvc-9 and df-~waia.tu, [Jna . (!J\n_c,,.\"90, !flllnol~ e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PRESENT: KAPLAN, BREWER \u0026amp; MILLER, P.A., (Metro Centre Mall, 415 Main Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), by: MR. PHILIP E. KAPLAN, -and- MS. JANET L. PULLIAM, (Suite 350, Gazette Building, 112 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff: MESSRS. FRIEDMAN \u0026amp; KOVEN, (208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604), by: MS. MAREE SNEED, appeared on behalf of the Defendant Pulaski County Special School District No. 1: MESSRS. HOUSE, WALLACE \u0026amp; JEWELL, (1500 Tower Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), by: MR. EDWARD G. ADCOCK, appeared on behalf of the Defendant North Little Rock School District. REPORTED BY: THERESE A. KOZEL, c.s.R. \u0026lt;wo[fe., c.Ro~e.nCe.\"9 and df~waiate.~, [/n.a. t!hlc.~o, fJt(inol~  (312) 782-8087 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W--IT-N--ES-S-HERBERT By By By NUMBER I N D E X J. WALBERG Mr. Kaplan Ms. Sneed Mr. Adcock E X H I B I T S NO EXHIBITS MARKED. 3 DX ex ROX RCX 4 62 87 80 MARKED FOR ID \u0026lt;'WoffI! ., c::Rou.nbvt~ a.n.d df-~u,ciau.~, !Jnc. Chictl.fjo, fl[f,nol.. 5 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly sworn. ) HERBERT J. WALBERG, 4 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. State your name and your address, please. A. My name is Herbert J. Walberg. I am at the University of Illinois in Chicago, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois. Q. What is your full-time position? A. I am a research professor of education. Q. Do you have any outside occupations, that is, consulting on a regular basis or anything else? A. I have consulted over the years, yes, I have :- Q. Well, I am really asking if you are a member of any consulting firm or group. A. No. I am not a member presently of any firm or group. Q. Do you hold any regular employment outside of your academic position? A. Well, I have an ongoing relationship with \u0026lt;woffl!., c:Rou.nb-vc.9 and c:lf-1.waia.tl!.1., [}na. (!f,_1.,,\"90, [!ff,nol~ O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 publishers who seek my advice on an occasional basis. Nothing else comes to mind. Q. Have you testified in any school cases? A. Yes, I have. Q. Tell me the names of the school cases in which you have testified. If you can't remember the names by the case style, then the city will be sufficient. A, The most recent case was the St. Louis case. I believe that was called Liddell, L-i-d-d-e-1-1. I testified in the Benton Harbor case. I testified in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana\nand a number of years ago, I testified in some hearings that were conducted in Iowa and in New Jersey. Q. When you say \"a number of years ago,\" what are you talking about? A, Q. A. ago. Q. A. Q. I believe it might have been about 1973. When did you testify in St. Louis? I think it might have been about 18 months And for whom did you testify? I testified for the State of Missouri. What was the nature of your testimony? \u0026lt;'Wolfe., c:Ro!J.e.nbe.'Tfj and c:lf!J.waiate.!J., [/na. Chic~o, .Offinol 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 A. I was asked to examine plans that had been put forward by various parties to the case\nand I was to evaluate the plans, particularly from an educational standpoint, to see how it would affect teaching and learning within the districts, St. Louis and the county districts. Q. How about Benton Harbor? How long ago did you testify there? A. Q. A. Q. there? A. I think it was about three years ago. And for what party? The Coloma Public School District. What was the nature of your testimony There had been a school annexation of a small amount of land at one point, and the Coloma schools and the Benton Harbor schools and one or two other districts were at odds about ho~ that might have affected education within the Benton Harbor schools. I was asked to assess the degree to which that might have affected learning, and I was also asked how best to improve black learning within the Benton Harbor public schools. Q. With regard to East Baton Rouge, can you \u0026lt;Woff t:, cf?o!\u0026gt;.t:nfn,'-9 and c:f/-Hoc.iatt:5., [}nc.. C!hie.~o, !Jff,nol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 tell me approximately how long ago your testimony was there? A. I think that would have been about two years ago. Q. And for what party? A. It was for the East Baton Rouge Public School District. Q. What was the nature of your testimony there? A. I was asked to assess the effect of teacher experience, years of experience on student learning, and what factors might best promote learning within the schools. Q. When were you first contacted to be a witness in this proceeding? A. Q. A. Q. It perhaps was about five or six weeks ago. Who contacted you? Mr. Steven Jones. What was the nature of the assignment given to you? A. I was asked to look at the characteristics of education in the three districts, to examine the quality of education, to assess the degree of liability and also to see what might be done about \u0026lt;Wo{fe, c:Ro~mfre.~ and. clfuoa.iate.~, [}na.. {!f,_~CUJO, [Jt[,nol~ ~ (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 remedies with respect to improving learning. That is basically the charge I was given. MR. ADCOCK: Excuse me just a minute. (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) BY THE WITNESS: A. I neglected to mention -- I forgot to mention I was also given the Dentler plan and asked to examine it. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Can you tell me what you mean by \"assess liability\"? A. Well, I was asked to read the Judge's memorandum opinion and to look at various things that he had said with respect to North Little Rock and to see how important that might be for the educational process. Q. What materials were you supplied with to assist you in undertaking this assignment? A. I am not sure I can name them all, but I have been given nearly the entire transcript. I was given the Judge's memorandum opinion. I was given a number of North Little Rock exhibits. When I visited the Little Rock area, I was \u0026lt;wo[f e, c:Rou.nGe\"5 and clf-~waiate.~, [}na. {!f,~a:Jo, !J[(inol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 supplied with various curriculum materials. During visits to the schools, I was given examinations and things that were used within classrooms to promote learning. I obtained maps of some of the school districts. There had been a report, I believe, by a government mediator which I looked at. There is probably some more materials, too, that I have looked at that I can't bring to mind now. Q. When you talk about the transcript, were you given the transcript of the liability phase, the first two weeks in January? A. If I could ask, it starts about Page 1, doesn't it, and goes to about Page 7000? Q. I frankly can't remember the ending page, but it's two weeks' worth of trial in January. A. Yes. I believe I was given the entire thing. Q. Were you given that portion of the remedy phase in April? A. Q. A. Yes, I think I was. And have you read that entire transcript? I can't say that I have read every single page and word, but I have attempted to read the \u0026lt;Wolf I!., c:::Ro1\n.l!.nbl!.'UJ and. cft1\n.waiatl!.1\n,, [f na. (!f.,c~o, ifff,noh. e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 parts that concern education closely and, perhaps less attentively, some of the other parts. Q. Have you requested any additional materials? A. Yes, I did. Q. What were those? 10 A. I requested curriculum materials from the North Little Rock School District central office staff and also the Pulaski County District staff. Q. Anything else? MR. ADCOCK: Can we confer again for a minute? MR. KAPLAN: Go ahead. (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes\nI am sorry. I was speaking of the materials I actually got. I did wish to get materials from Little Rock as well and to visit schools and interview central office staff in Little Rock, but I did not have the opportunity. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. All right. Do you understand that part of your assignment in connection with your engagement by the North Little Rock School District will be to \u0026lt;Wolf I!., cRou.nbl!.~ and c/1-1.wa.ia.u.1., {/na,. {!l',\n.,,O'jo, ffffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 assist in developing a plan of desegregation? A. My understanding will be that I will provide suggestions on techniques or procedures that would be incorporated into the total plan. Q. Have you done any or made any such suggestions yet? A. I have discussed these suggestions with the central office staff in Pulaski County and in North Little Rock and the lawyers in the case. Q. Do you understand you will have any kind of formal role in connection with drafting any sections of a desegregation plan? A. Yes. Q. What will that be? A. I will write a report of my findings, which will, as I understand it, be incorporated into a North Little Rock plan and analysis. Q. When do you intend to do that? A. I am working on that now, and I hope to have a good draft or fairly final draft within the next several days. Q. And does \"next several days\" mean sometime next week? A. I am not entirely clear how much time we \u0026lt;vVoff e, cf?o~enbe'rfj and df-~waiate~, [}na. C!.hlc\":fo, .[Jffinol., 8 (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 12 will be given for this. As I understand it, we are in something of a rush to get this. So I would like to take as much time as possible, but I would be ready perhaps with a draft or fairly final material by, say, Saturday or early next week. Q. Are you speaking about Saturday, you mean, the day after tomorrow? A. Yes. MR. KAPLAN: We would request that, too. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Do .you intend in this draft to assess liability in the context in which you first spoke of it? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to discuss remedies with regard to improving learn~ng? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to give your critique of the Dentler plan? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to do anything else in this draft or in the final version? A. Well, I think that those are the basic \u0026lt;wolfI! ., c.Ro~l!.nb-e'tfj and d/-uoaiatl!.~, [fn a. Cfik~o, _[Jffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 13 intentions that I have. Q. Are you the primary author of the North Little Rock plan, or will there be some co-authors? A. Q. A, Q. A. I would not be the primary author. Who is? I think it will be a group effort. Who are the other members of the group? Well, I believe that the other expert witnesses will be drafting materials Q. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I am sorry. A, I believe that the other expert witnesses will be drafting materials that may be criticized: and I believe that the attorneys will be examining it and it will be reviewed in various phases. not entirely certain how it will proceed. I am Q. Do you know what portions Dr. Armpr will draft? A, I am not sure of that, no. Q. Have you had a meeting of the authors of the plan to discuss any outline or general theoretical construct of the plan? A, Do you mean all of the authors or -- Q. Either all or any substantial number \u0026lt;'Wof f-, cf?o!..enbe 'UJ and. df-!..~ciate!.. , [} n.c. C!hic~o, flff,nols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 thereof. A. Well, over the course of the various meetings I have had on various occasions, the possibility or even the probability of a report being completed has been discussed. 14 And various ideas have been put forth on the sections in such a report and how it might proceed have been discussed. Q. Have you had a meeting at which the general theoretical or philosophical framework was discussed? A. WeLl, I think I need to interpret the philosophical framework. I suppose that this has been mentioned at various times, yes. Q. Well, for example, have the authors with whom you have met made a decision to opt for a purely voluntary plan as opposed to a mandatory component? A. I am not entirely sure that all of the authors would take a position with respect to a voluntary or a mandatory plan. Q. A. Q. What is your position? I would have to advocate a voluntary plan. Purely voluntary? \u0026lt;'Wo{f e, c:Ro~en.b-e'tfj and df.~waial:e.j,, lna. C!f.k\"90, fJ[[inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me all of the purely voluntary desegregation plans of which you are aware? A. plan. Well, certainly Chicago has a voluntary I imagine that there are different definitions of voluntary plans. Some plans may be voluntary but have a mandatory backup. Q. I would include, within mandatory, voluntary with a mandatory backup. What I am asking you now is to list for me, if you can, all of the purely voluntary plans with no mandatory backup. A. I don't think I can be certain in answering that question. I think there may be mandatory aspects of the St. Louis plan and there might be in Milwaukee, but I think that these have been cited as cases in which voluntary procedures have been used that have been effective. Also, the Benton Harbor case, as I heard about its later results, was a voluntary plan. Q. Purely voluntary? A. I can't be certain that there were either mandatory backups or not. Perhaps there may be some \u0026lt;Woffl!-, c:.Ro1,.l!-nb-l!-'r9 and. c:ft1..walafa1,., [}n.a. (lf,,~\"90, fl{{inol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 appeal procedures or something of that nature. Q. Would your plan, if you had your druthers in it, if you get to exercise the dominant authorship, be for a purely voluntary plan? A. I would prefer voluntary plans. I think that they have great merit. The only time that I could advocate a mandatory plan is simply obeying the law, but I see very little other use for a mandatory plan. Q. Are you aware of any purely voluntary plans in any southern school system, that is, a formerly de Jure school system in the south? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. In fact, I am glad you reminded me, because it was a case I neglected to mention. It was in Norfolk, Virginia, where I testified: and Norfolk, Virginia, had a mandatory plan, I understand, for many years. They were concerned about the quality of education in Norfolk, and the school district wanted to back away from a mandatory plan and to use voluntary transfers. And that was approved by the Court. \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?o~l!.nb-l!.\"9 and cltucaiate.~, [}na. Ch.c\"-:}o, f!tt,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 Q. Any others? A. Not that I can think of offhand. Q. Have you, in connection with your meetings with the other authors of the plan, discussed any desire to go at the very least for the degree of racial balance for which you will aim? A. I am sorry. I don't understand your question. Q. All right. Have you formulated any position with regard to what the plan will aim for concerning the racial balance in the various schools in Pulaski County? A. When you say \"you,\" do you mean me? Q. I mean you and your co-authors. A. I have not come to that conclusion, and I am unsure as to whether the other authors have come to such a conclusion on racial balance. Q. What is your understanding of the racial composition of the North Little Rock School District? A. I have looked at one point at the school percentages of blacks in the schools, and I remember that there was a range of percentages. Offhandedly, I don't know the overall balance within the North Little Rock School District. \u0026lt;Woff e, cRo~enfre'tfj and c:lfuoaiate~, [}na. C!hkago, flffin.ol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 Q. How about in the Little Rock School District? A. My recollection is that it was approximately 50 or 60 percent black. Q. How about in Pulaski County Special School District? A, We are talking about the entire district? Q. No. I am talking about -- yes, the entire Pulaski County Special School District, but not the entire county three school districts. A, And we are talking about the entire district as opposed to specific schools? Q. That's right. A, My recollection is that it's approximately 22 percent black students in the Pulaski County District. Q. And 1how about the percentage of black students, white students, if you put together the three school districts in the county? A, I think that the point was made in the transcript, and my memory is that it might have been about 30 to 40 percent. Q. Do you have any view with regard to what any desegregation plan should require in terms of \u0026lt;Wo[f e, cf?o1,,enbe\":J and c/f-1,,wcial:e,1,,, [/nc. {!f.k~o, if{[inol._  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 the percentages in the county? I am not talking about the Pulaski County Special School District. I am talking about countywide now. A. I don't have a strong position or opinion about the racial balance, what it should be within the entire Pulaski County. Q. Do you expect that by the time a plan is devised, that the authors of the plan will settle on some kind of figure as to what it ought to be? A. Well, I would speculate that they may arrive at such a figure. The other expert witnesses are sociologists and others that are more concerned about racial balance, and I think that their opinions will weigh most heavily. Q. You have been concerned about it in the past, have you not? A. Racial balance? Q. About the concept of racial balance. A. Well, I have been concerned about it\nand I have been brought into cases where it has been at issue, yes. Q. Have you discussed among your fellow authors anything with regard to faculty composition \u0026lt;Wolf I!-, cf?o5.wb-vc-9 and. clfuoaiatl!-5., [Jna. Chic~o, flff,nolf1  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 and staff composition? A. I don't recall any conversations with the other expert witnesses on staff composition. Q. When you have used integration as a concept in your writing before, what is your definition of integration? integration? What do you mean by A. I think that integration is a somewhat imprecise term. I think it means that, to some extent, people are treated as individuals rather than as racial categories. That is one favorable aspect of the term. I think another favorable aspect of the term is that, especially in the context of schools, the attention is given to teaching and learning as opposed to simply desegregation or racial mixing. These are the two aspects of the term that I think I would tend to emphasize in thinking about it. Q. Have you ever been involved in the drafting of a desegregation plan before? A. I have been asked, I think, in all of the cases for educational advice about what would promote the quality of learning and so on\nand I had \u0026lt;'Wo{f , cf?o1..nb-e'rf} and clt1..waia.u.1., [Jna. {!f,_~~o, flffinoiJ.  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 written notes and given ideas in discussion on how to improve education in these plans. Q. Have you ever been involved in the drafting of a plan for desegregation? Are you confused by the question at all? Do you understand what I am asking, that is, how to desegregate schools that have been found by an order of a court to be segregated? A. Well, you have used the term involved in the drafting. I think that I have written notes of perhaps memoranda, and I have participated in discussions with people who were formulating plans\nand my ideas have been incorporated into those plans. Q. Have you ever participated in any way in those portions of the plans that dealt with what racial balance would be required in a particular school or group of schools? A. Well, I have in the sense that I have advocated voluntary desegregation, voluntary transportation and suggested that idea\nand that idea has been incorporated into the court deliberations, into my testimony and into other peoples' testimony and various documents in these desegregation cases. \u0026lt;Wolfe, c::Ro~enb-l!.\"9 and d/-Hoaia.l:e.11., fna. (!/\n_kago, iJffinol~ e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 Q. In Norfolk and in Benton Harbor. Anyplace else? A. St. Louis. Q. Are you responsible for any part of the St. Louis plan? A. Well, since I testified, certainly, in that sense my ideas were incorporated, I believe. I think also, in contrast to some of the other expert witnesses, I had suggested a voluntary plan that would not involve an amalgamation or consolidation of the districts. So .in that sense, I think that my ideas may have been considered. I can't say that I was the one who decided, but certainly I suggested that in testimony. Q. How much are you being paid by North Little Rock School District? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. I am being paid $500 a day. Have you submitted a bill yet? Yes. How much is the bill that you submitted? I submitted two bills. How much are they for? One was approximately $3,000. \u0026lt;Woff, cf?o!,./!,nb-e.~ and clf.1.waiau.1-, [f na. (!J\n_~\"-90, iffflnob  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. A. And the second? Was about $7500. 23 Q. A. And to what billing date does that take us? I think that the second bill was the 24th of this month. Q. A. Q. Is that for time and expenses? Yes. I mean, the total of the approximate $10,500 includes time and expenses? A. Yes. Q. What desegregation plan specifically, other than the ones you have mentioned, have you actually studied? A. Q. A. Desegregation plans? Yes. Well, I think that there were approximately four or five different plans that were submitted in St. Louis, and I studied them all. Q. What I am really asking you now -- and it was inartfully drawn -- is to tell me whether you have in the course of your preparation for this proceeding or any other looked at the operative plans in any particular school districts and then compared those plans to some result, that is, what \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?o1,.enbe'tfj and clhwaiatu, Jna. C!hi.u\u0026gt;-go, ffftlnol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 has happened during the course of the implementation of that particular plan. Have you studied any school districts around the country? A. Well, to take a specific example, I did study the plan that was going on in Norfolk, Virginia, that I had mentioned earlier\nand I was asked to assess it and to find out if it was effective. That is one example of a district where I studied a plan that had been ongoing. Q. Have you studied any others, other than those you have told us about, and reviewed them and studied them with a view to seeing whether the plan was successful in accomplishing the order and mandate of the Court in achieving desegregated education? A. I studied prior plans in several respects, one of which was racial balance\nbut the tasks that I have been asked to concentrate on in my previous work was to look at the educational aspects of the plans. Q. Would it be fair to say that you have not studied any plans anywhere, including those \u0026lt;'Woff c., c::f?o1.c.nbe'f} and. dhwaia.u.1., [/na. Cfzc~o, Jffinos  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 districts that you told us about, with a view to ascertaining whether the plan as implemented was carrying out the mandate of the Court? A. I felt that these were legal questions. 25 As I understand your question, it had to do with the legal implications of the plan. Generally, I have more been asked to concentrate on the educational aspects. Q. Would it be fair, then, to say that you have not looked at any desegregation plans anywhere to determine whether the goals have been reached with regard to desegregation, either by way of staff desegregation, student population desegregation, school desegregation, any of those items? A. No. It would not be fair to say that. Q. Well then, tell me where you have done those things. A. As I said, in Norfolk, I had been asked to look at the procedures that was being used there under, I believe, a court order and prior plans that had been called for and to assess their value, primarily with respect to bringing about effective education but also to looking at racial balance and social class balance. \u0026lt;'Woffl!., c.Ro5.mb-vr9 and. cl/-5.waiatl!.5., {/na. Chic:}o, iJtt,noh  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. A. Q. Any other? I was giving you that as an example. Tell me all of the others. 26 A. I think you said earlier about the Court, whether the Court was doing it or not\nand I have to say I was not a lawyer, but as far as the educational and racial balance issues, I think that those were important considerations in nearly all the cases I have testified to. Q. I am not drawing the distinctions you have just mentioned. What I am asking you now is, have you studied any plans, any school desegregation plans in existence, and evaluated those plans to see whether, in your view as a educator, those plans were meeting the requirements of court orders with regard to staff desegregation, pupil population desegregation, and any other componepts of the desegregation plans as might have been required by the court? MR. ADCOCK: Is this question limited to those instances wherein he has studied these plans for those reasons in conjunction with an appearance in court or with his independent research and his work that is done through the university? \u0026lt;Woffl!., cf?o!..ULb-l!.'r-9 and. clfHcaiatl!.1,. 1 [}na. {!f:.1.a~o, ff{[inol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 MR. KAPLAN: The latter\nindependent research and work done in any connection. I don't care. BY THE WITNESS: A. You enumerated a number of instances. Should I take them one by one? BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Any way you want. A. You mentioned staff desegregation. I have studied patterns of -- let me take that back. I am sorry. I am going to have to have you ask the question again. Q. Sur.ely. Have you in connection with any of your work, either specific school district testimony or engagements or in connection with your general researches, investigated and made any analyses of school desegregation plans as those plans relate to court orders regarding pupil population desegregation, faculty and staff desegregation or any other components of a desegregation plan, for example, treatment of pupils in regard to specific educational programs, learning disability programs or any other? A. In all the cases that I have testified on, I think that the factors that you mentioned had an \u0026lt;'Wolfe., cf?o~e.nbe.'ff} and. c:lf-:1.wai.ate.:1., [fna. Ch~a:JO, ifffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 important bearing, and I was asked my opinion about those factors. In addition, I have carried out other work that did not involve court cases in which those factors were variables that were studied in my research. Q. And tell me what school districts they involved, even if they did not involve litigation. A. Well, there would be many studies that I have conducted, because I had analyzed a large-scale social survey data throughout the United States. Q. Are any of them school districts specific? A. By your question, do you mean were they averages of school districts analyzed? Q. No. What I mean is, did you take a particular desegregation plan, whether it was court ordered or not -- for example, the City of Seattle does not have a court ordered plan\nit has a voluntarily drafted plan with mandatory aspects, but nevertheless it was pot court ordered. I am asking you if you have investigated any desegregation plans, whether court ordered or otherwise, as they relate to these several factors that I mentioned. \u0026lt;Woffl!., c:Ro5.l!.n\u0026amp;e'tf) and. c:lf5.wcziat.5., [}na. (!l',,,~o, .!J[finols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 A. I may be missing a nuance of your question, but I thought I answered it earlier when I said that I have participated in these court cases that I mentioned earlier. Q. Are there any other specific school districts other than the court cases you can tell me about? A. Well, certainly. I have carried out studies in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that had a desegregation plan. I have studied Chicago Public Schools data with respect -- because it was in court and I had studied various racial factors in relation to achievement, and I have also studied the racial balance within the Chicago Public Schools. Q. Any other school districts now? A. Well, as I said earlier, I have done many large-scale studies in various districts, some of which have had court orders or were under desegregation plans or various mixtures of blacks and whites, and I have conducted studies in those school districts. Q. Have you formed any tentative or final conclusions which you will present in your testimony \u0026lt;'Wo[f I!., cRo!..l!.nbl!.'f-9 and clf.uoaiau.1., !Jna. Chi\u0026lt;!O-Jo, !Jffinol~ 9 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 concerning your assessment of liability? A. I was asked to assume that the Judge's memorandum opinion was accurate. I am not sure that I can contradict the judge. I have been focusing most on the Dentler plan and remedies -- I am not sure I am being completely responsive to your question. Q. Do you have a view that there is inadequate foundation for any of the Judge's findings with regard to liability? MR. ADCOCK: Excuse me. I am not going to instruct him not to answer the question\nbut I want it noted on the record that, again, all of these expert witnesses were told specifically to assume that the Judge's findings of liability were, in fact, correct. MR. KAPLAN: Okay. MR. ADCOCK: And with that caveat, he is perfectly free to answer the question. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Go ahead. Do you recall the question? A. Maybe you better mention it again. Q. Is it your view or do you have a view as to whether there was inadequate factual basis for \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, cf?ou.nb-vr.9 a.nd clf-~waiate~, ffna. Cfzk~o, f!{(,nol!J.  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jl any of the Judge's liability findings in this case? A. I have not come to a final conclusion on that point. Q. Do you have some tentative conclusions on that point? A. Since I was asked to assume the liability, I have not come to an opinion on that. It's something that I would say is conclusive at this point. Q. Well, I am not really asking you for any final conclusions. Do you have now any areas where you tentatively feel that the Judge may have grounded his liability findings in an inadequate factual basis, based upon your own history of research as well as your having read the record in this case, those portions that you did read, and the Judge's memorandum opinion? A. Well, since I was asked to assume the liability, I haven't thought through that question. Q. Do you intend to have any discussion as part of your testimony with regard to liability, and if so, what will that be? MR. ADCOCK: None of his testimony or the \u0026lt;Wolfe, c.Roj_enbe'tf} and. c:lfj_wai.a.f:e.j_, [}na. C!hic\"-90, !Jffinol\u0026lt;.  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 testimony of any of the other expert witnesses is designed to nor will it specifically impugn the Judge's findings of liability. We want that very clear in the record. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Do you intend to discuss in any way the 32 impact of liability, the extent of liability, or any other way that your lawyer chooses to phrase it? A. I may reach conclusions on the extent of the liability, because I was asked to assume liability\nbut I may measure that or attempt to measure it. Q. What I am asking you is, in what areas have you done that or do you intend to do it? Since I may not get another crack at you before you go on the stand, Dr. Walberg, I want to shoot all my weapons right now. A. I will assess the degree to which racial mixing or desegregation may impact upon an achievement, and I will assess the degree to which consolidation may impact upon the community and achievement. And I may be asked questions about the degree of specific liability within the Judge's \u0026lt;Woff e., cf?o!,./!,nb-e.'UJ and df-1,,waiau.1,,, [}na,. (!f.ic\"'.30, .[![[,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 memorandum. Q. Well, that is the area I am most interested in now. What will you have looked at in order to make that assessment, and what are your tentative conclusions? A. I have, as I said earlier, looked at the North Little Rock exhibits\nand I have read the testimony given by central office staff in North Little Rock. And as I also said earlier, I have interviewed bhe staff\nand while I have not come to firm conclusions, I want to review everything before I do. I may look at, as I said earlier, the racial balance, the consolidation, but possibly also the disciplinary procedures and i suspensions, the classification within gifted programs, and classification of mentally retarded students. Q. Haven't you looked at all those yet? A, I have read all the transcript, but I have not perhaps been given as much time as I would like\nand there are other things I would like to have so I may come to a more definitive conclusion in the next \u0026lt;'Wo{f e., c:Ro~wbe.'tfj and. c:lf~waiate.~, [Jna. {!f,_\n,,:Jo, ilffinol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 34 several days. Q. Well, can you tell me, if you had to write today what you say you are going to have written perhaps by Saturday, what would you write with regard to those matters? A. In my opinion, I can answer one of those quite specifically. In my opinion, racial balance has very little to do with learning. It is not a primary determinant of how much is learned in school, and that I can definitely say. I have reached that conclusion from other studies and syntheses that I have conducted. Q. That is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, with regard to the extent of liability, you told me you were going to testify in regard to three areas -- the degree to which balance will impact upon learning\nthe degree to which consolidation will impact upon the community and achievement\nand the extent of the liability as it was found by Judge Woods. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, it's the latter or the last of those three items that I am now concerned about. I don't know exactly what you mean by the \u0026lt;Wolf I!., c/?01..l!.nbvr-9 a.nd c:lfuoa.iate.~, [}na.. {!f'.c~o, fJClincb  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 last, but I am certain it means something different than the first two just because you said it differently. A. Yes. Well, I think that I mentioned the first two quite clearly but what I am -- the third is highly related to it because, as I understand the case, it has to do with desegregation. Q. How is it different from the first two? Tell me how it's different and then what you have done. A. It had to do more with the liability. So I will examine the first two questions in relation to the third\nwhat is the degree of liability and how is it related to the questions of how racial mixing affects achievement and the degree to which I will attempt to assess, one might say, the costs and the benefits of consolidation. Q. Are you going to say anything about magnet schools? A. If I am asked, I would certainly say something about it, yes. Q. asked? A, Do you know whether you are going to be I am not sure. \u0026lt;\"Wo ff e, cR o5.enfwr9 and. df-5.waia.te1.. , .0 na. {!f:ea.go, if[linol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 36 Q. Have you been asked to do any research and investigation with regard to magnet schools or to prepare yourself with regard to an inquiry regarding magnet schools? A. I was not specifically asked to look at magnet schools\nbut during the course of my preparation, I did look into the question of magnet schools. Q. Let me ask you a little bit, before I get to your assessment of these various liability issues, about your assessment of the Dentler plan. Can you give me your overall assessment? A. I think that the Dentler plan is extreme in its insistence on consolidation and mandatory desegregation. Q. All right. Can you now be more particular, after you have given me this generalized critique? A. I have reservations about the lack of community and staff participation in the plan. I don't think that the plan would promote learning as much as other alternatives. Q. A. Q. What other alternatives? Nonconsolidation and voluntary transfers. If I told you right now that I am the \u0026lt;woffl!., cf?o1.l!.nfre'tfj and c/hwa.iatz.1., [/na,. {!/\n.~90, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 judge and that you got a balance racially within plus or minus 33 percent of the district-wide average, all of the schools in the county and I don't tell you how to do it, whether to do it by consolidation, pupil sharing, pairing, -- and I 37 haven't given you any constraint other than that as the general overall constraint -- how are you going to do that, if you had your druthers? I am the judge\nyou are my expert. Do it. A. I would honestly have to tell you that this may be extremely difficult to do and that it would perhaps be prohibitive in its costs. Q. Dr. Walberg, I am the judge now and I am talking to you as my expert. \"Walberg, I didn't hire you to tell me what I couldn't do. Tell me how I am going to do it.\" I am the judge now, Federal Court judge. I hired you to tell me how to do it. You have got an order. Are you going to resign? A. Frankly, yes, I think that I would probably have to do that. Q. All right. That is okay. That is an \u0026lt;wo[fr., c.Ro~nb-r.UJ and df-11.wciate.11., flnc. C!hka-go, !J{linol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 alternative. What else is it about the Dentler plan that you don't like? A. I think that the Dentler plan lacks attention to the uniqueness of the districts. I 38 think that it has too much emphasis on statistical quotas and mixing. I think that the transportation has not been fully assessed and that it might be harmful in several respects, for example, money, children's time, disruption of current programs in the districts. Q. Do you know what school district in the United States has probably the single most expensive transportation system in per pupil? A. No, I don't. Q. How much does the Milwaukee plan cost, do you know? A. Well, I had heard some years ago: but I think I may have been mistaken. And then I did read the testimony by the expert in Milwaukee. My memory was that it was an extra several hundred dollars, but I am not sure of those figures. Q. Do you recall his saying his was about the \u0026lt;woffI! ., cf?o~nb-1!.'rfj a.n.J. d/-1.MJaiau.1., [fn a. {!J\n,,:~o, f1Ct,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 39 most expensive in the country? A, I don't recall that, no. Q. Okay. Tell me what else there is you don't like about it. A, I think I have mentioned the major factors, at least that come to my mind. Q. Okay. Do you recall an article that you wrote called \"School Practices in Climates That Promote Integration,\" which appeared in Contemporary Educational Psychology in 1983? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do -you still stand by everything that is in there? A, I don't remember all the different points that were in there. Q. With regard to racial mixing you wrote, \"Although increased interracial/ethnic contact does not guarantee the development of positive interracial/ethnic attitudes, knowledge and behaviors, such contact does appear to be needed if these positive outcomes are to develop. Within school resegregation, grouping and tracking has been found to widen racial prejudice and inequities.\" \u0026lt;wo[fl!., cf?o~mbvc9 a.nd df-~wa.iafa~, lna,. C!hlca.:JO, .flff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 40 Do you stand by that? A. I think I would have to read the entire article again and look at it in context, but what I could say about it now is that I certainly agree that some schools that may be nominally desegregated may become resegregated within classrooms so that the blacks may be in one group and the whites may be in another. I have believed that that has happened, and I will certainly stand by that. Q. Is that bad or good as an educational matter? A. WeLl, one would have to look at that in each context. If there are substantial differences between the black and white achievement, teachers may have some tendency to use tracking and grouping within classes. I think that it may have ~ome beneficial effects, and it may have some harmful effects. Q. Is the process of desegregation to be looked at, in your view, within your universe of things, as primarily a matter of how children do on standardized tests? A. I would say that that is a very, very important consideration, because the purpose of the \u0026lt;wolf~, c:Rou.nbe'Cfj and. cf/-1,.waiau.1,., [fna. cr..~a:10, .O[l,nol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 41 schools is learning. I, as an educational psychologist, want to find the ways that are most effective and efficient in promoting learning. Q. You would then measure the success of a plan of desegregation on the basis of how improved black children -- how well they score and how much improvement they have on standardized tests? A. I would emphasize that as a major factor but not the only factor. Q. What other factors? A. Well, there are other things to be taken into consideration. Q. Tell me. A. These might include the extent to which they get along with one another\nthe extent that integration, as I defined it earlier, takes place\nthe extent to which there is not white flight or segregation by social class, either within schools or within communities. I think that the morale of the educational staff is important, the relation of the school to the community, and related factors need to be weighed. \u0026lt;wo[fl!-, cf?o1.l!-nb-vc9 a.n.J. clf1.waiafr.1., [fna. Chic\":Jo, IJ{(inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 42 Q. Do you still believe, to quote from Page 88, \"Our index of student integration consists of three parts\nOne, knowledge, the extent to which students are correctly informed about significant aspects of people of other racial and ethnic groups\nTwo, attitudes, the extent to which students have positive feelings towards interracial association\nThree, behaviors, the extent to which students report positive interracial association.\" A. Yes. I think those are important aspects of integration. Q. Do you believe that having staff models is important? A. For what? Q. For a successful plan of integration. A. Yes. I think that is likely to have an important bearing. Q. Is it important or acceptable to you to use standardized IQ tests and achievement tests for assignments to educable mentally retarded classes? A. I think that these have been standard practices throughout the United States over a period of decades and that there are various opinions about the value of that. \u0026lt;wolf~, cRou.nfrvcg a.nd cl/-1,,u,aia.tu, [fna. {!_f,t,,tl\nJo, !Jff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 43 There is some evidence that grouping, that is to say, homogeneous grouping, children with like abilities, can facilitate teaching. So I would say, from the point of view of current practices, it's certainly not something that is unusual. Q. That is not exactly what I want you to respond to. A. I am sorry. Q. Is it appropriate and acceptable within your universe to use those standardized tests for assignment to E.M.R. classes? A. Yes. I think that intelligence tests and achievement tests are useful in placing the students in E.M.R. and other categories within schools, but I also think that other factors need to be taken into consideration. Q. Do you believe that any of those tests are culturally biased? A. I have to give a long answer, I am sorry to say. I think that these tests have been evolved specifically or designed specifically to predict how well the children will do in school. The very origins of intelligence testing \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?o!..en.bvr-9 a.nJ. c:lf-uoaiatl!.1- 1 [}n.a. (!f.ie~o, !fl(noh  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 44 with Binet and others came from that desire to place children in the most effective situation possible. So this is the conventional use that has been made of them. Now, they are culturally biased in the sense that middle-class children will do better on the tests. So you could say that they are culturally biased towards promoting greater learning and the assimilation of children into middle-class culture. Q. Are they culturally biased against certain racial and ethnic groups? A. I think that particular cultural and ethnic groups have had various degrees of environmental exposure to middle-class culture. So that it is a well-known fact that racial and ethnic groups and cultural groups do differ on the intelligence and achievement tests. Q. Do you believe that they are biased against blacks? A. I would have to say, perhaps in my own terms, that it is a well-known fact that blacks score lower on conventional intelligence and achievement tests on average\nbut there is \u0026lt;wof(e., c::Ro~nCe'f} and c:1/-j_waio.u.j_, [}na. {!f:c.~o, !J(t,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 45 substantial overlap between blacks and whites. So in that sense, there are differences. But going back to the main point of your question, the cultural bias, I would say that it indicates the child's, that is, a black or a white child's, potential for doing well in school. Q. A. Q. You are an educational psychologist? Yes. You are familiar with the literature concerning test validation by race? A. Yes. Q. Are you not familiar with the fact that Binet has never been racially validated? A. I don't understand your point. Q. Well, I don't need to make a point. Do you understand the question? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. In your view, is Stanford-Binet a racially biased test? A. I would have to go back to my earlier point to say that it is biased in the sense that it predicts which children will do better in school, if that is the meaning of cultural bias. Q. No\nracially biased, biased against blacks. \u0026lt;Woffe, c::Ro~uibe-ig and df-~wc.iatv,., [/nc.. CJ:.1.e~o, fJa,nol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 46 A. I think that there have been some studies, particularly of older versions of some intelligence tests, perhaps even the Stanford-Binet, that have indicated that there may be some biases in some items. But I am of the view that it is sufficiently well-known that most modern tests have removed biases against blacks. Q. And the current version of the IQ test does that? A. Of the Stanford-Binet? Q. A. I can't say that specifically, since I haven't made a specific study of the Stanford-Binet test, nor do I give that test personally myself. From a reading of current literature, I would say that the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler and other modern individual intelligence tests are not biased against blacks. Q. Wechsler is not either? A. I haven't conducted a specific study of the Wechsler test\nbut I am not aware that it is especially, particularly with modern versions, biased against blacks. \u0026lt;Wolf,  cf?ou.nfrl!.'tfj and cfl-1,.wa.iatl!.1., [}na,. Cf.ic\":Jo, .oainol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. And do you agree with the remarks made under \"Staff Models\" of your article to which I have had prior reference, \"School staff provide adult role models for students. It is important that there be appropriate staff models available for students. Healthy and visible interracial/ethnic relationships among staff provide models for integration. Thus, schools with staff racial and ethnic diversity matching that of students and staff who are perceived as being racially, ethnically integrated appear more likely to promote integration among their students.\" A, I think in the context of the article that what I was writing about, that these characteristics of the staff enhance students attitudes towards racial integration. that statement. So I stand by Q. What do you mean or did you mean when you said, \"Thus, schools with staff racial and ethnic diversity matching that of students\"? What does that mean, \"matching\"? A, Well, in the particular context of that study, which was several New England studies, they were both black and white students in those schools\n\u0026lt;'Wolfe, cf?o~wbe'Cfj a.n.J. df~waiate.1.., fJna. C!hlc~o, fl[(inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 48 and there were also black and white staff members. And in addition, in various neighborhoods, there were other ethnic groups, such as Portuguese and Hispanics and others. So I was making a statement that it might be useful to have some mixing or presence of those staff members to enhance the students' attitudes towards integration. Q. You would never accept any minimum acceptable percentage rate, would you, in the faculty or staff of the minority or ethnically diverse group? A. Well, I would be reluctant to do that, because sometimes there are the labor market problems of getting these exact matches. Q. Well, I want you to assume with me a perfect world in which people are available. A. I don't think exact or nearly exact proportions are critical, no. MR. KAPLAN: Okay. Can we take just a short break. (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) MR. KAPLAN: Could you read back the last question and answer, please. \u0026lt;woffl!., cf?ou.n.Cl!.'tfj and. c/f~waiau.~, [fna. (!f,~~o, [Jffnol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. KAPLAN: (WHEREUPON, the record was read by the reporter as requested.) 49 Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Walberg, with regard to the following fact situation\nif the student body composition of a particular school district is 40 percent, what the faculty and/or administrative staff ought to be in terms of its percentage, 40 percent minority? A. For what purpose? Q. For the purpose of composition. A. I don't have any strong opinions on the most desirable racial fractions within districts. I think that if there was clear discrimination against people, it would certainly be wrong\nbut as far as the learning is concerned and so on, I don't think it is the decisive factor. Q. With regard to the drafting of a plan for the desegregation of a previously segregated school district, do you have an opinion with regard to whether any certain percentage of minority ought to be required in the staff and the faculty? A. I certainly, as I said earlier, think that the school districts must conform to the Judge's \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, c::Rou.nbe\"ff a.n.d c::1/-1!.waiau~, [Jna. {!f:.k'90, .Offinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 order\nbut as far as the learning is concerned, I think that the racial percentages is not an important consideration. 50 Q. Do you have an opinion as to what a judge ought to include in an order concerning faculty and staff percentages of minorities? A. This is not something that I have strong views about, nor do I consider myself an expert on. I think that a major consideration is the avoidance of discrimination in hiring and in promotion, certainly\nbut as far as effects of schools are concerned, I don't have any strong opinion that that, aside from the discrimination, would have major effects. Q. Do you believe that in any plan of desegregation there ought to be a security component? A. Well, I think that if a security component is necessary or seems necessary, then it certainly should be included. Q. Do you believe that it is based on everything you have read in connection with the Little Rock matter? A. I have not reached a conclusion about that. I would speculate that if the community objected \u0026lt;Wo{f e, cf?ou.nbe-r.g and clf-1,.~aiau.1,., .Ona. C!hL.!\"90, if{(inols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 51 strenuously to it, that security might be necessary there. Q. Do you still agree with the following in your article on school practices: \"One key qualitative aspect of such contact is the presence or absence of fear often generated by the threat of interracial/ethnic conflict. Schools where students believe themselves to be secure from the threat of imminent conflict are more likely to be affected in supporting the development of integration.\" A. Yes. I believe that fear and violence and related factors can have harmful effects on learning. Q. Do you believe that racial fairness is an essential component of any fair plan of desegregation? A. Yes. I think it's important that the plans have racial fairness. Q. Do you still hold your views, as stated in your article, \"When students feel they are fairly and equally treated by staff, whatever their racial or ethnic identity, they appear to be more likely to develop interracial/ethnic understanding and acceptance.\" And skipping briefly, it says, \"Students \u0026lt;wo[fe:., cf?o~e:.n.b-t:.\"9 and. c:lhwciatu, [}n.c. Cf..k~o, iJ([\nnol~  (312) 782-8087 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 52 whose own cultural-based behaviors are not well received by staff from another culture may feel that they have been unfairly treated as a result of their racial or ethnic culture. Thus, schools that attempt to provide fair treatment to all students with a respect for variant cultural norms should be more likely to promote student racial integration.\" A. Yes. Q. Is there anything in that paragraph that I don't know about that talks about learning as opposed to promoting student integration? A. I wrote that article some years ago, even though it was published recently. I would very much like to have a copy of it to read it over again. Q. I will make sure you get one if you don't have one. Don't you have one? A. I honestly don't. Q. Do you still agree with the following among \"School Integration Practices,\" \"Racial mixing and racial fairness are the most strongly related to student integration, attitude and behaviors. A. May I have that repeated, please. Q. I will just give it to you to read. It appears right under Table 4. \u0026lt;Wolfe., cf?o~e.nbe.'Lf} and clf-~wciatu, [}nc. C!h.Lc.~o, .Offinol~  (312) 782-8087 1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes. BY MR. KAPLAN: (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) I agree with that. Q. You told me that you thought that the transportation in Dr. Dentler's plan was harmful. Does it bother you that the St. Louis plan places virtually all of the bussing burden on blacks? A. I think that it would have to be 53 considered in context\nand I think that, taken alone, that has an element of unfairness about it. On the other hand, I think that in the St. Louis area, many of the suburban districts were felt to have better schools and that there was some feeling in the metropolitan area that the St. Louis schools were not as effectiv~. So taking children or giving them the opportunity to go to better schools worked to their advantage. Q. Do you believe from what you have read of the transcript in this case that the bussing burden ought to be shared equally among black and white students in Pulaski County? \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?ou.nbvr-9 aru1 cl/-1.waiate1-, [/na. C!f'ilc\":Jo, !Jff,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 54 MR. ADCOCK: Are you assuming in that question a consolidated school district? MR. KAPLAN: Assuming any transportation, student sharing, magnet schools or whatever. MR. ADCOCK: MR. KAPLAN: MR. ADCOCK: BY THE WITNESS: Whatever the remedy? Whatever the remedy. Go ahead and answer the question. A. I think that it's difficult to answer this in a universal way. I think that if -- since I have said earlier that I believe that voluntary transfers are desirable, that it may be that more whites or it may be that more blacks would desire to go to different schools. And I would certainly think that that would be more valuable than meeting an arbitrary mixture or statistical quota. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Assuming some mandatory components, do you believe that the bussing burden, if a burden there be, ought to be shared equally among blacks and whites in Pulaski County? A. I think that, as an abstract concept, if there had to be mandatory desegregation, that there \u0026lt;vVoff e., c:Ro1.ntre-r.g and clf-1.1,0aiafa1., [}na. Cf.1.c\"f)o, lJ{linoi~  (312) 782-8087 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 55 should be proportional representation in the transportation, all other factors considered equal. Q. I take it that means yes? A. Well, I would resist making a blanket statement that it always should be the case. Q. Does that come as close to yes as you can get in this context? A. Yes. Q. You have already told me how you feel about the degree to which racial balance will impact upon learning. I think you told me it wouldn't affect it, is that right? A. In a brief answer, that's correct. Q. Will it affect it negatively? A. Desegregation? Q. Yes: racial balance. A. Well, it's a complicated question, I guess, because I have said earlier that it is well-known that there are differences in ethnic groups and their achievement levels. So there would certainly be a compositional effect. If we look at the broad pattern of education, there are such things as white flight and \u0026lt;wolfI! -, cf?o!..wbvr9 and. df-\"aiate.1-, {Jna. {!fz.1e.\"90, if((inob  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 56 so on and middle-class flight of blacks and whites out of systems that have mandatory desegregation. So that can have injurious effects to learning. Q. Well, in your view, consolidation will racial-balance impact negatively upon the level of black learning? A. Q. A. Yes, it definitely could. And upon what do you base that conclusion? I base it on the conclusion that there would be a diversion of financial and human resources away from education, away from learning, into transportation, that it may interfere with present staff relationships. It may interfere with the relation of parents to teachers in the schools that the children are presently going to. There are other related factors that are likely to bear upon black and white learning. Q. Is there any study of any kind that you know of in the context of a desegregation plan that required a large-scale reassignment of students because of a desegregation plan that demonstrated that the changing faculty relationships, the changing nature of the PTA configuration and the \u0026lt;Wolfe, cRou.nb-e'tf} and clfuoaia.te1.., [}na. {!/',t,,\"90, [J[(,ncl~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 parents' relationships to the schools negatively impacted upon black learning? A. Well, you mentioned a great number of factors\nand there are studies that indicate that specific factors, taken one at a time, have an important bearing on learning. 57 Q. Has there been any study in the context of the implementation of a large-scale desegregation plan that moved a large number of students around and that changed faculty relationships, studentfaculty relationships, that changed PTA configurations or parent-school configurations, that demonstrated that there was, thus, a negative impact on black learning? A. I can't say that any study has studied all those factors in one single study, but there have been studies bearing on several of the causal connections that you mentioned in your question. Q. Isn't it true that the large majority of studies have indicated that in desegregated situations after a desegregation plan has been implemented that the level of black learning generally stays the same or goes up? A. In my opinion, desegregation has \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, cf?o~l!.nbl!.~ and. dhwai.a.tl!.1., []na. t!h.k~o, [J[[,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 58 inconclusive results, and ma y have both positive and negative results. Q. Is there anybody of learning that demonstrates that the achievement level of whites in a desegregated education system has declined? A. Yes. Nancy St. John, in a book some years ago, reviewed the desegregation literature and came to the conclusion that desegregation, in some instances, perhaps in the majority, has produced negative consequences for Q. How about Christine Roselle? What does her research show? A. I think that Christine Roselle has been more preoccupied about the question of white flight, and I don't know her opinion about the effects on learning. Q. Have you read anyone else other than Nancy St. John with regard to that matter? To the question of desegregation on learning? Q. Yes. A. Yes. I have read a sum of studies, reviews and syntheses. Q. Is it your view that there is a \u0026lt;vVoffe, cf?ou.nbe~ a.n.J df-~waiau.~, [}na. {!f,LcO:Jo, fJCt,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 59 significant body of literature which shows that the achievement level of whites generally declines in a desegregated atmosphere? A, The only study that I can cite is the Nancy St. John study, which reached that conclusion. Q. Are there other studies which show it does not negatively impact upon the level of white learning? A, My knowledge of that currently is only from the St. John book. And in the book, my memory of her conclusion is that, on average, it had some negative consequences\nbut I believe that there may have been some other studies that she reviewed that did not show that. Q. Is there any other area about which you will testify that we have not discussed this evening? A, I don't recall any other areas, but I may be asked to look at other things between now and the trial date. Q. Do you intend to prepare any tables, graphs, charts or other demonstrative evidence with which to elucidate or expand on your testimony? A, Yes. Q. Have you begun the preparation of those \u0026lt;Wolfe, c/?011.wb-e~ and. c:lf-1,.1,.oauifa~, [fna. Cf..k~o, f1({1nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60 documents? A. Yes. Q. Have you completed any of those documents? A. No, I haven't. Q. When do you expect to complete them or have any ready for inspection? A. Perhaps early next week. MR. KAPLAN: We would request those also as soon as they are available. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Dentler's work and testimony in the St. Louis study? A. Yes, I am. Q. Did you make any comments in your testimony to the Court with regard to his feasibility study? A. I am not sure that the feasibility excuse me, are we talking about St. Louis? Q. Yes. A. I am not sure that I remember the title, whether it was the plan or a feasibility study. Q. Cid you comment on either to the Court? A. He had a plan which may have been called a feasibility study, and I did comment to the Court. \u0026lt;'Wolfe, d?ou.nbe'-9 and c:ft1,.waia.u.1,., iJna. (!f..~a.go, 1{(,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  21  22 23 24 tack 61 Q. What were your comments in a general way? A. Very similar to what I have already told you about the Little Rock plan. Q. All right. Do you have any other support in the literature for your support of totally voluntary plans? A. Your question is somewhat general. From my reading of various studies and social surveys and experiences in working in desegregated settings, I have come to the conclusions that I have mentioned to you. Q. Can you name for me any other authors upon which you rely? A. I would rely to some extent on Gallup and other social surveys. Q. Gallup? A. Yes\nand other social surveys of the United States that have been published in the magazine \"Capin\" over a series of years on the opinions of blacks and whites on the desirability of mandatory desegregation plans. To some extent also, I would base my conclusion on the syntheses carried out by the National Institute of Education which has sampled \u0026lt;wo[fI! ., cRoj,l!.nbl!.'rfj and df-j,waiatu, [}na. Ch.lea.go, ff{{\nnol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 62 six scholars to look at the question of desegregation on achievement. I also would base that conclusion on studies that I have personally conducted, for example, in Fort Wayne Indiana, of parents whose children would be undergoing mandatory transportation. So there are a variety of sources that I would base that conclusion on. MR. KAPLAN: I think that is all I have. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. SNEED:- Q. I would like to go back a little bit to what we talked about earlier about the broad brushstrokes of the plan you may be contributing to and just ask a few questions about that. My understanding from what you said earlier is that that plan is not written, but there has been some discussion about it and you have some ideas? A, Yes. Q. To the extent that something has been actually agreed upon among the experts, is there an agreement that this will be a voluntary plan, a \u0026lt;Wolf, cRo5.wbeUJ and d/-5.waia.tl!.5., [fna . {!/\n.(e~o, Illtinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 63 purely voluntary plan? A. I would like to say a couple of things. I didn't want to use the word \"may.\" I think I will definitely contribute to the plan. I was uncertain about the exact procedures and what my part will be. I was thinking about that as you asked the final part of your question. Q. Will the plan have a component that is purely a voluntary component as opposed to a voluntary component with a mandatory backup or mandatory to voluntary? A. I cannot be sure of the conclusion with respect to that, nor what the recommendation will be. Q. So you are now speaking for the group? A. I am unsure what the final decision will be made by the group with respect to whether it's voluntary or mixed with mandatory backups. Q. And from your personal opinion, are you unsure or are you sure? A. In my personal opinion, I advocate voluntary transfers. Q. So that is going to be your recommendation to the group? A. Well, I am not sure, in view of the very \u0026lt;woff e., cf?ou.nbe.~ and. clhwaiau.1., iJna. Cf.Le.a.go, flff,nols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 short time period, that we will be able to participate in meetings where we will actually completely be able to formulate this at a group. 64 Q. Do you know who is going to write the part dealing with student assignment then? If that is going to be the case, different people are going to write different components, I assume? A. Yes. Being a psychologist rather than a sociologist, I have a feeling that I will not write that part of the plan\nand I am not really sure of who would write that part of the plan. Q. Let me try another way. You obviously have a bias towards that. Why do you recommend a voluntary plan for student assignments? A. I believe that many parents believe that mandatory desegregation and lengthy transportation is not in the best interests of their children\nbut I also believe that some parents do believe that desegregation is a very, very high priority for their particular children. The virtues of a voluntary plan, in my opinion, is that it provides for both those types of parents. If you have a mandatory plan, you force \u0026lt;'Wolfe., d?ou.nbe'rf/ and. df-1.waia.te.1., [fna. (!f.Le.~o, [J(f,ncl._  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 everyone. I think you have to have the elements of fairness there. You are really forcing everyone, including those who do not wish to participate, to participate\nand I think that that has injurious consequences. Q. What do you think would make a voluntary plan successful? If you had just a purely voluntary plan, what makes it successful? What are the characteristics of a successful plan? What makes people want to make these choices so you desegregate your school system? A. Well, I think the schools need to have the satisfaction of the community members, and particularly the parents\nand I would weigh that very, very heavily. I also think it's important to maintain staf,f morale. And to the extent that at least those two things are accomplished, those are useful purposes. Q. Would you have magnet schools be a part of the student assignment plan? A. I don't have strong opinions about magnet schools. I have some somewhat mixed views. I think that magnet schools can be effective in attracting \u0026lt;wo[fl!., cf?o1..wbl!.\"9 and. clf1..waiatu, fJna. {!f,_\n,,,130, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 66 students of a different race to a particular school. I think that they sometimes risk the danger of what is called creaming\nthat is, that they will take middle-class students or they may take larger numbers of white students into those schools. They may also be more expensive. But to the extent to which they have a voluntary character to them, I think that they are attractive. There are also educational values that may be viewed as trade-offs, and perhaps these are best decided by the community rather than by me. But certainly a school, a magnet school, for example, that would feature music would obviously give a specialized training in music and superiority in music\nbut it may mean that the child may sacrifice other aspects of the curriculum. I think that to the extent the parents would have the opportunity to choose that, that would be constructive. So I think that magnet schools have some attractive features about them, but they also have some dangers. Q. Are you going to be making any sort of \u0026lt;woff e., cf?o!.Ln\u0026amp;e~ and. clf-1,.waia.tE.1,., [f na. {!f..c~o, f![lin.ol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 67 recommendation or talking to the other experts and saying that you think that magnet schools might have a positive effect or a negative effect? Are you going to be giving any input on that? A. Probably, as I compose my report, I may mention these things, particularly if I would be asked to do that. Q. Okay. If you don't use the racial balance idea or racial quotas, as you have talked about it in both terms since we have been here this afternoon, what would you use to integrate the schools? you have any benchmarks? Would A. Well, I think that my main concern about the schools is that they function effectively in the two main purposes of the schools, which are teaching and learning. I think it should be the plan that puts that as the first order of priority and yet have the other characteristics that I mentioned, which would enable children that want to go to other schools or would provide minimal disruption, while I should emphasize, because I haven't spoken about it for awhile, that naturally we have to conform to the \u0026lt;Woff e., c:Ro~wb-e,\"9 and clf.~wai.a.te.~, [f na. Chcago, .[/[(no~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 68 Court orders. Q. Okay. You mentioned that you have looked at the curriculum with North Little Rock and with, I believe, Pulaski County Special School District? A, That's correct. Q. Did you form any conclusions about first of all, tell me exactly what kind of information you got from Pulaski County Special School District. A. I interviewed staff members. Q. Who did you interview there? A. I will have to go back and look at their names. I have them written down. I need to review my notes again. They were principally the major figures in the central office staff. Q. What kind of things were you looking for in those interviews? A. I was looking at the quality of the educational program and particularly the unique and distinctive features of the Pulaski County schools. Q. Did you find some unique and distinctive features there? A. Yes. \u0026lt;vVoffI! -, cf?ou.nbl!-'tfj and. cf/1.wcia.l:e.1., [}nc. t!f.Lt!~o, f1{[1nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69 Q. Would you care to tell us about it? A. I would need to go back to this again, because it's been awhile since I have been working on it\nbut one of the unique and distinctive features -- and it's slipped my mind what the title is, but there is a person who is in charge of instructional leadership in each of the schools who has been responsible for helping to implement the curriculum, which has accommodated and who assists the principal and assists the teachers in carrying out the curriculum. Q. And you would think that that would be an important function to preserve, I would assume? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are there any other features you thought were unique that you can recall? have the list before you. I know you don't A. I do remember that there were some characteristics of the gifted program that seemed different to me, unique and distinctive. I don't recall what they were offhand. would have to review my notes again. Q. When you say that you are going to be writing about the educational aspects in your \u0026lt;woffe.., cf?o~n.lJ.e'r.fj and. cf!1.waiate1., .On.a. {!f.1.c~o, .0[(.nol~ e (312) 782-8087 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 70 findings, can you define that for me? A. Yes. I am concerned with the factors that promote learning in schools, and some of these are characteristics of students, such as their age, their ability, their motivation. But in addition to that, the schools can alter such things as what I call the quantitative instruction, the length of the school year, the length of the school day. They can allocate time to various subjects within the curriculum. In addition to the quantities of instruction, there is the quality of instruction and there are various aspects of this, such as cues and reinforcements and open education and many other techniques that have been found to be effective in maximally promoting black and white learning. In addition to this, there are psychological factors that might be called a psychological environment or climate of the class, the morale of the classroom group, the extent to which they are cohesive or a cohesive group that students find satisfying. Going outside of the school, there is the home environment which is extremely important in \u0026lt;Wo[f e, c::Ro~en/J.e'UJ a.n.J. clf-~!I.Ocia.u.~, [}na. (!/',1.,,\"-90, !{(in.ol e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 71 fostering the children's learning. I don't mean by that the race or the social class, but one might say the curriculum of the home, the extent to which their parents are informed about the school, help the children with homework, provide a quiet place to study, things of this nature. Another factor among these nine is the extent to which children are exposed to mass media, television in particular, which we find that excessive amounts are associated with lower levels of achievemen-t. And the last factor is the extent to which the peer group outside of the school is academic and stimulating to the children's development. Q. So you will be assessing the extent to which each one of the districts has those characteristics? A. Well, I think that these may come more into the remedy as to how to improve learning within the districts. I am not sure that I could assess this precisely, given the limited amount of time that I spent in North Little Rock and in Pulaski County. \u0026lt;'Wolfe, c:Ro1,.enbe~ and d/-1..waiatl!.1.., [}na. C!hc:Jo, iJff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 72 Q. Will you be evaluating them on a continuum? How will we get a feel for what your conclusion is? A. I will relate these more in comparative terms to racial balance within the schools or racial quotas as to their relative effectiveness in promoting learning and particularly with respect to a remedy. And I will also attempt to relate these to the characteristics of the districts, that is, what are the things in the schools that affect those nine things. Q. Help me with how those characteristics will shape a remedy. Can you give me a specific example? A. If you agree with my value judgment that learning is the important thing to do in the schools, then, in my opinion as a psychologist, we need to enhance these factors. I think that that is very well established by syntheses and many studies\nand, in my opinion, those factors themselves may be affected by aspects o f the p 1 a rl  For example, if there were more money put into transportation, this would interfere with these \u0026lt;Woffl!., cR01.Lnbvr9 and c\n/.f1..wcia.te.1.., [Jnc. Chk~o, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 73 factors. If there was a disruption in the system caused by consolidation, this may be injurious to the relationships of the central office staffs, to the principals and teachers in the schools. So it's that causal chain that I will be concerned about. Q. And you feel that a plan with a voluntary aspect would control some of that disruption and would control the disruption of relationships and the students' achievement and that kind of thing? A. Perhaps I could answer your question this way. I would say that a mandatory plan or consolidation is likely to interfere with the factors that promote learning\nwhereas, a voluntary plan and the absence of consolidation would allow those factors to be maintained and possibly also to be increased. Q. Okay. Do you think that it's healthy to have three districts in this close a proximity so that they can have some sort of competition in terms of the different kind of programs they can provide, and maybe that helps them improve the educational excellence that they might provide? A. I think there are various things I could \u0026lt;\"Wof{e:., c:Rou.nbeig and c:lf-1,,wa.i.ate1,,, []na.. CJ:.i.a~o, lfffinols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 74 say about that. One is that if a voluntary plan were to be proposed and the districts did have unique features, that that could promote interdistrict transfers if the districts were maintained in their present form. attractive feature. So that would be an I think you also mentioned the word \"competition.\" I think that if that were handled constructively, that could also be beneficial to the children's learning in the district. Q. Is the plan going to have a component that deals with faculty? Mr. Kaplan touched a little bit on the issue, but I wasn't ever clear whether the plan is going to deal with that aspect. A. I am not certain that it will deal with faculty. Q. At least you won't be having any input into it that you know of? A. Well, perhaps I should say that I may touch on the question of the present faculties and the possible injury to the faculty of consolidation. So I may touch on that as something to be avoided. Q. Okay. Is the plan going to have an aspect dealing with extracurricular activities? \u0026lt;Wolfe, c:f?ou.nb-e'tfj and. clhwa.ia.te1,., []na.. Chlt!\":Jo, f!ftinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 A. I don't recall any specific plans for that, although it's possible that the transportation aspect would touch on the difficulties of maintaining after-school extracurricular activities and then bringing the children home after school if they would be leaving at various times. But that may be more in the reservations about the Dentler plan than the remedies. I may be using the term \"plan\" a little bit loosely. I am not sure if it will be called a plan or a report or whatever, but some of these things are likely to be touched upon. Q. Achievement seems to be one of your big interests. Is there going to be a specific section that is going to deal with achievement as part of this plan, or whatever we are going to call it, this report? A. Yes. I will definitely write about achievement. Q. And it will develop what you have already talked about with Mr. Kaplan? A. Well, particularly since what I talked about with you, since you asked me about these nine factors. \u0026lt;woffe, c,Ro1..wbe'ffj and clf-uoai.ate1.., fJna. {!f,_t,,.~o, !J{l,noli  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 76 Q. Is your plan going to deal with the white flight issue?_ A. I think it probably will, yes, although I will not deal with it in a principal way. Q. But it's your opinion that the voluntary plan would have a positive effect or would arrest the amount of white flight that you might have from the districts? A. Yes. I think that a voluntary plan would produce less of a white flight or minimize white flight. Q. then. I have, I think, just one more question What do you mean by \"effective education\"? Maybe you have already defined this for me. We have thrown that term around here pretty loosely. You have mentioned it. Mr. Kaplan has mentioned it, and you have mentioned it. What are we talking about by \"effective education\"? A. Well, my principal concern is teaching and learning\nbut I think it has to be also viewed in the context of other factors. When I say \"teaching and learning,\" I am usually referring to achievement on standardized \u0026lt;'Woff r., cRou.nl:r.'tfJ and. d/-1..waio.u.1., .{/na. {!f'ik\":}o, ff[(inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 77 tests, on the academic tests, English, mathematics and science. I am also interested in what might be called continuing perseveration after school and lifelong learning and so on. I think effective education also has to consider the students and parents as clients of a system that they have to be content with and pleased with. I think that the staff concerns need to be dealt with so it's cohesive and satisfying, and I see these factors as going together. Q. Are we also dealing with what has become popularly known as the \"effective schools model\"? A. Not chiefly. Q. Would you say that some of those factors are important factors\npositive school climate, strong leadership, high teacher expectation, emphasizing basic schools, continuing assessment and feedback and monitoring of student learning? A. I think that many of those factors are plausible, and I think they are effective\nbut they have not been established as clearly as the other factors I have been talking about. \u0026lt;Woffe:., cRo~e:.nbvr.9 an.J. c:lf.1..~aiate:.11., [fna. {!f,u,\"'.}o, [!{{,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I think that they are factors that probably promote the more specific psychological factors that I am talking about, which is more 78 amount of time on tasks, the quality of construction within the class. I have a mild reservation about the \"effective schools model\" because it assumes that an entire school is effective, when we know from more specific studies that we can have an effective teacher in a school and an ineffective teacher: but I think that these things do go together and they probably are -enhanced. Q. Let's just take your definition, then, for effective schools. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not North Little Rock is an effective school district under your definition or has a number of effective schools? A. I do not think that I can come to a definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of the North Little Rock schools from the studies that I have conduc~ed there. I think that the achievement scores and my experiences in talking to people and my examination \u0026lt;'Wo{f e, cRou.nbe'tfj and cff.1.waw..tE.1., [}na.  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 79 of their curriculum indicate that they are certainly above average, and they might be highly effective\nbut I don't think I can come to a definitive conclusion. Q. What about with regard to the Pulaski County Special School District? A. I have basically the same conclusion about the Pulaski County School District\nbut I should say that I have spent less time there, and I did not visit schools, and I am less certain about that. Q. I know you didn't get information from Little Rock, -but do you have an opinion, any sort of opinion, about whether you would consider them an effective school system? A. I haven't reached a conclusion about the Little Rock schools in that regard\nand I may be studying it further in the next several days, because I haven't been concentrating on that in the last few days. I don't have the impression that it is either a highly effective school system or a highly ineffective school system. It's probably middling, and may be comparable to the other two, and I should say, with respect to what you asked about, which is \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, c::Ro~e.nbe'tf} and. df-~waiatu, [f na. {!fii,,\"-50, fJffinols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 ,, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80 overall effectiveness. Q. Do you feel that it's important for each one of these school districts to keep their autonomy? A. I think that is extremely desirable. Q. In addition to some of the other reasons you have given, I think that probably the other question that might factor in here is, do you have any reasons for why you think that autonomy is important? A. Yes. I think that the districts have evolved self-chosen programs, and these are complicated programs\nand the staff has what I call a psychological ownership. They have worked very hard to attain these programs\nand if they were to be obliterated, I think it would be injurious to staff. Q. You think it would be injurious to the citizens also? A. Yes. MS. SNEED: I have no further questions. MR. KAPLAN: I may have just a few more. MR. ADCOCK: I have no questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAPLAN: \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?ou.nbvc9 and. c:lf-1.UJai.o.u.1., {Ina. (!/',_k~o, fl[{inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 81 Q. Who owns the schools? A. I am not sure I can give you an entirely valid answer to that. Our Constitution leaves education of the states, although they are fundamental governors in some sense of the school system, they do leave considerable autonomy to the local school districts. I think that the school board members are principal governors of the schools, but I do think that they have to be responsive to the needs of their communities as they see them. So it's difficult to say exactly who owns them. Q. Who is responsible for all student assignments? A. It's also difficult for me to answer that question. Q. Should the school administration be responsible within the framework of the policies set down by the board? A. I would say yes\nbut I would want to add to that that I think they have to take into consideration other matters, such as state guidelines, what parents think about things, when I talked earlier about voluntary plans. \u0026lt;Woffl!., cf?o1..uibvc9 and df-5.~aiatl!.5., [}na. C!hlcil50, IJtt1n.ols e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 82 Q. How much input should parents have in determining how the schools get operated? A. I would be reluctant to put a number on it. I think that they should certainly have a very strong voice in determining the educational programs. Q. Is there any reason why the best programs from all three districts could not be combined and implemented in a consolidated school district? A. Yes. Q. There is? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A, I was saying earlier that these programs require textbooks and other educational materials. They require tests that have to be geared to those materials, so that there is an inventory in the districts of textbooks that differ across the districts. And as I was saying, staff members had been specifically trained to carry out these programs. So that I think that while it is perhaps theoretically possible to do that, and I would have to say yes in answer to your question I would say that there would be a great cost to doing \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?ou.nb-e~ and. cft1\n.wcia.b!.1\n., [}nc,. (!f,,,.\"-90, [!{t,nol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it. Q. Is there any reason why all of your factors with regard to the promotion of better learning are incompatible with racial balance? A. I think that the factors that I mention 83 can be implemented with varying degrees of racial quotas from all-white to all-black or mixed and -- Q. There is nothing incompatible with any of those techniques that you have mentioned and racial balance, is there? A. Only in the sense of a change of racial balance, it may interfere. But if you are asking whether these factors can be implemented in settings with different degrees of racial quotas, my answer is, yes, it would not make a lot of difference. Q. Are you generally opposed to consolidation of school districts on a countywide basis? A, Well, I think that I would be especially opposed to a mandatory consolidation. If it were forced upon the school districts, I think it would be injurious to them. ~ have also observed in the testimony and in other settings that, in the last few decades, there has been resistance -- we do have a lot of \u0026lt;Wolfe., c::Rou.nb-e.'rf} and c:lf1,..waia.t.1,.., [f na. (!f.fo~o, .[J((,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 84 small school districts in the United States\nand states have given incentives for school districts to merge, and they have resisted it. Q. As an educational matter, let's get beyond all of the mandatory and voluntary. perfect world now. Give me a People do the right thing, that is, the thing that their leaders and educators tell them is the right thing. You are going to get to be one of those educational leaders in my world. Is it a good thing? A. I could not make a blanket statement, because there are so many different factors that bear upon it. I am not particularly an expert in the cost effectiveness, but there are some that argue if you have a large district, you will have more specialized programs\nbut others argue, on the other hand, that small districts are more responsive to the immediate people that live in that district and they are not bufferd by a large bureaucratic organization. Q. Can you give me a yes or no as to your view overall on whether racial balance on a \u0026lt;Wolf~, cf?ou.nb-e.~ and. clf-1..waiai:E.1.., [}na. {!/'ii,,ll:Jo, !J[(inoi~  (312) 782-8087 II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 countywide basis of school districts is an appropriate and a desirable educational objective? 85 A. If we are striving for a general answer, I would say that if the people in those districts wanted to do it, then it's likely to be an advantage, at least in that sense. Q. Dr. Walberg, as an educational matter and speaking as an educational psychologist wholly, and I am putting you in a world where you get to tell them what to do is it an appropriate and good educational objective, in your view, now, sir? A. I really don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, if we are talking about this in the abstract. Q. Do you know how many school districts there are in Arkansas? A. Not offhand, no. Q. If I told you it was a state with 375 school districts and a total population of two million people, does that surprise you? A. No. Q. Would you also be of the view that the whole educational system ought to be voluntary? \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?o5.e,nb-e,~ and df-5.waia./\ne,5., [Jna. {!f,~O'jo, [/ffinols O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 If parents decide not to opt for public education but to decide for home education, would that be all right, in your view, if that is what they wanted to do? 86 A. Well, I think that there are many complex factors that bear upon this\nand certainly there are state guidelines and rules. Q. You are familiar with that whole Nebraska thing, aren't you? A. Q. Not really. About the religious groups that want to educate their children at home? A. Yes. Come to think of it, I think Donald Erickson has investigated this to some ex~ent. Q. What is your view about that? A. Well, I consider freedom an extremely precious thing\nbut 1I can see, on the other hand, too, that the parents may not completely have all the best answers for the children. So I don't have a strong view one way or the other about this. Q. You run the school district. You are the superintendent now. I am a parent with deep and abiding religious believes, and I believe that there \u0026lt;'Wolf, c::Rou.nbvr-9 and. cJl-1,.waia\u0026amp;.1,., [Jna. {!l',,i,,\"50, /[{inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 7 is so much going on in the public schools that I do not want my children to be a party to that. I, as a certified schoolteacher, want to educate them in my home, and will provide the same textural material and provide the same hours and educate them in my home. Will you turn me in to the authorities because I do not send my children to public school? You are the superintendent now, and you have got to make that determination. A. Well, I would obey the law\nand I would do my best to think of what the school board wanted and the communities wanted and the other parents wanted. As far as my own strictly personal views are concerned, I would not object to educating children in the home. MR. KAPLAN: That is all I have. MR. ADCOCK: You have inspired me. I have to ask one question, with your permission, of course. MR. KA PLAN: Go ahead. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR.ADCOCK: Q. You indicated earlier, Dr. Walberg, that racial balance may or may not be incompatible with \u0026lt;wolf~, c:Roilnb~UJ and. dfj_waiate.j_, fJna. {!fi~\":JO, .!J{[i,wls O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 88 learning. Are there serious educational consequences that may accrue when racial balance is the one overriding objective that a school district pursues? A. Yes. MR. ADCOCK: No further questions. Signature is waived. FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT. \u0026lt;'Wof{t:., cf(ou.nfJ.e'tf} and c:lt1l.waial:e1l., fna. {!f,,u,.~o, l[linol  (312) 782-8087 I II I tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l. :l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS: I, THERESE A. KOZEL, a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook, State of 89 Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, do hereby certify: That previous to the commencement of the examination of the witness, the witness was duly sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the matters herein\nThat the foregoing deposition transcript was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter \u0026gt;. c d u c d L cyp c w\u0026gt;. l L.l g u ae y pe sonal d i rect i o n and constitutes a true record of the testimony given and the proceedings had\nThat the said deposition was taken before me at the time and place specified\nThat the reading and signing by the witness of the deposition transcript was agreed upon as stated herein\nThat I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel for any of the parties hereto, nor interested directly or indirectly in the \u0026lt;vVoff e, c::Rou.n.bvc9 and. c:lf-1,.~aia.te.1,., {In.a. {!f.ic\"-90, flffinol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 90 outcome of this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, Illinois, this~~ day of ___ ~---------' 1984. ___ ~ _ Cl . l\u0026lt;G3. S ________ _ Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois. My commission expires March 24, 1985. c.s.R. Certificate No. 84-1784. \u0026lt;woffe, cR01.-enbe't:J a.n.J. c:ll1.-waial:e1.-, [Jna. C!hi.c.\"50, JJ[[,nob  (312) 782-8087\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_874","title":"Court filings: District Court, consent decree, LR-C-81-130","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984-07-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Arkansas","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School facilities","Student assistance programs","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, consent decree, LR-C-81-130"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/874"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_802","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, decision, 738 F.2d 82","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984-07-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Teachers","Court records","Civil rights--Arkansas","School employees","School integration","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, decision, 738 F.2d 82"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/802"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1382","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Trial,'' Volume XV","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1984-05-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School administrators","School integration","School management and organization","Court records","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Trial,'' Volume XV"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1382"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["77 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_360","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/360"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nmore programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in e elivery of key components co our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the \"Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.'  2.  * *  August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing s to the Board an community regarding grade icution and test scores for the Little Rock students. July 1991 February 1992 * July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * *  * * * 3 . * * January 1993 * June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALOATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. graduation requirement. It is recommended that this years as a seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10Z AO Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 D J  gZi\n'\u0026gt;! W' H J\n DEC 1 5 1991 Mr. Bob Morqan Office of Deseqregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Desegretjalioii Moniioring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bob: Attached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Question 1. Question 2. LRSD ANSWERS TO ODM QUESTIONS (Reference 10/28/91 Ann Brown letter to Dr. Steele) What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? Answer: Desegregation is one of the basic objectives of the District. Almost everything we do is directed to some degree to this goal. It is not possible therefore, and we have not attempted to identify all the cost associated with it. Our approach has been to identify personnel and materials that are required for the specific programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, to set up budget accounts for those expenses, and charge to them as the programs are implemented. This approach may result in our charging less than possible to desegregation, but it should allow us to account for the settlement funds. It has never been the view of the LRSD that the settlement funds would cover the total cost of desegregation. Using the funds for court-mandated programs will allow us to use the money and to be able to show that it was used for proper purposes. For the purposes of showing that settlement funds are properly spent, budget/expense accounts are established for the specific programs in the Desegregation Plan. Expenses associated with those programs are charged to those accounts. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? Answer: Building principals, department directors, and others responsible for various functions in the LRSD are designated as budget managers. Each spring the budget managers submit requests for each of the budget account codes assigned to them. If an individual has responsibility for a program mandated by the Desegregation Plan, he or she will have account codes for that. These budgets are approved by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents (where appropriate). Manager of Support Services, and the Controller. All of these codes will show a fund code of 13. If a Desegregation Plan program requires office supplies, for example, there will be an amount coded in the budget for expenses of that description that are related to the desegregation program.QDM Response Page 2 Question 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives? Answer: The costs can be tied to programs that are specified in the Desegregation Plan. This will not be obvious from accounting reports but can be done through discussion with budget managers and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Question 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the \"regular\" budget? Answer: If, at budget time, it is determined that an individual will divide time between Desegregation Plan mandated programs and other activities, appropriate portions of that persons cost will be budgeted to the fund source codes. That persons cost will be automatically charged as budgeted through the year. For non-personnel costs, most of the expenses that can be charged to desegregation programs are easily identified, such as PAL computers and four-year- old program equipment. We have the capability to apportion costs, if needed. Question 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? Answer: The budget managers make this decision with review by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Controller.QDM Response Page 3 Question 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? Answer: The budget managers either make this decision or review monthly expense listings to make sure it is properly done. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation also reviews all Fund 13 expenses monthly. Since many Desegregation Plan projects are the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs, she also closely reviews these expenses on a monthly basis. Further, our computer system will not allow a budget account to be overdrawn. To transfer additional money into an account from another account requires approval of the Manager of Support Services. These processes are the same as those used to control all LRSD expenses including those that must meet certain state regulations. practices are sound. Independent audits show that LRSD accounting Question 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? Answer: The accounts are clearly named so there is little confusion. The budget managers code the expenses. Question 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? Answer: The procedures described above with the monthly reviews described are intended to catch any improper coding. If an expense is improperly coded to a valid account that has sufficient funds, manual reviews like those described above are the only possible ways to detect it. As stated above, these are the same procedures used throughout our system, and independent audits have consistently found our procedures to be sound.QDM Response Page 4 Question 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? Answer: The district must implement the programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, must meet state education standards, must meet debt service commitments, and must make the capital improvements committed to voters in millage elections. All salary expenses are under contracts. There is little to prioritize. As Desegregation Plan programs are implemented and their effectiveness is determined, we can petition the court and the other parties to allow us to discontinue or modify those that are not effective. Until we reach that point, we can do little to prioritize our costs. Question 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? Answer: The LRSD will implement the plan called \"No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District.\" This plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors on March 28, 1991, provides the framework for attaining the 90% achievement goal for black students (see attachment). Question 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? Answer: As stated in response #9 above, LRSD will measure effectiveness and attempt to remove ineffective programs in the plan. We will address overall funding problems through reducing programs that we can reduce, better management practices and, if necessary, a request for increased millages. F\nodminfo2.wpdNO MORE EXCUSES\nA PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools\nand second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND import te-che What students are learning in our schools is the most ant issue School Board members, administrators, and rs must consider as decisions are made about education in cur community. The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, assignments, the use of school libraries, homework minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education, \"tracking. If higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to subm consideration by December. , a re\nThe 3' to the School Bcax ,5 ministration submitted i rcr ts it report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 requirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. In January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received the Curriculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curricu im objectives do not exist, grading practices are ent, promotion criteria are unclear. assessment is not d to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal ency. In short, even though the Little Rock School .\"is-rict is performing \"reasonably well\" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but most thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report entitled Accelerating Academic Achievement: A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. \"Most of the data in this report show that our present education performance is low and not improving.\" 2. \"Research shows that student academic performance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening.\" 3 . \"Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... II 4 . \"Homework is often minimal or non-existent. II 25. \"Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. It 6. \"Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework. II 7. \"Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments. It 8 . \"Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks\nmost do not communicate effectively. II 9 . \"Students' grasp of the four basic arithmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. \"Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school. It 11. \"Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events. It 12 . \"In recent assessments, more students appear to e gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a crasp of higher-level aoolication of these skills. It 13 . \"Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, the differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts remain unacceptably large.\" 14. \"r.? ge proportions of students.... are not enrolled in challenging mathematics and sc: nee coursework. It 315. \"Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets. II Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from ajJL textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarely borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read\nonly 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups abou their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week or less than 15 minutes per dav. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the 8th graders and 9 percent of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1985, one g-aarter of the eleventh graders assessed were no enrolled in a math course nd anopher one quarter were taking lower reVv math courses such as General Mathematics, ?re-algebra, or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of homework each day. Only 29 percent had two or more hours of homework each day. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report presented. Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. This appears to be the case for several reasons: (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research\n(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are nc typical of what we find locally and should give us cause for e concern. In fact, the grade distribution, test scores. level of expectations, a large amount of \"seatwork\" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1988 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. The District has experienced significant changes in its geographi boundaries. Board governance, and administration. As was ted out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result  as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit  is a district in which \"Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction, expertise. and intervention are provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School istrict.\" (P-14) .n fulfil 1 ~y opinion, two things are necessary before we can che responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. reviewed, revised. First, Board policies must be and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) must be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre of teachers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. It most certainly will require reorganization of the central office administration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have whe.n rhey leave our schools. 63 . A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4. An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for 5. 6, 7. 8. 10. 11. the schools to address dispar ies in academic achievement is first to have a wrircen curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. An ongoing review of the District's remedial and compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components co our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the \"Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.'  * * * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board and community regarding grade distribution and test scores for the Little Rock student  * * * July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992  * * 2. 3 . * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. as a graduation requirement. It is recommended that this year's seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 D g a is Lu 3 DEC 1 3 1991 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Desegregaiioii toantionng 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bob\nAttached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Wjt'V fe FROM: THROUGH\nSUBJECT: Dec 17,91 KtCBBgS Little Rock School District * t-  5' December 13, Rnn Brown, Otfic r\n28 No.002 P.Ol ot DeKAfircgaticu Monitor.i nf\nJames Jennings, Assoniate Superintendent Desegregation Moul tori ng and Community services Dr. Ruth Stw]e, Superintendent oi Scliool p Homework Hotline Log TEL : TO\nB T Please find attached the homework hotline log for October . hope to have the log tor November to you before the end of of have the log for next week.TEL: Dec 17,91 11 26 No.001 P.O! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 FAX (501) 324-2281 A TO .r7zcr-\u0026gt;C' FROM \u0026lt;\u0026gt; SENDERS PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Paget (include corer p\u0026lt;u\nt i  Fax Pbone Number LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street DEC 1 0 by| TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas December 16, 1991 72201 Offica of Desegieg\nicn f.'oniiorirg Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for 3 Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Jlecruitment in Incentive Schools I am providing my latest update on recruitment for the incentive schools. It should be noted, however, that most of the recruitment activities listed on the incentive school timelines (Re: or March. 02327-02333) are scheduled to begin in January, February, It would be counterproductive to implement all of these activities during the first quarter of school even if the recruitment timelines did not exist. recruitment is from January through April. The peak period for I will continue to keep you apprised of recruitment activities in the incentive schools by sending you a copy of my monthly updates on desegregation. Highlight Sheets The highlight sheets have been revised and reprinted. distributed as part of the KIDSFAIR activities. They will They were continue to be used on a routine basis as handouts or special mailouts. They are included in all packages sent to parents who request information about our schools. Incentive chool Video Our eight-week production schedule for completion of an incentive school video is on target. Video footage research is one-fourth complete and script development, tape logging, script writing and research is one-third complete. and assistance is being contributed by AP\u0026amp;L. Four days of editing facility completion date is still projected for January 10. Anticipated Incentive School Brochures Copy is due to the Communications Department from each incentive school January 10 for preparation of the individual school n \"cards. These will be prepared to supplement the overall incentive program brochure on which final artwork is beingRecruitment page two completed presently. Each school will have the opportunity to offer its brochure with the overall brochure to provide the overview and specific information about incentive programs. At the end of the school term, an updated, expanded version of these individual materials can be produced that will further enhance the recruiting/awareness effort. Incentive school brochures will be distributed to target audiences including realtors, businesses, neighborhood areas, etc. KIDSFAIR Over 500 parents visited the Little Rock School District incentive schools booth during KIDSFAIR at Barton Colieseum, November 1-3, 1991. The'booth was attractively set up with information about incentive schools' offerings, and students' work was neatly displayed. The art teachers, media specialists and regular classroom teachers did an outstanding job in helping to plan and set up the booth. Flyers and bookmarks with the incentive school logo were given to prospective parents. Also displayed was a bicycle which had been donated for a prize, bicycle was awarded to one of the parents that registered. This The parent recruiters will put the names and addresses of the parents on a database, set up parent meetings, and provide appropriate follow-up as indicated on the parent sign-up forms. Neighborhood Blitz The Student Assignment Office is in the process of updating its database of private school students. This information will be used to send printed information to targeted neighborhoods. The speaker's bureaus in the incentive schools will also have access to mailing labels for targeted neighborhoods. In addition to the database for private school students, we will also use the names that were acquired at KIDSFAIR. Finally, we are in the process of attempting to purchase a pre-kindergarten database of white students in Pulaski County. Speaker's Bureau A speaker's bureau has been formed for each incentive school. A list of the members was sent to your office on an earlier date by Arma Hart. Inservice training for the speaker bureau members was The provided by Julie Wiedower and Dianne Woodruff (11/25/91). members will be available to assist with school tours, help arrange recruitment meetings, and be involved in meetings in targeted recruitment areas.Recruitment page three Special Media Coverage Special public service announcements will coincide with the announcement of pre-registration for the 1992-93 school year. The State Press, the radio stations in the black community, the Quapaw Chronicle, the Maumelle Monitor, and others will also be asked to publicize the incentive school program. These announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz. Telephone Hotline The District expects to have a hotline for incentive and interdistrict schools operative by the end of January. ' The hotline will have a recorded message about the special programs offered in these schools. Tours The parent recruiters will schedule ongoing parent tours in the incentive schools cc: Arma HartJ - It - SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 6 1992 TO: December 19, 1991 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation Monitoring Kt - 1 FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of School THROUGH: 2 Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent K uny YiLUJU., oupex xuceHueiiu '^^im Ivey, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: NEW PARTNERSHIP: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant I recommend that the partnership between Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant be approved as follows: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet and The Olive Garden Restuarant have united as Partners in Education for the 1991- 92 school year. The students at Washington Math/Science Magnet School will provide art displays for all the major holidays. They will also send homemade birthday cards to the employees of The Olive Garden. The Olive Garden will sponsor field trips to demonstrate to the students how pasta is made. They will also provide resource speakers for various subject areas and events. In addition, The Olive Garden will participate in the cafeteria behavior incentive program in cooperation with the LRSD Food Service Department and in accordance with federal. state. and District guidelines governing school lunch programs. The school has been very pleased with the positive improvements in students' behavior while in the cafeteria and the students are eager to demonstrate appropriate table manners and noise level because they are eager to receive the Olive Garden's incentives.TO: FROM: THROUGH: t i-ti I [CCCfBBBS Little Rock School District December 27, 1991 RECEIVED JAN I 5 1992 Office cf DesegrsgaBon bioruiuring Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation'^'^ Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of School SUBJECT: Update on Desegregation - December Please find enclosed a copy of my update on desegregation for December. cc: Chris Heller enc. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District OcLober 2',, I'JQ'l AUMINI5THATIVt DIRECTIVE O3-O9AI) - Revised October, 1984 TO: E1 oiiiGutafy Principals FROM: r . Ruth S. Steele, Acting Associate Superintendent For Curriculum and Instruction SIJU^Etl: Preparation and Maintenance ol Permanent Record Cards The following |\u0026gt;rnceduies . h\u0026lt;i 11 be used in the preparation and .naintenance of Permanent Record (birds (PRC's) for students in the elementary schools (Primary, Intermediate, and/or K-6 level schools). A. GENERAL PREPARAIION 1. All infonnation entered by school personnel shall be typed or printed LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK. are eventually photocopied.) (This is necessary because records 2. Fill in all blanks on the two top lines anu the pupil's I.D. Number at the beginning of the third line, on both the front and back side of the card. Complete these lines a. Use only the LEGAL name of the student, placing the last name first and writing out the 'omplete middle name, if the student has a middle name. b. Record birthdate, birthplace (city and state), name of person verifying birth certificate (either principal, school secretary, school nurse or certified personnel) and the date on which verification was made, on the pupil data fonn. This infonnation is available c. Record the pupil's I.D. Number as it is recorded on the pupil data fonn. d. Check all information for accuracy and correct spelling. (See example below.) birih Cart. Brown Lisa (t1 I.,I Iw, Hr.I  Hofold Neal Brovin Anne t Ic nliii. J - M- 77 lirth 6*t Ho, 6 0y city IIata raaantaj Mary r\u0026gt;r\u0026gt;nccs Brovin F a I Mr  t Full r.pir. 1.0. o.oigg77 .1 i If rwt with both ^rntt :t '-ilimiAlY SCHOOl RECORD FMOTOCdAFM F w Vr I by  HdffiS 1'1 l-lui ..  1 Md i II l.lMIdllCe III l'l'||lld(lllll. I(|'(I)\nI tdlils ( t.DIi I ' \u0026lt;1. . 3. CoiiipleLe left side of llie cdrd as lolliws\na. School - Enter nniiie of school. b. School level: KiiH^rgarten - ho entry rei|u i red. I'rjmary - Enter-grade placement -1,2, or T WITHIN PARENTHESIS, enter grade level of assigned reading and math materials. The grade level for the reading book may be obtained by referring to the chart on page 4 of this directive. EXAMPLE: Primary 1 (Heading = 1-1, Math = 2) Intennediate - Enter grade placement -4,5, or 6 - 'and, WITHIN PARI NTIILS1S, enter grade level of assicpied reading and math materials The epade level for the reaifing book may be obtained by referring to t.lie chart on page 4 of tfiis directive. EXAMPLE: Intennediate 5 (Reading - 5, Math = 5) c. Residence - Give complete address of student. d. Teacher- Hr./Ms. (full n aine). e. Entered from - name of sctiool, if Little ick School District. - city and state, if outside Little Rock School District. f. Date - Record first day attended. g. Assigned to Phase - No entry required until the end of the (See Section C, P.4.) school year. 5CMO01 13wnca jQ PL, Tli!____ Aaadinj (n(rd kiAf Trnttfr tanjuAQ* A\u0026lt;\u0026amp;l9nd lo rh LpS Aruy-lf*\nC.A- B. MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP DE PRC 1. After all identifying infonnation at the top of each side of the card has been completed and checked and after the left side of the current school year has been recorded, the card should be folded with the primary section to the inside, stapled tn Hie PRC. At no time should any documents be 2. PP''s musj. be kept on file in the school office at all timest They are not to be removed from the sctiool building and should be returned end ofeacl^^ y EHlLIij LL and,fl eprii uL Ion iind M,iiiilendin.i' nl I'riiihinenl Ki.'i.nrd Ldi tls ((.onl'd., J. J. UuriiKj the school year: a. When school pictures become available during the pupilirst year of school (Kindergarten or Grade 1 or upon first entry at another level) in the primary school, attach the picture r rubber cement ilesignati .1 PRC. Attach an updated picture in designated place on side two when student reaches in lies iijna l.i d place on IliC. tirade 4 or the Inlennediate Level. W 1 e.l / b. Special tests - Record the name and date onjy^ of all special tests that are administered. (Examples: \"WISC-R, 1-4-83\nBurks Behavior Scale, 12-8-82\nGray Oral Reading, 1-5-83\nAudiological, 2-3-84.) The test scores and full reports are filed in the student's Due Process folder. c. Coiiunerit sectjon - Indicate special assignments (such as: Resource Rofxn Special Class, Reading Lab, Math Lab, or home teacher). d. When a student enters from another Little Rock school during the school year, dci nt start a new block but draw a line through the other school infonnation that is no longer applicable and record the now school information. (See example below.) liiL wilC-R nc ___t a ?\u0026lt;i_LxitKirY Aad1n^ Hndr I iTnj iX- lO-BM \"I n I.. i d_r Jtf fI ------------------------- r jiorv___ A new block may be started if the student transfers more than two times during the year. e. When a student transfers 1rom one Little Rock school to another during the school year, the sending school shall record (IN BLACK INK) the name of the school to which the student is going and the date of transfer (top left side of PRC under ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RECORD section). Special note: Do not record interim progress or attendance data in pencil on the PRC, but be very, sure that it is forwarded (in pencil) to the next school on the office copy of the Progress Report Card and the student copy of the Progress Report Card. fonn should be inserted in the PRC. A copy of the District's Transfer f. When a student withdraws from the District during the school year, the sending school records (IN BLACK INK) the school and/or city to which the student is transferring and the date of withdrawal. The sending school also completes, in BLACK INK, the progress section of the PRC (for any student who has been in attendance for at least 15 school days. ) should ' '.ent for all students. Attendance dataPt'tjpdrd 1. Ion and Mdintendncc of Pcniidiietil Record Cdrds (Coiit'd.) 4. C. AT ENO OF SCHOOL YEAR 1. Dottom Left Une, \"Assigned to Phase\" a. Draw a line through \"phase. tl and write in the word \"grade.\" b. r Record the assigned grade i.iacement for the next school year (use Arabic numeral). c. WITHIN PARENTHESIS, enter the grade level of the recommended reading book and the grade level of tfie reconniended mathe- matics book. (Use \"R\" for reading and \"H\" for math.) flotation (code) for the grade level of the reading book may be obtained from the chart below. The reading level (n^o_t the math leyej^) should be the major consideration in determining the reconinended grade placement for the next / school year. EXAMPLE: Assigned to-Phafre- Grade 3 (R = 3-1, H = 3) 2. Progress Section a. Ye^r - Record school year (1904-85). b. Grade in Subject Areas - Record the final grade for the year on the appropriate subject area line. c. Record the Days Present and Times Tard '-, on the blank line and record those da\u0026gt; write in Days Absent Hwoot .Ir-ETei-iorT Fdlb-riQWt LL AXEerulu IML IX- Ui- AM wise -P. T.kU\" Stiin Lag tun. JI- (MeV \u0026gt; 04 J__ - --------- An I to 3 f R* ^'1 x, H* 's. _____B_ ____n _____Lii. _______1_ Mr. -pifYS yiWlnin htl'M - 11 t'o* ** K 3. -Include 1n the folder the following: standardized achievement test scores, the Individual Skills Profile (ISP), and other appropriate test data (Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, etc.). HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING PROGRAM GRADE LEVEL OF BOOKS GRADE R TITLE PP-1 PP-2 PP-3 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 Getting Ready to Read Bells Drums Trumpets Parades Carousels Adventures Discoveries GRADE 3-1 3-2 4 5 6 7 0 TITLE Caravans Joprneys Fl ights Explorations Celebrations Pageants Tri umphsI. II. 111. LITTLE POCK SCHOOl DISTRICT I PS (.01)1.\nHOMI.I/OPK PPCOMMI.HOATlOd', Pm-pos_e riDcjlluL?! (General) (1) Each teacher i|ivin(| an as jonsJ IKI! - R where only classroo'm'\\7('slexl. in a class P'Ovisiofts for hooks Lo he Laken home*' (?) Teachers will seen clearly and h, them. J liresenl. m iitieoqraph,.,| .1 ve ''''l|llc(.iotls ''''''i'lls that t a ft be (3) Homework \u0026lt;i s s i \u0026lt;iimien t \u0026gt;* .. 11 i l concepts Skin-/, In lo' used in complel ini) ('I) Homework Il-evioijsly iriiroflm ed. e, ,, , \" con.,Hl,TP,, i . .......... '\"'\"-il'c ............ ,,.,,.k Stifdenis' Ufitlers Landi no are.is of we.iknf,' concepts anj/o,- Ifovifh' i  1 eachf.'r I'tfio i s i I. ioii of skills. (f\u0026gt;) The type of homework ass ii,n,neLs should he vari-d. ffj II r ( Spec i He) 0) The following ipiidelines shoul.l i r n \"\"o s..,........ ' Io (|iviti(| lioiiic. K iodertpirteii - TIroerally WHik (IS s t-odeiil.s Primary 1 - S f oilffi t s 1 qnitjeii (s may Im , \u0026lt;ioe rmt. (,iv,. p, nt the I. iiider(),irLeri level. Pfimary |i . fo PO miinjfes assitjiied hoiiii\nwork for 15 a fti((lit. -lodeiits may he Io .'ll) minute) assignefl hoiiieworl for\nf) \u0026gt; oi'iht. Poimary 111 - SI odeiits (?) Homt.Work  Ih',\n,)',\"\"''' 30 .'.'.'y .loofjer Ilian i qHHiffip, for |r,( oiOht.. (3) Homework with an average of m, for each of the ooi' hour. .eH'H\u0026gt;d,ale l.pvpl s Lodefl Ls '\u0026gt;ss ic,fiments f,,,-  Pp Serondar work with huildinq assignments or soh.jec I. should itoL 7 I evftl shoo I,J |. pi ven (3'.')'minotes - Secondary prinrinal'' to help coordinate  areas. requi red shall Poo.lef ts whif.h I'li'jhL coni 1 itt. long- Let-IllLITTLE nOCK SCHOOI DISTRICT TPS CODE: 1 KU IIOMLUORK The Little Rock School District ma iotii ins tli.it homov/oi k cao he ao important. activity to help students learn. Homework should hi.\u0026gt; inclinled as an integia part of the instructional program and a mcmns hy which students are provided extended time to master learnim) concepts and olijectives. Homework should be a positive experience and provide students the opportunity to: (1) reinforce skill development\n(2) manage learning time away fr,om the school setting\n(3) coniiiunicate to parrnts learning activities provided during the school day\nand (4) involve other adults in helping them to learn. In the Little Rock School District, all homework assirjnments will be\n. directly I'elated to tlic curriculum and the current learning object i ves\n. explained thoroughly in terms of content, process,.and expectations\n. reasonable and will not preclude pupils from assimiini) ottior homework and community responsibilities\n. designed Io ent ouionje and soppoi t. efforts It) develop the skills to learn independently. I Adopted\nTO\nFROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 'CKCBBBS Little Rock School District March 1, 1990 Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Special Assignments for Children of Teachers 5- '5. av: The Little Rock School District abandoned the practice of giving school assignment preference to the children of teachers in 1987. Prior to 1987, teachers who lived outside of the attendance zone of their worksite could transfer their children to that particular school. It is my understanding that this practice was abandoned because of the adverse effect that it could have on desegregation requirements. The Pulaski County Special School District has allowed teachers to transfer their children for at least the last five years. According to Eddie Collins, PCSSD does not consider desegregation requirements in considering such transfers. A teacher in the Pulaski County Special School District can transfer hisAier child to any school in the district, including the teacher's worksite. Although the Little Rock School District has not given preference to a teacher's child since the 1986-87 school year, the district has attempted to grant such transfers in cases that would not adversely affect desegregation requirements. The purpose of this memo is to recommend procedures to allow the children of teachers to transfer to the parent's worksite. The procedures for special assignments are listed below for your review and approval. A. Teachers will be allowed to transfer their children if a seat is available and desegregation requirements can be maintained, transfers will only apply to the teacher's worksite. Such B. Attendance zone students will have priority over the children of teachers. C. The same requirements will apply to Act 624 transfers. However, Act 624 transfers will not take priority over special assignment transfers and/or attendance zone students. D. All special assignments for teachers will be processed and approved by the Student Assignment Office. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 ? C-Special Assignments page two E. Special assignment transfers will not apply to magnet schools. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Dr. Herb Cleek Estelle MatthisOFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: July 12, 1990 To: Mr. Bobby Lester, Superintendent Pulaski County Special School District Mr. James Smith, Superintendent North Little Rock School District From: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock Scjipol District Arma Hart, and Ann Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Subject: Preparation for Desegregation Monitoring In order that we may prepare to monitor the desegregation activities of the three school districts during the 1990-91 school year, we request the following information by Friday, July 27, 1990: A complete list of those programs, facilities, operations, which you intend to implement for the 1990-91 school year. or activities A complete list of any provision of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan which you do not intend to implement for the 1990-91 school year, and the specific reason why any provision will not be implemented. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright(IF .. -  s\n4 Little Rock School District July 26, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 SSS Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: In response to your memorandum of July 12, 1990, we are preparing to move ahead with implementing the Tri-District Plan in accordance with the July 2, 1990, order of the Eighth Circuit panel. Paragraph 1 of the Order states: \"The Tri-District Plan provides for the use of presently operating school facilities in a manner different in some respects from the uses proposed by the parties under the settlement plans. To the extent of any such differences, the presently operating school facilities involved shall be used for the 1990-91 school year in accordance with the Tri-District Plan.\" In concurrence with this paragraph of the Order, the following schools will be opened in 1990-91. 1. 2. 3. 4. Dunbar International Studies Magnet School Washington Interdistrict Magnet School Central High School International Studies Program Incentive Schools: Rockefeller (with Early Childhood Magnet), Stephens, Garland, Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish. In addition, building expansion projects for Woodruff, Western Hills, and Cloverdale will continue. We are also renovating space for housing the Safety and Security Office and have tentative plans for modification of the Incentive Schools. It Paragraph 2 of the Order addresses both facilities and programs, states, \"New facilities required under the Tri-District Plan but not under the settlement plans shall not be constructed absent agreement of all parties. New programs required under the Tri-District Plan but not under the settlement plans may, if planning can be completed in time, be operated for the 1990-91 school year.\" In concurrence with Paragraph 2, facilities planning for the Aerospace Magnet, Business Communications Magnet, Downtown Early Childhood Center, MacArthur Park Magnet, and Science (Zoo) Magnet, while continuing. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361.A Mrs. Arma Hart and .Mrs. Ann Brov.n  July 26, 1990 Page Two cannot be finalized until we receive final orders from the Eighth Circuit Court. With regard to programs, those initiated in 1989-90 and continuing in 1990-91 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Before and after school care in incentive schools Early Childhood Education (Garland, Franklin, Badgett, Ish, Stephens, Rockefeller, Washington) Staff development (Director and Trainers) Homework centers in incentive schools. HIPPY Library media program (REACH) Multicultural curriculum enhancement and staff development materials (art, English, foreign language, mathematics, reading, science, special education) Program for Accelerated Learning (reading and mathematics) Summer school tuition program Expanded plant services assistance (construction managers, custodial assistance, additional craftsmen) Expanded special education services (including Learning Center) Development of multicultural curriculum guides Minority teacher recruitment program Parent involvement (expansion of VIPS services) Secondary alternative school program Parkview Science programs Additional programs to be implemented in 1990-91 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. n. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Academic progress incentive grants for area schools Human relations training for all employees Expanded communications and public relations programs Safety and Security Office Curriculum audit Expansion of the Student Assignment Office/Recruitment Program Two-run transportation system Incentive School program Extracurricular activities program Area school improvements (collaboration with area schools committee) Positive student discipline (including hearing officer) Badgett aviation theme (planning only) Senior high alternative school program Precollege testing Junior high restructuring McClellan Community School program Expanded elementary counseling/social work program Implementation of multicultural curriculum (grades 7-12) Planning for the implementation of programs and services in special education, gifted and talented education, and parent involvement as described in the addenda to the Tri-District Plan will also continue.Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown July 26, 1990 Page Three Cooperative planning as directed in Paragraph 3 of the Order will continue in the area of public relations, staff development, teacher recruitment, alternative schools, multicultural education, methods for reducing academic disparity, and parent/community involvement. In addition, we wish to state strongly our commitment to the implementation of the attendance zone plan as described in the Tri-District Plan. Students are and will be assigned according to procedures of the Plan. Please let us know if you desire additional infonnation. Sincerely J I llkCf C I J ) GSolz A\nAw Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk cc: Dr. Herb Cleek Mr. James Jennings Mrs. Estelle Katthis Mr. Chip JonesLittle Rock School District August 3, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: It is my understanding that you would like for us to provide additional information to that contained in our letter to you of July 27, 1990. It would be helpful if you would describe in writing the additional information you need since we provided everything you asked for in your first request. We are, I might remind you, less than a month from the opening date of school and tim.e is a precious commodity right now. I am sure both of you recall the intense level of activity needed to have a smooth school opening and get everything off to a positive start, especially in light of the many new programs we will be implementing as a result of the Tri-District Plan, all of which were listed in our July 27 letter. When James Jennings returns from school after August 9, he will be happy to work with you and our parents in addressing the concerns you have as we wait for the final ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 8, 1990 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1990, requesting a written request from this office regarding information that I described to you over the phone July 31, 1990. As I stated at that time, the information provided by the district was helpful and very much appreciated. I am more than happy to comply with your request for information in writing and will continue to work in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District. I am most cognizant of planning activities and events that occur prior to the opening of school\ntherefore, what was requested was not in addition to information identified in the Tri-district plan. What I discussed with you, however, was primarily related to format, i.e., listing the programs, etc., under the appropriate headings according to the plan and making some items clearer by succinctly denoting the degree of implementation, i.e.. Junior High Restructuring. Please let me know if further information is needed\nand I will be happy to talk with Mr. Jennings, who has been most helpful in the past. Sincerely Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AJH/parQp - 0 Little Rock School District October 12, 1990 TO: All Budget Managers FROM: Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Specialist f/'' THROUGH: '1 Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Drug Free Schools and Campuses Enclosed are copies of the LRSD policy and regulations covering drug free schools and campuses. Federal law mandates that each employee must be provided the policy and made aware of the possible conse- quences of failure to comply. The law also requires that each employee sign a statement acknowledging receipt of the policy. Please distribute the policy and acknowledgment form to each employee in your building or unit. each employee. Collect the signed acknowledgment from possible inspection. You should keep the signed forms on file available for 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 1^TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District October 24, 1990 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs, NLRSD Billy Bowles, Administrator for Research, Planning, and Quality Assurance, PCSSD Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent, Desegregation, NLRSD Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel, PCSSD Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation '3'^ Monitoring and Program Development New Location of Student Assignment Office The LRSD Student Assignment Office is now located on the southeast corner of Capitol (5th) and Sherman Streets. 324-2272. Our new office telephone number is Mailing Address: LRSD Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 1 I cr.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 6$^ Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Salary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217J'm- - Little Rock School District February 1, 1991 Vi^ TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Arma Hart, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: THROUGH: gii James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools ^Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Semi-annual Monitoring Report According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District was required to provide a written monitoring report to the court on a semi-annual schedule (February 1, or the nearest work day, and July 15, or the nearest work day). Although the Tri-District Desegregation Plan is no longer in effect, the Little Rock School District is still in the process of preparing a semi-annual monitoring report. This report should be completed for submission on or before February 28, 1991. cc: Chris Heller Sterling Ingram 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TO\nFROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 November 6, 1990 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District oily Ramer, Administrative Assistant .rma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor 1990-91 Interim Budget With Judge Wright's Order of October 30th approving our 1990-91 interim budget, I am in the process of determining each district's contribution for that budget and bringing my books up-to-date, need to be followed to complete this process: The following steps 1. LRSD send to this office a print-out determining the exact amount due LRSD for the 1989-90 retroactive pay for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. 2 . LRSD send to this office a print-out determining the exact amount due LRSD for the 1990-91 retroactive pay for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. 3. Using the above information, OMS pro-rate and credit the remaining 1989-90 budget against the districts 1990-91 budget contributions. 4. The three school districts cut checks for the amount due OMS for the 1990-91 budget. 5. OMS cut a check for the to-date reimbursement due LRSD for salary, travel allowance, and benefits for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer for 1990-91. 6. Monthly the OMS cut checks for reimbursement of salary, travel allowance, and benefit payments for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. As you see by the above steps, the completion of the 1990-91 budget process cannot begin until this office receives the print-out of the retroactive pay. greatly appreciated. Whatever may be done to expedite this process will be with you or Mark Milhollen, if you so desire. If any questions arise, I will be glad to meet Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 2, 1990 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Markham at Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: This is to confirm our meeting next Tuesday morning, November 6, 1990, at 8:00 A.M. at the Apple Blossom restaurant in the Excelsior Hotel. Since my colleague, Ann Brown, and I work closely together. believe it is directly with you. very important that both she and I communicate After our meeting next Tuesday, I expect that both Ann and I will meet together with you in the future. I I look forward to seeing you on November 6. Sincerely, Arma J. Hart Associate Metropolitan SupervisorOFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM. SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August 24, 1990 To\nBobby Lester, Superintendent, PCSSD James Smith, Superintendent, NLRSD Ruth Steele, Superintendent, LRSD From\n^^Ann Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Arma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: 1990-91 Budget: Salary Adjustments On July 30, 1990, a letter was sent from this office to the financial directors of each school district regarding the 1990-91 budget for the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. As stated in that correspondence, we will continue to operate on the same budget total that was approved by Judge Henry Woods for the 1989-90 fiscal year. In accordance with an agreement with the late Eugene Reville, employees of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor are to suffer no financial loss as a result of their temporary employment move from a school district to this office. Anytime there is a salary increase for employees in one of the school districts which has previously been the \"home\" district of a Metropolitan employee, that staff member is to automatically receive the same salary increases as employees in the home district. Our agreement with Mr. Reville also specified that salary adjustments would be made after negotiations between the districts and the unions are completed. According to news reports, the Pulaski County districts have reached salary agreements with their employees. At this time, compensation at the rate commensurate with the salary increase settlement reached in the Pulaski County Special School District has been made to the former Associate Metropolitan Supervisor whose home district has been the PCSSD. However, compensation commensurate with both the retroactive and current salary increase settlements reached in the Little Rock School District has not been received by the three employees (both current Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Administrative Assistant) whose home district is the LRSD. and our You will note from the attached copy of our July 30 memo that the budget will accommodate such salary increases for the Metropolitan staff without any additional cost to the districts. Since Judge Woods' order of July 6, 1990, clearly bars retaliation against any member of the Metropolitan Supervisor's staff, we believe that the failure to receive the adjustment in salary is inadvertent. correcting this oversight will be appreciated. Your immediate attention to Thank you.* . OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 8, 1990 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1990, requesting a written request from this office regarding infoarmation that I described to you over the phone July 31, 1990. As I stated at that time, the information provided by the district was helpful and very much appreciated. I am more than happy to comply with your request for information in writing and will continue to work in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District. I am most cognizant of planning activities and events that occur prior to the opening of school\ntherefore, what was requested was not in addition to information identified in the Tri-district plan. What I discussed with you, however, was primarily related to format, i.e., listing the programs, etc., under the appropriate was etc. --------, f eui..., ujiuer cne appropriate headings according to the plan and making some items clearer by succinctly denoting the degree of implementation, i.e.. Junior High Restructuring. Please let me know if further information is needed\nand I will be happy to talk with Mr. Jennings, who has been most helpful in the past. Sincerely, Airma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AJH/parLittle Rock School District V,' August 3, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brov/n Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Miarkham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: It is my understanding that you would like for us to provide additional information to that contained in our letter to you of July 27, 1990. It would be helpful if you would describe in writing the additional information you need since we provided everything you asked for in your first request. We are, I might remind you, less than a month from the opening date of school and tim.e is a precious commodity right now. I am sure both of you recall the intense level of activity needed to have a smooth school opening and get everything off to a positive start, especially in light of the many new programs we will be implem.enting as a result of the Tri-District Plan, all of which were listed in our July 27 letter. When James Jennings returns from school after August 9, he will be happy to work with you and our parents in addressing the concerns you have as we wait for the final ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TO: FROM: RE: DATE: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Arma Hart, Associate Director Board Agendas and Slip Sheets January 28, 1991 The staff of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is requesting copies of all slip sheets that accompany board agendas. Slip sheets that are not prepared at the time the board agendas are sent may be sent the day following the board meeting or given to representatives from our office that are in attendance at the board meeting. Obtaining board agendas without the slip sheets does not provide adequate information. Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated.(if: 1 Little Rock School District r's.'' February 6, 1991 I*' ^2 1 Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Monitoring of Desegregation Plan in LRSD Dear Ann and Arma: Now that we are certain there will be no further appeals of the Court of Appeals December 12, 1990 order, I believe we should establish, to the extent possible, a systematic approach to compiling and sharing the information necessary for you to monitor the implementation of the approved desegregation plan. Two of the most important functions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring are to gather the information necessary to determine whether the desegregation plan is being properly implemented and to establish a means by which implementation problems can be quickly resolved. We want to provide necessary information to you in a timely manner and to act quickly to resolve implementation problems. We believe there are two ways we can help you get the information you need to effectively monitor desegregation implementation in the District. First, once you have determined what information you will need on a regular basis (monthly, quarterly, annually), we will establish a system to provide you that information on the dates requested. Second, we will designate one person at LRSD who has sufficient authority to provide any information requested by your office to serve as the person responsible for insuring that you get a prompt response to any ad hoc information request. We believe it will be helpful to both LRSD and ODM if we could establish a calendar of information which will be necessary on a regular basis and designate a person who is responsible to insure that all other information requests receive a prompt response from LRSD. We understand that regular reports and ad hoc information requests will not provide you with all of the information you need for effective monitoring and that there is no substitute for visiting the schools and talking with teachers, parents, and students. We will assist you in whatever way O 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart February 6, 1991 Page Two we can or in whatever way you would find helpful to facilitate this aspect of your work. We are committed to the successful implementation of our desegregation plan and will work quickly to resolve any problems which are brought to our attention. I urge you to make us aware immediately of problems you find concerning the implementation or operation of our desegregation plan. We want to be able to respond quickly and effectively in resolving whatever problems exist and to work cooperatively with you in addressing them. You may already have some ideas about how we can work cooperatively to insure that our desegregation plan is successful. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the proposals set out in this letter or any other steps we can take to insure that our efforts are successful. Sincerely, A. Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk O 02 08-91 ' 12\nfl5 B'S 111 374 7609 001 ?n b L R School Dlst t Little Rock School District   February 6, 1.991 .. : f  Ms. Ann Srown .  1 . Ms.- Arma Bart. ' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 51-0 201East Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201. \nRe: J 3 Monitoring of Des.egregation Plan in LRSD Dear Ann and Arma: Now that we are certain there will be^no further appeals of the Court _ of Appeals December. 12, 1990..order,-! belieye we should establishj ' - to the'extent possible, a systematic approach to compiling and sharing... the information necessary for you to-irionitor the implementation.of the approved desegregation plan. Two of the-most important functions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring-are to gather the information -'necessary to determine whether the desegregation plan is being properly implemented and to establish a means by which implementation problems-- . can be quickly resolved. We want to -provide neces.sary information to-- you in a timely .mannerand'to'act quickly to resolve impTemehtation  problems. .. . - . We believe there are two ways we can help you get the information you-- .- need to effectively mon-itor desegregation-implementation in- the District. . First, once you have determined what-information you wil.l need on a regular basis (monthly, quarterly,' annually)-, we will-establish a system, to provide you that information-on- the dates requested. Second, we will - designate one person at LRSD who has'sufficient authority to provide any ' information requested by your-office to.serve as the person responsibTe -for insuring that you g'et-a'prompt response to 'any ad hoc information request. We beTieve.it will be helpful to-both LRSD and ODM if we could establ.ish a calendar-of information which will be. necessary on a regular - basis and designate a-person who is responsible to insure that all other information requests receive, a-prompt response froiir LRSD........- We-understand that regular reports and ad hoc information requests-will not provide you with all of the information you need for effective morritoring and that there is no substitute for visiting the-schools and talking .with teachers, parents, and students. We will assist you in whatever way FAX ANSMI, TTAL SlO V FAXx T R A N S M L T T \u0026gt;5 TP: DEPT:/ FR0M\ng CO\nMEMO NO. OF PAGES 12g- PHONE\nPosMfbfanc lax transniina: meniQ 7571 1)324-2000 FAXfc f'z/- o EBSaW 1 02 06 91 12:06 501 374 7609 L R School DIst @002 f Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart February 6, 1991 Page Two we can or in whatever way you would find helpful to facilitate ti aspect of your work. We are committed to the successful implementation of our desejr-.c=tion plan and.will work quickly to resolve any problems which are bt to our attention. I urge you to make us aware immediately of nt\\. ,ems you find concerning the implementation or operation of our desegregation plan. We want to be able to.respond quickly and effectively in resolving whatever problems exist and to work cooperatively with ycu in addressing them. I You may already have some Ideas about how ive can work cooperatively to insure that our desegregation plan is successful. We iirould be'happy to meet with you to discuss any of the proposals set out in this letter or any other steps we can take to insure that our efforts are successful. 3 Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk February 15, 1991 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Dr. Ruth S. Steele Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: Thank you for your letter of February 6. reaffirmation of We certainly have no doubt that your completely genuine. commitment to the success of the desegregation plan i s The conversion of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor into the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has led us into a transitional period when we recognize that there are questions about how the office will operate. This is also an interim time as well, for the new director of ODM, when appointed, will have a major role in defining the specific functioning of this office and in shaping its relationship with the districts. During this interim period, while we are considering the approach we'll use in monitoring desegregation compliance, our deliberation di stricts priority need to meet the Court's March 30, i s affected by the 1991, deadline: identifying the \"appropriate fit\" between the Settlement and Tri-Di strict Plans within one unifying document. While this time-consuming task is underway, and until a director of this office is appointed, we do not intend to impose any major new monitoring requirements upon the school districts. Previous court orders already require the districts to submit quarterly reports on desegregation programs and activities. School and district biracial commi ttees are al so involved in school-by-school moni tori ng activities. Furthermore, district administrators present monthly reports on desegregation to the Board of Education that, when shared, help keep us abreast of progress. Although the quarterly reports, observations of biracial committees, and status summaries to the Board are valuable, we don't expect that they will ultimately provide an adequate picture of desegregation in the schools\nhowever, we expect them to suffice for the time being. If the search for a monitoring director should prove to take longer than we presently expect, or if other circumstances should necessitate changes, we will modify our interim requirements for regular reports accordingly. In the meanwhile, we expect quarterly reports to be filed on time, the findings of the biracial committees to be submitted immediately after each review cycle, and the monthly reports to the Board to be forwarded as a matter of routine. Of course, we will also continue to ask for any ad hoc information needed in order to deal with specific questions or issues which may arise.February 15, 1991 Page Two Additionally, since the Circuit Court has directed that the use of desegregation funds is to be carefully monitored, we will be looking closely at how the districts are spending desegregation monies and how they are financially assuring that programs and activities are consistent with court orders. We'n notify you of specific information requirements within the next few days as we begin reviewing the districts' budgets and spending. We were pleased to read in your letter that you remain committed to providing information in a timely manner and that you expect quick action in resolving implementation problems. We recognize your prerogative to define an internal management process by which you choose to move information. Your idea of a data coordi nator may prove expeditious within your organizational framework, particularly for compiling regular reports and gathering complex or lengthy data. We would be pleased to work with a coordinator or overseer should you designate such a position in your district. However, it is inappropriate and unreasonable for us to expect to be limited to a specific person or process through which we access information from any school district. During the recent January 25, 1991, hearing. Judge Wright specifically addressed the need for ODM to be able to rely on the districts for speedy and accurate information. A highly formalized or structured routing system through one individual may actually hinder the \"quick response\" Judge Wright has called for, especially when it comes to routine, day-to-day facts. Therefore, we hope we can count on all levels of district staff being responsive to our inquiries, within a reasonable time frame, whether the requests are oral or written. It's difficult to be patient with delays resulting from personnel who counter our verbal requests with a mandate to \"put it in writing.\" When employees are unable to comply with a request for whatever reason, surely they can take responsibility for redirecting inquires they aren't personally able to handle. Also, \"I don't know, but I'll find out\" is an acceptable answer to a question when it describes the truth\nwe won't be offended by such a response. A tremendous amount of important work lies ahead for all of us and many critical decisions are still to be made. We want to work with you in a spirit of mutual cooperation and responsiveness to meet the challenges and solve the problems we'll inevitably encounter. We will do our best to make our expectations clear and reasonable and urge you to contact us whenever you have suggestions, questions, or just want to talk things over. We're confident that, together, we can all success in providing the best of educational look forward to much growth and service to our community. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Associate Director Arma''J. Hart Associate Director bio Little Rock School District 810 VJest Markham Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas March 1, 1391 72201 Ann Brown and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Reports Please find enclosed the following information: A. Educational Equity Monitoring First Quarter Report - Incentive Schools B. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report - Semi-Annual Summary Report By copy of this memo. reports to the court and the parties. I am asking Chris Heller to submit these cc: Chris Heller 9)^ 0^ Little Rock School District 810 V/est Markham Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas March 1, 1991 72201 Ann Brown and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Reports Please find enclosed the following information: A. Educational Equity Monitoring First Quarter Report - Incentive Schools B. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report - Semi-Annual Summary Report By copy of this memo. reports to the court and the parties. I am asking Chris Heller to submit these cc: Chris Heller TO: FROM: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK James Jennings Hart ARKANSAS 72201 I RE: Desegregation Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools DATE: March 27, 1991 Thank you for the monitoring information on Incentive Schools. Areas that you did not address were: 1. 2. The scholarship program for incentive schools (p. 32) Field trips (local and national) for incentive schools (p. 42, 66, 73) 3. Foreign Language Programs and science lab\nat each school 4. Number and percentage of parent involvement in various activities in Incentive Schools (p. 103-104), e.g.: 5. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) training workshops to develop parenting skills, etc., two way system of communication between the home and the school, parent volunteers and PTA participation, inservice to help parents assist students at home, and training sessions to help parents ideas in decision making. assume active Statistical data to support the number and percentage of white parents who were recruited during the 1990-91 school year and the recruitment and marketing program presently in effect. These are only a few of the areas that I'm sure you agree should be carefully implemented and monitored since they are vital to the success of the program. Also, your assistance in providing information on the programs presently being implemented during the regular day and during the extended day program in each school would be helpful to this office at this time. any changes will be approval. I am cognizant that ubmitted in your final Court submission for I appreciate your assistance.QF! 1 u OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TO: James Jennings FROM: Hart RE: Desegregation Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools DATE: March 27, 1991 Thank you for the monitoring information on Incentive Schools. Areas that you did not address were: 1. The scholarship program for incentive schools (p. 32) 2. Field trips (local and national) for incentive schools (p. 42, 66, 73) 3. Foreign Language Programs and science labs at each school 4. Number and percentage of parent involvement in various activities in Incentive Schools (p. 103-104), e.g.: (a) (fa) (c) (d) training workshops to develop parenting skills, etc., two way system of communication between the home and the school, parent volunteers and PTA participation, inservice to help parents assist students at home, and (e) training sessions to help parents ideas in decision making. assume active 5. Statistical data to support the number and percentage of white parents who were recruited during the 1990-91 school year and the recruitment and marketing program presently in effect. These are only a few of the areas that I'm sure you agree should be carefully implemented and monitored since they are vital to the success of the program. Also, your assistance in providing information on the programs presently being implemented during the regular day and during the extended day program in each school would be helpful to this office at this time. _ __ __________ ____ any changes will be submitted in your final Court submission for I am coanizant that approval. I appreciate your assistance.IL SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON 3/28/91 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 28, 1991 TO\nLRSD Board of Directors FROM\nJames Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH\nDr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools |4c Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT\nUpdate on Desegregation Early Childhood Education According to the settlement plan, all incentive schools will have a four-year-old program. Plans are underway to add a four-year-old class at Mitchell and Rightsell. These construction projects were approved by the court on March 21, 1991. Incentive Schools The Biracial Advisory Committee recently completed another monitoring visit to the incentive schools. All principals will be asked to respond to concerns identified in the monitoring reports. The next monitoring visit will occur after the administration of the MAT-6 test. The Semi-Annual Monitoring Report was submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on March 1, 1991. New Interdistrict Schools The administration is continuing to work on long-range plans for two new schools in the 1-630 Corridor. Three of the sites referred to in the February update on desegregation seem to have the greatest potential for accommodating our needs. Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training program and would like to develop a partnership with the District. Presently, we have proposed two possibilities for locating a school on the Philander Smith campus, and\nhe President of Philander seems to prefer a two-story building located between 12th and 13th treats on the west side of the campus (Chester Street). The District is considering the idea of placing intermediate students (grades 4-6) at the Philander Smith site, if approved, and placing pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade at the old West Side site (14th and Marshall Streets). The placement of the younger students at the old West Side site will enhance the/ , Update on Desegregation page two proposed partnership between the District and the Arkansas Children's Hospital. program will serve both sites. Philander's teacher education training All of these ideas e still under exploration by the administration and the respective parties. The administration is also exploring the possibility of building a new school at the current site of Stephens School. The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-old students for a total of 696 students. The next few weeks will he used to develop final proposals for the new interdistrict schools. Plan Modifications Proposals for plan modifications will be shared with all of the parties. According to the December 12 order from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 11 it may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances, parties should be able to agree as to whether any such The adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. ti A considerable amount of work has been devoted to this effort. Each change, whether an addition or deletion, is highlighted for easy identification. Also, each edit page (page with changes highlighted) is accompanied by a clean copy that incorporates all of the changes, near future to review all changes. The parties will meet in the Recruitment The parent recruiters are currently involved in conducting building tours for prospective four-year-old parents. Tentative plans have been developed to conduct recruitment activities in the office complexes throughout the 1-630 Corridor. These activities will focus on recruitment to Woodruff School, the Incentive Schools, and other schools that are difficult to desegregate. The District will proceed with the development and completion of a marketing plan for the incentive schools. Recruitment plans will be shared with the respective building principals immediately after spring break.Update on Desegregation page three Romine Interdistrict School According to the settlement plan, Romine is to be converted into an Interdistrict School. Its student population will be composed of those students from the Romine attendance zones and white students recruited from PCSSD, particularly the western sector. White students returning to LRSD will also be recruited to Romine. PCSSD shall engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment of white PCSSD students to assist in the desegregation of Romine Elementary School. Romine shall have an early childhood education program. A survey has been developed to send to LRSD parents in the Romine area and PCSSD parents in the Baker School area. The Pulaski County Special School District Office of Desegregation has approved the survey. determine a specialty theme for Romine. The purpose of the survey is to The survey will be sent home by the students at both schools after spring breadc. Student Assignments Final assignment letters will be mailed to all parents on April 8 . This includes kindergarten and new students who pre- registered by March 8. Desegregation transfer applications for secondary schools will be accepted during the period of April 8-19. Summer Learning Program The Summer Learning Program provides remediation in the areas of reading and math for secondary students participating in the Summer Youth Employment Training Program. The Summer Learning Program is sponsored by the City of Little Rock's Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program. Students who need remediation attend school for half of a day and work half of a day. Planning is underway to begin this program shortly after the end of school. The Offices of Desegregation and Planning, Research and Evaluation have held several meetings with the JTPA Office to prepare for implementation. The administration is in the process of selecting a school site for the program. The program will last for six weeks.CLP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 3, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jennings: Thank you for the March 28, 1991, Update on Desegregation. There are, however, a few questions and/or concerns that I have listed, along with some additional information needed: Early Childhood Education Specify the date the four-year-old classes will be in place at Mitchell and Rightsell and the plans to recruit and notify parents of these programs. Incentive Schools The Biracial Advisory Committee reports findings at each incentive school and the principals are asked by the administration to respond in writing to those findings that need corrective action. Keep the ODM informed of the actual dates the corrections were made by each incentive school and/or the plan of action regarding the problems cited in the monitoring report. It is not enough to report deficiencies unless there is deliberate and specific followup. New Interdistrict Schools It is gratifying to know that the president of Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training program and would like to develop a partnership with the district. Has there been any written agreement that outlines a plan in which the district will have property at 12th and 13th streets to build a two-story school? Without such an agreement in place, will the district proceed in the next few weeks to develop final proposals for the interdistrict schools Philander (grades 4-6) and West Side (14th and Marshall)? at will these students primarily come from within LRSD? plans to close Ish or any other district school?  projected enrollment and timeline for completion? Where ' Are there What is theLittle Rock School District March 28, 1991 O'V'ce Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, RR 72201 Dear Ann and Arma: I have enclosed for your review a report which I am presenting to the Board on Thursday, March earlier recommendation regarding the The report grew out ' ! implementation of a of an 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation, Since the recommendation was tabled, I have continued to think about how we can best improve student learning so that the achievement of 2.0 is the norm rather than the exception. I believe a the approach contained in District blueprint for this report will provide the Board and improving our school system and consequently enhancing learning for students. I invite your comments and suggestions. Cordially, V ' A* 28 . a 0^ ^00'^'\"'^ Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools Pk 810 West Markham Street Little RocR, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 NO MORE EXCUSES: A PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools\nand second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND What students are learning in our schools is the most important issue School Board members, administrators, and teachers must consider as decisions are made about education in our community. The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, the use of school libraries, homework assignments, minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education, \"tracking,\" higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to submit a report to the School Board for its consideration by December. The administration submitted its report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 requirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. In January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received the Curriculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curriculum objectives do not exist, grading practices are inconsistent, promotion criteria are unclear, assessment is not related to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal consistency. District is performing In short, even though the Little Rock School II reasonably well\" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but most thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report ent it1ed Accelerating Academic Achievement\nA Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. \"Most of the data in this report show that our present education performance is low and not improving. II 2 . \"Research shows that student academic performance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening. II 3. \"Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... II 4. \"Homework is often minimal or non-existent.\" 25. \"Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. II 6. \"Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework.\" 7 . \"Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments.\" 8. \"Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks\nmost do not communicate effectively.\" 9. \"Students' grasp of the four basic arithmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. \"Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school.\" 11. \"Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events.\" 12. \"In recent assessments, more students appear to be gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a grasp of higher-level application of these skills. II 13. \"Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts the 14. remain unacceptably large. II \"Large proportions of students....are not enrolled in challenging mathematics and science coursework. II 315. \"Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets.\" Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from all textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarely borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read\nonly 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups about their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week - or less than 15 minutes per day. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the 8th graders and 9 percent of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1986, one quarter of the eleventh graders assessed were not enrolled in a math course and another one quarter were taking lower level math courses such as General Mathematics, Pre-algebra, or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking any type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of Only 29 percent had two homework each day. or more hours of homework each day. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report presented. Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. This appears to be the case for several reasons: (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research\n(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are not atypical of what we find locally and should give us cause for grave concern. In fact, the grade distribution, test scores. level of expectations, a large amount of \"seatwork\" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1988 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. The District has experienced significant changes in its geographic boundaries. Board governance, and administration. As was pointed out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result  as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit  is a district in which \"Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention are provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District.\" (p.l4) In my opinion, two things are necessary before we can fulfill the responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. First, Board policies must be reviewed, revised, and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) mu^ be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre of teachers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. It most certainly will require reorganization of the central office administration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. It is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. 2. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have when they leave our schools. 63. A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4 . An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. 5. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. 6. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. 7. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. 8. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. 9. An ongoing review of the District's remedial and compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. 10, The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. 11. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components to our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the \"Plan to Increase Learning for All Students. * * *  August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing 2. Reports to the Board and community regarding grade distribution and test scores for the Little Rock students. *  * *  July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing 3. Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * * * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. as a graduation reguirement. It is recommended that this year's seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 1004.12 91 09:45 0301 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0002 'ssai. Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 12, 1991 For moi I information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff, 324-2020 M Dr. Herbert H. Cleek, 51, deputy superintendent of the Little Rock School District, suffered a fatal heart attack Thursday evening, April 11, at his home, 2200 Andover Square, Little Rock. Cleek, who has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the staters largest school district since July 1989, became ill at his home at 10:30 p.m. Thursday. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful after emergency personnel were called and he was taken to St. Vincent Infirmary. Cleek is survived hy his wife, Janecia, and a son. Philip, who is a teacher at Kensett High School. Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele, who has worked with Cleek for a number of years, expressed the profound shock and loss of the school_district: 810 West Markham Street  Little Roch, Arkansas 72201  {501)374-336104 12 91 09\n46 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM @003 \"Herb Cleek was an outstanding educator and a man of exceptional integrity and ability. The progress our District has made in recent months would not have been possible without his perseverance, tenacity and intelligence. His professionalism, character and devotion to education were exemplary. \"I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with him for the past four years and to have known him for many years as a good friend and colleague for whom i had the very deepest respect and admiration,\" Dr. Steele said. \"Our hearts go out to Janecia and Philip at this time of great loss. They will be in our prayers,\" she added. Cleek was hired by the District's Board of Directors as deputy superintendent on July 13, 1989. As deputy, he served as acting superintendent in the absence of the superintendent\nconsulted daily on all aspects of the day- to-day operations of the District's 50 schools and nearly 26,000 students\ndeveloped plans, budget recommendations and policy recommendations\nand worked extensively on the implementation of the District's desegregation plan. Prior to joining the District in 1989, Cleek served as deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Education General Education Division, for two years where he was responsible for the oversight of the Department's general operations, especially budgetary matters, legislative relations and coordination with local school districts. He was the state's representative on the Interstate Migrant Education Council, a board member of the Southwest In HBH 04 12 91 09:47 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM  004 Educational Development Laboratory and a member of the Study Council of the Council of Chief state School Officers, From July 1985 to July 1987, Cleek was director of the Wilbur D. Mills Education Service Cooperative at Beebe, one of 15 regional education service agencies that assist local school districts in more effective use of educational resources. I Cleek was superintendent of the Marshall School District from July 1981 through June 1985. In 1983, the vocational agriculture program in the Marshall District was one of only 59 in the United states to receive the Gold Award of Achievement. The district was chosen as one of only 21 in the state to receive funding from the Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms Project (Project IMPAC) in 1934. Prior to being employed at Marshall, cleek was associate superintendent for supportive services in the Little Rock School District from 1978 through 1981. In that position, he was responsible for data processing, personnel, purchasing, accounting and budgeting, school food services, student transportation and school plant services, areas which required the services of approximately 800 employees under his supervision in addition to 1,200 certificated employees. A breakfast program was begun during this time for all elementary schools in the District and the school food services program was improved. Also, an extended day care program in the District's primary schools was implemented. TjSuSk'SSTTESSISSFZ^04-12 91 09:47 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM @003 From July 1977 to July 1978, cleek was an administrative services supervisor by the Arkansas Department of Education where he assisted local administrators with budget preparations and in establishing bookkeeping procedures under a new accounting system. He was superintendent at McRae from 1974 through 1977. Prior to that, he held various positions in and closely related to public education, including employment as a media specialist and math teacher from 1972 to 1974 in the England School District, He served as president of a local classroom teachers' association during this period. Prior to that, he worked as a civilian employee in federal government and four years as controller of a school equipment firm. From 1958 to 1964, he was an employee of the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Department. Cleek received his bachelor of science degree from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1962, a master of science in education degree from the university of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1976 and his doctorate in education from Vanderbilt University at Nashville, Tenn, in 1986. He was a member of the American Association of School Administrators, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Association, Arkansas and International Association of School Business Officials, Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.04/12 91 09:48 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0006 Funeral arrangements will be by North Little Rock Funeral. Home. -30-04-12 91 09:45 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501)324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT uSpedallbstructiciK Number of Feger (include cover pegs) Fox Fbone. Number. Speed Dial I FOR DATA FROCESSING OFFICE VSE ONLY Transmitted By .J)ate Time R 03/91 i . j Little Rock School District r.'- i3 . April 19, 1991 ^f B '.- 5 n r kN- To\nMs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor From: Through: Subject\nkJ- VAngela M. Sewall, Assistant Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent - Educational Programs and Staff Development A+ Arkansas and ACTION Proposal Attached you will find a copy of the Parent Involvement Project which three of our schools are undertaking in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, A+ Arkansas and ACTION. These are for your information. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 0-3 I r* j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 9, 1991 All Employees Covered by Short Term Disability Insurance Mark D. Milhollen, Controller|(j^ Chip Jones, Manager, Support Services 6 CHANGE OF CARRIER Effective May 1, 1991, the District's short term disability carrier will be Washington National. ~ change an approximate 5% rate reduction will be pu\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1159","title":"Exhibits and exhibit lists held before Judge Henry Woods","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984/1990"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits and exhibit lists held before Judge Henry Woods"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1159"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1011","title":"Exhibits and exhibit lists held before Judge Henry Woods","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984/1990"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Court records","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits and exhibit lists held before Judge Henry Woods"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1011"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_899","title":"Racial count, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Racial count, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/899"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_964","title":"'Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as it Applies to the North Little Rock School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1984"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["'Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as it Applies to the North Little Rock School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/964"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_803","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, findings, 705 F.2d 265","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1983-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Civil rights--Arkansas","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","African Americans--Segregation","African Americans--Education","African Americans--Civil rights","Civic leaders","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, findings, 705 F.2d 265"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/803"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_286","title":"Building capacities","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982/2007"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School facilities","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Building capacities"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/286"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nK / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. v. PULASKI COUNTY cite M 964 F.Supp. 326 (1964) 353 oard of i982), ry of de udgments is District ' Arkansas, /icts in the uty to elimi- ate-mandated snn V. Char- of Bdueaiion, 28 L.Ed.2d S54 if Missouri, 781 1984), at n, 10. istrict transfers, i. pattern of an- mce of all parts le county u.s the Unit, the history in'i'ica, and the Il's supervisory listricts demon- icts historically und were not tonomous, Ev- pp. 428 (D.Del, 7, The governmental actions affecting housing patterns in Pulaski County have had a significant interdistrict effect on the schools In Pulaski County, which has resulted in the great dispurity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendants districts. Swann v. Charlotte Mecklen- I J School District suit in further- to eliminate all \u0026gt;c and brunch, orders of thiis aied education r, Charlotie 'afioH, ctu^jro,' \u0026gt;\u0026gt;i, niipra. In iichievc inter- J I I fregated resi- iiur^ Soard of Edu,ealion, eupra. fi. The segregative actions taken by the two defendant districts and their failure to take desegregative actions have had a significant interdistrict effect on the achnols in Pulaski County, which has also contributed to the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendant districw. Swann v. Charlotte Mechlou burg Soard of Education, supra. [2] 9, The Pulaski County Special School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative intcrdistrict effoew: (a) failed to adhere to the requirements of the /!i)h namon decree\n(b) constructed schools in locutions which ensured that they would be racially identifiable schools\n(c) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students\n(d) refused to hire und promote bluck faculty and stuff\n(e) refused to allow deanne.xa- tion to or consolidation with the other two districts\n(f) failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximise desegregation\n(g) assigned students to special education classifications and gifted progrums on u discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals to schools with high black enrollments\n(i) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools\nand (j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. 10. The North Little Rock School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative interdistrict effects\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and couching pcBitions\n(b) concentrated whiles in schools north of Intersute 40 and blacks in schools south of It\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion Uie burdens of transportulion equally on black and white students. 11. When Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District took the purposeful acts set forth in Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10 above, they knew or should have known that they would have iiiterdistrict segregative effects, 12. The unconstitutional and racially discriminatory acta of the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts have resulted in significant und substuntiul inter- district segregation. Milliken r. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069. 13. Since there are constitutional violations with interdislrict effects, an interdis- tricl remedy is appropriuie. Milliken c. Bradley, aupra\nLiddell v. State of Missouri, supra. The remedial hearing will begin April 30, 1984. 14. The Pulaski County Board of Education and Arkansas Stute Board of Education are necessary parties who must be mado subject to the Court's remedial order. 1 I li I  J ( County have degree by the 11 bodies, act- ler, with the exKtsn I Tb\n i. ELSMrS'TAAV BCHOOLS: FACIUTIEB, SNROLLMeNTlANO I iitcrssis, and a series of ing choices. 2S4, 96 a.Ct. : Sii'onn u (I of Educa' NAME LiUk RatM 1) Rrtd)' 8) FiA Firli I) Frn?ir 0 PulltiH|ht Bl 11 MeOsritou 7) MiidftwiliK 11 Tvry LT.' H a 11 'Sll 17 'SA '4 l^il eo.s- Dl. TIOX OSAOSI CAPACITY* mt KNtl.MT * utilization BLACK exsi.MT. 4 BL IIU TCHBI,  IL, TCHBt. ADWM  I ASKsa I s 3 I 3 3 9 3 i I K-3 K-A X B X 3 K-1 ..HI 121 ITS sss ,7W Ml) 30 B40 904 94B 430 W7 430 113 ,791 94 73 77 7} 71 M 97 xi w7l -* 2M 1H0 310 309 113 UO 301 340 n 79 b: 77 44 71 73 U 71 WI ii.i a 294 144 U! 01 ^114 i.i III 11 11 i.i i.t 1.1 1.1 . u I 9 I 1 0 0 9 U 4 ^5^  .. I t *I I 354 NAME YKAU Bl.T. CfW. IN TIUN 1 t I r t i I LiUlv Hin'k 19} lil 111 Ckrvir If) Iih 19) irittMll 14) Dm IS] II) lUmiii *99 *34 *04 'W 17 11 17) VMtmKk *M UI ViHUffli III WllMl Totti: U I I 9 I I 8 I . \u0026gt;9 I I 5 f ) I 584 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT ('A MA rn\"  ITHi KNIlluMT. I^ATHJN HLtCK KNKLMT. HL r*! Tt'HIlM.  HL TrHiW.   a AD.MRX A41.MAM li 1 * a*f af t44mi ti, *1^ pi.i X 4 X-l X-0 X 0 KU X 0 XU 1-0 XU KU 800 410 400 174 \u0026gt;00 400 MO __BU ftW BOO UO 414 Ml NO 177 MB Ut 111 4M 470 . f I.7B4 7.691 S' tuhowfii________ IJBft 91 104 It lU IN IT 101 149 91 M m 9 411 117 810 m 993 4M 10 100 too lOO 71 M IS 111 17,7 M.I , 11.1 tl.l 18.4 71 11.9 94 II 1.0 10.9 171 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 9 ft 1 9 ft ( { I '* Frublel*Mrm nvi IntlurtMi In upliity teuol. NAMS YBAR BU. CON. Dl\u0026gt; flON aHAOKH CAFA. CITY ll RNRLHT. %UTIL\u0026gt; IRATION Lluh tok lau?tdliu BIwmUry ikhwli 10! BmUp 91) rhUla M) Oirlud M) aibha M) PulukiMU. U) RBibhllf 90) SUpUn* ri VMhiifwi Ttti\nMAMI WrU\u0026lt; Lhtf Hart M] AinMy III A\u0026gt;tnu W) BaivoM ni lnh. It) CmtvnO U) QhpHtv Ml lill\u0026amp;aKli. Ml UlMvaM Ml Ur/ 17) LyiHDp. Ill HmOP)l Ml H. Malibu 40) FnrhHlI] 411 41) Flit U) 1U49M 441 BMC\u0026gt;1r 44) MnatlMU TaUl? lie ri ft,741 4T 01 70% Ml M0.9 11-9 1.0 lets 1 1 It I 9  BUCK BNRLMT- HL. IIW TCIiBI.  BL TCRRi ADUM. I AOXR\u0026amp; J 'M * U *t 19 'tb 80 9 8 3 9 ft I 5 I 4U 4^0 4 4 4U 4 0 4U 4*0 Ml S49 340 173 WO UO 42fi | 471 4 M4 411 \u0026lt;91 Ml W7 M Oft 191 III M  iff n Ml M7 III 404 MB M 117 ftilM M7I 63 71 19 17 01 71  71 to 104 93.4 HO n.0 91.4 HI 114 17.4 lUO 19.1 7.0 111 191 1.0 14 94 1.1 71.0 YEAR BLT. CON. 01. TION Okadrs CAFA* CITY' UM BxnLMr. 1 UTIL. SATN- BLaCX\" EMRI.MT HL TCiiar  IL TCXM 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I adkri. I 9 I 1 ft 0 9 0  I AOM, XU x-o X I K-0 X-O KU KU KI KU KU KU KU XU KU KU X I x-o KU 170 409 9W 4M 300 300 470 100 100 400 IM  300 440 BU 4M 940 UO 4M 7.904 M EM IM MO 911 IM 494 HI Ml 349 IM 4M Ml 104 8M Mt SO 375 SAM 71 M 01 100 Tft tt 19 M U M n It M to M 41 M 13 17 71 11  07 N It 197 H IM lot 101 N 10 111 111 70 104 \u0026lt;7t IJQ7 * htimiind fnn UM llUmM4/ lANlIrniBU. U\nft| hi|hMt rw. r9UK\u0026lt;M. H 98 10 H 41 11 II 40 U 39 41 13 97 M Bl II II M 311 M.\u0026gt; 11.4 134 44.1 114 11.4 tf.t 4 114 tie n.ft ai H.e M.ft 11.4 114 HO 944 nui 40 LO 1.0 9 M U u 1.0 90 U 4.0 70 IJ U 41 1.3 44 4.4 ILO I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 0 ft ft ft 0 9 0 I ft 0 0 0 0 9 0 I 9 0 ' I . 1 I II I I 9\u0026lt;u nM Olnailjr anitabia an alMtrtartea itulMtt Alts, dlauifi d nst i1lilln|vil\u0026amp; Slaak fiwi otha? mlaaHi/ ituOlfttS la rwarti. SHlisKn aM by littr\u0026gt;eUtli| ft(n Iwa rapeni. HAMS Canity 411 ApbiM 47) Ambld Ml BMittt 41) labar 40) BOMJIfia III la/MMai* 49} Cau HI ChlMC ^1 Cttwlak-.. 43) CII.9U YEAR BLT. C05. 01. TIO.Y flRADU CSfA- CITY IMS RNRLMT.  UTIL. HATION BUCK e.sxlmT. 1 IL TCXU.  IL TCM1   I DXM. ADMU 'M NA 'll 'H H 17 74 71 I HA I I I I X I x-o X I K-\u0026lt; K-4 K.4 K.4 X I WO IM MO ftoo 400 WO OM M7 4tl 341 2M M3 OlS 000 004 111 to lot M tl7 IM lOl in III to 1U 4 03 10 14 ns H 11 u 1 41 9 9 31 14.0 lie 10.0 11.0 97.6 MO HO M.O 90 40 4.9 le 1.9 3.0 1.0 to 0 0 0 0 I 9 0 0 i It I K ri u* II 1.4 i-O 1 I CfC) 2 v .\u0026lt;v' I/ / i 1 s ! i little rock school DIST. r * R AhMRt 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 it 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 I 0 6 ADM8I. I aDmri. 'A 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 ft 0 1 9 0 ft 9 1 rnunlv \u0026gt;,) Cm ) DM, 61) Dwprn U) 61) RiFmJ II) ^MlUKVlt. 66) (an^mvk 64) Lawhr M) Mlbilviit 69) OtkftrMai 67} Ou Cnv U) OtMrCnik 61) Pin* Pork 7ft) 71) RoOIrua 7|) Smh n} IbUWMd 74) Sylvia HJi. 71) Tsyltr 76) ToltIMA 77) WiUhtld 71) Wiuea Tftuii YK.\\H Ill.T. VIIN-HI-THIS (UiAbh\n* AOMRS. s ADM. .SAM Lil\u0026lt; Baek 7ft) Dunbir ChOA\u0026lt; 584F.aupp..U8 (1964) V. PULASKI COUNTY 355 CITY KSIll MT ' UTtl. fZATins IIIaAI'K \u0026gt;:.V1(J,.MT.  HI.. IS'HRm.   H AliftlllS. AHUKS 1 16 0 0 0 9 0 ft ft 1 0 9 ft 0 ft 0 ft 1 9 0 2 1 ^ns. ina4 h/  B ADMAI 0 0 9 9 0 ft 0 0 01 *64 ll 'll ftl '56 *8t V 6ft '10 71 71 10 74 74 '30 '69 6ft '10 NA ft! '67 YEAR ALT, '20 - ftBftkKU....- 8S) IlMdmOT - ID m PyiuMHu. 64) bulhwMi Ttm\nNwh LttU Rwk W) Cintritl U) UktWMrI 17) RIdrtreU SI) iUMCty TeUl. Pu:*ikl C.-uftty M) Mil/ tl) Jkinvlt/NQ tD Jbn^iH/la Ift) MlMiViia 14) .Srt)iw\u0026gt;M4 66) RftbinkM  *6) Sylvin K!|. Tsiil! * Ml04l*Hhai I 2 I 8 I I I ft a I s 1 1I I 1 I 2 1 .SA 1 } COS. Dt-t: on 2 '64 66 11 'M NA NA NA ma -w *94 'ftft 'M M '76 '14 69 X K'6 X-6 K-6 x-i K 6 x-a X.6 K-0 K-6 X-6 X\u0026gt;6 K.| xa XI X-6 X-6 X-6 K-ft K-6 K-l Sftft na 4ft0 40ft isa KO 464 4H I.IU 77ft 490 960 .IM 609 7tft 9M 609 IM .MO ftsa lift 7IQ 600 7ftft 67ft 600 H.m SOO . .\u0026lt;^SQ 14 11 101 121 Iftft 11 91 11? U Ifta iw ifto Sift 4.6 SO 4.0 1.9 1 I 1 1 fl 0 600 754 617 UI Ml 411 au 444 la 647 477 Si4 174 7Sft 4M aw its aw 16.021 as Oft lift lift iftt ftS 71 It IM in tft 41 lift IM M U St 111 t4 lU 4 141 II II TO 91 181 *4 II 16ft 111 110 61 170 534 IJ4I 14 I M It 10 16 18 83 M 49 0 16 84 16 13 42 ft4\u0026lt; lO.Q 21.0 III SiO 8t0 no 10.9 U.9 n.9 100 11.6 ro UJ 20.0 SII lO.ft VA nt.i to 33^ exNIUT! Tih ,. JUNIOR IIION ROHOOUI Rri^iutiu, rnrollmknts, and sTArr CRaDU CAPA. CHY lira ENdLMT. I L'Tfb UTS, BUCK ENALMT. lu. 1114 XKU 7-0 8 woL,7t 2 3 2 I ,Sa Na MA NA 2 3 S 2 I ft 1 t 7-ft 7 I 7 7 I 7-1 b.ft 7.1 7-6 7 1 7 t 7-9 ft 6 7^9 7-^ F5 7Sft taa 661 TOO TOO 4J76 l.QOO U6 1J)OQ 400 1.200 747 7'fi 616 IM U7 1.000 77S 07j 1401 992 M] 6ft4 600 710 4Jr ftift ait3 4 2,411 *640 4W Ml 970 611 076 4n ft4S 9,902 U.9 w 16 W tm SI u 6ft IM la* 4ft4 ftftl ftftO 417 2.0W 71 M W tn 1 117 209 164 7.14  30 12 u Oil 67 M 64 72 M 02 99 *6 Ift? Ill 1.44 W It 14 106 1.M2 W 2ft 27 ft  U 1)W SA 4.6 IQ 6.0 6.0 4.9 40 6.0 6.0 4.0 1,0 Al 4.9 1.0 1.0 6.0 14M  IL TCKIi. 14,4 . 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1w ft 0 0 ft 0 0 9 0 1 ft 0 0 9 0 1 1 0 6 I 1I I AOMRI.  D AD.SKI. \u0026gt; S .6 14.0 wo Sift 54.0 W.ft 37.6 lU 112.0 61.6 ftSJI 92.1 ftl.O 4?.ft K.6 47ft lOt.B IH 1.0 1.B Ml tJ 4.6 6.0 7.0 27.0 SAtta-. lift l.ft 7,0 6A 7,0 6.6 6 ft U.S ft I 3 II 2 SII 7 I 1 1 I 0 9 16 1 2 28 a6 I It I t 9 I 1 6  I II , 7 - J 1  xj i /hHi .' 1 E i 356 584 FEDEKAL SUPPLEMENT I I CXKI8IT\u0026gt; I . - I Hi Tibk IQ. BRNlOilKiaHKCHUtiUi rAUUTiCS.INX0LLMSNT8,ANDSTArr XANI IT) Cittftl M) Klt 99) Fvkviiv TUl: YCAB LT. COX* Db fiox cxAnr.8 CArA\u0026gt; CITY IHQ KNRLMt *UTfT^ 8ATH. AUfX ENRbMT. 8U itu TCHM.  lU TCHM.  I AOMM. ARMU. f ll *M I I t IQ 18 ICkll 10-14 1,909 I.IRQ 1.698 4,187 1,918 l,QB4 1,8 4Jtl 101 91 110 104* I.IQQ H4 788 1.4 M SB  an I4 \u0026lt;1.4 \u0026lt;7.9 tt.O 11.6 .O 17.9 M.e I 4 4 14 8 I Worth Utti IUe9 190) HtrMiiHl Ml) Ok Hiin Tout! 198) nir 161) JukiRvla. 104) HfOtUM IQI) Ml 164) Oik Orav* 197) N. Hillki IM) KoktAMn 109) Srl\u0026gt;ia Hb. TM): TO t4 *1 'M '84 99 *93 71 '84 'M 1 I I 8 9 I 8  8 10-18 IQ-IS T-12 l^M M 18 11^11 r.it ICkM IM 10 18 1,400 1,006 3,466 un 1^ 1.494 949 971 13 ni H9 *1.911 1,OM 1,Q3 8.133 m 1,181 1.478 1,090 824 734 411 884 7379 7B H 91* tt4 199 977 r 39 33* M.B MB 134.0 194 lU tio 8 t 9 1 I 68 97 168 IM in 49 H 94 m n ai IM ,0. lU 41 u U9 1,497 It a ]\u0026gt; 4Q 14 11 14 lQ 48.4 44.4 7U6 10.6 436 94.0 91.0 436 8W.0 16.4 86 11-0 11.6 3.6 4.6 76 79 Mi 6 3 1 6 I I 8 I I 21 6 I1 11 ( I Rollin FROST. Plaintiff, V, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 83-1169. f i United States District Court, D. Hawaii. I April IS, 1984. I ( I I I I Secliun 1983 action was brought against city and county and others to recover damages arising out of alleged boating of plaintiff by police officers. On defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state claim and un ground that complaint was vague and conelusory, the District Court, Fong, J., hold that\n(1) fact that recourse tu state tort remedies was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation sufficiently serious to shock the conscience and officers willful and deliberate abuse of state authority, in manner which could not be characterised as random, and (2) construing complaint liberally, it was not so vague and conelusory as to warrant dismissal, particularly at early stage of proceedings and In view of fact that some defendants were os yet unidentified. Motion denied. I I. Consiitutiunal Law \u0026lt;*252.5 Ideiitifkatiun of specific requiremenU c\u0026gt;f due process requires consideration of, among other factors, nature of the affected interest, and implicit In that principle is recoKniiiun that some Interests, by their very nature, require more procedural pro-tGctioriR than others. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. Const. I 2. Civil Rights *^13.9 Fact that recourse to state tort reme-dins was available to person who was allegedly bcaton by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation suffi-i i .Ji V    ' lJ? 1 I SCHOOL 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Central Fair Hall MoClellan Parkview 2112 995 1397 1259 1150 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2050 936 1220 1200 991/846 Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest 657 792 843 990 669 975 774 807 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 812 780 960 600 935 700 754 Badgett Bale Ba.seline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff King 303 397 492 720 440 475 634 394 422 346 440 467 535 397 235 348 256 488 558 483 465 326 374 378 328 414 510 306 515 472 305 492 328 530 418 268 374 278 394 417 660 420 472 563 420 424 351 461 447 607 320 235 351 220 490 541 531 465 280 383 328 280 320 467 260 537 472 Closed 472 328 515 409 245 Closed 258 397 417 656 480 613 543 422 403 359 436 463 612 320/316 237 351 180 473 564 559 454 280/273 383 328 234/240 484 260 537 472 840 472 328 515 504 209\n0/297 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 351/332 200 513 562 562 481 280/273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209 SUPPORT SERVICSS The function of the Division of Support Services shall be to 1 a\n5'$- rovice all of positive arrangements and services necessary to the promotion school climate, an environment of learning, quate supplies and equipment in each build ilities A District is committed to and making al magnets, this e.n and adeing and classroom. providing clean, safe facilities repairs fundamental to academies, ma itain incentive schools. and secondary schools in good condition. , roofing repairs, painting, plastering. other needed repairs will be made. drives will be in good repair. New public address systems buildings where such items correctly. To recarpeting, and Concrete walks and macadam and bell systems will be placed in are not adequate or not functioning Any school which . has portable .these portables replaced buildings will have with new units or repaired such that they will be in a .condition suitable to housing a class and pro- vide a positive environment for The capacities light of needed as necessary. learning. of Junior high schools will be reviewed in programs. Such capacities will then be If upon review. Junior high capacity exists in the Distr needs of the District revised it is determined that inadequate or to meet programmatic and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate will begin for the Appropriate site will be located and planning construction of parties. including a new Junior high school. curriculum specialists and 174 01689associate superintendents, will be involved in the planning process. Construction of this junior high school will be completed on timeline comparable to that followed for other newly a constructed Dlstrict/magnet schools and in a manner commensurate with building needs. The Purchasing Department will work with staff and principals in all schools to provide all necessary materials and equipment basis to school goal achievement. Dara Processing The Data Processing Department will provide the necessary support for all school and central office-based functions. Programs will be developed and implemented relative to the following areas: Dropout Statistics (to include the ability to generate data I** by race, gender, grade and on -districtwide basis). a school by school as well as Scores (to include the CRTM and MAT-6 with capacity to score the tests and to generate data by school, subject area, and districtwide). race, gender, grade, Attendance (shall be kept in such a way as to allow data to be gathered for any period of time. for withdrawals and reenrollment , for students by grade. school. race. gender. and districtwide) . Disciplinary Data (by offense, ject, race, gender, districtwide and school, teacher, class, sub- over any period of time). 175 01690TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBDECT: cc: October 15, 1987 Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation Dr. George Cannon, Interim Superintenden Enrollment Report - October 1, 1987 Executive StaffTOTAL ENROLLMENT Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Metropolitan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT REPORT October 1, 1987 enrollment 26,853 2108 882 1448 1278 833 15 6566 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 X BLACK 61 57 48 50 38 55 80 51 63 68 62 60 50 53 63 66 61Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jef ferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadoucliff Mi tchel1 Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total 230 337 448 423 642 408 338 315 426 403 503 323 235 214 462 263 546 471 443 256 325 340 246 283 484 218 481 467 214 431 314 407 223 12,383 72 70 71 65 57 64 61 63 53 72 57 85 66 81 56 81 53 56 65 86 60 75 77 87 71 30 57 62 33 63 61 71 76 67 Elementary Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Will lams Total 638 362 265 436 1 .753 51 43 43 50 50 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,148 85 Special Schools I 0Mc! uml cwnuuLntii i ot B = Black W .= White 0 - Others October 1, 1935 1.  School Year\n1986-87 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL Unaraded B j 0 T . .W GRADE 7 I I. B 0 ^DJ__8 W B 0 il GRADE ' 9 W B 0 Sub-Total W B 0 I Sub j, iTot.., iSI BI.- Kindergarten ___ W  B  O'  W GRAND 8 TOTAL 0 Total JBl. ! Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson 2 5 0 47 36 87 121 187 135 1 1 3 53 38 94 125 198 157 1 0 4 68 53 100 119 175 177 1 3 4 168 127 283 365 560 474 3 4 11 536 691 768 68 81 62 168 127 283 365 560 474 3 4 11 536 691 768 Mann  66 279 6 62 253 6 59 232 2 187 764 14 965 79 187 764 14 965 Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL 2 5 0 89 54 379 136 181 1039 0 3 14 77 65 389 168 159 1060 3 5 19 106 140 3 272 .444 6 722 61 272 444 6 722 55 144 2 174 484 10 668 174 I 484 10 668 441 987 15 1211 3091 48 4350 71 1211 3091 48 4350 2. 1 62 79 61 72 I 71 I 1 t T ! i I I \u0026gt; I I + i I I i i I I ,1OCTOBER 1, 1986 B = Black  H = White ' 0 - Others School Year: 1986-fi7 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE SPECIAl SCHOOLS* SCHOOL Easter Seal Francis Allen Fullerton uacKson county Learning Center Pathfinder LniiQ^stuoy tenter 3rd Tlocr Dav Treattont Proo Frankie Dennie - United C. Palsv TOTAL *Handicapped Schoo 5. Ungraded I GR.ADE 8__ 'J I g i 0 GRADE 9 . I B 0 GRADE n w B 0 OK 1 1 I  Sub-iotal W B 0 Sub IXBl. wb K Kindergarten W B ' \u0026amp; w GRAND TOTAl B U lOtai  Bl.'i -/ith Kl 1 2 1 2 I I I 1 2 1 2 5 0 I 1 5 0 2 1 2  66 122 jna M 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1  0 I i i 6. 66 I 100 J i 100\ni I I T i i I T I I I iB = Black W .= White 0 - Others School Year: 1986-87 SCHOOL Unqraded W B 0 ? I GRADE to' W B 0 Central Hall Parkview Metropolitan 3 12 5 297 209 51 530 211 13 2. i TOTAL 3. 15 5 522 I111Z2 12 GRADE 11 W 277 195 99 521 S~1 0 325 231 12 1 4 19 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE OCTOBER 1, .1996. HIGH SCHOOLS ti GRADE 12 T Sub-Total W B 0 W B 0 Sub Tot.. IB1 Kindergarten w   B'  0 U B 0 Total %B1. 248 IlL 101 500 326 130 244 700 3. 82? 555 291 3 118.1 595 JSl 16 34 3. 5. 0 2037 1159 1050 19 15 1121 2543 51 4265 jsa 51 72 84 60 7 30 2 14 (,7  0 0  822 578 298 3 IZfil 1232 521 755 16 2fi,ia 34 9 8 0 51 I i T ! t 2088 1184 1071 19 4362 59 21 84 60 I I I I J I I i I I I I I I 1 I IACTUAL EHROLLMEHT BY RACE OCTOBER 1, 1986 ' , B = Black W = White .0 - Others School Year: 1986-87 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS SCHOOL ~l Upgraded GRADE A 3. 0 Ji R 0 GRADE Ji L. 5 0 I GRADE Ji 5. 6 0 Booker 4 28 2 -n 21 2 52 202 2 7? 22 2- Franklin Garland 2 11 1 26 12 Gibbs 2 Sub-Total A 0 Sub Tot.. erqarten  0 GRAND TOTAL R 21 Total 5B1. Pulaski Heights Rockefeller Stephens Washington Total 12 39 -.1 31 2 17 29 207 TOTAL 55 25 86 90 22 71 56 644 I I T 2 2 5 1 1 0 0 8 22 12 0 34 7 30 12 201 21 81 95 21 61 54 667 6 2 0 1 1 0 2 15 32 15 2 27 2 20 13 184 T 215 292 2 512 52 215 297 2 SIQ 57 22 81 82 97 52 58 60 605 4 0 1 1 1 0 11 102 58 4 92 12 67 54 604 255 242 255 282 252 190 170 1955 12 2 0 3 2 1 2 35 369 212 259 377 222 258 226 2594 52 79 98 75 22 74 75 75 2 5 0 3 2 0 0 8 e,7 60 49 10 125 48 45 399 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 105 58 4 95 317 308 304 292 14 383 67 54 612 238 215 2354 22 2 2 2 2 1 2 35 i T 434 374 308 390 400 306 271 1 82 99 75 96 78 79 i J 2002 I J i I I ! i iOCTOBER 1, 1986 UI KHLt ELEMENTARY I I W - White B = Black 0 = Other Ungraded W School Year: 1986-87 Grade 1 W Grade 2 W SCHOOL B 0 B 0 B O-'- Bale 2 12 17 60 1 Carver 0 1 45 67 1 1 Ish 0 8 0 0 0 80 0 69 1 Ki ng 6 0 37 80 2 5 0 63 1 Mi tchel1 1 73 0 Rightsei 1 1 JI 60 79 0 JI Romine 12 61 69 13 Western Hills  83 26 32 Wi11i ams 33 0. 24 39 36 . Wilson 32 0 39 47 2 2 22 54 1 0  .T0TAL-4.x 20 0 136 609 5. 117 . '546 3 Grade 3 W B 0 6 1 0 37 0 66 50 2 49 0 44 0 48 11 52 0. 0 2 1 21 34 2. 29 1 35 16  44 3 0 91 454 9 Grade 4 W B 0 14 41 0 0 2 1 59 0 57 0 59 2 0 49 0 51 9 65 20 25 (1. 31 36 13 41 89 483 2 0 5 Grade 5 W B 0 11 46 0 0 52 0 0 2 1 1 13 21 28 9 86 51 0 44 4 49 39 61 20 40  41 443 JI J2_  1 1 1 7 Grade 6 W B 0 14 34- 1 0 0 \"S' SUB-TOT. W B 0 Sub \u0026gt;Total %BL. 71 275 Kindergar. W B 0 12 w GRAND TOTAL  B 0 Total- 0'0] Ll 57 0 45 0 43 0 3 3 349 79 62 83 1 0 41 0 9 24 38 17 JI 2 38 1 56 1 27 37 47 108 425 2 152 0. 2 1 5 00 109 381 _____0 317 0 338 11 316 316 386 151 JI 2. 3. 2. 226  g-  274 4 529 2980 34 0 5 337 384- 318 371 jiia. 320 456 202 \"435 387 , :3643. 99 71 3 8 428 79 1 0 452 100 QQ 25 20. 52 ' 71 82 43 2 0 455 99 0 0 16 20 10 0 360 37 3 375 46 n. 2 362 50 80 21 40 63 450 2 0 14 362 415 361 99 90 JI 1 a 0. 9 366 83 2. 22a QQ 172 200 119 692 466 4 2S2 21 172 2. 316. 50 226 a 432 22. 314 4 437 I 7? 3430 . 43 4165 82ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE  . B Black W = White 0 - Others OCTOBER 1, 198 6 School Year: 1986-87 PRIMARY SCHOOLS SCHOOL __Ungraded T GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 Sub-Total Brady Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowcliff Terry Woodruff Total w 0 2 4 1 0 w B 0 W B 0 w 1 0 0 Sub Tot,. i%i\nbi.- Kindergarten O' GRAND B TOTAL 0 Total SBK J2. 2 21 19 a. 2 2 o-. ?3 18 35 12 21 31 38 55 24 316 3\u0026amp;. 8? 78 212 21 114 94 127 71 854 T I 2 2 1 j2 1 0 3 1 0 2 25. IB .34 19 55 27 29 36 13 143 -8S. BO 67 85 21 87 83 79 56 2 2 2 0 2 3. 2. 0. 3 I  640 Ho 22 2 7B 11 42 25 21 32. 14 1212 M 54. 22 56 22 22. 22 53 626 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 0 4 SA \u0026gt;,Z 94 51 175 83 Ifll 133 51 784 254 195 221 297 179 296 249 295 180 2139 i 2 2 0 Z. 6 2 1 2 21 309 7X1 290 348 .3B6 222 356 429 7.34 2944 8? 21 21 2 280 1 78 22 67 22 50. 22 70. 69 22. 22 12 53 22 71 45 22 61 12. 357 47 18 55. 4 26 77 31 21 244 1 2 0 0 1 1 JQ. 2 2 54 212. 87 222 128 139 194 68 I 1141 242 212 222 183 322 271 326 214 2383 1 4 2 2 7 1 1 2 22 232. 36.3 420 . 431 457- T 417 521 ! .3.667 58 79 42 7n 22 22 25. !67 I T i I I I i I -II I /o/^/Yo K LRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools [5] Grades 10-12 M-cl E........ Ha J A Fair Scm Stu..ar. SiH Barnho'jse s 1500 Park. 72202 376 475! 5201 Oov.d O Dodd. 72210 - 2 'I*:* '^:/^^05_661.9000 6609 . __ McCIe,^r, Rudoloh Ho.j\nd\n~^l7 G\nyer Spcr?^. 7fM9~y^rO3T7 PorK-r.e.v r.ne Arts Mcgr.ef  Jgn.oos Bobbs  2501 iarrow. 722'0^721 72204 . 225-6440 2 Vocational-Technical Center [1] Grades 10-12 Me'ropoliton - Dr. Doyle DiHohu7ty.' 7701ScottHc cmil  565-3465 Junloj^ High Schools [8] Grades 7-9 Clov^^ - Dexier Boorh - 6300 Hink Our,bar - Menon L :son Rd., 72209 - 565-3426 ecey - 1100 Wnght Ave.?~72206 - 375-5574 IP- /2:^J^_2=-2L:^s^:^^verjreen2^T5'^'^^^ Henderson - Brody Grodberry - 401 Barro ^c^^v al^Clein^ctts - 'TosTT'MJb^ Ivale W,. l^d.. 72205 - 225-3358 _____ _ PO Box 187. Mohelvole. 72103 - 455-2413 k^22jl^53-et_-_0_y\nctor Anderson I_____ Pulaski Heights - 0.-. J im  1000 . Roosevelt Rd., 72206 - 372-3123 Holey - 401 N. Pine, 72205 - 664.7073--------------------------- So_utl^Gaj Metoughlin - 330 1 j^nh 72204 . 565-4417 Elementory Schools [37] Grodes K-6 Badgett - Mary Golston Sale  Levonni - 6900 Peecn Rood. 72206 - 490-1582 _____ . Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd. 72204 - 565-6621 Bosetine - Anno Tatu .____ Booker Arts Mpgnet - William Fin - 3623 Baseline Rd.. 72209 - 565-5589 n f  2016 Borber. 72206 - 376-3319 Brody - Helen Thomos - 7915 W. Morkhom, 72205 - 225-1817 Corver - Otis Preslor - 1 11 QQ Chir.-^t Rd., __ Box 405. Mcbelvole. 72103 - 568-2554 Cloverdale - Joequgline Dedm7 Pocid  Robert Nelson n - 6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-0986 -- ----------' 4423 Stogeeoqch Rd., 72204 - 45573110 __c2r_Pork - Catherine Gill - 616 N. Horrison, 72205 - 666-0359~ Forest Pork  Virginio Ashley - 1600 N. Tyler, 722^ I Fronklin - .Connie Aston -\n^'bright - Mcz Hufrmiicn  666-5415 1701 s. Horrison, 72204 - 666-0343 - 300 Pleoscnt Volley Dr., 72212 - 224-2350 i ! T I I I I T I I IT I 'I I I TX i T 278 221 ! 417 J_A_ j 420 r472 I I I  4. T T49 1 83 261 1133 -244 421 2ii ( nz 440 i 8 I i I 4 I TI I i I T T I I 1 232 i 64 I 394 I 6c.  365 ' n p85 I 261 ' i Bry I ! 448 I 98 . 46 ? ! 420 i pgfl I 424 j 351 2i 1 aza I (97 413  /tl- I 151 Kin. Je'ferson _377._^Fieryl A Simmons - 3615 W. 25th 72204 - Springs - Eleanor Co Gibbs Magnet - Doi j 451 I in I (5 7 1 550 ! 513 ! 25 ' 3(3 I 59?. ' 512^ I ^10 i 537,  538  OS IX Oevis  5240 Mobelvole Pike, 666-9436 72209 - 565-0184  1115 W. 16th. 72202 - 372-0251 Ish - Michoel Oli^77]ooTT^^k~2?76 - 376-362'7 _Morgarel Gremillion 2600 N. MeKin!ey.~72207 - 663-9472 Bo^b^e Goodwin__4800 W _ 26^ ^0^7^6'^6397 ! J.9 5~ i S7Z_ i ! 320 I 298 I 5 235 i in i /eV 303  ___ _517. 98' X 220 I I 211 I 1 ' 218 '  Mabelv_ale_. Oorothy__Fau_ikne^_ ^9 B07, Mobelvole. 72103 -'455-2227 490 \"^*^7\nA I T I SfZ I 541 I ISO I 3 37 I_____ l^cJOermof^^nn^^ore - 1200 Re\" r _Meodowc^ff _._Jer^7^ Dr'~'-.La7.6, I _'^\"chell - Donita_ Hy^s^eth^- 24 l_0 Satte'ry, '722O6'~375-6977 Otter Creek - Pot Price - Id'oOO 6tet~c7 servoir Rd.. 72207 - 225-6568 72209 . 565-0324 t aI Elementary Schools - {continud reek on back) y. 72209 . 55-3320 I T 4 531 I 2L2. ' 3-2\u0026lt;j 465 i m ' lie l?76 i ! 383 II 5^ I I 5. I I 221 7 I LRSD School Checklist jElemenfary Schooll [37] Grades K-6 (continued) Pulai!\u0026lt;i Heights  Eddie McCoy  19 N. Pme. 72205  663-9469 Rightseii  Kay Loss  911 W. 19th, 72206  374-7448 Rockefeller - Anne Mangon - 700 E. 17th. 72206  374-1226 Romine  Lionel Word  340b~Romine Rd., 72204 - 22S-8833 Stephens  Ston Strauss  3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mora Lynn Dr., 72211  225-1215 Wakefield - Lloyd Slock - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W. 27th, 72206 - 375-8275 Watson - Dr. Diana doze - 7000 Volley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Western Hills - Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jackson - 7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson - Reine Price  4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 Woodruff - Karen Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 3^ ._L55 j. 230-^25a\n320  291  I Uio._Q5O_i I s: o -7 I 2?4 I Ig.tai s *260 spaces left open for white students. I -, il._. 1 n 9 7472 pll ' a.7 (^lt\n6lQ0\n340  I M2 ! 2\u0026amp;a- 3* 2^3 'c _5Ks 323 ! , /W I I S3 / I _______________ 409 i W7 I 178 J3S 245 I (It I /IV I\n13 563. my i I I t I I j. I I T I T ! I I i T -x I i T T I T I i I i T I I I I T T I 1 I 9 + I I I TSCHOOL ^3//~ BLACK WHITE OTHER (/37 -y/3 /779 \u0026lt;90? CAP /3)^G ?// MIN Z BIX -77=7~ ^30 .373^ /979-70 CURR  BIX MAX Z Bm ' O/D 77\u0026lt;9 /C35 \\oo ee\u0026gt; 70C .^Ooo 3Z). co 333/(5 -^:,3/\u0026gt;t33- /^/)pe737:\u0026gt; 5/0/ /()7~ 3 ^777'.' -/(^y 933 ^67 ^/9 3-73 /?3 3i3O //3^ tiliC) 9\u0026lt;^O y// 7^C\u0026gt; y^c\u0026gt; /oO 3^0 /ovc 77.^^ 7^o^7 /T^tc /7(i(. ez\u0026gt;r /33i^l\u0026gt;Z\u0026gt; 3//^ 72\u0026gt;f/3^ (9/3CO-Z //t/Zi ^99 6-5C\u0026gt; 37^ 3^3 /\u0026lt;^S\" ^^3 33^ 3\u0026gt;/^ /T'C 33 7 /9O K /V9 3/3 /oc 97 /75 /3 /67 /3C\u0026gt; 377 ~73\u0026lt;7\u0026gt; 397 (^/3 393 3~i7C\u0026gt; ^90 3^0 -7/7 33C 4- 39. ^C.cC -39.30 37^ ,^o7 33\u0026lt;9 3/C3 3/\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; 3\u0026gt;l 3-V3 33^ ^9^7) ^'GCO 3/(95 70/2 9\u0026gt;599 ^9.7? ^^.ct\u0026gt; 3^. OO y/cC '7/00 y/oo 7/cC) 'f^/CC ^7.7/ 333(9 7^./-:3 '/iS.\u0026lt;i\u0026gt;'/ \u0026lt;^/. /=2\u0026gt; 73-^^ //.73 70.^9 9-S-co ^70/ (9^.37, y/.co '//OC .oc\u0026gt; -36.^6 7i^.s6 3^^.oo y37) 7C. II I Senior n LRSD School Checklist High Schools [S] Gracies 10-12 Central E.i-ri-n Hqa. J Pair Sem Sip..art Holl Bill Barnhouse ( IS 1500 Park_^72202 376 4751 t 5201 Oovid O^Dodd, 72210 - 2 ' P2205 - 661-9000 E 6609 McClellan^ Ruciolph Ho/a\ndJ94 I 7_ Geyer Spr,n~gs. 72209~56T03U Porxv.e.v F.ne Aris Magnet  J^njops Bobbs  250 f Sorrow, 7?20?~22 I T . 72204 . 225-6440 -r I T i I T Vocotioncl-Technicol Center [1] Grades 10-12 Metropoliton - Dr. Doyle DdlohLnty - /J^fScott'HomiltbATiib^Tf^^ I I r _ *^'9^ Schools [8] Grades T-3 -------Dexter Booth - 6~300'Hjnfeson Rd..\"7'2~2b9 -365-54^26 Dunbar  Monon Lccey -1100 Wright A* ve., 72206  375-5574\n-------/ores^e2gl^s_.2ome^S. ^_|vergreen, 722T5~W3:339T --------Hend.erson - ^rody Grodberry - 401 Borrow Rd., 72205 - Watts . 10811 'Mob^I? w7 PO Box 187, Mobelvole, 72103 - 455-2413 225-3358 J_____I A j i I T I J___ I T t --------2n Magn2_- jf- V'Ctor Anderson - 1000~T Roosevelt Rd TwiZ Heights - On Jim Holey - 401 N, Pine, Southwest - Goll McLaughlin 72205 - 664-7073 - 372-3123  3301  Bryonh 72204 - 565-4416 I t T Elementory Sthoois [37] Grodes K-6 Badgett - Mary Golsto. Bole - Levonno Wilson n - 6900 Pecon Rood, 72206 - 490-1582 Boseline - Anno Totum . 3623 Baseline - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204 - 565-6621 278 ._____8col\u0026lt;er Arts Mcgnet - Wiiliom - 2016 B^ Rd., 72209 - 565-5589 h I Brody . Helen Th Carver er, 72206 - 376-3319 lomos - 7915 Morkhom. 722ns . 225-1815 Chicot - Otis Preslor  IHOQ Chicot Rd. PQ Box 405, Mobelvole, 72103 - 568-2554 ^erdo2_Jocquol2e_Dedm\n?77500 Hinkson Rd.. 72209 - SAS-nOR/ Do^_-_R obert Nelson - 6423 Soge:G^Ta7 72704-------- Poir Pork - Colherine Gill - 616 N. H Forest Pork - Virgmio franklin - Connie Aston - - 455-3110 arrison, 72205 - 666-0359 Ashley - 1600 (M. Tyler, 72207 - 666-5475 1701 S, Horrison, 72204 . 666-0343 ------------------------ 300 Pleosont Volley Dr., 72212 - 224-'73?n G3r^d_D^her2A^2tnmons - 3615 W. 25th 72204 . .n6A.9a\u0026lt;r~ Puibright - Mac Huhmcn Geyer Springs - Eleanor Cox Gibbs Mognet - Donng Dcyis IX - 5240 Mobelvole Pike, 72209 - 565-0184 Ish - Michoel Oliver ____j^g'^grson - Morgoret Gremillion  1115 W. 16th, 72202 - 372-0251 2 3001 5. Pulaski 2206 - 376-3629 I 417 __X 149 83 261 jl33' 244 ,421 I I 394 i 65- I ' 365 ' 67 '~420 j 2ti r 113 ! 472 I 440 I 8\n563 I 285 i 261 ! I i 1.420 i 248 t 424 i51 461 2l 1 ItT. ! m i I5( 413 i (8 7 550 ! 513 ! 25 T I i 777 I sj-7. T 448 I 98 2-5-46 5?- 413 _59 I 3/? I 5\u0026lt;72. ' 3(3 ' SlZ I hlc : S37. 607 I 75 7 i n:,\" j ! 320 ! 298  5 ' 235 i /i7 I MV I A I I  538 : Q5' 303 ' 9B s^l AJA I -220 I 211 ! 490  i in 7 218  97 - 2600 N, McKinley, 72207 - 663-9472 ( ..5'.'^.5\n,So_b2ge_Go^wm_^_4800_W. 26th, 72204~ j Mobelvale_Dorothy_F_au2kne^_ 940 l~7\nb\nf\nj7^Q^----------------- I. _207, Mobelvole. 72103  455-2227 \" 1--^'5Dermot^_^yn\n^^e-2^0 TeT^rU^\nRd~ 72207 2757^ I _Me_adowc^ff_._j^\\y^ns_2_5 Sherron 5r.. 7270?-565-0371 I _Mitchell - Donito Hu_dspefh_. 2410 Botte'ry. 72206~375.693 1------  Otter Creek - Pot Price - 16000 dtiel'cTelk Bobbie Goodwin 663-6397 A I T I S-fZ orrn lools - (confinutd on back) y. 72209 - 455.3320 541 I 35'0 I I SiZ 531 j _______I 465 j 2/7\n/5 4 -----------LJAV275 ! ! 383 j Isy TiT: -^'3 ^37\nI I I  231 IkI LRSD School Checklist JEIementory SchooU [37] Grodet K-6 (continued) [ Fuloiiki Hfighrs - Eddie Z^AcCoy  319 N. Pme, 77705 - 665-9469 Ri9huerr~l\u0026lt;^^  W. 19th. 72206  374^7448___ J Rockefeller - Anne Mongan - 700 E. 17th, 72206 - 374-1226 [ Romme  Lionel Word - 3400 Romine Rd., 72204  225-8833 Stephens - Stan Strauss - 3700 W. 18th, 72204  663-8374 J Terry - Nancy Volsen  10800 Mora Lynn Dr., 7221 1 - 225-1215 [ W^efield - Lloyd Block - 75 Westminster, 72209  568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W. 27th, 72206  375-8275 Worsen - Dr. Diana Gloze - 7000 Volley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 I Western Hills  Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 J Wilson - Reine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 I Woodruff - Karen Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 S' tJ. 323 .47  ZaQ,^25Q__ 21. ' 320...U51.J__:7 4qn i I 5 J 'c* Totals *260 spaces left open for white students. T -ShO-U-SO-L 537 'ar4 iU 2- ' r472T'^^\\ ! 6l00\n340  3* M2 i 2\u0026amp;\u0026amp;. 195 1 328 1 /4V sir. Vi/ sijy. 343 ____ 54^ 409 1 I 178 ! 275 245 I Mt I Ziv I I 13563 ! no^ i I T I T I I T t I I I T I u i I t 4 I I T _l I T I I I T + I T I i _l_ I + X. + I T I iTO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: cc: October 20, 1988 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation Dr. George Cannon, Superintendent of Schools Enrollment Report - October 3, 1988 Executive StaffTOTAL ENROLLMENT Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Frankl in Ful bright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jefferson Ki ng ENROLLMENT REPORT October 3, 1988 ENROLLMENT 26,543 2,070 920 1 ,268 1 ,191 847 6,296 712 741 770 954 581 882 694 734 6,068 279 414 400 447 560 446 414 341 423 442 598 299 239 197 488 94 BLACK 16,753 1,185 466 635 615 493 3,394 424 600 492 614 325 516 429 512 3,912 202 297 292 278 363 281 270 247 251 414 327 276 157 178 272 88 NONBLACK 9,790 885 454 633 576 354 2,902 288 141 278 340 256 366 265 222 2,156 77 117 108 169 197 165 144 94 172 28 271 23 82 19 216 6 % BLACK 63 57 51 50 52 58 54 60 81 64 64 56 59 62 70 64 72 72 73 64 65 63 66 72 59 74 55 92 66 90 56 94ENROLLMENT BLACK NONBLACK V /o BLACK Elementary Schools (Cont.) Mabelvale McDermott MeadowcTfff Mi tchel1 Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 586 506 456 261 361 326 241 300 472 233 522 501 465 332 412 221 373 298 312 220 207 226 196 255 360 227 307 316 297 213 289 163 213 208 144 41 154 100 45 45 112 6 215 185 168 119 123 58 63 59 69 84 58 70 81 85 76 97 59 63 65 64 70 74 TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 12,276 8,452 3,824 68 Elementary Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams 647 446 335 475 355 222 172 246 292 224 163 229 55 50 51 52 TOTAL ELEMENTARY MAGNETS 1 ,903 995 908 52 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,179 9,447 4,732 66SCHOOL \u0026lt;7^(70 e/c( 5/ ^^^53 7/i/c/^f// - /^(/'^.^ BLACK ^93 /\u0026gt;^////A'n3 7^a0fiOf~7 7^(i3fl)./ ^b/9 b^(f/f9o ^fi7s\u0026lt;s0) ^/7 733 7/7 797 33^ 7C3 -77(^ 73^9 303 I 1 4- I  t WHITE /.^3 /^/ /\u0026lt;i/ 7^ /(7\u0026gt; z^y ^g7 /'/7 ?\u0026gt;/a9 I I + OTHER -\u0026gt;/36 ^oS ^// -7/\u0026amp; -79^ /Z=2\u0026gt; 7333 -3'/C\u0026gt; 373 /(fi / -75Q ^,3'// '! I 1 MAX CAP 3^^ ^73 ^97 .3^7 3^3^ ~73V jV^\u0026gt; ^/3 ^o9 ^37 -333 -773^ 773\u0026gt;- c79^,7^^ I I 1 MIN Z BIX 39.3b 39.3b 39.3b 37.3b 39. 39.3b CURB Z BIX ^^./^\u0026gt; 7^-73 /^3. 75 ^7^0 39.3b 39.30 3730 3930 37.30 (T^.S'Y 77. 77 (/.^ 9\u0026lt;(. .-/?( ^7.77 77^/^ 37 39.0/ 357/ 97.^^ 73./9 73.33 1 i I... MAX Z BIX 7(7.37) 77.33) 77^3 77.^3 77.33 77.^3 7733 77.30 77.3(0 77.30 77.3b .^. oo 77.3(0 77.3b 77.3b 77. ^b 77. Sb 77.30 77.3b 7750 77.3(0 I IGRADE WHITE K 629 1 653 2 697 3 675 4 691 5 612 6 579 Ungr. 43 Total Elem: 4579 7 641 8 617 9 680 Ungr. 13 Total Jr: 1951 10 777 11 810 12 854 Ungr. 20 Total Sr: 2461 Total: 8991 Spec. Sch: 39 Grand Total: 9030 SUMMARY OF OCTOBEI^ 2, 1989 ENROLLMENT BLACK OIHER\u0026gt;\u0026gt; TOTAL XBLACK 1264 1450 1334 1407 1356 1302 1286 90 9489 1325 1422 1159 31 3937 1229 1104 916 15 3264 16,690 27 16,717 16 19 18 21 18 17 18 0 127 25 35 30 0 90 27 23 27 0 77 294 1 295 -'SUIMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"CTHER CATEGORY: 1909 2122 2049 2103 2065 1931 1883 133 14,195 1991 2074 1869 44 5978 2033 1937 1797 35 5802 25,975 67 26,042 Spanish Asian/Pac. Is. 66 68 65 67 66 67 68 68 67 67 69 62 70 66 60 57 51 43 56 64 40 64 76 186 Eskimo/Amer. Indian 32 Other 11 ( LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'lKICf October 2, 1989 I 1 i 1 .1 I 4 I  '4 J 1 3 ( I I I J  \u0026lt; ! J J I 1 1 I niack - B Miilc \" W Other - 0 SaiCOL/CRADE CENTRAL Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FAIR Ungraded 10 .11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total HALL Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MCCELLAN Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Mini-\nDUCK on II31 lOl'Al. DL\u0026gt;\\CK 200 270 250 720 0 720 13 145 119 120 397 3 400 1 169 154 221 551 16 567 141 145 153 439 3 442 396 343 321 1060 50 1110 7 211  156 133 507 10 517 8 213 245 163 629 3 632 271 207 156 634 13 647 8 12 13 33 0 33 0 3 1 3 7 0 7 0 4 2 6 12 1 13 2 2 4 8 , 0 8 604 66% 625 55% 584 55% 1813 50 1863 20 359 276 256 911 13 924 15 386 401 390 1192 20 1212 414 354 313 1081 16 1097 58% 100% 60% 35% 59% 57% 52% 56% 77% 56% 53% 55%  ' 61% 53% 15% 52% 65% 58% 507. 59% 81% 59%V I I ' J V', LITTLE ROCK SO IDOL DISTKICT I J I \u0026gt; s I . i ! j I 3 1'1 J .1 .1 d 1 I October 2, 1989 Black - n Miitc  W Ollier 0 i-MKoi.iMia'fr- SaiOOL/CRADE PARKVIEW Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Uiigradcil 10 .11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MUTE BLACK tniiEii lOIAL i: DLACK 122 122 110 354 5 359 138 153 143 434 14 448 10 270 51% 6 1 17 1 18 281 54% 254 805 20 825 56% 54% 70% 54% 1 II I I i I 1 I I ! 1  ( -I ( 1 J I ( 4 t a 1 hlnck - n Mil ic Other W 0 SaiOOL/CR/VDE (/^CLOVERDALE Ungraded 1 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total DUNBAR Ungraded 1 8 3 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FOREST HEIGHTS Ungraded 7' 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total HENDERSON Ungraded 7 . 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WllTE 58 93 100 251 251 49 35 36 120 120 3 78. 83 84 254 254 73 91 92 256 256 l.nTLE ROCK SaiCOL DISnUICT October 2, 1989 BLACK fZIllEU lOI'Al. 1. BLACK 126 218 126 470 128 ,154 172 454 454 12 175 197 154 538 538 247 240 193 680 680 5 3 2 10 10 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 8 5 16 16 6 7 1 20 20 . 189 314 228 731 731 177 191 208 576 576 15 256 294 243 808 808 326 338 292 956 956 69X 55% 64% 64X in. 81% 83% 137. 137. 80% 68% 67% 63% 67% 67% 76% 71% 66% 71% 71%' I .'.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'llUCT October 2, 1989 . ! Ill nek - 11 Wiite W .1 Other = 0 I-MI(Ol.llll-T\u0026lt;r SaiOOL/CnADE MI m\nCLACK (ziiip:u lUI'AL CLACK I mabelvale Ungraded 9 12 0 21 57% I I I\nI t 1 .1 I t ! 7 75 158 1 234 687.  3 67 114 1 182 63% 9 84 88 0 172 51% I I 1 . I 1 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MANN Ungraded 7 8 9. Sub-Total Kindergarten Totol PULASKI HEIGHTS Ungraded 7 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total SOUTHWEST Ungraded 7 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 235 yii 2 609 61% 235 372 2 609 61% 140 125 116 381 381 1 91 74 90 256 256 77 43 78 198 198 158 . 158 160 lili, 476 7 158 170 119 454 454 175 171 147 493 493 4 9 7 20 20 0 2 3 6 11 11 4 2 3 9 9 302 292 283 Z22 Z22 8 251 247 215 721 721 256 216 228 700 700 52% W/. 527. 54% 54% 88% 637. 69% 55% 63% 63% 68% 79% 64% 70% 70%V I i I ) I 1 I ! 'I -1 I I J 3 I I i Clack - 11 M111 e  17 Other  0 SaiOOL/CRADE BADGETT Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BALE Ungradcil 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BASEL IUE Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BOOKER Ungraded 1 2 3 t, 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total wiriT. . 1 6 9 6 10 7 13 52 5 57 4 8 17 15 15 7 11 77 11 88 19 15 14 15 14 9 86 14 100 33 45 40 42 41 42 243 32 280 UTILE ROCK SaiOOI. DIS\"nilCr AllUUAL. REPORT OCTOBER-2,.1989* CLACK 3 29 30 30 18 21 34 165 15 180 5 50 49 42 41 36 40 263 29 292 47 41 45 39 35 30 237 45 282 47 45 45 48 57 47 289 36 325 t]ll(OI.I.UIKr uiiir\nR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 0 5 1 2 0 0 1 2 6 1 7 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 5' TOl'Al. 4 35 39 36 28 23 47 217 20 221 9 58 67 60 56 44 51 345 40 385 67 58 59 54 50 41 329 60 389 38 91 86 90 98 89 542  68 610 7. CLACK 75% 83% 77% 33% 64% 75% 72% 76% 75% !(\u0026gt;% 56% 86% 73% 70% 73% 82% 78% 76% 73% 76% 70% 71% 76% 72% 70% 73% 72% 75% 72% 53% 49% 52% 53% 58% 53% 53% 53% 53%/ I I i. j 1 . i I I I  I . I I I I .. J : . I Black  B Uillc  W Other  0 SaiCOL/CRADE BRADY Uiigrodcd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total CARVER Uiigradcil 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Klndergorten Total CHICOT Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten To t n 1 CLOVERDALE Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgartcii Total niitolj.MiJrr- wim\nBLACK criiirai lUl'AI, 7\nDLACK 2 h 25 23 27 7 10 6 52 48 38 37 40 39 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 3 74 75 63 64 49 50 75% 70% 64% 6a 58% 82% 78% 115 27 260 32 8 0 383 59 68% 54% 142 292 8 442 66% 33 45 48 49 51 52 33 39 43 40 45 45 1 0 1 5 0 0 67 84 92 94 96 97 49% 46% 47% 43% 47% 46% 278 30 308 12 32 27 29 23 21 13 157 31 188 15 24 24 19' 14 12 108 14 122 2U5 28 273 9 46 40 46 49 57 44 291 48 339 53 44 40 59 33 39 268 26 294 7 1 8 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 530 59 589 21 78 68 76 73 78 58 452 79 531 69 68 64 79 48 51 379  40 419. 46% 47% 46% 43% 59% 59% 61% 67% 73% 76% 64% 61% 64% 77% 65% 63% 75% 69% 76% 71% 65X 70XI- I 1 I I \u0026lt;) I. I i I .! 'J Black \" H Mille - 17 Other - 0 SaiCOL/CRADE OOOD Ungraded 1 2 3 I, 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FAIR PARK Ungraded 1 2 3 l\u0026gt; 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FOREST PARK Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total franklin Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total_ Kindergarten Total wirn-: 16 20 11 29 26 16 113 20 138 18 18 9 11 12 12 80 12- 92 19 29 27 21 26 19 141 24 165 3 16 11 10 11 10 61 11 72 LITILE KOCK SQIOOI. DISTK [CT- ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 2, 1939 BLACK 30 30 38 38 50 47 233 20 253 50 32 35 37 24 35 213 27 240 28 41 42 38 28 30 207 16 223 64 43 50 54 48 43 302 62 364 laiiioi.i.Mi-j'rr- oiiir-B 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 1 3 2 10 2 12 lOl'AI, 48 50 49 67 77 63 354 40 394 63 50 44 48 36 47 293 39 332 48 70 70 60 55 49 352 40 392 67 61 63 65 62 55 373 75 448 . 7.' DLACK 63% 60% 78% 57% 65% 75% 66% 50% . 64% 74% 64% 80% 77% 67% 74% 73% 69% 72% 58% 59% 60% 63% 51% 61% 59% 40% 57% 96% 70% 79%  83% 77% 78% 31% 83% 81%  I II ) DInck  11 Wilte - U Other  0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 2, 1989 i  SdlOOL/CRADE 1711 m\nBUCK 1 1 I FULBRIGHT Ungraded 1 2 3 h 5 6 5 39 35 32 35 30 30 4 50 55 43 30 44 47 J I i 1 1 1 '4 I i I .1 i I rmioiji-ii-j-rr UllIER 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 lUfAI. 9 97 91 03 75 82 79 Z' BLACK 44% 60% 61% 58% 51% 54% 59% Sub-Total Kindorgorten Total GARLAND Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total GEYER SPRINGS Ungraded 1 2 3 t, 5 G Sub-Total Kindergarten Total GIBBS Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 G Sub-Total Kindcrgarfcii Total 214 28 242 1 1 2 2 2 5 0 13 2 15 9 10 13 11 7 12 62 7 69 21 16 30 28 23 22 140 19 159 294 31 325 11 26 37 47 48 47 35 251 17 268 15 14 20 32 17 27 125 11 136 23 20 35 17 24 25 152 20 172 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 6 1 7 516 60 57% 52% 576 12 27 39 49 51 52 35 265 20 205 24 24 33 43 24 39 107 10 205 46 46 66 45 47 48 56 92% 96% 95% 96% 94% 90% 100% 95% D5X * \" 3ao 94% 63% 57% 61% 74%  71% 69% 67% 61% 66% 50% 61% 53% 38% 51% 52% 298 . 40 51% 50% 338 51% I!  I Clack - n Milte - U Other  0 l-l-IHOlJ.MIiWV- SaiOOL/CrtADE ISH Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total JEFTERSeW Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Ml LIT. CLACK OIIIEU lOIAL 7. CLACK I I ! 'I .1 J I 1 I Total MABELVALE Ungraded 1 2 3 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MCDERMOTT Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total_ Kindergarten Total ,0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 27 18 28 14 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 19 30 15 16 13 100% 96% 95% 93% 93% 88% 100% T 0 7 4 37 37 40 35 32 23 208 29 237 1 35 37 34 28 32 . 33 200 22 222 28 27 33 29 28 22 167 23 190 121 36 157 9 37 26 35 34 36 32 209 30 239 3 55 36 49 46 43 41 273 38 311 45 60 56 44 46 30 281 33 314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 3 10 128 36 164 13 74 63 75 70 68 56 419 60 479 4 91 73 83 75 75 74 475 60 535 75 89 89 73 75 54 455  59 514 95% 100% V 1^0 96% 69% 50% 41% 47% 49% 5S% 57% 50% 50% 50% 75% 60% 49% 59% 61% 57% 55% 57% 63% 58% 60% 67% 63% 60% 61% 56% 62% 56% 61% IG1 Black - B Wilte - W Ollicc  0 SCIICOL/CRADE WHITE LITTLE ROCK RQIOOL DISTRICT ENItOUJ-irJ-fC- DUCK OIIICB roi'AL DLACK ,.1 .,.1 I . i EASTER SEALS Ungraded 1 2 3 It 5 6  11 4 0 15 27% 1 j 1 \u0026lt;1 .1 i ! 4 I ] 1 J  I , I Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 11 4 0 15 27X ELIZA8ETH MITCHELL Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Klndergorten TotoL Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 G Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 28 23 1 52 44S 28 23 1 52 44S I.\nI I  .1 J- ,1 i t i 1 J I .1 Clack - C Wille - U Ollier - 0 niiioij.MiJfr- SClICOL/CnADE ^,x1^STERN HILLS Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindecgoctcn Total WILLIAMS Uiigradcil 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WILSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total . Kindergarten Total Mim: CLACK 01 lira lOlAL 7.' CLACK 15 22 22 24 19 22 33 28 25 27 33 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 50 47 51 52 52 69% 55% 53% 53% 63% 58% 124 16 176 20 0 1 300  37 59% 54% 140 196 1 337 59Z 32 33 45 34 35 33 37 36 39 43 36 34 0 0 1 0 1 2 69 69 85 77 72 69 54% 52% 46% 56% 50% 49% 215 29 225 30 4 1 441 60 51% 50% 241 255 5 501 51Z 9 22 17 12 17 17 11 7 44 33 38 41 38 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 66 50 50 58 55 45 44% 67% 66% 76% 71% -  69% 76% 105 29 134 7 5 6 13 6 6 43 9 52 235 28 263 16 17 24 22. 29 19 127 10 137 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 4 340 57 397 23 23 31 35 37 25 174 . 19 193 69% 49% 66Z 70% 74% 77% 63% 78% 76% 73% 53% 71%I I I / i Ci I i  ( I  I . . I i . I I .'j . 1 .Lj I i I ,1 i I i Black  II Wille - W Otlrcr - 0 BIIIOIJMI-J'fr- SaiOOL/CBADE wii'it\nBLACK OIIILU roi'AL BLACK TERRY Ungraded 1 2 3 5 6 26 28 30 31 27 26 45 46 44 48 52 46 0 1 0 0 1 2 71 75 74 79 80 74 637. 61% 59% 617. 65% 627. Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total WAKEFIELD Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WASHINGTON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total WATSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total 168 29 197 0 26 24 22 22 26 22 142 18 160 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 8 26 26 18 34 19 27 150 10 160 281 31 312 4 44 41 44 49 46 51 279 22 301 2 77 62 61 57 42 51 352 158 510 35 47 47 47 42 46 264 30 294 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 453 60 62% 527. 513 617, 4 70 65 67 72 73 73 424 40 464 4 77 62 61 57 43 51 355 164 100% 63% 63% 66% 68% 637. 70% 667. 55% (\u0026gt;57. 50% 100% 100% 1007. 100% . 98% 100% 99% 96% 519 987. 62 73 66 81 61 73 56% 64% 717. 58% 69% 63% 416 40 75% 456 64% iI I i I i i 1 I I  --I J J I  ! . I i I 'I .1 I I Black 11 Wiite - W Other - 0 SaiOOL/CRAOE TERRY Ungroded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WAKEFIELD Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WASHINGTON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total. Kindergarten Total WATSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total Wil LIT. 26 28 30 31 27 26 168 29 197 0 26 24 22 22 26 22 142 18 160 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 8 26 26 18 34 19 27 150 10 160 HUCK 45 46 44 48 52 46 281 31 312 4 44 41 44 49 46 51 279 22 301 2 77 62 61 57 42 51 352 158 510 35 47 47 47. 42 46 264 30 DlltOIJ MliKr- 01 lira 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 TOl'AL 71 75 74 79 80 74 453 60 513 4 70 65 67 72 73 73 424 40 464 4 77 62 61 57 43 51 355 164 519 62 73 66 81 61 73 ZTT 40 456 i: BLACK 63% 61% 59% 61% 65% 62% 62% 52% 61% 100% 63% 63% 66% 68% 63% 70% 66% 55% 65X 50% 100% 100% 100% 100%  98% 100% 99% 96% ^7^ 987. 56% 64% 71% 58% 69% 63% 63% 75% 64%I I j i I  I j ,1 J J ( 1 :] j I Black  11 MU to - W Olhr.c - 0 i-jiuoiJMiJ-f r SaiCOL/CHADE HEADOWCLIFF Ungroded 1 2 3 5 6 Sub-Total Kindorgorten Total MITCHELL Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total OTTER CREEK Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergactcii Total PULASKI HEIGHTS Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total - Kindergarten Total Mirn-\nDLACK omni WrAL Z DLACK 24 30 20 22 14 22 50 36 46 45 32 30 0 1 0 0 0 1 74 67 66 67 46 53 68% 54% 70% 67% 70% 57% 132 30 162 0 3 4 4 4 1 0 16 3 19 27 27 24 22 22 25 147 25 172 20 13 8 9 10 9 69 18 37 239 29 263 8 37 35 24 29 19 35 187 33 220 23 32 25 24 25 26 155 15 170 28 30 34 32 35 38 197 21 218 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 373 59 432 8 40 39 28 33 20 35 203 36 64% 49% 62 100% 93% 90% 86% 88 I A\u0026gt; 95% 100% 92% 92% 239 92% 50 59 49 46 47 51 46 54% 51% .52% 53 512 302 40 342 48 44 43 41 45 47 268 39 307 51% 38% 502 58S 68% 79% 78% 78% 81% 74% 54% 712Woodruff Elementary Western Hills Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Junior High Forest Heights Junior High 186 339 201 389 764 772 183 336 207 391 749 765 209 355 255 464 750 780 193 337 205 419 731 808 209 328 237 422 750 780 104 295 221 316 137 316 226 357 209 325 236 424 221 332 239 446 712 770 245 328 235 420 750 780 252 308 221 418 245 328 235 420 229 268 287 258 325 305 218 354 328 235 420 314 235 408 678 862 328 235 394 657 843 346 691 315 222 572 840 769 225 200 500 747 725 SCHOOL Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Badgett Bale Easeline Bocker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff BUILDING CAPACITIES CAPACITY 2050 936 1220 1200 846 750 812 780 960 600 700 754 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 332 200 513 562 562 481 273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209 /fINCENTIVE SCHOOL CAPACITIES (Question 14.) What is the present capacity of each incentive school? According to the LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol II, Pp. 26 and 28 (attached.) the total capacity of the incentive schools is 3800 seats, figuring eight incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens and Washington) and using the capacity figures of those schools as of January 31, 1589, the date the plan was written. However, according to the changes recently approved by the court which allowed Washington to remain the magnet school it. had become under the Tri-Di strict Plan, there will only be seven incentive schools next year: Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens. Franklin, Garland, Ish, LRSD capacity figures for 1990-91 indicate that the total capacity of these seven ince.ntive schools is 2084. We don't knov/ how LRSD arrived at these capacity figures (i.e., number of classrooms and number of children per classroom.) School 1990/91 Capacity Frankli n Garland Ish Mi tchel1 Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens 484 300 200 280 (273) 240 320 260 Toral 2084I School Capacity Black Otter Creek Nor-3lack Total 33 3 % Black 133 Pulaski Heights 162 345 5 3% 323 159 Terry 119 273 57% 537 260 Wakefield 224 484 54% 472 215 Watson 184 399 54% 472 227 Western Hill 157 384 59% 328 165 Wilson 140 305 54% 409 223 170 Totals 393 57% 9,501 Incentive Schools There will be with the number eight incentive Schools which are listed below of classrooms in each as well each at twenty-five students as the capacity of School Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Washington Totals per classroom:  Classes\nCapacity at 25 28 16 11 14 12 16 13 42 136 700 400 275 350  300 400 325 1050 3800 /iWviid y is te V / -S4a) K/.fkssii i?2 a - I 26 I Grace Maximum Numbe el 1 number of Students Per Class Kindergarten LAveragej Maximum Number- of Students Firs 20 Any Class in 'Third Fourth-Sixth 23 20 Tte total 25 25 9z501. Tte capacity of t),, a twenty-two 28 ilementary Academies is Incentive School of 20 to 1 X . There -s will have however, 'ay be more than a maximum pupil/teach ar ratio there will be a certified 20 students per classroom. Poss.bry a second teacher in those aide in each class Incenti ve School classes. and The total exceeds the The and the is 3,800 The ar 25 students capacity of the nonmagnet- el par class. projected overall -ementary capacity of enrollment racial composition of space available for upon the number of LRSD (12,350) by 1,256 seats. (13,61S) the ^^ruitment at Elementary Academies Interdistrict students who Incen expected Schools. The initial ive Schools is expected to be that at least 400 Interdistri hlack Incer ~O- Schools. ive and Interdis Acade.miss: those schools depend enroll racial in Incentive composition predominantly black. LRSD The chart below shows th- students will and of the It is attend tict School a impact of black enrollment upon the ElementaryTO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Attendance Zone Report Introduction The following report is submitted in compliance with the March 5 court order to review all attendance zones and make projections for the 1995-96 school year. Three sets of data are examined in this report: (1) School enrollment figures (2) Census tract data (3) Zone block (geocode) counts These sources of data should not be viewed in isolation of each other. Population trends are confirmed when different sources of data, over a period of years, suggest or establish the same pattern of growth or decline. Enrollment Comparisons and Census Projections The simplest way to project for the future is to examine any trends that have occurred in the past. In using past trends to project for the future, allowances must be made for any anticipation of deviations from the trends. In regard to projecting school enrollment, the method of studying past trends to project for the future is quite reliable. The Little Rock School District has used past school enrollments to project school enrollments for the future.Although school enrol Imepts have been used in the past for projection purposes, the task of projecting the numbers of students in each attendance zone for tie 1995-96 school year cannot be done by using past school enrollments. The Little Rock School District has used four different assignments plans over the past four years. pairing plan. The 1986-87 school year was the last year for an elementary Primary schools on the west side of the District were paired with intermediate schools on the east side of the District. In 1987-88, the year of annexation, the Little Rock School District used a new attendance zone plan and converted all primary or intermediate schools to K-6. Students were manditorily assigned to schools, based on the new attendance zones, and then allowed to transfer if desegregation requirements could be upheld. trict referred to this plan as \"controlled choice. The disIt In 1988-89, the attendance zones and \"controlled choice zones\" (zones A \u0026amp; B) were abolished and all students could select any school in the district. The present school year, 1989-90, marks the return to the use of an elementary attendance zone plan. The plan applies only to kindergarten, rising, and new students and grandfathers all remaining students. The 1989-90 attendance zone plan is extremely different from the 1987-88 attendanze zone plan. As a result of all of these factors, the analysis of school enrollment trends prior to the 1989-90 school year cannot be used to project attendance zone trends in the future. The 1989-90 school year will serve as the baseline year for the study of school enrollment trends. Attendance zone projections can also be determined by analyzing census tract Although the boundaries of the census tracts are different from information. the boundaries of the school attendance zones, census tract projections are still useful in identifying trends in various geographic areas. In 1988, the Little Rock School District employed The Grier Partnership bn collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates) to conduct a demographic study. The demographers reviewed census tract projections from Metroplan and UALR. The next section of this report will examine the results of the demographic study. An attempt will also be made to compare 1988-89 and 1989-90 attendance zone counts. Each student in the Little Rock School District is assigned a geocode or zone block number based on his/her home address. of several contiguous zone blocks or geocodes. Attendance zones consist zone includes one or more satellite areas. In some cases, an attendance A satellite is an attendance area that is detached from the immediate school vicinity and is usually a considerable The 1988-89 school year was the first year able distance from the school site. for the District to load and maintain a computerized file of all zone block counts. As a result, this comparison will be based on one year of experience. Demographic Study As stated earlier, the demographers reviewed census tract projections from UALR and Metroplan. It should be noted that census tracts do not match the attendance zones used by the Little Rock School District. for geocodes, or zone blocks, and not for census tracts. School data are recorded According to the demographer, \"about 83 percent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. II Although the geocodes are not fully compatible with the census tracts, an examination of census data should yield valuable information concerning long-term trends.The Grier report notes that \"change in the schools appears to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a whole -- population losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. II In terms of specific areas, between 1980 and 1986, Metroplan estimated that there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the city, in the tracts close to downtown, and in those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. These areas are represented by tracts 1-20 (with the exception of Tract 16) on Attachment A (\"Changes in Total Population By Census Tract, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1980 to 2010\"). zones: These tracts cover the following school attendance -- Rightsell -- Rockefeller -- Mitchell -- Badgett -- Washington -- Stephens -- Garland -- Ish -- Franklin -- Forest Park satellite -- Terry satellite -- McDermott satellite -- Oefferson satellite -- Brady satellite -- Otter Creek satellite -- Meadowcliff satellite The census tract table indicates that almost half of the tracts in this area will experience growth during the period of 1980-2010. However, it is impossible to determine how much of the projected growth will occur in a specific census tract by 1995-96. ience a decline during the 30-year period. The remainder of the tracts in this area will exper- The same problem related to determining when and what degree of growth will occur also applies to projecting 1osses. The overall effect of gains and losses in this area will result in a net increase of 846 persons over a 30-year period. A net increase in total population of 846 persons over a 30-year period will probably have no effect on the boundaries of the attendance zones in 1995-96. Most of the growth during the 30-year period is expected to occur in tracts 41.04, 42.03, and 42.04. the Little Rock School District. These tracts are located on the western boundary of Creek areas. Tract 41.04 covers the Mabelvale and Otter Tracts 42.03 and 42.04 cover portions of the Fulbright, Terry, Wilson, and Dodd attendance zones. The growth in tract 42.03 should also affect the Forest Park satellite zone located on the northwest tip of the di strict. Again, there is not enough data to predict how the projected growth will affect these attendance zones in 1995-96.Although the census data provides useful information for identifying population trends, it will be necessary to wait for the 1990 census results in order to make specific projections. Under normal circumstances, long-term projections are based on data collected over a 3-5 year period. It is difficult to recognize an ongoing pattern or trend by merely comparing two separate years. Since census information is collected every 10 years, it will be necessary to rely on a comparison of 1980 and 1990 census results. The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts This will enhance the District's ability to correlate long-term census projections with student information gathered annually. Geocode Comparisons The comparison of zone block (geocode) student counts is another method that can be used to identify student population trends. Attachment B compares 1988-89 and 1989-90 zone block and attendance zone counts. These counts only reflect students enrolled in the Little Rock School District. It was noted earlier that the census data indicates a population decline in the area east of University. the same trend. The comparison of zone block information indicates 1988-89 to 1989-90. mately 30 students. Most of the incentive schools experiences small gains from However, the Garland attendance zone declined by approxi- The area east of University Avenue experienced a net gain of 149 students. As noted earlier with the census data, the gain of 149 students in the area east of University Avenue is the net result of gains and losses in this area. Although the comparison of geocode counts is a viable method for identifying enrollment trends and making projections, at least three years of geocode data should be used to ensure reliability. The Little Rock School District did not have the capability to maintain accurate geocode information prior to the 1988-89 school year. Therefore, it is recommended that the District be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information before preparing the 1995-96 attendance zone projections. Attendance Zones and Building Capacity The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity (See Attachment C). The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Also, programs such as PAL (Program for Accelerated Learning) and Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity.Attachment C shows the number of students who reside in each attendance zone. All of these students are currently enrolled in a non-magnet (area) school even though the school may not be their attendance zone school. (NOTE: Attachment C DOES NOT show the number of students currently enrolled in each attendance zone school. It shows the number of students who live in the attendance zone even though they may attend a non-attendance zone school. The District fully understands the reason for the court's concern about attendance zone projections and adjustments for the 1995-96 school year. However, the elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. Otherwise, any adjustments will simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school. In regard to the incentive schools, the District has proposed to expand Rightsell and Mitchell (if a new school site in the vicinity cannot be located) close Ish, Stephens, and Garland, and build a new school at the Old King School site. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before any attendance zones are adjusted. Recommendations As already stated in this report, several factors preclude the District from being able to make reliable attendance zone projections at this time. In light of these factors, the District respectfully recommends the following: 1. The District will prepare attendance zone projections after the release of the 1990 census results. 2. 3. 4. 5. The District will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts. Attendance zone projections will also be based on any trends identified by comparing 1990-91 kindergarten and first grade enrollment figures. Both of these grade level assignments are based on the new attendance zones. The District will be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information in order to be able to compare 1988-89 and 1990-91 geocode counts. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted.ATTACHMENT A TABLE 5 Census Tract 123 4 5 678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 23 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 I blw CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 920 11,100 7,378 5,539 3,813 1,354 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 8,260 6,614 1,600 4,000 3,200 1,000 5,200 4,000 3,200 800 800 4,600 4,600 2,200 4,800 3,800 10,000 5,100 850 5,900 4,500 5,700 5,600 8,000 6,000 5,600 5,300 8,800 9,500 950 16,800 13,800 4,500 5,500 6,800 12,200 8,400 4,900 7,200 38,900 22,000 740 (491) 474 (508) 296 44 231 27 (6) 209 (231) (475) (462) 383 1,825 (158) (17) (506) (529) (48) 32 (468) 1,905 404 365 862 2,560 30 5,700 6,422 (1,039) 1,687 5,446 5,989 1,740 842 839 30,640 15,386 86.0% -10.9% 17.4% -33.7% 6.0% 1.1% 7.8% 3.5% -0.7% 4.8% -4.8% -17.8% -8.8% 11.2% 22.3% -3.0% -2.0% -7.9% -10.5% -0.8% 0.6% -5.5% 46.5% 7.8% 7.4% 10.9% 36.9% 3.3% 51.4% 87.0% -18.8% 44.2% 402.2% 96.4% 26.1% 20.7% 13.2% 370.9% 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases, the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, ATTACHMENT B LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE BLOCK COMPARISON ZONE BLOCKS FOR BADGETT PAGE 1 1988-89 1989-90 3201 19 10 -9 3250 68 + 11 3251 23 -1 3253 26 6 3255 4 3 -1 3640 19 + 15 TOTAL 133 142 +9 4 ZONE BLOCKS FOR BALE 1988-89 1989-90 o: 21 56 42 -14 0531 33 40 0532 58 -3 0534 29 -4 1921 11 20 +9 1922 28 31 +3 1923 27 +2 1924 57 64 +7 1925 10 8 TOTAL 307 322ZONE BLOCKS FOR BASELINE PAGE 2 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 cr 365 TOTAL 19SS-S9 1989-90 32 39 +7 107 89 -18 28 33 33 31 21 19 24 17 -7 16 14 34 +9 23 19 -4 11 6 5^ 320 301 -19ZONE BLOCKS FOR BRADY PAGE 3 0540 0591 0592 0593 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 6 11 86 67 -19 17 13 -4 0 7 9 17 14 -3 32 38 +6 21 20 0 51 10 42 21 357 0 36 6 35 48 15 31 19 344 -21 + 16 +6 + 10 -3 -11 -3 -13ZONE BLOCKS FOR CHICOT PAGE 4 3435 3440 3445 3464 5408 7401 7405 7410 7415 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7476 7479 7480 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 10 13 +3 6 0 50 29 79 21 C\" 32 9 24 7 18 17 30 32 495 13 +7 0 0 34 36 79 27 54 30 16 27 21 9 14 15 0 23 488 -16 +7 0 +6 -3 +7 -3 +7 -3 -15 -9 -7ZONE BLOCKS FOR CLOVERDALE ELEM PAGE 5 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 19 IS 4 12 10 19 26 31  44 15 30 38 316 26 12 14 0 21 13 0 31 33 60 28 21 11 87 357 + 1 -7 -4 -4 +9 +3 -19 + 16 +3 +6 -19 +49 +41ZONE BLOCKS FOR DODD PAGE 6 1722 1728 4001 4010 4017 4020 4025 4046 4049 4052 4053 5467 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 61 51 -10 39 er er + 16 17 16 -1 79 73 -6 4 3 -1 20 54 23  35 18 0 3 353 20 46 18 37 0 0 341 0 -8 +4 0 -3 -12ZONE BLOCKS FOR FAIR PARK PAGE 7 1988-89 1989-90 0511 13 +4 9 0512 8 7 -1 0513 68 60 -8 0554 54 51 -3 0920 63 crcr -8 1110 33 31 nil 32 48 + 16 1120 8 6 1121 6 0 6 TOTAL 271 -10 281 . ZONE BLOCKS FOR FOREST PARK 1988-89 1989-90 0411 4 0 -4 0412 12 -12 0 0413 3 0420 14 15 0553 92 76 -16 0556 65 57 -8 0811 10 -1 0821 39 41 0910 54 47 -7 6110 27 -28 K 9 + 1 6125 0 0 0 TOTAL 350 275 -75ZONE BLOCKS FOR FRANKLIN PAGE S 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0529 0530 0538 0539 0571 0575 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 57 63 +6 60 50 -10 65 70 87 84 -3 35 33 30 35 30 . 71 36 20 54 51 631 21 -9 32 -3 26 -4 59 47 24 53 48 610 -12 + 11 +4 -1 -3 -21ZONE BLOCKS FOR FULBRIGHT PAGE 9 1210 1405 1410 1440 1714 1810 1811 1812 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 28 23 -5 0 21 97 89 -8 19 21 104 108 +4 58 32 65 24 12 31 497 66 39 66 18 0 13 30 519 +8 + 1 -6 0 + 1 -1ZONE BLOCKS FOR GARLAND PAGE 10 1988-89 1989-90 0581 42 44 0582 110 57 -53 0584 95 80 -15 0585 50 73 +23 0586 10 21 + 11 0587 42 44 TOTAL 349 319 -30 ZONE BLOCKS FOR GEYER SPRINGS 1988-89 1989-90 3405 71 74 +3 4401 4405 15 20 4410 38 32 -6 4415 17 17 0 4420 21 26 4429 29 17 -12 4430 10 18 +8 TOTAL 226ZONE BLOCKS FOR ISH PAGE 11 0473 0476 0477 0479 0480 0485 TOTAL 19SS-89 1989-90 44 42 23 35 43 CT IT 242 ZONE BLOCKS FOR JEFFERSON 1988-89 49 45 30 30 41 57 rCT' 1989-90 c? +3 +7 + 10 1220 6 6 0 1230 12 6 6 1231 7 11 +4 1240 157 165 +8 0431 38 37 -1 0432 53 72 + 19 0433 38 30 -8 0434 26 28 0435 19 18 -1 0438 45 49 +4 TOTAL 401 422ZONE BLOCKS FOR MABELVALE ELEM PAGE 12 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 545S 5462 5465 7325 7383 7338 7390 7420 7475 TOTAL 1938-89 1939-90 34 64 30 16 14 28 7 13 . 18 19 15 1 13 31 0 28 27 437 48 67 31 12 23 30 6 14 15 18 21 0 12 35 21 67 34 40 516 + 14 +3 + 1 -4 +9 -1 + 1 -1 +6 -1 -1 +4 0 + 10 +6 + 13 +79ZONE BLOCKS FOR MCDERMOTT PAGE 13 0552 0561 0562 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 1542 TOTAL 1988-39 1989-90 64 62 63 78 + 15 88 84 -4 24 19 0 0 0 33 39 107 29 10 - 21 0 478 ZONE BLOCKS FOR MEADOWCLIFF 1988-89 -8 40 20 19 19 0 488 1989-90 + 1 + 15 -9 +9 -3 0 + 10 0533 72 65 -7 0535 64 75 + 11 0536 14 11 -3 0537 62 70 +8 2110 94 76 -18 2120 62 76 + 14 4015 16 11 __CT 4048 29 40 + 11 TOTAL 413 424 + 11ZONE BLOCKS FOR MITCHELL PAGE 14 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0451 0452 0453 0457 0458 0459 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 28 30 itr 18 42 26 46 42 36 340 ZONE BLOCKS FOR OTTER CREEK 1988-89 44 21 28 23 12 31 36 49 48 36 350 1989-90 + 16 -8 -4 +6 -13 -11 + 10 +3 +6 0 + 10 0471 44 47 +3 0472 49 69 0475 68 75 +7 5460 29 19 -10 5470 1 3 5472 0 0 0 5475 40 46 +6 5476 43 45 5477 26 46 5478 5 9 +45492 7 15 TOTAL 312 374 PAGE 14B +S +62ZONE BLOCKS FOR PULASKI HGHTS ELEM PAGE 15 1988-89 1989-90 0610 19 21 +3 0620 24 16 -8 0630 3 0640 7 14 0641 cr 14 +9 0651 7 12 0660 77 96 + 19 0710 30  31 + 1 TOTAL 174 207 +33 ZONE BLOCKS FOR RIGHTSELL 1988-89 1989-90 0439 0 73 +73 0448 0 70 +70 0449 55 61 +6 0450 59 58 -1 0454 0 0464 31 44 + 13 TOTAL 165 306 + 141ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROCKEFELLER PAGE 16 198S-89 1989-90 0232 1 7 0 0440 59 50 -9 0456 44 48 +4 0460 54 41 -13 0461 63 67 +4 0462 53 54 + 1 0463 19 31 TOTAL 299 . 298 -1 ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROMINE 1988-89 1989-90 1715 67 77 + 10 1717 102 SO 1721 93 81 -12 1723 30 1724 46 53 +7 1727 98 98 0 TOTAL 436 421 -15ZONE BLOCKS FOR STEPHENS PAGE 17 0441 0572 0573 0574 0583 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 34 97 37 58 81 307 ZONE BLOCKS FOR TERRY 1988-89 38 82 45 67 81 313 1989-90 +4 -15 +8 +9 0 +6 0436 70 54 -16 0437 64 56 -8 0563 78 68 -10 1510 21 23 1511 75 68 -7 1512 27 33 +6 1515 39 -17 1530 8 13 1532 21 34 1550 53 42 -11 1610 7 8 + 1 1620 11 12 + 1 3330 4 0 -4 TOTAL 478 433 -45ZONE BLOCKS FOR WAKEFIELD PAGE 18 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 73 71 9 10 35 39 21 .. 34 37 11 26 10 14 344 18 10 37 97 27 31 30 24 31 11 9 418 +9 0 +58 +6 -3 -7 + 13 -4 +6 + 1 +74ZONE BLOCKS FOR WASHINGTON PAGE 19 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0240 0301 0455 0474 0478 0481 0482 0483 0484 TOTAL 198S-S9 1989-90 14 16 16 IB 0 29 +7 39 33 -6 79 17 62 14 99 0 12 71 27 39 61 78 58 35 790 0 48 93 120 24 0 51 27 43 74 103 73 38 867 -24 -17 -14 +8 -6 + 120 -1 -12 -20 0 +4 + 13 + 15 +3 +77ZONE BLOCKS FOR WATSON PAGE 20 1988-89 1989-90 7301 48 59 + 11 7305 28 31 +3 7315 76 61 -15 7330 18 11 -7 7377 38 62 7378 19 19 0 7381 0 7382 44 + 11 7384 I er 26 + 1 7385 20 24 +4 7490 9 6 -3 7495 IS 13 343 389 +46 V^ONE BLOCKS FOR WESTERN HILLS 1988-89 1989-90 1725 34 29 er 1726 33 41 +8 1822 94 95 + 1 2010 46 41 5 2015 51 68 + 17 2020 37 42 TOTAL 295 316 +21ZONE BLOCKS FOR WILSON PAGE 21 1988-89 1989-90 1711 23 19 -4 1813 53 53 0 1821 72 79 +7 1823 89 109 1824 46 54 +8 3301 28 38 + 10 3312 51 36 -15 3316 18 19 + 1 TOTAL 380 407 +27 ^ZONE BLOCKS FOR WOODRUFF 1988-89 1989-90 0650 13 10 -3 0670 68 101 +33 0662 23 26 +3 TOTAL 104 137 +33SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS ISH OEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ATTACHMENT C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL 142 322 301 344 488 357 341 271 275 610 519 319 226 252 422 516 488 424 350 374 207 306 K-6 CAPACITY 241 399 384 491 483 424 353 351 431 556 607 300 236 200 491 533 562 454 280 378 328 260 CAPACITY % 59% 81% 78% 70% 101% 84% 97% 77% 64% 109% 86% 106% 96% 126% 86% 97% 87% 93% 135% 99% 63% 118%PAGE 2 SCHOOL TOTAL CAPACITY CAPACITY % ROCKEFELLER 298 420 71% ROMINE 421 492 86% STEPHENS 313 260 120% TERRY 433 537 81% WAKEFIELD 418 469 89% WASHINGTON 867 820 106% WATSON 389 469 83% WESTERN HILLS 316 325 97% WILSON 407 398 102% WOODRUFF 137 209 66% TOTAL 11,851 13,141 90% (NOTE\nThese capacity figures do not reflect the proposed capacity changes in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year.)SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS ISH OEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ATTACHMENT C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL 142 322 301 344 488 357 341 271 275 610 519 319 226 252 422 516 488 424 350 374 207 306 K-6 CAPACITY 241 399 384 491 483 424 353 351 431 556 607 300 236 200 491 533 562 454 280 378 328 260 CAPACITY % 59% 81% 78% 70% 101% 84% 97% 77% 64% 109% 86% 106% 96% 126% 86% 97% 87% 93% 135% 99% 63% 118%PAGE 2 SCHOOL TOTAL CAPACITY CAPACITY % ROCKEFELLER 298 420 71% ROMINE 421 492 86% STEPHENS 313 260 120% TERRY 433 537 81% WAKEFIELD 418 469 89% WASHINGTON 867 820 106% WATSON 389 469 83% WESTERN HILLS 316 325 97% WILSON 407 398 102% WOODRUFF 137 209 66% TOTAL 11,851 13,141 90% (NOTE: These capacity figures do not reflect the proposed capacity changes in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year.)LRSD enrollment - Oct. 1990 10-12-90 Sr. high [ Non-black 1990 Black %Black 1989 %Black Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. hiah  Cloverdale Junior Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementarv Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield j Washington i Watson 652 364 528 393 369 2,306 229 240 242 230 216 371 268 163 1,959 977 515 703 630 447 3,272 535 423 530 . 672 404 515 454 492 4,025 1 Western Hills ! Williams ' Wilson I Woodruff ' Total I Grand total 56 73 98 268 126 276 182 100 137 66 182 68 266 29 56 146 4 232 238 201 157 24 179 114 2 76 69 12 233 176 324 171 135 224 120 66 4,886 166 302 272 346 330 327 362 289 194 279 205 343 293 211 145 187 142 237 321 323 287 183 180 211 191 195 323 190 289 326 438 347 204 281 298 120 9,337 2^ 60 59 57 62 55 58 60 56 52 59 - 54 57 70 64 69 75 65 58 63 75 67 64 79 67 71 61 54 63 70 66 75 81 74 56 72 54 67 74 59 81 53 83 52 88 72 56 97 51 57 61 65 88 50 65 99 72 82  94 55 65 57 67 60 56 71 65 66 __64 76 76 72 53 66 46 64 70 64 72 57 82 56 94 66 51 96 50 58 61 62 92 50 71 92 86 80 100 61 65 98 64 59 51 66 71 67  64 CORRECT FIGURES - A number of figures in the October 1990 Little Rock School District enrollment chart in Thursday s newspaper were incorrect. The chart today has correct figures. Also, because of a reporting error, a storv that accompanied the chart contained some erroneous information when comparing last years official enrollment with this year s to calculate the difference. The Little Rock district actually has 190 fewer students than in October 1989.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS  S November 29, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: V ,v Oames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \u0026gt; -\u0026gt; Monitoring and Program Development \u0026lt;3t Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBOECT: First Quarter Enrollment - 1990-91 School Year Please find attached the enrollment report for the first quarter of the 1990-91 school year. cc: Senior Management TeamLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR FIRST QUARTER OF 1990-91 AND 1989-90 1990-91 Actual enrollment as of October 31, 1990, First Quarter of the 1990-91 School Y ear. WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten) Junior High Schools 48 4041 1861 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2159 26 8209 4004 3077 0 144 87 87 74 12,394 5,952 5,323 35% 66% 67% 58% SUB TOTAL 8109 15,316 318 23,743 65% Ki ndergarten 681 1,206 21 1,908 63% GRAND TOTAL 8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% 1989-90 Actual enrollment as of November 1, 1989, First Quarter of 1989-90 School Y e a r  WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten Junior High Schools 47 3905 1917 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2408 28 8212 3883 3186 1 76 119 12,236 97 83 5,897 5,677 37% 67% 66% 56% SUB TOTAL 8277 15,309 300 23,886 64% Kindergarten 628 1,269 20 1 ,917 66% GRAND TOTAL 8905 16,578 320 25,803 64%GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 IJNGR TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UNGR SUMMARY OF FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT October 31, 1990 WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 681 727 659 670 684 666 595 40 4722 589 638 601 33 TOT. JR HIGH 1861 10 703 11 718 12 709 1206 1450 1271 1279 1408 1380 1309 112 9415 1366 1391 1182 65 4004 1082 980 967 21 30 21 24 29 14 26 0 165 21 26 40 0 87 32 30 24 1908 2207 1951 1973 2121 2060 1930 152 14,302 1976 2055 1823 98 5952 1817 1728 1700 63% 66% 65% 65% 66% 67% 68% 74% 66% 69% 68% 65% 66% 67% 60% 57% 57% UNGR 29 48 1 78 62% TOT. SR HIGH 2159 3077 87 5323 58% TOTAL: 8742 16,496 339 25,577 65% SPEC SCHOOLS 48 26 0 74 35% DIST TOTALS 8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH 93 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 218 ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 24 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT OCT. 31, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 203 174 227 604 0 604 5 308 278 307 898 49 947 0 12 9 13 34 0 34 5 523 46r' 547 1536 49 1585 100.00% 58.89% 60.30% 56.12% 58.46% 100.00% 59.75% FAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 14 107 12 6 107 354 3 357 12 184 160 132 488 10 498 0 3 4 1 8 0 8 26 294 290 240 850 13 863 46.15% 62.59% 55.17% 55.00% 57.41% 76.92% 57.71% HALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 12 147 180 156 495 10 505 12 223 202 236 673 8 681 0 7 5 3 15 0 15 24 377 387 395 1183 18 1201 50.00% 59.15% 52.20% 59.75% 56.89% 44.44% 56.70% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 127 121 113 364 2 366 19 209 200 158 586 17 603 1 6 2 2 11 0 11 23 342 323 273 961 19 980 82.61% 61.11% 61.92% 57.88% 60.98% 89.47% 61.53% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 119 117 106 342 0 342 0 158 140 134 432 11 443 0 4 10 5 19 0 19 0 281 267 245 793 11 804 0.00% 56.23% 52.43% 54.69% 54.48% 100.00% 55.10% Page - 1SCHOOL/GRADE t^LOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL 2 61 75 80 218 1 190 180 155 526 0 1 2 2 5 3 252 257 237 749 33.33% 75.40% 70.04% 65.40% 70.23% 120 55 56 231 158 143 111 412 3 0 3 6 281 198 170 649 56.23% 72.22% 65.29% 63.48% 7 62 70 83 222 9 156 186 174 525 0 7 3 8 18 16 225 259 265 765 56.25% 69.33% 71.81% 65.66% 68.63% 5 44 74 88 211 9 64 76 67 216 104 134 113 351 4 76 100 78 258 16 214 250 209 689 16 142 147 92 397 196 166 152 514 8 153 138 148 447 Page - 2 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 15 0 1 2 4 7 21 263 332 306 922 25 206 224 160 615 304 305 271 880 12 230 240 230 712 0.00% 81.37% 75.30% 68.30% 74.73% 64.00% 68.93% 65.63% 57.50% 64.55% 64.47% 54.43% 56.09% 58.41% 0.00% 66.52% 57.50% 64.35% 62.78%SCHOOL/GRADE SOUTHWEST UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 58 54 36 154 15 157 181 141 494 0 5 7 12 21 215 240 184 660 0.00% 73.02% 75.42% 76.63% 74.85% 2 6 4 8 10 11 5 46 11 57 3 10 10 8 11 14 4 60 7 67 13 14 11 6 14 13 71 19 90 3 16 25 35 39 17 21 156 9 165 4 50 38 47 46 41 44 270 32 302 49 42 38 37 30 30 226 37 263 Page - 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 6 1 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 22 29 43 49 28 26 202 20 222 7 60 48 56 61 55 49 336 40 376 63 57 51 43 44 43 301 57 358 60.00% 72.73% 86.21% 81.40% 79.59% 60.71% 80.77% 77.23% 45.00% 74.32% 57.14% 83.33% 79.17% 83.93% 75.41% 74.55% 89.80% 80.36% 80.00% 80.32% 77.78% 73.68% 74.51% 86.05% 68.18 o. o 69.77% 75.08% 64.91% 73.46%SCHOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BRADY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CARVER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CHICOT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 36 34 40 46 34 233 30 263 44 50 51 52 53 56 306 44 350 1 4 0 3 0 0 8 1 9 88 90 85 95 99 90 547 75 622 50.00% 55.56% 60.00% 54.74% 53.54% 62.22% 55.94% 58.67% 56.27% 2 20 17 17 16 19 5 96 21 117 3 52 41 47 56 51 45 295 37 332 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 5 73 59 65 73 70 51 396 58 454 60.00% 71.23% 69.49% 72.31% 76.71% 72.86% 88.24% 74.49% 63.79% 73.13% 31 40 43 45 38 44 241 23 264 38 44 49 54 54 53 292 34 326 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 8 70 86 92 100 93 99 540 58 598 54.29% 51.16% 53.26% 54.00% 58.06% 53.54% 54.07% 58.62% 54.52% 10 31 25 20 21 22 20 149 27 176 8 66 46 43 46 42 48 299 50 349 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 18 98 71 63 67 65 68 450 77 527 44.44% 67.35% 64.79% 68.25% 68.66% 64.62% 70.59% 66.44% 64.94% 66.22% Page - 4SCHOOL/GRADE ^CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL DODD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. FAIR PARK UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 13 13 26 19 12 14 97 10 107 35 45 34 46 52 41 253 29 282 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 48 58 60 65 65 55 351 40 391 72.92% 77.59% 56.67% 70.77% 80.00% 74.55% 72.08% 72.50% 72.12% 3 22 17 16 11 28 18 115 19 134 4 20 28 28 28 25 40 173 19 192 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 7 43 45 44 39 54 59 291 38 329 57.14% 46.51% 62.22% 63.64% 71.79% 46.30% 67.80% 59.45% 50.00% 58.36% 14 9 8 8 6 6 51 10 61 56 41 40 37 42 32 248 29 277 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 71 50 48 45 48 38 300 39 339 78.87% 82.00% 83.33% 82.22% 87.50% 84.21% 82.67% 74.36% 81.71% 29 23 31 20 19 22 144 33 177 19 26 39 35 33 30 182 26 208 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 5 49 49 71 55 52 54 330 60 390 38.78% 53.06% 54.93% 63.64% 63.46% 55.56% 55.15% 43.33% 53.33% Page - 5SCHOOL/GRADE FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL FULBRIGHT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL GARLAND UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 t/GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 5 5 7 11 6 11 46 11 57 7 65 54 33 46 53 42 300 49 349 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 9 0 9 8 71 59 43 60 60 54 355 60 415 87.50% 91.55% 91.53% 76.74% 76.67% 88.33% 77,78 a. *6 84.51% 81.67% 84.10% 5 33 43 34 38 41 35 229 32 261 4 47 30 54 41 42 47 265 27 292 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 9 83 73 88 82 84 82 501 59 560 44.44% 56.63% 41.10% 61.36% 50.00% 50.00% 57.32% 52.89% 45.76% 52.14% 0 5 2 2 1 0 3 13 3 16 14 18 23 26 37 39 35 192 16 208 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 0 9 14 24 27 30 39 40 40 214 19 233 100.00% 75.00% 85.19% 86.67% 94.87% 97.50% 87.50 89.72 Q, o Q. *0 84.21% 89.27% 7 7 8 14 4 7 47 13 60 16 16 14 22 36 16 120 27 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 22 36 40 23 167 40 207 69.57% 69.57% 63.64% 61.11% 90.00% 69.57% 71.86% 67.50% 71.01% Page - 6SCHOOL/GRADE GIBBS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 17 16 29 24 20 126 15 141 26 26 25 34 27 23 161 25 186 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 0 6 47 44 44 64 51 43 293 40 333 55.32% 59.09% 56.82% 53.13% 52.94% 53.49% 54.95 o. 62.50% 55.86% 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 6 33 17 16 26 11 15 124 16 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 17 16 27 11 15 127 16 143 100.00% 94.29% 100.00% 100.00% 96.30% 100.00% 100.00% 97.64% 100.00% 97.90% 3 30 33 34 38 31 26 195 32 227 6 36 32 32 35 36 33 210 27 237 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 7 9 69 65 67 74 67 60 411 60 471 66.67% 52.17% 49.23% 47.76% 47.30% 53.73% 55.00% 51.09% 45.00% 50.32% 2 38 34 45 33 25 32 209 28 237 4 60 39 29 44 57 51 284 31 315 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 98 74 74 77 83 83 495 60 555 66.67% 61.22% 52.70% 39.19% 57.14% 68.67% 61.45% 57.37 51.67% 56.76% Page - 7SCHOOL/GRADE MCDERMOTT UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 23 33 22 35 22 27 162 29 191 2 46 38 59 47 54 47 293 26 319 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 71 72 82 82 76 74 459 59 518 100.00% 64.79% 52.78% 71.95% 57.32% 71.05 63.51% 63.83% 44.07% 61.58% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 23 17 24 25 17 18 124 28 152 49 47 39 49 39 34 257 31 288 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 72 64 64 75 56 53 384 59 443 68.06% 73.44% 60.94% 65.33% 69.64% 64.15% 66.93% 52.54% 65.01% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 10 2 3 2 2 2 21 5 26 7 30 26 24 19 29 18 153 31 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 28 27 21 31 20 174 36 210 100.00% 75.00% 92.86% 88.89% 90.48% 93.55 90.00% 87.93 Q. 'O 86.11% 87.62% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 26 26 26 20 26 28 152 24 176 22 23 24 31 26 24 150 32 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 49 50 51 52 52 302 56 358 45.83% 46.94% 48.00% 60.78% 50.00% 46.15% 49.67% 57.14% 50.84% Page - 8SCHOOL/GRADE PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 22 17 16 7 12 7 81 23 104 26 30 29 33 31 33 182 31 213 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 49 47 46 41 43 41 267 56 323 53.06% 63.83% 63.04% 80.49% 72.09% 80.49% 68.16% 55.36% 65.94% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 6 4 7 8 2 50 26 76 3 9 8 11 8 7 6 52 8 60 33 33 27 27 21 17 158 32 190 34 24 27 25 26 23 159 33 192 10 58 41 40 39 37 52 277 43 320 Page - 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 33 34 27 27 21 17 159 33 192 60 31 31 33 34 25 214 59 273 13 67 49 51 47 46 59 332 51 383 100.00% 97.06% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.37% 96.97% 98.96% 56.67% 77.42% 87.10% 75.76% 76.47% 92.00% 74.30% 55.93% 70.33 76.92% 86.57% 83.67% 78.43% 82.98% 80.43% 88.14% 83.43% 84.31% 83.55%SCHOOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL 5, BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL TERRY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL WAKEFIELD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 WASHINGTON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 5 7 35 23 19 32 30 17 163 28 191 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 7 7 35 24 21 33 32 19 171 32 203 100.00% 100.00% 95.83% 90.48% 96.97% 93.75% 89.47% 95.32% 87.50% 94.09% 33 32 30 39 37 28 199 32 231 40 37 41 44 46 52 260 26 286 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 2 7 75 70 72 84 83 80 464 60 524 53.33% 52.86% 56.94% 52.38% 55.42% 65.00% 56.03% 43.33% 54.58% 0 29 27 22 24 23 21 146 21 167 0 45 40 41 54 54 57 291 39 330 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 0 7 0 75 68 65 79 79 78 444 60 504 0.00% 60.00% 58.82% 63.08% 68.35% 68.35% 73.08% 65.54% 65.00% 65,48 5, 2 45 58 38 44 43 277 39 316 7 115 65 57 52 51 34 381 51 432 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 3 11 9 164 112 115 91 95 80 666 93 759 77.78% 70.12% 58.04% 49.57% 57.14% 53.68% 42.50% 57.21% 54.84 Q, 'O 56.92% Page - 10SCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOAL KIND. TOTAL WESTERN : UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 30 22 28 25 27 152 19 171 55 43 51 55 58 55 317 41 358 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 75 74 73 84 84 82 472 60 532 73.33% 58.11% 69.86% 65.48% 69.05% 67.07% 67.16% 68.33% 67.29% HILLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 14 19 22 14 105 17 122 29 32 31 31 31 38 192 19 211 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 48 49 46 50 53 53 299 37 336 60.42% 65.31% 67.39% 62.00% 58.49% 71.70% 64.21% 51.35% 62.80% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 32 31 41 30 26 190 26 216 38 37 38 49 45 39 246 33 279 2 0 1 2 0 2 7 0 1 70 69 70 92 75 67 443 59 502 54.29% 53.62% 54.29% 53.26% 60.00% 58.21% 55.53% 55.93% 55.58% WILSON UNGRADED 1 2 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 32 13 13 12 14 18 106 12 118 16 39 52 37 42 41 36 263 43 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 20 71 65 50 54 55 56 371 55 426 80.00% 54.93% 80.00% 74.00% 77.78% 74.55% 64.29% 70.89% 78.18% 71.83 *0 Page - 11SCHOOL/GRADE Woodruff UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 5 5 7 16 9 51 9 60 10 17 15 18 20 31 111 8 119 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 19 22 21 26 36 42 166 17 183 52.63% 77.27% 71.43% 69.23% 55.56% 73.81% 66.87% 47.06% 65.03% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL 15 15 5 5 0 0 20 20 25.00% 25.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED TOTAL 26 26 13 13 0 0 39 39 33.33% 33.33% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 7 7 8 8 0 0 15 15 53.33% 53.33% Page - 12)K )K X X X X * DATE START FEB-22 15:09 G3S P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT FEB-22-91 ERI 15:16 SENDER RX TINE PAGES 6' 55\" TYPE NOTE 5 RECEIVE OK X )K )K )K )K * X )|(La % 4 \\ TO\n'T   FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: time\n?'O y I-i g'7/ -z^'Z/T! PAT NUMBER 5^. FROM: CLERK, U. S. DISTRICT COURT U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 402 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 178-S35J^TS 740-6351 j\nI THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF THIS COVER PAGE. PAGE(S) INCLUDING I MESSAGE SENT BY: ii 1 A \u0026lt; ... , r- a,  Jafte V, Board of (Sth Cir,!9R2). -il histc . t)l de with Judgments i States District j .riot of Arkansas, I Districts in the I ve duty to elimi state-mandated /(cnwri V. Char- ' 0/ Education, L.Ed.2d fi54 I KO V.lLO.gO I if Missouri, 781 I.. 1H!S4), at n, 10.  latrict transfers, I pattern of an- ynce of all parts a e county us the  \"lit, the history H 'tricts, and the supervisory flisti'icLs demon- I icis historically I unci were not E not s tonomoiis, Ev I PP. 428 {D.Del, I I School District \u0026gt;uit in further- ato eliminate all 't and branch, orders of this ..led education r, C/iarlotte UioH, supra\na, supra. In achieve inter! ti-egaed resi- I County have I 'ei^re by the I' bodr. act-  witn the g ptoresis, and  a series ol mg choices. 464, 90 S.Ct.\nSwann w 'd of Educa- Esssr T 'I*' ,'yyy ''fs? .4** SI(~ I I I ..--Al ' *1? b ..Hl-\nIf i'H c*' ... a. LITTIsE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. v. PULASKI COUNTY cite M 964 F.Supp. 326 (1964) 7. The governmental actions affecting housing patterns in Pulaski County have hud a significant interdistrict effect on the schools in Pulaski County, which has resulted in the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendants districts. i'wnnn w Charlotte Mecklen- burp Board of Education, supra, R. The segregative actions taken by the two defendant districts and their failure to take desegregative actions have had a significant interdistrict effect on the schools in Pulaski County, which has also contributed to the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendant districts. Swann v, Charlotte tfecklen- burg Board of Education, supra. [2] 9, The Pulaski County Special School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative intcrdistrict effects\n(a) failed to adhere to the requirements of the Zin- namon decree\n(b) constructed schools in locations which ensured that they would be racially identifiable schools\n(c) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students\n(ri) refused to hire and promote black faculty and staff 'efused to allow deanne.va- tion to or co:.. oxidation with the other two districts\n(D failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize desegregation\nig) assigned students to special education rlasaificationa and gifted programs on a discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals . schools with high black enrollments\n(I) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its NAMI Little Rwk 1} Rrtdy 8) rw Fire 8) hn 0 FuCbHr-i 8) Jt/Jtnei 1 I) Terry 353 schools\nand (j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. 10, The North Little Rock School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative interdistrict effects\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and couching positions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of Interstate 40 and blacks in schools south of it\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion the burdens Of transportation equally on black and white students. 11. When Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District took the purposeful acts set forth in Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10 above, they knew Or should have known that they would have iiiterdistrict segregative effects. 12. The unconstitutional and racially discriminatory acts of the Pulaski County and North Little Kock School Districts have resulted in significant and substantial interdistrict segregation. Milliken r. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127. 41 L.Eri.2d 1069. 13. Since there are constitutional violations with interdisirict effects, an interdis- trict remedy is appropriate. Milliken e. Bradley, eupra\nLiddell v. State of Missouri, supra. The remedial hearing w begin April SO. 1884. 14. The Pulaski County Board of Education and Arkansas State Board of Education are necessary parties who must be made subject to the Cxjurt's remedial order. CXKIBtT I Tab.* I. kEMn\\?ARV (CHOOwS\nFAGIbITiU INROLlMeXTe.AhS ITAFF 1 I 1 1 I I I }  I 4 I riAS SLT.' a ll Tl I? U M /^It Oi\u0026gt; TIOX GKA5E8 CAPA C17Y* im ESSl.MT IIATION siaCk EXStMT 8U im tCHM,  IL. TCSSI AOMRI APKU ,! 1 i 9 1 4 8 9 4 I I K ) XJ X I X-J X 1 K-l X I 5A \u0026lt;75 ,W WQ W Ml IM Ud 304 749 4M 447 499 (13 Ml 41 84 73 77 TJ rt w 7 M9 S-.fl IW Iffl ue .ni lU TA 71 4\nTT 44 ?4 73 44 73 Wl in 111 nt at 3ti MI ) .114 ^-5 \u0026lt;-1 tn 49 49 49 14 4.4 40 44 (P- I 1 1 I I I I I I 0 I I q 0 0 9 4 I I i I jIB'? li' a * HL. TCHIW little rock school DIST, v. PULASKI COUNTY CllOR0S6AF.$upp,.U8 (1994) 365   b AhMiw. AbMrit\u0026lt; TJ 104 84 I.II 1.0 10.6 lU 80 11.0 1.0 1 I I 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 0 I 0 NAMK biMiJZauiii U) CMb B7I DMI Ui Dupri* IB) Ftiiltr YKAJ* IlkT. C1N hi- This (ihAhi\n** '.li.\\. nv KMlIMT ' VTIh IR \\Tins KUl'K KMd.MT, hk Tf'HHJ,  Hl. TI'HIW.   H AhAlDS. AiiAlRX U \u0026gt; i 0 19 I  BL 'CliKS ADMRt.  K admm I M 11 19 Al  i 1 X K-l K-4 K-B SM R7S 4M 400 IM B40 4M 4ia M 11 101 IZl 111 11 Q9 !7 u  10 '.'M 111 110 110 110 4.1 10 4.0 8.0 1 I I 16.8 7.0 140 81.1 8.0 9.0 89 1.0 71.9 i I ' IL AOMRS 80 e.o 16 90 10 04 e 4 0 .0 .0 8 J 10 1 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 9  S APM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 1 0 t Rifi/htUi m h/ ADUrs. * B 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I j I tl 11) JMkiftVil. M) LinOmvk M) Lavur  Mibiivkit Ml OakMM 17) OUCrsM U] CHMrCnib 11) Rina hm( ffi) RimwoM 71) BsblRMH 7|J Shu 78) Ihtfwood 74) IjMAKli. 70) Tayler 71) Tellmn t7) T^aiuktid 70] Wiuofl Tauli NAME U(t Raeii ?9j Sunbif 81) IltRdtnon ID MnR U] RuiMkl Hu. M} tauihwHi Tatli\nNnvh LiU) Rnk 10/ Rtntml M) LokawMtl 17) RidrrfiM 11) RHtOt^ foul. fw^ki Cfun'.j 101 hhw 111 /kinv|/No ) JbntlR/SA 11] Ml .SarthiMaoQ M) fUtinaM' Ml R/ivinhti. Ttttak * Mld^KMhMl M 09 17 U 10 ll 71 10 71 74 W M U 10 NA 69 17 I 9 A t I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 NA B 9 X-l K 0 X-B X-0 K-0 K-1 K-\u0026lt; xe K-O X-1 XI K-0 X-4 K-0 K-\u0026lt; XI X-1 I.IM 77S 4M MO ,7 OK 710 9M 060 8N .IM 080 019 700 aw 7 178 OM HIM on 04 8)7 BIO 601 491 860 444 096 04? 477 1)4 074 790 4M au iia iOO )1.0SI U M 118 no 109 M TB n IM in 41 no 164 M U IB 4 968 119 IM 4 141 99 II 70 19 IB 94 M IIO 111 110 01 170 B4 9449 M \" B 14 I n 19 10 11 II  SO 48 e lO 84 lO II 41 Ml FA 900 11.0 Ho ND n.o o 166 U.0 M.0 NO 11.6 FO UI 900 198 Ifl.O 97.0 782.8 74 1.0 0.6 4.0 10 8.0 0.0 10 40 8.9 1.0 4.0 8.0 18 4.0 80 1.0 0.0 me 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I J I I 1 98 1 0 0 0 r** 0 0 9 0 fl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 fl J I 0 8 I SXHiiiTfl TihU . JVNIOR lUOH (TNOOLS. FACtUTlU, ENROLLMKNTS. ANO STAFr vear ALT. M OS 11 M NA NA Na NA H 'U 'M U *79 84 00 CQS Dl- t:on gradss CaFa\u0026gt; crrr 1IR3 ENfiLMT. * l.TfIz tATS SLACK enrlmt *1 bl. :u TCKM. * IL TCHM, AnMfti  fi A\u0026amp;MHS. I 9 8 1 9 NA NA HA NA 9 I 8 I I I I 7f 7.1 1-1 7 I 7 7 1 7-1 IU1 \u0026lt;AA. 7-9 7-0 7 9 7-0 0 1 7-1 FO 992 W 175 M U.tf 19.1 1 2 na Ml MO Ttt KI OM MO 716 90 W M M 4.F9 lono MO IJlOC 400 -------- Tii 010 IM lOW o?i 1W\u0026gt; 4jr m 414 Mil MO 417 2.0W or  M 14 ui 19a 140 MO Ml a III 1.0 lO.B Ml 8' A I $ u I 1 1 Ml an Ma 4 Bi U M IM UII lat Ml 117 SM IM T.tf tt so  u 111 u.e SS.0 37.0 9U 1W.0 u AO 10 74 S7.0 I I J I 7 9 0 I 0 I I aiMi 440 OM 970 911 171 477 MB wM T fi 04 7S M U W **4 107 HI 1.84 09 99 94 106 1.009 29 IT  A  11 IIK O!.O MB O\u0026amp;O Ito 47.i M.O 470 il01.9 m=23BK\n. lio 8.6 TO 1.4 70 0.0 IB .l 8 I I I a 9 0-^ I 1 1 fl I I f.d -i!- Vz \u0026lt;  1 . i  \u0026lt; I: I'i 356 584 FEDEKAL SUPPLEMENT JV ' Hi i\ni IXXlBlTl Table IQ. SRKIOR HIUK KCHUUL*. YACJLITItB, BNKOLLMBNTB, ANO BTAfr .l I I NAMI UlwB-b ri Ctatffel Ml Hail M) Rkskviav TiUl YlAH BLT. 11 CON. 91. ttON CMADM 1 I I 10 la llUtl lO-lt CAfA* CITY IH) KXBLMT. \u0026lt;UTf^ ZATH BE.ACK ENRLMT. t BL. IMI TCHM. 4 BL. TGHBB. ADMU.  B AOMU. i.m 1,110 1.0*8 4,111 I.H 1,0*4 liM* \u0026lt;i*l IM If 110 } l.iu BI4 79S 1,413 ** M 3 M 4S 01.0 *T,Q lao 11.8 889 n.8 M.8 I H Ninh LiiM lUei 180} NanhiHi IQiJ Ola Main Tfttti\nfiJiiMl C\u0026gt;jiny ini rir Itt) Jaakansla. 1*41 MfClaUw 1*B) xnii 18*1 Oak Onr I8T) N Piilaikl IM) BntHMwn IWl Sybaa Hli. TiMl' TO **4 11  I* -If 78 '*4 M 1 I 1 B 3 t a l\u0026gt;lt IB-ll 71I 18-11 18  !A-lt Ml ICKIS 1.12 18 11 1,400 e.ooo 1,400 un 1,228 1.414 B4 lit 1.111 lit i.m l,0M 1,0*3 a.i m 1,181 1.478 1,040 81* 73* 4*1 7*71  54 *10 M4 W5 877 rr an MB MB 104 II* tto t I 1 s 08 I? in itf IM u it H IT 331 i** 401 ni 41 u HI 1.U? It n I* \u0026lt;0 u u H IO 4a.B U.B TUO BO.Q 43-C f* Bi.e 438 ITT.O 10* 8.8 110 11.0 B.I 4.0 14 10 UJ s 1 0 I B 8 I I 81 Q I 1 1 I I ( f .-/w\\ Rollin FROST, Plaintiff, t V. i I CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, hIm OefenduntH. Civ. No. 83-1169. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. I April 13, 1984. I 1 I Section 1983 action was brought against city and county and others to recover damages arising out of aiieged beating of plaintiff by police officers. On defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to State claim and on ground that complaint was vague and conelusory, the District Court. Fong, J., held that\n(1) fact that recourse tu state tort remedies was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation suffioientl.y serious to shock the conscience and officers' willful and deliberate abuse of state authority, in manner which could not be characterised as random, and (2) construing complaint liber. ally, it was not so vague and conelusory as to warrant dismissal, particularly at early stage of proceedings and tn view of fact that some defendants wore as yet unidentified. Motion denied. i 1 I 1. Constitutional Law e2o2.5 Identificatiun of specific requirements of due process requires consideration of, among other factors, nature of the affected interest, and implicit in that principle is recognition that some interests, by their very nature, require more procedural protoctions than others. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. Const. I 2. Civil Rights 413.9 Fact that recourse to state tort reme- din.s was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court fur deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation siiffi- VI Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO: FROM: THROUGH: March 5, 1991 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools p,' Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Request for Information - Building Capacities Please find attached the information you requested on building capacities for 1987-88 through 1990-91. Duiiding Although the 1990-91 building capacity information was submitted to your office on an earlier date, I have taken the liberty to include it here for the sake of addressing a concern that needs further explanation. In addition to responding to your request. I would like to use this opportunity to explain why have changed during certain years. At first glance,\"it probably appears that building capacities are subject to change at any time without reason. Each change in school capacity, however, was caused by an attempt to correct a problem that started in the 198788 school year, provide some building capacities it space for a new program \u0026lt;1. e. particular grade level. ALP) , year. or address overloads at a As you can see on the attachment, most of the capacity changes occurred on the elementary level. I am working on a report that will explain the reason for each change that occurred at a particular school during the period of 1987-88 through 1990-91. In the interim, it is important that you understand why most of the schools experienced capacity changes between 1987-88 and 1988-89. 1987-88 The 1987-88 school year was the first year of the Districts \"controlled choice student assignment plan. conrroiied Although the developers of this plan probably had good intentions, ___ Little Rock School District is still suffering from some of the mistakes that were made In the design of the student assignment plan. You might remember that I assumed my current position two weeks before the assignment letters for the new plan were mailed to parents. I was not Involved In theBuilding Capacities page two the development of the plan. The assignment plan developers are no longer employed by the Little Rock School District, It became apparent shortly after the parents received their assignment letters that the developers of the plan failed to consider the grade levels of students in making assignments. As a result, several schools had more students at a particular grade level than the building could actually accommodate. In addition to the disregard for the grade level of students. I also discovered that some principals were not aware of the capacity figures that were loaded in the computer for their buildings. _ A second set of capacity figures was collected and loaded into the computer shortly before my promotion. The building principals could not warn the developers of the problems that would be encountered with the new set of capacity figures because they were unaware that these figures were being used. The District decided to correct these problems by adding portable buildings. to the extent possible, split classes were used. Also, As you review the capacity figures for 1987-88, please keep in mind that these figures include numerous cases of additional portables and/or split classes. These corrective measures were used with the clear understanding that the District would implement a long-term plan to eliminate split classes and, where possible. portable classrooms. This mission could not be carried out over the ensuing years without reflecting some degree of change in building capacities. The 1987-88 school year also marked the beginning of program that affected capacity in all buildings. Accelerated Learning Program \u0026lt;ALP), a new The for Accelerated Learning \u0026lt;PAL), later renamed Program involved the use of classroom space for a computer lab and/or small group instruction. '  In summary, the disregard for grade levels in assigning students, the use of new capacity figures, * use of classroom space for special programs had a devastating effect on the next item for discussion  grade structure. and the Grade Structure Grade structure refers to the number of classes at each grade level. The number of classes at each grade level is very Important because there must be enough seats at the succeeding grade level to accommodate students who have been promoted. The ideal grade structure is to have the number of classes at each grade level. same It is acceptable,Building Capacities page three however, to have more classes at the succeeding grade level than the previous grade level. For Instance, it is acceptable to have two fifth grade classes feeding into three sixth grade classes. acceptable, Although the latter is it does not represent the best use of resources since the succeeding grade level \u0026lt;l.e. have a surplus of seats that sixth grade) will course of the school year. may not be filled during the Only six of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have an ideal grade structure. These schools are Booker. (4), Mitchell \u0026lt;2\u0026gt;, Romine (3), Terry (3), Watson (3), and Western Hills \u0026lt;2).  The number in parentheses represents the number of classes at each grade level. Only six of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have an leve1. These schools are Carver, Wakefield, and Woodruff. acceptable grade structure. Dodd, Garland, Jefferson, schools. In the remaining 24 elementary the grade structure is unacceptabl grade structure, the term \"unacceptable means cases where the preceding grade level has more classes than the the next succeeding grade level. For Instance, it is unacceptable to have three third grade level classes feeding into two fourth grade level classes. unacceptable e. In regard to In most cases. the unacceptable grade structures were caused by the circumstances described earlier. The correction of this problem can also affect the capacity of the building.* If three third grade classes (capacity of 69 students) feed into two fourth grade classes (capacity of 50 students), total capacity for the two grades Is 119. If third grade classrooms is used the following yc fourth grade classroom, in order to correct the If one of the year as a the unacceptable the new third grade capacity is 46, new fourth grade capacity is 75. the two grades is 121. grade structure. and the The new total capacity for Another example Involves three kindergarten classes (60 students) feeding Into two first grade classes \u0026lt;46 students). The total for these two grades is 106. If of the kindergarten classrooms is moved to first grade t I f one o resolve the shortage of seats, the kindergarten capacity changes to 40 students, the first grade capacity changes to 69 students, and the new total for these two sradeq 1 no grades is 109. At least two schools currently have this problem, assume that building capacities must always remain static. Building capacities have to change if unacceptable grade structures are going to be corrected. incorrect to It isBuilding Capacities page four A schools capacity can is acceptable. also change when the grade structure If two kindergarten classes \u0026lt;40 students) feed into three first grade classes (69 students) and a first grade classroom is changed to kindergarten (60 kindergarten students and 46 first grade students), the capacity for these grades changes from 109 to 106. Involvement of Building Principals I have worked closely with building principals and assistant superintendents since the second semester of the 1987-88 school year to complete the Districts long-term mission to correct grade structures. ideal, It is absolutely Imperative that or at least acceptable, grade structures are functioning in all buildings, is evident In my February 15, An example of my Involvement 1988 memo to all non-magnet elementary principals (see attachment). This memo Is a good example of the complexities involved in correcting the capacity problems caused by controlled choice. Even though the 1988-89 building capacities were entered in the Districts computer on March 22, 1988 (see attachment), changes had to be made during the summer of 1988 to respond to retentions, new students, attrition, the elimination of additional split classes, etc. Capacities have also been changed since 1987-88 to allow a 1:20 teacher/pupll ratio at the racially identifiable schools. to open early childhood classes. to relieve overcrowding in some open space schools (Dodd and Baseline), to reduce class size in substandard size classrooms (i.e. Geyer Springs and Woodruff), to accommodate changes in the elementary gifted and talented program (1989-90). and to open additional self-contained and kindergarten classes. The District has experienced a steady growth in kindergarten enrollment over the past two years. The extent to which capacity changes in the future depends on the extent to which similar needs occur in the future. I will continue to work on the report I referred to earlier. I hope to get it to you in the near future. free to call memo. Please feel me if you have any questions concerning thisBuilding Capacities page five *(NOTE: Building capacity is based on the average class sizes specified by the standards. for grades 1-3 is 23 students. The average class size grades 4-6 is 25 students. The average class size for for kindergarten. There is no average class size Kindergarten may not exceed 20 students.) cc: Aruia Hart ''' Chip Jones Sterling Ingram Brady Gadberry Chris HellerSCHOOL 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2112 995 1397 1259 1150 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2050 936 1220 1200 991/846 Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest 657 792 843 990 669 975 774 807 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 812 780 960 600 935 700 754 Badgett Bale. Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Spri.ngs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff King 303 397 492 720 440 475 634 394 422 346 440 467 535 397 235 348 256 488 558 483 465 326 374 378 328 414 510 306 515 472 305 492 328 530 418 268 374 278 394 417 660 420 472 563 420 424 351 461 447 607 320 235 351 220 490 541 531 465 280 383 328 280 320 467 260 537 472 Closed 472 328 515 409 245 Closed 258 397 417 656 480 613 543 422 403 359 436 463 612 320/316 237 351 180 473 564 559 454 280/273 383 328 234/240 320/297 484 260 537 472 840 472 328 515 504 209 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 351/332 200 513 562 562 481 280/273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209TO: FROM: THROUGH February 15, 1988 All Non-Magnet Elementary Principals James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation y.. I^Angel a Sewall, Associate Superintendent - School Improvement SUBJECT: 1988-89 Building Capacity Projections Please find attached the building capacity projections for 1988-89. These ^.projections should reflect the information you recently gave to Mary Jane Cheatham. It is my understanding that these figures will address the following concerns for the 1988-89 school year: (1) the elimination of portable buildings wherever possible\n(2) the elimination of split classes wherever possible\n(3) enough capacity at next year's grade level to accomodate students presently assigned to your building\n(4) enough additional classrooms available to accomodate special programs such as space for an ALP lab, self-contained classes etc. Please sign by the name of your school and return to my office if these projections are accurate. If corrections are needed, please make the corrections sign by the name of your school and return to my office, should be returned by Friday, February 19. All projections Capacities at the racially identifiable schools will be changed at a later date to reflect the 20:1 pupi1-teacher ratio ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of AppealsK /7 Bale Brady Fair =ark oUlLDir'Jc CAr.-.2.TI53 40-/ 40/ i,' 1 o 5S GS 5\"' G = 13SS-3S 4 c 5 Total AV Forest Park 40/ GSJ P~ J2\u0026lt;5^' Frankl in 60^ GS Fulbright 60'\"' cr b = V .J Garland 3S 30 X e:~3or\\ c z s:- 3 S K i r.g G McCernot t 40 0/ 3^ Pulaski Heights\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_270","title":"Building capacities","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982/2007"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School facilities","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Building capacities"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/270"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDemocrat WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2,1994 2,456 seats empty, but LRSD must build I Desegregation plan mandates new $6 million school BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts elementary schools contain more vacant seats than many Arkansas school districts have students, yet the district is obligated to build another grade school within 116 years. The districts desegregation plan sets an August 1995 deadline for the construction project  at an estimated cost of at least $6 million. district Judge Susan Webber Wright, presiding in the 11-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation case, suggested last week that Little Rock officials may want to rethink their plans for building a new Stephens School. She was reacting to a capacity re- port^repared by the federal Office of Desegregation Moni-  toring.\nThe study found 2,456 vacant seats in the Little Rock districts 36 elementary schools  15 percent of the 16,322 avail- r v vuv clVdli able elementary seats in the city. The number of vacancies exceeds the total of seats in the districts three largest ele- See SCHOOLS, Paae 10A ---------------------------- Available seats \u0026amp; excess capacity Schools Little Rock School District Total Capacity 93-94 % black 93-94 Available seats % capacity Schools with acceptable racial balance Otter Creek Jefferson  Terry . Forest Park Fulbright . Pulaski Heights McDermott 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 TOTAL 3,188 L Schools out of racial balance 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3,291 41.35 42.26 43.32 43.67 44.81 47.74 51.47 45.03 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97 102 109 115 96 106 98 103 Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot . Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield ' Bale Fair Park Baseline  Watson ' Cloverdale - TOTAL Incentive schools Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller TOTAL 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6,582 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 5,703 62.29 63.73 64.73 64.76 66.25 70.51 69.94 69.84 72.22 74.29 75.39 74.26 76.05 77.26 79.86 78.76 71.44 88 27 36 4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73 95 89 101 85 93 91 74 88 90 91 76 75 88 90 78 87 interdistrict schools - Washington 544 346 346 298 346 425 2,305 345 205 230 145 189 340 1,454 86.96 88.29 93.48 97.24 97.35 70.59 86.73 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63 59 66 49 55 80 63\nKing Romine TOTAL Magnet schools\nBooker Williams Carver Gibbs TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 939 692 487 2,118 721 553 334 1,608 62.55 64.56 73.95 65.61 218 139 153 510 77 80 69 76 656 517 613 353 2,139 16,332 595 472 595 299 1,961 14,017 Source: Office of Desegregation Monitoring 53.95 54.45 54.62 56.86 54.72 63.82 61 45 18 54 178 2,456 91 91 97 85 92 86 STEVE SCALUON / Ark. Democrat-Giisns  Continued from Page 1A mentary schools. Statewide, student enrollments total less than 2,400 at about 270 of the 315 school districts. Ann Brown, desegregation monitor, said the study raises questions about enrollment trends and why students are assigned to the schools they attend. The study can be a basis for further examination by the district, she said. Browns staff conducted the study when Little Rock district officials must decide what to do about construction of an inter- district school to replace Stephens, 3700 W, 18th St, The new school is supposed to be built along the Interstate 630 corridor, east of University Avenue and west of Interstate 30, As an interdistrict school, it would be open to pupils from the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. County officials would be obligated to recruit county students to the Little Rock school. Wright requested the study after rejecting the Little Rock districts plan last year to rebuild Stephens at the 18th Street site. Her order, though, was based not on vacancies but on the proposed location, which she said did not meet the 1-630 corridor requirement. The district and black intervenors in the desegregation case are appealing Wrights order to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals al St. Louis. \"The study reveals some startling facts and might reflect such changed circumstances that you will want to rethink Stephens, Wright told officials last week after reviewing the study. Im not sure you need the extra seats. Vacancies could increase next year, as up to 200 Little Rock pupils are recruited for the new William J. Clinton In- terdistrict Elementary School in Sherwood. Wright has said at different times that parts of the desegregation plans in all three Pulaski County school districts can be changed if parties in the lawsuit justify proposed changes to her. The parties wrote their own desegregation plans in 1989. Those plans were approved and are now being enforced by federal courts. Little Rock administrators and school board members have been questioning the need for a new interdistrict school. While on one front the district is appealing Wrights order regarding Stephens, district officials are talking to the county and North Little Rock districts and the black Joshua intervenors about having Washington Magnet Elementary School designated as one of two elementary interdistrict schools required by the desegregation plan. Washington, at 115 W. 27th St., already has an academic theme and attracts students from neighboring districts. Substituting Washington for Stephens in the desegregation plan copld free the district to do something else with Stephens. Dorsey Jackson, president of the school board, said Tuesday there is some talk about building a new incentive school in Central Little Rock that could replace one or a combination of existing incentive school buildings. Nothing has been decided, he said. Five of the six incen- live schools, including Stephens, are older, small buildings. The concept is there on the table, but we cant make any decisions until we get all the demographic data we need, Jack- son said. He expects questions about the need to build a school if there are vacancies in existing buildings. But a new building could be more attractive to students not now at incentive schools, he said. The desegregation plan obligates the district to desegregate incentive schools. All but Rockefeller  where enrollment is 70.6 percent black  are at least 86.9 percent black. The 13 schools in downtown Little Rock, including Stephens, generally have the highest va- cancy rates. Stephens has the lowest enrollment in the district at 145 pupils and the highest vacancy rate, 51 percent. Even if all the. pupils who live in the Stephens zone went to the school  they dont  enrollment would be only about 200. The building has a capacity of 298. The study defined downtown as east of University Avenue, west of Little Rock Regional Airport, Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek and south of Markham Street. The 13 schools are at 76 percent capacity, with 1,429 seats vacant. Si.x of the 13 are incentive el- ementaries, which receive ex-, tra money and special programs' to improve student achievement and attract white families. Incentive schools, on average, are at 63 percent capacity, with 851 seats vacant, according to the study. Other schools in the downtown area\n Booker, Carver and Gibbs magnet el- ementaries are at 92 percent capacity. .  King and Washington interdistrict schools are at 78 percent capacity.  Woodruff and the Central High School kindergarten are at 76 percent capacity. 1I ATTACHMENT 1 n u December 21. 1994 Little Rock Scnool Distnct Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 D^ember 1S. 1995 Difference Page 1 A 5 i V central HS FairHS Hall HS McClellan HS 1 Parkview HS I Sub-Totai| wlo Magnets Czoireroa/e jh Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabeivaie JH MannJH' Pulaski Heights JH P 1020 O o m 535i 51 620, 2661 6i 1606 63.51% 892 69.51% u IS \u0026amp; i 5 a o u m 1021 i 530- 47, 639i 2221 Southwest JH Baagett Bale Baseline BooKer' Brady Carver cnicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin\" FulDngnt Cartaner Geyer Springs Clbos Sub-Total w/o Magnets Jefferson King- Mabeivaie McDermott Meadowcliff Mitcneir otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rlgntseih Rockefeller Romine-___________ Stephens' Terry Wakefield Washington- Watson western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Special schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 6461 3101 381 671' 1971 131 422i 3411 371 994 64.99% 881 76.16% 800 52.75% 6131 260- 44! 7411 159, 444 3379 1649' 14SI 5173 65.32% | 3458 2957 13081 108 . 4373 67.62% 5301 110! 4641 2041 7, 111 573' 1861 221 654 , 2101 27' 647 81.92% 679 68.34% 781 73.37% 891 73.40% 3014 15i 364\n401 1598. 63.89% 8701 73.45% 9171 66.85% 915, 80.98% 8481 52.36% li -5 e  A o m 41b 452 152! 7' 3561 211 426 317! 1131 61 19. 570 72.11% 829 54.52% 749 56.88% 630 79.05% 4008 1648 1 20 . 5776 69.39%l 3556 1292 : 99l 4947 71.88%ji 136 222, 2361 303 48l 781 741 235 254 119' 313 344. JiT 189 195 205 394 244 24TT 215. 153' 215 287 356\n247 294 256\n161 198. 224, 260 226, 268' 122! 72: 961 103! 227: 36: 290\n9 69 129' 280! 224! 1331 0, 8i 41 20' 14 141 8. 7! 7: 6, 6 121 2b 27! 71 13! 6. 21\n9' 2261 17: 1151 61 1911 198! 4: 1231 69: 1 4! ~8~ 151 3! 14. 16'\niosed 184 73.91% 308 72.08% 314 75.16% 558 54.30% 387 65.63% 595 52.61% 474 72.57% 391 79.80% 292 64.73% 304 64.14% 438 46.80% 442 89.14% 555 43.96% 277 87.00% 291 73.88% 300 52.67% 501 42.91% 532 53.95% 498 71.49% 490 50.41% 410 71.71% 266 96.24% 360 44.72% 411 48.18% 231 96.97% 397 65.49% 311 72.67% 191 -44) 3 -331 -501 6 701 -381 2 221 231 3 -8i 0.38% -22\n3.94% -77) 1.86% 341 4.82% 481 -039% 1535 155 ' 5148 ' 67.17%| 791-1141 101 -25l 1,85% I 1171 1151 43001 70.09% 5421 437 593! 6301 3771 77' 181 I 281i 221 1641 161 143. 21! 129' 51 450 ! 3771 221 4421 3251 101 493! 80' 171 637 85.09% 7401 59.05% 7731 76.71% 794. 79.35% 5111 73.78% 849 ! 53.00% Tn. 56.89% 5901 83.56% 3964.1576 131 5671 69.90% 3514. 1199 109 . 4822 72.87%i 1761 240' 2481 42. 2. 791 22i 691 6. 321! 253 ! 3b 246. 118' 324, 287' 3461 387' 188i 211' 203: 4151 254' 238 243' 165, 219! 571-1371 71 -731 2,47% 121 -331 11| -lOl 3.17% -271 77! 11 201 -221 -6 -24! -67) -6 -341 -231 -2 -2| 21) 1 611 -9,28% 161 81 4 -51 -33! -2 -81 335% -97! 5.94% -591 1.67% 201 -132% 28i 0.01% -401 4.51% -441 -72: 111-105. 0,51% -421 -931 101-1251 0.99% 251 19' 92! 12 57, 86! 54' 2221 16. 256, b 68! 130, 280: 289' 2521 312: 262! 306: 250: 137' 123\n10: 7' 8: 81 14: 101 18 7! 15' 7' 16: 11' 197! 251 91! 51 1681 2!^) 2S7'. 2131 41 61 21 81 161 6, 254. 126. 221 2111 83' 181 Closed 220 - 80.00% 3411 70.38% 3231 76.78% 605 53.06% 389 63.24% 630 51.43% 4501 76.89% 454 . 85.24% 281 66.90% 273: 77.29% 433 46.88% 445 93.26% 520' 48.85% 257 92.61% 318 76,42% 310 53.23% 506 43.28% 557 51.89% 446 69.96% 484 . 54.13% 403: 75.93% 257 97.28% 3331 41.14% 432 ! 48.38% 223 ! 95.52% 402! 63.18% 312 67.63% 401 161 121 -61__2 11 14 -5! 2 181 181 11 -81 HI -11 11 191 5 21 -301 u o. I\u0026amp; u u ' Hl i 18911 9541 -293 -84 12911 -374 11991 -284 o3ao(\u0026gt; 13^'^ ^\u0026lt;i5 7 10001 -152 63351 -1187 5335\n-1035 868: 8121 658! -231 -72 -85 9071 -113 6141 -103 231 329 431' 325 205, 307 . 30. 701 151 2081 27\n961 10, 971 249' 216\n269 140' 15! 80! 841 21! 81 10' 9! 8' Oi 568 40.67% 414 79.47% 666 64.71% 431 75.41% 310 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 , 265 . 251 370, 4191 372! 2111 351 231 199' 381 731 104! 81 3! 2641 2301 191 306! 1591 17! 631 131 721 291 81 01 534\n45.69% 428 86.45% 656 63.87% 4531 82.12% 318. 66.35% 5131 51.46% 382 80.10% 239 66.53% 46\n36.96% 8879\n4723 ' 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 1 670 24956 65.18% 9229.4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404\n12069 67.43% 16651\n7567 774\n24992 . 66.63% 14354 6454 1 555 21363 6-.19' 14666.5S97 626.21191 : 69.21 Office of Student Assignment 4 A 36| 6.09% 33! -1.70% 91 1.62% 47' -1274% 21 -2.39% 351 -1.18% 41 -241 432% 751 -151 3! 631 5.45% -1! -101 01 -111 2.18% 161 -491 21 -311 13.14% -2l -51 21 211 -201 21 -51 0.08% 3! 4.12% 101 -341-11! -351 4.88% -3! 281 71 4! -81 -9' -201 5.60% -1| 01 27! 2.53% 1! 2I lOI 0.56% 01 iT 51 0.37% 21 281 -51 251 -2.06% -441 -101 21 -521 -133% 15l -291 81 -61 3.72% 121 -241 51 -71 4,22% -61 11! -Ill -61 -151 -1| -2 -31 0 91 1 01 3 31__8 141 2 Closed -9! 1.04% -27\n-3.58% 211 0.20% -81 -1.45% 51 -2.31% II -5.04% 131 -421 -51 -34 , 5.02% 41! -351 81 141 6.98% -121 -91 11 47! -231 61 15! -2 71 -5 141 9 371 -171 4 19| -121 0 21 8i~0 -10! -0.84% 221 6.71% 8\n022% 381 -0.96% 241 4.97% 71 6.18% 101 -4.71% 35O!-267I 831 1661 -1.73% 297i-327i S6| 261 2-32% 385!-453|104| 36. 1.45' 31^-5571 731-172. 2.02% 850! 745\n7371 6391' 5541 i 257' 401! 3901 656' 467, 6131 -I 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 looo IS.C'i laai 'Til f'ti 13^ 753 AiO .A33 56 4/3 5581 -108 492! 3281 351, 3991 4341 540: 2981 328! 3531 492' 7281 5151 5171 465! 298' 351' 374. 2581 4691 487' -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -yyrf TJS 350 .y.59 07 3say I /I 3% I 3  3 33 y st \u0026lt;il83 -  75 2^4 235 \u0026lt;^4-/ -67 -175 \u0026lt;- ^3 515! 4921 19 -64 8361 -180 492\n328\n5171 3941 3241 -39 -10 I -12 -85 46 3^5 53? 3^'6 JO 41 33 13 7 15717' -1544 13578, -1509 28043 \\ -3451 24454 , -3263Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa MEMORANDUM To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume I. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug:  I recently received the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Februaiy 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug\n1 understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which 1 understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the three-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, Februaiy 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell MayoOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: 1 understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which 1 understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the three-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, Februaiy 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell Mayo9 Cf'l ./\u0026lt; Little Rock School District 4 Feb 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Bast Markham St. Heritage West Building Oiiice Little Rock, AR 72201 fEB 1 1 1994 of Desssrscaticfi Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington The Incentive school capacities are calculated on a maximum class size of 20 students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The special programs at Rockefeller Elementary are calculated using 10 students/class in Infant programs, old programs and 18 students/class 17 students/class in 2 yr. in 3 yr. old programs. The capacity of Washington Elementary is calculated using 20 students in K, 23 students in grades 1 thru 3, 25 students in grades 4 thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The capacities listed are based on the number of class presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. sections School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely. I DovglfiA Eaton 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Lkiib PLAWr 13:58 No .003 P.02 I ^5 I Little Rock School District 4 Ffth 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Bast Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, contained herein are the I have included Washington capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. school capacities are calculated on thru 6 anri8 s?Sd:an ?msa xiimnuXm ec-lars's I^studenVs/eYa7^^^^ Elementary are calculated using Old prlXl and Js sVuTe^ntr/:?\" 13 'J' is SlculSed using 2o\" student: \"and i UXVs \"-derrS\" 25 students in grades 4 thru The capacities listed are based on the number of cl presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 Sincerely, Dotigl Eaton 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 *^PLRNT SERVICES TEL :501-570-402? Feb 04,94 13:58 No . 003 P.02  **  4 Fflh 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Little Rock School District Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994 capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington Old programs and 18 students/class in 6 and 18 students in pre-K in grades 4 thru old in Pre-K. p?esStl^^in^f cl presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections -School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely, DPvgl Eaton flin ECCHB Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building R M4r? 2 Little Rock, AxR 72201 Of'fes Cl Dese. 3'sgaiicn Mo, !or:ng Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes and realized I made an error in letter I sent you on Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 29S not 253. count one class section. In my haste I failed to Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, ! 'Ugmas Eaton Dire or Plant Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361(*C\ncr fPFFFBBCiail kkULLBHjS9!l Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building f^AR 2 4 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaiicn Monitoring Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes and realized I made an error in letter I sent you on Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 298 not 258. count one class section. In my haste I failed to Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, i 'Ugffias Eaton Dire or Plant Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361^PLANT SERVICES TEL : 501-570-4027 Feb 04,94 13:58 No .003 P.02 5^ s3 iX Little Rock School District 4 Ffth 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994 capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington The Incentive school capacitie size of jL -----s -a1r.e= -caaxlvc-uulxaatueeda on a maximum ccllaasss students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K IT programs at Rockefeller Elementarv om .t-oa  10 students/class in Infant er Elementary are calculated using programs, 17 students/class in 2 yr. 6 and 13 students in Pre-K. based on the number of cl presently m effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections -School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 S ^ncerely, Eaton JT mW 4 1. . I \u0026lt; 55 Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Ke: age West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Dese\nsgaiicn Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes letter I sent you on and realized I made an error in Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 293 not 253. count one class section. In my haste I failed co Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, i Z 'Ugffias Eaton Dire or Plant Services 1 ! I I 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District JUN 1 1994 June 2, 1994 Oliice of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Melissa: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 1994, regarding Little Rock School District Facility Studies. The Junior High Capacity Study has essentially been completed and lacks submission only the final to the Court. review by the Superintendent prior to As soon as that review has been completed, and we are prepared to send it to Federal Court, I will most certainly forward a copy to your office. With regard to Baseline Elementary School, a separate Facility Study was not done relating to the closing of that school. The considerations in examining Baseline consisted of financial issues. facility issues, and student enrollment issues. As of this date. we have presented the attached Business Case to the Superintendent and Board for their review. A final determination by the Board of Education has not been made as of this date regarding the closing of Baseline. Sincerely, D iug s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 0 1994 Office of Oesegregcucr G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice on behalf of itself, the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District of the filing of a \"Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections\" which was compiled by a joint committee of representatives from the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: ___ _ CfirTstopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 17th day of June, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller 2 I. II. SPECIAL REPORT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION JUNE 1994 This Special Report amends the Special Study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District\nPlant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District\nand. Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. The purpose of this Committee was to: 1) review the Special Study done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study\n2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof\nand. 3) correlate the needs of the three Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee desegregation discussed efforts, philosophy programmatic with needs regard and (3) to M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two (2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three (3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. no specific reason why different percentages are used. There is It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent (100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure, i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent (80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There IS , of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ - because of the eighty-five percent (85%) capacity and the size of the schools. desired This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. provided. The following analysis of various subject areas is A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-District Transfers Upon Enrollment: Intra-district appear to be transfers within the Districts assigned Schools). by relatively stable. attendance zone Students (except are Magnet Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones\nhowever, this need must be taken into consideration with projected M- to-M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2B) delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in line with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are assignment policy- of attendance zones. Immediate and students changes dealing with or a realignment the of Long-Term Effects of Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District: M-to-M The Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program voluntary for all participating students. Ma jority-is Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will students rolled over from the include elementary schools. This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at any of the elementary, senior high schools. Essentially, junior or academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. are no specific programs called for in There the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students at junior high level. A chart the indicating M-to-M enclosure. transfers is attached as an A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level, between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little School District to Pulaski County, Rock North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, North Little Rock, Little to the Rock School District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under district, or magnet school, concept. the inter- If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3C) D) Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity: The state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, Sth, and 9th grades, similar. in all three (3) Districts, is quite There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any district's emphasis will be capacity. Major instructional on delivery of instruction. improving the quality and The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. significantly These are not important to justify major construction efforts, but rather the addition, or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' School Students: .Obligation. to Recruit White Private With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District increase, junior highs and for a similar although in smaller numbers Pulaski County and North Little Rock. in both The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. goals There are no projected quotas, nor students. students established ' for recruiting junior high The ongoing effort will continue and the will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4E) Lack of Non-Maqnet Junior High in East Little Rock: Between the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase in population of approximately 2.6%. This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County Little primarily in Rock appeared area. to the sections of the city. east, have central, lost population and southwest At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of 1-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. is Mann Magnet Junior High School. Also in this area the last two (2) For at least students desiring school years. to attend all junior high Dunbar have been permitted to do so. With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does not populations. seem justified. Schools follow area. School They rarely lead populations into an As the population shifts Districts accommodating in the three (3) these 'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of construction of new junior highs\ncourse. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis\nzones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs without close construction\nattendance to existing realigning grades between school Little Rock School District has and, levels. made four. The major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and IS desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabeivaie Junior High. These are needed because of: (1) the shifting population\n(2) the age of the buildings\nand, (3) changes in the academic program over the years which have classrooms. necessitated more specialized Preliminary figures indicate that in the area of eastern Little Rock (east of 1-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances situation. purposes, and district-wide, given that the present is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least Consideration for the next seven (7) years. a new junior high school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. F) Equitable Distribution of Bussing: The question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall junior high level. racial composition at the In School Year ' 93-' 94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the schools junior high the junior For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-four percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bused outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-'93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools attendance for children being bussed within their zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-'93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. out of the attendance In the case of children being bussed zones, we have an eight percent (8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race. as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6G) IV. This is due (1) to shifting populations zone. within School District\nand, (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attending junior highs within the (2) Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the This percentage was fifty-five percent (55%). indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. this is only a snaoshot in time. Periodically, snapshot However, growth trends must be examined, __ _______ cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the and population population is moving toward or away from existing Within Pulaski County, this problem is far greater. junior high schools. Seven (7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input\nThe Committee generally felt that at this planning stage, required. Intervenors community However, input was not was input requested. from As necessarily the the Joshua Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of. in new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Study of the Capacities / Analyzation\n____________________ The study of the capacities and the analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. plan is a which is a voluntary plan. The desegregation The M-to-M Program, principal component of this plan. allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantaae of any excess in capacity. advantage When one studies the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7B) C) students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary to the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer districts and have, subsequently, students between trend in your capacities and projections. included that There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced transfer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, recommendations made in the attached annexes the are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. Little Rock School District: conclusions as identified in Annex The analysis and (I A\" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. Junior High The localized problems at Mabelvale School and School, however, will persist. Southwest Junior High to Mabelvale Junior High and Adding classrooms to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. Pulaski County Special School analysis on Page Four (4) of Annex District: The 11 need in Pulaski County for construction B\" supports the northwest quadrant of the county to in the support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. be tempered by the success This, of course, will of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive trans- portation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8D) North Little Rock School District: and conclusions on Page Four (4) The analysis indicate a relatively stable of Annex It c II Little Rock. situation in North in School Year From an anticipated peak enrollment '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1.2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacity essentially Desegregation identical. The Plan, the M-to-M support of Program, were the the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict schools are supported methodology by of the all fully understood and Districts. The parallel each other capacity calculations and the need to general closely look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition. it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes Successful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students. but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason. desegregation efforts. such as support of our DCE/rlh/specrep 9M TO H TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) YEAR TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD TO NLR FROM NLR 87/88 76 98 88/89 145 31 69 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 7 5 6 M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) SY TO PCSSD NLR FROM PCSSD NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/rangeLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL PISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 6145 6062 98.6 SiZSi 63 13 6 166 97.7 aizsA 6391 6109 95.6 94/95 6391 6135 95.9 a57j6 6391 5962 93.3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 24 19 2262 93.5 24 19 2225 91.9 24 19 2245 92.8 24 19 2155 89.0 2419 2 154 89.0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTF SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 95/-9g, CAPACITY 5044 ENROLLMENT ' 5075 PERCENTAGE 100.6 5044 4942 97.9 5044 5002 99.2 5044 5220 103.5 5044 5281 104.7I, SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH, 1994) INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain the considerations in determining capacity, seating capacity as of school year '92 criteria established today does not change, It assessed the - '93 given the and it further establishes that criteria and defines it. II. B) It records projected enrollments to the year 2000 and their impact on the District. CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may  be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. been defined. in Once this capacity has reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity, the case of the junior and senior high schools, In the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used, in the junior high is defined as a ' tt Therefore, capacity snapshot\", at a given 1B) in the junior high is defined as a point in time, housed at criteria. a II snapshot\", at a given of the number of students that can be given facility based on The criteria is explained below. an established Capacity Considerations\nbe The following nine (9) areas must be considered when calculating capacity secondary facility. of a (1) Size of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as solely in the classroom. education IS not conducted Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms: number of general The number of rooms refers to the purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements\nSpecial class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\ncapacity. even though that is the room Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. classes with maximum Examples are remedial reading capacity of 15, courses with maximum capacity of 10, resource and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers\nThe number directly affects classroom utilization. of teachers Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2(7) Number of Periods\nThe number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. (8) Scheduling Efficiency\nthe ability of the Scheduling Efficiency is school to C. (9) students' desires. desirable. accommodate the needs in taking the classes he or she A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows assigned. a maximum of 3 0 persons to be Calculation The following methodology used to calculate capacity\nMethodology\nis the Step One\nIdentify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two\ntotal is referred to as Add the capacities of each room. The sum If Total Physical Capacity\". step Three\nAdjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Capacity. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Step Four\nMultiply the difference by 17%, if a six- Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as \"Prep Time\". Identify Step Five\nnumber Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that from the Total Physical Capacity. referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". This is Step Six\nCalculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3D. E. step Seven: 80%. errors Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analys is: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights. the capacity should be re-calculated. are so large. Since the figures and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at-maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed Cloverdale to the completion Junior High School of and the the expansion addition of of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabeivaie Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabeivaie Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations replaced with permanent structures. are in fact III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of .45% differential. extremely accurate. This should be considered Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieyed. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure through '99-2000. as my projections from '93-'94 Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis\nIn 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years. and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. There is a projected slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline oyer the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary leyel. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-'00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. Of classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and Adding possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adequate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, portable buildings. and the subsequent replacement will add to capacity\nof however. Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. curriculums, Unless there are significant changes to core through M-to-M added subjects, transfers or increased enrollment recruitment, or private school student capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should po-int out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 90's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of whatever reason. students, for and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition buildings as a temporary measure. of portable Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/cappro1 6LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 (1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 (1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,l,2 5881 NOTES: (1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the Enrollment column. (Up dated 16 Mar 1994)I. II. SPECIAL S' iiURJ I JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; INTRODUCTION: JULY, 1993 PROJECTIONS orders issued 30, 1992. It explains how canflri+- -----1 on . ---- It explains how capacities are calculated within the Pulaski . ---Cxstirxct cind how tho^A support immediate and long-term for junior high school County Special School s needs. capacities CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. are^^hflc^ ^aP^city of elementary schools, are basicallv ..mu When one B) --- basically sedentary classrooms to meet ----- and do not where students move between room^'\"\"^ tlkingThT s?aTe\"7S^^^^^ h(a extending it by the number of rooms. This raav \nndn?.ckindergarten ti^oS^K 5\"^^ special classes contai now _ or special education been defined, classrooms, LL___ into classrooms within the size requirements would i-- In the case of the j \" programs. such as self-contained  ---- Once this capacity has in reality only the addition _ . - -J uviixxuxuii of new the conversion of other than classroom - ., . --------space facility or changing class J impact or change the capacity.  junior and senior high schools, the - capacity is not c_ -  While this definition i calculation of be placed in as clearly defined. can space in the building schools where s\"tu^d\\^^^^ appropriate for elementary does not work infrequently change classes, entirelv schools, therefore entirely different definition in  +\u0026lt;  -xvjii must be used, in a the junior high is defined as it Capacity an .lyn IS defined as a \"snanshot \" a-i-  be hous^^at^a the number of students that oe noused at a specific fsriiii-u _ criteria. -a specific facility based on established  The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations\nmust be considered secondary facility. The following nine (9) when calculating capacity areas of a (1) I ^^vpraV?''*\"? The size of the school refers to ^inro i V all aspects of the facility, riaco ^^^truction is not conducted solely in the classroom, one must consider administrative\nspecial-2- (2) (3) use, and classroom space when determining capacity. Administrative :---- -- counselors' purposes. areas space such as Media Centers and can be used for instructional Number of Rooms: ,_______ The number of rooms refers to the n^er of general purpose and special purpose purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility purpose of teaching an academic for the intended subj ect. Type of classroom: the capacity due to The type of classroom impacts - - size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Sand, may only seat 25 or\u0026gt; up to 150 depending on the function. However, ' (4) With special class a Special Class Requirements: With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\neven though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input ,such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class  SizeLimits: Class size limits are established not only by the State of Arkansas, but also by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and self-contained classrooms with maximxun capacity (6) Number of Teachers: Tl_____J__ affects classroom utilization. The number of teachers directly ilizrticn. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the' number of periods allowable in the day in order to  achieve maximum overall capacity. (7) Number of Periods: _____. The number of periods (7) corresponds to the accreditation requirements and IS a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level.-3- (3) Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires, target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. A (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of Classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for inschool r**-----'   suspension, another may use a renovated workroom or one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which _ _ ------7.1 or 3 0 persons to be assigned. disallows a maximum determining c. galdulatjog__Methodology: The following methodology used\u0026lt;to calculate capacity: The is the Step Oge: room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. (Refer to PCSSD Capacity Worksheet.) Identify each in the facility D. Step Two: . the capacities of each room.' total IS referred to as \"Total Physical Capacity.\" The sum Step Three: pullout _ . _ students, individualized programs. Adjust for special classes, other rooms used programs, for highly- step Four: Capacity. Subtract this total from the Total Physical scheduling efficiency. Multiply the Total Physical Capacity by 85%. constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity desired level of efficiency. ' Desired Capacity.) Calculate 85%. This (Referred to by PCSSD or as  The calculation of capacity is only as good as . figures used_ in determining the nine (9) Each time any criterion changes, by all rignts, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the - - ----- re-calculated. Since the large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there significant changes to criteria, classrooms at figures are are Additions of one or two maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall school by 15. capacity of the  , , , -, should be noted that capacity is calculated assuming all students are  times. - 1 in place at all-4- III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS\nA. Projections\n_____ Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the Pulaski County Special School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92 school year. It The projections 93 a. ^^Igdlations Methodolocry\nEach subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level who will be junior high students in a given school year, constitute a projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 0 in School Year '92 - '93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. C. Analysis\n---- In '90 - '91 through '92 - '93 school years, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) experienced a decline at the junior high level. This decline parallels the number of students participating in the magnet and M to M programs in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). However, in '92 - '93, the Junior High 'population began to increase because of a steady growth which is projected to continue through the '98 school year. Since all schools are operating near or at Desired Capacity, PCSSD will have to consider Junior High capacity in the near future. As an example, calculations from the North West quadrant of PCSSD (which is the Oak Grove High School attendance area covering more geographic area than either Little Rock or North Little school districts) will reflect that the enrollment of Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School in the '92 - '93 school year was close to desired Capacity possible for This '99 the complex (948). The projection for '93 - '94 is 933 of 948 seats filled. By taking present student enrollment from the feeder elementary schools through the calculations methodology, 1369 students will be enrolled in grades 7-12 at Oak Grove Jr-Sr High, in six years, not allowing for further growth (29% will be black). Over four hundred additional seats will have to be provided to accommodate students in the Northwest attendance zone. The typical plant site for a Jr-Sr complex recommended by State Department Standards of '93 is 50 acres. Oak Grove sits on 14 J 3 acres. Therefore portable buildings at Oak Grove High School scheduled for replacement should instead be included in a new Junior High complex to be located in the Northwest quadrant. filled. The projection for '93 OverJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL culler Jax North Jax South Northwood Robinson Scott Alt. Sylvan Hills Oak Grove Jr. TOT.AL PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITY JUNE 16, 1993 DESIRED CAPACITY 1055 625 618 885 437 125 825 474 5044 TOTAL PHYS I CAI, CAPACITY CURRENT ENROLLMENT 92/93 PROJECTED ENROT.T,MHNT 93/94 1241 944 1009 737 727 1042 514 125 971 532 5889 628 596 945 455 125 890 479 5062 635 622 942 455 125 928 401 5117 I IPCSSO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT DATA School fear Total Enrollment Calculated Grade Levels Adj usted Enrollment Non-Slack Slack % Elac. 1990-91 5,050 7. 8, 9 5,075 3,667 1,383 27 1991-92 4,917 7, 8, 9 4,942 3,526 1,391 28 1992-93 4,977 7. 3, 9 5,002 3,491 1,436 30 1993-94 5,194 6, 7, 8 5,220 3,653 1,541 30 1994-95 5,255 5, 6, 7 5.281 3,736 1,519 29 L995-96 5,243 4, 5, 5,269 3,778 1996-97 1,465 28 -997-98 .993-99 .999-2000 lOTES: 5,291 5,286 5,314 5,194 3, 4. 5 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3 K, 1. 2 (1) Grade Level Calculated\n5,317 5,312 5,342 5,220 3,826 3,348 3,858 3, 752 1,465 , 1,440 1,456 1,442 This column signifies the elementary- grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollwent\nIt is . -----This is the final projected enrollment. .5% above the Enrollment column. 23 27 27 28} I. II. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL STUDY GRADES 7-9 BUILDING CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS JULY 1993 INTRODUCTION This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on May 1 1992 and December 30, 1992 to the Little Rock School District.  ' -  North Little Rock School District became involved in this special study in May 1993 and furnishe the following information to outline the buildina 3 capacities in grades 7-9 with the current curriculum and the enrollment projections to the year 2000 based on the current students. CAPACITY (See attached) A) Definition: capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course reouirements, capacity may be calculated by takingthe State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, ' the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition Capacity is a multi-defined term. in reality only In the case of the junior space in the building. IS more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, well in the secondary schools, definition must be used. it does not work An entirely different Therefore, capacity in the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot\", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at criteria. a given facility based on an established The criteria is explained below.f B) Capacity Conaiderationa: ------------------------ The following nine (9) must be considered when calculating capacity of secondary facility. areaa a (1) Size of Schoo1: ------_____ The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the _. One must consider administrative, special use and claaaroom apace as education is not conducted solely in the classroom. facility. (2) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Claaaroom: The type of classroom impacts , -- size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat a set number of individuals. While a special purpose classroom depends on the function. the capacity due to (4) Special Claaa Requirernenta: ____, ______ __________ Special class requirements are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 25\neven though that is the room capacity. (5) Claaa Size Limita: ___________________ Claaa aize limits are not only eatabliahed by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15 and Contained classrooms with maximum capacity of (6) Number of Teachera: The number of teachera directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. (7) Number of Perioda: _____________ The number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of offered and the number of times those courses are couraea offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level.I (8) Scheduling Efficiency: ______,_________Scheduling efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. desirable. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is (9) Room Usage: ___________ Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, w another may use a renovated workroom or where school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. F_______ determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 where one Room usage assists in persons to be assigned. C) Calculation Methodology:  11 _ 1 methodology used to calculate capacity: The following is the Steo One: ____ Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Steo Two: _______ Add the capacities of each room, total is referred to as The sum \"Total Physical Capacity\". S-tep Three: ___________Adjust for special classes, prcgrc: pull-out students, other rooms used for highly- individualized programs. __ Total Physical Capacity. programs. Subtract this total from your Step Four: Sum your total adjustment, and subtract that number from the Total Physical Capacity. 7:.1_ referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". Sum your total adjustment This is Step Five:  __ Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. constitutes your Capacity. This D) Analysis: __________ The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine Each time any criteria changed, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. (9) criteria. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. time junior nign schools is relatively stable. However, anyone familiar with education will realize that program changes will occur which will affect the capacity, possibly on an annual basis.I III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. P^i ections: _____ Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the North Little of both. Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92-'93 school year. Projectio Projections are based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. This should be considered extremely accurate, on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the North Little Rock School District Based that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved, compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers B. C. D. area, To at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the North Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure as my projections from '93-' 94 through '99-2000. Actual M-to-M transfer numbers are included. Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year are included. ' In calculating projections projection. Analysis: This figure constituted the The North Little Rock School District projections show little variation in enrollments until the 1999-2000 school year. The building capacity is Between 1992-93 and 1999- currently at 92% of usage. 2000 this will mean a building capacity between 89 and 97%. Conclusions: The North Little Rock School District is near capacity in grades 7-9 and will remain that way for the immediate future.iCHOOL YEAR .990-91 .991-92 .992-93 .993-94 .994-95 .995-96 .996-97 .997-98 998-99 .999-2000\nOTES: (1) (2) NLRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS TOTAL ENROLLMENT CALCULATED 2,229 2,251 2,214 2,234 2,144 2,143 2,171 2,248 2,210 2,204 OCTOBER 1 GRADE LEVELS 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 6, 7, 8 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 K, 1, 2 Grade Level Calculated: ENROLLMENT DATA ADJUSTED ENROLLMENT 2,2 40 2,262 2,225 2,245 2,155 2,154 2,182 2,259 2,221 2,215 NONBLACK/BLACK % BLACK M-TO-M 1,214 1,015 1,214 1,037 1,165 1,060 1,192 1,042 1,102 1,042 1,094 1,049 1,056 1,115' 1,089 1,159 1,075 1,135 1,097 1,107 45.5% 46.0% 47.5% 46.6% 48.6% 49,0% 51.4% 51.6% 51.4% 50.2% 79 81 85 84 81 56 68 72 78 73  ----------- This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final It is .5% above the EnrolIment column. projected enrollment.I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Grades 7-9 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE NLRHS East 692 664 96% Alternative School 15 15 100% Lakewood Middle 594 549 92% Ridgeroad Middle 594 577 97% Rose City Middle 515 408 7 9% Baring Cross Special School 9 1 11% TOTAL 2,419 2,214 92%RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 0 1994 Office of Desegregaiicn Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice on behalf of itself, the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District of the filing of a \"Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections\" which was compiled by a joint committee of representatives from the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: CfirTstopher Heller Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 17th day of June, 1994 . Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller ku ihy klcacg- p I. not 2I, II. SPECIAL REPORT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION JUNE 1994 This Special Report amends the Special Study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District\nPlant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District\nand. Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. of this Committee was to: The purpose 1) review the Special Study done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study\n2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof\nand. 3) correlate the needs of the three (3) Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee discussed desegregation efforts, philosophy programmatic with needs regard and to M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two (2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three (3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. no specific reason why different percentages are used. There is It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent (100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure. i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent (80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There IS , of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ -because of the eighty-five percent (85%) capacity and the size of the schools. desired This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. provided. The following analysis of various subject areas is A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-Dlstrict Transfers Upon Enrollment\nIntra-district transfers within the Districts appear to be relatively stable. Students are assigned Schools). by attendance zone (except Magnet Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones\nhowever, this need must be taken into consideration with projected M- to-M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2B) delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in line with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are assignment policy of attendance zones. Immediate and students changes dealing with or a realignment the of Long-Term Effects of Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District\nM-to-M The Majority-to-Minority Transfer voluntary for all participating students. Program is Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will include elementary schools. students rolled over from the This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at senior high any of the elementary, schools. Essentially, junior or academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. are no specific programs called for in There the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students the junior high level. A chart at indicating M-to-M enclosure. transfers is attached as an A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level. between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little Rock School District to Pulaski County, North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, Little Rock School North Little Rock, to the District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under district, or magnet school, concept. the inter- If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3C) D) Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity\nThe state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, Sth, and 9th grades, similar. in all three (3) Districts, is quite There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any emphasis district's capacity. will be on delivery of instruction. Major instructional improving the quality and The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. significantly These are not Important to justify construction efforts, but rather the addition. major or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' School Students\nObligation to Recruit White Private With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District junior highs and for increase. although in smaller numbers a similar Pulaski County and North Little Rock. in both The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. goals There are no projected quotas, nor students. students established 'for recruiting junior high The ongoing effort will continue and the will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4E) Lack of Non-Maqnet Junior High in East Little Rock\nBetween the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase approximately 2.6%. in population of This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County area. Little primarily in Rock appeared the sections of the city. to east, have central, lost population and southwest At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of 1-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. is Mann Magnet Junior High School. Also in this area the last two (2) students desiring school years. all to attend Dunbar For at least junior high have permitted to do so. been With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does populations. not seem justified. Schools follow area. School They rarely lead populations into an As the population shifts in the three (3) Districts accommodating these 'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of construction of new junior highs\ncourse. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis\nzones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs close without construction\nattendance to existing realigning grades between school Little Rock School District has and, levels. made four. The major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and is desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabelvale Junior High. These are needed because of: (1) the shifting population\n(2) the age of the buildings\nand, (3) changes which in the academic program over the years have necessitated classrooms. more specialized the area Preliminary figures indicate that in of eastern Little Rock (east of 1-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances situation, purposes, district-wide, and given that the present is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least the next seven Consideration for a new junior high (7 ) years. school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. F) Equitable Distribution of Bussing\nThe question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall junior high level. racial composition at the In School Year '93-'94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the schools. junior high the junior For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-four percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bused outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-'93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools attendance for children being bussed within their zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-'93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. out of the attendance In the case of children being bussed zones, we have an eight percent (8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race. as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6G) IV. zone. within This the is due (1) to shifting populations School District\nand, (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attendina lunior hlahs within attending junior highs Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the This percentage was fifty-five percent (55%). indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. this is only a snapshot in time. However, Periodically, growth trends must be examined, \u0026lt; ' cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the and population population is moving toward or away from existing Within Pulaski County, this junior high schools. problem is far greater. Seven (7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input: The Committee generally felt that at this planning stage. required. Intervenors community However, input was not was input requested. from As necessarily the the Joshua Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of. in new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Study of the Capacities / Analyzation: of the capacities and the The study analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. plan is a voluntary plan. The desegregation which is a principal component The M-to-M Program, of this plan. allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantage of any excess in capacity. When one studies the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7B) C) students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary to the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer districts and have, subsequently, students between trend in your capacities and projections. included that There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced transfer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, recommendations made in the attached annexes the are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. Little Rock School District\nconclusions as identified in Annex The analysis and It A\" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. Junior High School The localized problems at Mabelvale and School, however, will persist. Southwest Junior High to Mabelvale Junior High and Adding classrooms to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. Pulaski County Special School District\nanalysis on Page Four (4) of Annex The B II need northwest in Pulaski County for construction supports the quadrant of the county to in the support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. This, of course, will be tempered by the success of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive trans- portation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8D) North Little Rock School District: and conclusions on Page Four (4) The analysis indicate a relatively stable of Annex situation \"C II in North Little Rock. in School Year From an anticipated peak enrollment '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1.2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District essentially Desegregation identical. Junior High Capacity were The Plan, the M-to-M support of Program, the the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict supported schools are all methodology by of the Districts. fully understood and The parallel each other capacity calculations and the need to general closely look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition. it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes Successful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students, but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason. such as desegregation efforts. support of our DCE/rlh/specrep 9M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) YEAR TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD TO NLR FROM NLR 87/88 76 98 88/89 145 31 69 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 7 5 6 M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) SY TO PCSSD NLR FROM PCSSD NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/rangeLITTLF ROCK CHOOL riSTRin JI.'HIOR HIGH SCHOOL ~APA J?: SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 6145 6062 98.6 92/93. 63 13 6166 97.7 93/94 6391 6109 95.6 54/9 5 639 1 6135 95.9 96/J6 6391 5962 93.3 96/97 639 1 5714 6 9.4 9 7/9 8 639 1 5733 89.7 98/99 6391 5758 90.2 99/00 639 1 5394 92.2 00/0 1 639 1 5881 92.0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 aazsa 99/00 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 2419 2262 93.5 2419 2225 91.9 24 19 2245 92.8 24 19 2155 89.0 2419 2154 89.0 2419 2182 90.0 24 1 9 2259 93.3 24 19 2221 91.8 24 19 2215 91.6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY ?CHO,OL YEAR_912.9.2 9?S3 94/95 95Za 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 CAPACITY 5044 ENROLLMENT ' 5075 PERCENTAGE 100.6 5044 4942 97.9 5044 5002 99.2 5044 5220 103.5 5044 5281 104.7 5044 5269 104.5 5044 53 12 105.3 5044 5341 105.9 5044 5220 103.5 \"LI. SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH. 1994) INTRODUCTION\nThis study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain the considerations in determining capacity, seating capacity as of school year '92 criteria established today does not change, It assessed the  '93 given the further establishes that criteria and defines it. and it II. B) It records projected enrollments to the year 2000 and their impact on the District. CAPACITY: A) Definition\nCapacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. been defined. in Once this capacity has reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. the case of the In junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. this While definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used, in the junior high is defined as a ' It Therefore, capacity snapshot\", at a given 1B) in the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot\", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at criteria. a given facility based on an established The criteria is explained below. Capacity Considerations\nmust be considered when The following nine (9) areas secondary facility. calculating capacity of a (1) Size of School\nThe size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as solely in the classroom. education is not conducted Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms\nnumber of general The number of rooms refers to the purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom\nThe type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements\nSpecial class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\ncapacity. even though that is the room Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits\nClass size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. classes courses with maximum Examples are remedial reading capacity of with maximum capacity of 15, 10, resource and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers\nThe number directly affects classroom utilization. of teachers Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2C. (7) (8) (9) Number of Periods\nThe number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. Scheduling Efficiency: the ability of students' desires. desirable. the Scheduling Efficiency is school to accommodate the needs in taking the classes he or she A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is Room Usage: classroom spaces Each secondary school has a variety of one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows assigned. Calculation a maximum of 30 persons to be Methodology: The methodology used to calculate capacity: following is the Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two: total is referred to as Add the capacities of each room. It The sum Total Physical Capacity\". Step Three: Adjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Capacity. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Step Four: Multiply the difference by 17%, if a six- Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as \"Prep Time\". Identify Step Five: number Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that from the Total Physical Capacity. referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". This is Step Six: Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3D. E. step Seven: 80%. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated errors in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at-maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed Cloverdale to the completion Junior High School of and the the expansion addition of of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabeivaie Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabeivaie Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations replaced with permanent structures. are in fact III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of .45% differential. This should be considered extremely accurate. Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure through '99-2000. as my projections from '93-'94 Calculations Methodology\nIn calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis: In 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years. and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to There is a projected 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline over the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary level. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-'00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. Of utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and Adding possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adeguate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, and portable buildings. the will subsequent replacement of add to capacity\nhowever. Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. curriculums, Unless there are significant changes to core through M-to-M added subjects. transfers or or increased enrollment recruitment. private school student capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should point out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 9O's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of whatever reason. students, for and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition buildings as a temporary measure. of portable Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/capprol 6LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 (1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 (1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,l,2 5881 NOTES: (1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the Enrollment column. (Up dated 16 Mar 1994)I. II. SPECIAL STUDY JPHIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JULY, 1993 INTRODUCTION! and issued V.and December 30, 1992. it explains how cann-ii- -----1 on It explains how capacities calculated within the Pulaski support immediate and'loSgrtejr for junior high school County Special School s needs. capacities CAPACITY\nA) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one s==ss~a~2-:gw^^ hA extending it by the number of rooms This mav Classes, i.e., kindergarten th?o^X sixth grade, and special cla^sses ' special education programs. been defined, ' - classrooms, the---- \u0026lt; into classrooms within the size requirements would in B) This may , kindergarten through such as self-contained - . - Once this capacity has reality only the addition cZ other than classroom cpccc _ facility or changing class impact or change the capacity. of new space In thp enco rt-F iu vt cnange rne capa calculation of high schools capacity is not as clearly def .*a*a the clearly defined. While this definition i can space in the building entirelv di fschools, therefore entirely different definition in  i-K'  --.-.e-j-Kui must be used, in a the junior high is defined as criteria. it Capacity an :Sv .asr^-  The crTti^^'^ facility based on established^\" The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations\nho ^-^PS^q^rationn\nThe following nine (9) Srtondarv cap\":citV secondary facility. areas of a (1) ^ize 'of School! The size of the school refers I as^pe^cts o?the Scn!ty Since instruction is not conducted coioi-., classroom, ---- is not conducted solely in the one must consider administrative, special t-2- use, and classroom space when determining capacity Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Nmnoer of Rooms\nThe number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. purpose (3) Type of Classroom\nthe capacity due to The type of classroom impacts - - size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. ' (4) gpggiQl Class Requirements\nrequirements __________ With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\neven though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input \u0026gt;such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class SizeLimi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":153,"next_page":154,"prev_page":152,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1824,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}