{"response":{"docs":[{"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","Pulaski County Special School District","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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"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_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","Pulaski County Special School District","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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["19 pages"],"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_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","North Little Rock School District","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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["4 pages"],"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","North Little Rock School District","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 \u0026 talented"],"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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["181 pages"],"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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["293 pages"],"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_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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"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 "},{"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":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["58 pages"],"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_531","title":"Job descriptions","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":["1980/1991"],"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","Educational planning","School employees","Teachers","School administrators","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Job descriptions"],"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/531"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 pages"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 28, 1980 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT The Little Rock Public School District announces the following teacher vacancies for the 1980-81 school year: Band Director - Booker Length of Contract: 9^ months Salary: Placement on the teacher's salary schedule according to degree and experience, plus band director's stipend. Journalism Teacher - Parkview Contract Length: 9^ months Salary: Duties: Placement on the teacher's salary schedule according to degree and experience. Teach photography and mass media, and to supervise production of the year book. Letters of application should be sent to: Director of Personnel Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DEADLINE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS OF APPLICATION: August 8, 1980#5- * Little Kock Public Schools TO: All Certified Personnel FROM:  E. Thrasher, Jr., Director of Personnel DATE: January 23, 1981 SUBJECT: Vacancy Announcement - Henderson'Junior High School The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancy for the 1980-81 school year: Girls' P. E. Teacher/Volleyball \u0026amp; Gymnastics Coach Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's Degree. Arkansas as a P. E. Teacher, athletics at college level. Eligible for certification in Active participant in Evidence of ability to teach fundamentals in sport for which application is made. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. Contract Length: 9 1/A Months. Salary: 9 1/4 Teacher Salary Schedule, plus stipend for Coaching. Deadline for receipt of letters of application: February 3, 1981. NOTE: ALTHOUGH YOU MAY PRESENTLY HAVE AN APPLICATION ON FILE, PLEASE CONTACT THE PERSONNEL OFFICE WITHIN THE DESIGNATED TIME PERIOD TO ENSURE THAT YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE OVERLOOKED. M\n'kh3r\u0026lt;n .anH liHcPnH,. U ? 74 - A 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 2, 1982 The Little Rock School District School ''^ar. announces the following vacancies for the 1982-8: TITLE: Band Director - Henderson Director - Hall, Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. A Bachelor's Degree (Minimum) Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements Evidence of\u0026gt;a strong commitment to quality integrated education REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To help students learn subject matter and skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and responsible men and women. \"RFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals and--in harmony with the goals--establishes clear objectives for all lessons, units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives to students 7. Employs a variety of instructional techiques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needsand capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved Page two PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) - 8. Strives to implement by instruction and action the district's philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives 9. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required 10. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to. protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities 11. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulation 12. Assists the adminsitration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner 13. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education-related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms 14. Strives to maintain and improve professional competence Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required OF EMPLOYMENT: Nine and one/fourth SALARY: EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS AND/OR APPLICATION: August 10, 1982 Letters and/or applications should be sent to: Dr. Robert E. urner iO . J Mwnc^zzxeiwe Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND-IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 19, 1983 The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancy for the 1983-84 school year: TITLE: English Teacher (Southwest) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A bachelor's Degree (Minimum) 2. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education NOTE: Applicants should be prepared to show evidence of these qualifications in the initial screening interview. bASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated. 2. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs. interests, and abilities of the students. 3. Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interest of the students. 4. Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence preparation upon request of immediate superior. 5. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. 6. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculujn goals, andin harmony with the goals--establishes clea\nobjectives for all lessons, units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives to students. 7. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved. Page 2 - Job Announcement - Teachers (Transition School) PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: Continued 8. Strives to implement by instruction and action the district's philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives. 9. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. 10. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials-, and facilities. 11. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as reouired by law, district policy, and administrative regulations. 12. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 13. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. 14. Strives to maintain and improve professional competence. 15. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. '^GANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the Director of Adult Education JOB GOAL: To help students learn subject matter and skills that will contribute to their development as mature, and responsible men and women. SALARY CLASSIFICATION: EVALUATION: Performance of this job will evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE: October 25, 1983 Letters of inquiry should be sent to: Mr. Richard Maple Director of Personnel Little Rock School District West. Markham and Izard Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 18, 1983 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following certified positions for the Transition School, Adult Education/Community Education Building, 14th \u0026amp; Scott, Little Rock, Arkansas. POSITIONS: English, Math, Science and Social Studies Teachers QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited institution. 2. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements. 3. Evidence of successful experience in dealing with students, parents, administrators, and staff in decision making. 4. Evidence of knowledge of basic techniques necessary for helping students make adequate educational and career choices. 5. NOTE: Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the time designated. 2. a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students. Plans 3, Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appro-priate to the maturity and interests of the_ students. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals-- and in harmony with the goals--estab1ishes clear objectives for all lessons, units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives to students. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student oroups involved. English Teacher - Page 2 BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: Continued Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. ..-+0T Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. . Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law. District policy, and administrative regulations. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 17, Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education-related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. ? Strives to maintain and improve professional competence. JOB GOAL: To help students learn subject matter and skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and responsible men and women. CRMS OF EMPLOYMENT: T Nine and one-fourth montfisT?- SALARY: 13,183 minimum EVALUATION: performance of this job will be evaluated in uccordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS AND/OR APPLICATIONS: August 26, 1983 LETTERS AND/OR APPLICATIONS TO: Richard Maple Director of Personnel Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 16, 1985 The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancies for the 1985'86 school year: POSITIONS: Booker Magnet School 2 - Intermediate IV 2 - Intermediate V 2 - Intermediate VI QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A bachelor's degree (minimum) 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements 3. Evidence of successful teaching experience 4. Endorses concept of all the arts for every Child 5. Willing to work in collaborative team approach to program planning and delivery of service 6. Demonstrates concern with one of the arts as a personal concern or hobby 7. Evidence of successful experience with, parent, student and staff involvement in decision making 8. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills 9. Evidence of a strong comnitment to quality integrated education note: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. fleets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated. 2. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students. 3. Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students. 4. Utilizes weekly t^am meetings and planning time to develop curricula and to plan the delivery of services. 5. Incorporates the arts and humanities in the total instructional program. inC OPENINGS (Booker Magnet School) Page 2 PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, Cont'd: 6. Assist in identifying and utilizing community resources for the arts magnet school program. 7. Fosters in students the self-discipline inherent in artistic and academic achievement. 8. Facilitates the development of special events held to recognize student achievement and attends school functions. 9. Willingness to participate in inservice activities for personal and professional growth. 10. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulation. 11. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 12. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. 13. Strives to maintain and improve professipnal competence. 14. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the principal SALARY AND TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE: / May 24, 1985 LETTERS OF INTEREST: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard, LR 72201V ^0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Announcement of Vacancy The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for a creative movement teacher at the Booker Arts Magnet for 1983-84 school year. TITLE: Creative Movement Teacher - Booker Arts Magnet QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A Bachelor's Degree (minimum). 2. Must meet elementary certification requirements. 3. Evidence of successful teaching experiences. 4. Demonstrated concern with dance, creative movement and/or mime. 5. Willing to work in collaborative team approach to program planning and delivery of services. Certified to teach physical education. 7. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills. 8. Evidence of strong commitment to quality integrated education. REPORTS TO: Principal GOAL: To nurture and motivate student achievement and self-discipline through the inclusion of the arcs and humanities'in the delivery of tne instruction program. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Utilizes weekly team meetings and,planning time to develop curricula and to plan the delivery of services. 2. Incorporates the arts and humanities in the total instructional program.Page Two (2) PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. CONT. 3. 4. Assist in identifying and utilizing community resources for the arts magnet school program. Fosters in students the self-discipline inherent in artistic and academic achievement. 5. Facilitates the development of special events held to student achievement and attends school functions. recognize 6. 7. Willingness to participate in inservice activities for personal and professional growth. Conducts evening and/or weekend field trips, a maximum of four times a year at the rate of $30 per day or prorated on hourly scale. SALARY: ^P1 SEemeniPofi Teacher' S\" Sal arj^cal TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: Nine and one-fourth months EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with pro- visions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTER OF APPLICATION: May 20, 1983 Letter of inquiry and/or application should be sent to: Mary Jane Cheatham Acting Personnel Director Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, AR 72201PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 16, 1985 The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancy for the 1985-86 school year: POSITION: Biology Teacher/Kead Track Coach (Hall High School) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A bachelor's degree (minimum) 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements in biology 3. Must meet State Department of Education requirement for coaching endorsement 4. 5. Must meet Arkansas Activities Association requirement for coaches Evidence strong commitment to quality integrated education NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. - ---------------- 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated. 2. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students. J. Creates a classroom environment that in conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students. 4. Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior. 5. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. 6. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals andin harmony with the goalsestablishes clear objectives for all lessons, to students. units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives 7. 8. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved. Strives to imolement by instruction and action the district's philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives. Vflcanc'/ - Rioloo'/ Teachcr/Head Track Coach (Hall Hinh School) Page 2 PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, Cont'd: 9. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. 10. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. 11. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulations. 12. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 13. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. 14. Strives to maintain and improve professional comnetence. 15. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. 16. Coaches individual participants in the skills necessary for excellent achievement in sport involved. SmRY AND TERM: Salary-wi 11-be based on teacher's nine and one fourth month salary scale plus\" rcoaching stipend EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE: May 24, 1985 LETTERS OF APPLICATION TO: Richard Maple Director of Personnel Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201May 2, 1985 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD little ROCK, ARKANSAS PLEASE POST Announcement of Vacancy The Little Rock School District 1985-86 school year. TITLE: announces the following vacancies for the High School Band Director - Parkview Senior High QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's Degree in Music Education or related area preferred. 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements. 3. Evidence knowledge of appropriate pedagogy for percussion instruments. wind and 4. . Evidence of skills in the area, of classroom management. 5. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills. 6. knowledge and success of appropriate pedagogy for stage band instruct! on. 7. Evidence of a strong conmitment to quality integrated educati on. APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE REPORTS TO: OF THESE QUALIFICATION IN THE INTERVIEW Principal JOB GOAL: maintain, according to the Little Rock an instrumental and School District Music Department s instructional goals and obiectives an instrumental program consisting of brass, woodwinds, an\nperiossiin Ss. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To provide music instruction through the concert band and the t-aditional stage band. marching band 2. 3. Concert performance experience for students, enrolled in the concert and stage bands. t?youtr\"^^^^ prepare students for the regional and all-state band 4. To provide a marching band consisting'of students enrolled in the band program for all home football games and selected games scheduled PERFORMANCE GOALS: (cont'd) outside of the Little Rock School District. 5. To supervise student behavior at concerts, football games, senior clinic tryouts, senior clinic, concert-contest, and other related events involving his/her students. games, 6. 7. To insure the proper care and maintenance of the band equipment, supplies and materials assigned to his/her school. To provide reasonable music support for school assemblies. SALARY: Appropriate placement on Teacher's Salary Scale TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: tKlne.'and one-fourth months\u0026lt; EVALUATION: Performance of this30b willx^e evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT LETTER OF APPLICATION: May 10, 1985 / Letter of inquiry and/or application should-be sent to: Richard Maple, Personnel Director Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72201( Announcement of Administrative Vacancy Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas July 2, 1985 The Little Rock School District announces the following administrative vacancy for the 1985-86 school year: POSITION: Supervisor - Libraries QUALIFICATIONS: ' 1. 'Atleast five (5) years' successful experience as a librarian. 2. 3. A Master's Degree (minimum) with Arkansas certification as Librarian K-12 and/or Media Specialist K-12. Holds or is eligible for Arkansas Certification as a Supervisor. 4. Shows evidence of strong writing and organizational skills. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 6. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. ~ REPORTS TO\nAssigned Associate Superintendent - Curriculum and Instruction SUPERVISES: Librarians JOB GOAL: To assist the assigned Associate Superintendent, building principals, and librarians in curriculum activities, training, and other logistical and consultative support in the area of library services. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Coordinates the process whereby the library program is developed to meet the school district's goals and priorities. 2. Familiarizes her/himself with recent trends, developments, publications, and instructional management and supervision pertaining to the library program. I 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. -2- Coordinates the development of training programs designed to better enable the district and school-level staff to effectively implement the district's approved library program. Assists in the development of sections of the budget that pertain to the Library Program. Assists principals in obtaining improvement in individual library staff competencies. Assumes responsibility for seeing that community, staff, and, where appropriate, students are involved in the development of curriculum and other planning responsibilities assigned. Strives to maintain and improve professional competencies. *8,' Attends staff meetings and serves^ on staff committees as required. 9. Performs other duties as assigned. EVALUATION: Performance of this position will be evaluated with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. SALARY AND TERMS: $23,736 - $29,336 plus car allowance $688 and Benefit Package\n11 Months PLEASE NOTE\nIndividuals who are interested in the above position must complete a very rigorous selection process. Therefore, because an individual applies for the position does not mean that he/she will be considered for an interview. LETTERS OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE SENT TO: Richard Maple, Personnel Director Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS OF APPLICATION\nJuly 15, 1985PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 3, 1985 The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancy for the 1985-86 school year: POSITION: P.E./Head Football Coach (Henderson Junior High) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A bachelor's degree (minimum) NOTE: 2. 3. 4. 5. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements in biology Must meet State Department of Education requirement for coaching endorsement Must meet Arkansas Activities Association requirement for coaches Evidence strong conmitment to quality integrated education APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated. 2. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students. 3. Creates a classroom environment that in conducive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students. 4, Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior. 5. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. 6. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals andin harmony with the goa1s--establishes clear objectives for all lessons, . units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives to students. 7. 8. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student gr'oups involved. Strives to imolement by instruction and action the district's philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives. VacancV - P.E./Head Football Coach (Henderson Junior High) Page 2 PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, Cont'd: 9. 10. 11. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular ba.sis and provides progress reports as required. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulations. 12. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules qoverninq student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 13. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable teniis. H. 15. Strives to maintain and improve professional comoetence. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. 16. Coaches individual participants in the skills necessary for excellent achievement in sport involved. SALARY AND TERM: Salary will be based on teacher's nine and one fourth month salary scale plus coaching stipend EVAL^TJON: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE\nJune 11, 1985 LETTERS or APPHCMJDN TO\nRichard Maple Director of Personnel Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 November 1, 1985 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for an interim Science Specialist for the 1985-86 school year: QUALIFICATIONS 1. Must meet Arkansas Elementary Certification requirement. 2. Evidence of knowledge of science. 3. Evidence of experience in using activity oriented science instruction. 4. 5. Evidence of knowledge of successful teaching strategies. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, parents, peers, and supervisory personnel. 6. 7. Evidence of knowledge of the District's science program is desirable. Evidence of teaching experiences covering all levels (ages) of elementary students is desirable. 8. NOTE\nEvidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Science Supervisor JOB GOAL: To assume the responsibility of liason between the elementary science teachers and Supervisor of Science and continue the programs at the Science Resource Center. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prepares and distributes science loan box materials requested by elementary teachers. Serves as a liason between the elementary science teachers and the supervisor of science. Assumes the responsibility for maintaining the necessary supplies for the Science Resource Center. Helps to organize and conduct inservice sessions for elementary science teachers. 5. Develops science curriculum materials. VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT CONTINUED - Science Specialist BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, Cont'd 6. Provides demonstration lessons to illustrate effective techniques for teaching science. 7. Works with teachers who request assistance in planning science centers, activities, or experiments. 8. Other duties as assigned. SALAPY AND TERM: *TearherSa 1 ary' Schedul en i ne*an\u0026lt;l\u0026lt;e=fourJthLSSSS^[^EbW^3^a214cge' EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the Board policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: November 11, 1985 SEND LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW.TITLE: Music Specialist (Piano/Harmony) - Parkview QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Master's Degree in Music Education or related area preferred. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements. Evidence knowledge of class piano pedagogy. Evidence of skills in the area of classroom management. Evidence of strong interpersonal ski n a. Evidence knowledge of appropriate pedagogy for music theory instruction. Evidence of a strong conmitment to quality integrated education. APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INlkRVitW  ------------------------------------- REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To establish and maintain, according to the Little Rock School District Music Department's instructional go^s and objectives, class piano instruction and appropriate music theory instruction. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To provide music instruction through class piano. 2. To provide appropriate music theory instruction. 3. To provide reasonable support for the arts, magnet program. 4. Willingness to participate in inservice for personal and professional growth. 5. To work in collaboration with other arts staff members in the delivery of the magnet program. SALARY: Placement on Teacher's Salary Scale SALARY: Placement on teacher's-salaryrschedule plus benef. TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: rNine and\none\"quarter-(9.25)months__ EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with pro-visions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTER OF APPLICATION: June 1, 1987 Letter of inquiry and/or application should be sent to: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas -72201 MOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW, /TITLE: Drama Specialist/Stage Manager - Mann Magnet QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Masters Degree preferred. 2. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements. 3. 4. 5. Evidence proficiency in creative drama and improvisation. Evidence skills in theater management and play production. Evidence knowledge of acting, directing, stagecraft, and management pedagogy. APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INTERVIEW =  REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To provide instruction in drama and related fields of study and maintain the auditorium for performances and classroom learning activities. P^TORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. To provide drama and stage management instruction. 2. Maintain the auditorium for performances and classroom learning activities. 3. To provide reasonable support for the arts magnet program. 4. Willingness to participate in inservice for personal and professional growth. 5. To work in collaboration with other arts staff members in the delivery of the magnet program. SALARY: Placement on Teacher's Salary Scale ' TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: Nine and one-fourth (9.25) months LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 November 1, 1985 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following vacancy for the 1985-86 school year: POSITION:- Interim Instructional Supervisor (Science) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Must have five (5) years' successful teaching experience in the area of science. Master's Degree (Minimum) Eligible for Arkansas certification as a supervisor. Evidence of knowledge of successful teaching strategies. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, parents, peers, and supervisory personnel. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: Assists in the development, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and instructional services. 2. Guides the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training and inservice programs for professional personnel. 3. Assists principals in obtaining improvement in individual staff competencies in the area of instructional effectiveness. 4. Assists in the development of sections of the budget that pertains to curriculum and instruction. 5. Assists in-explaining and interpreting the curriculum and its philosophy to the Board, the Administration, the Staff, and the general public. 6. Assists teachers in organizing classrooms for effective learning. 7. Serves as consultant and/or advisor in the selection of text-' books and other instructional materials within a specific area. 8. Coordinates the revision and rewriting of curriculum guides and programs of study. 9. Performs demonstration lessons with students in classroom situations for observation by teachers. 10. Prepares special reports, upon request by the Associate Superintendents, to the Superintendent and Board on the status of 1. Job Vacancy - interim i cructionai supervisor lif nee) Page two BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, con regular and special programs in the assigned curricular area. 11. Supervises and coordinates the ordering'and utilization of departmental instructional aids and materials for the assigned curricular area. 12. Keeps abreast of all new developments in his/her field and disseminates information about them on a regular basis to teachers in the assigned curricular area. 13. Evaluates student achievement in the assigned curricular area on a district-wide basis and recommends changes or adjustments in the curriculum as seem advisable. 14. Engages in an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional program. 15. Assists in providing a program of orientation and inservice for teachers new to the District. 16. Provides teachers with counsel and assistance toward the solution of instructionalproblems. 17. Regularly observes instruction in classrooms, and, upon request of principals, helps teachers improve their performance. 18. Assists in interpreting achievement test data to the staff and public at large. 19. Schedules and coordinates district-wide programs requiring deployment of specialized personnel (e.g., music teachers, art teachers, special reading teachers, special math teachers.) ' 20. Assumes the responsibility for seeing that community, staff, and. where appropriate, students are involved in the development of curriculum and other planning responsibilities assigned to her/him. REPORTS TO: Appropriate Associate Superintendent JOB GOAL: To provide technical assistance to principals, teachers, and other staff members in implementing the District's approved science curriculum and achieving District goals related to science curriculum and instruction. EVALUATION : Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on evaluation of Professional personnel.Job Vacancy { Interim Instructional Supervisor (Science)). Page three SALARY AND TERM: Administrative salary scale -Ml months Iowa nr o pl us, Benell tj\u0026gt;ackagie. DEADLINE: November 11, 1985 SEND LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: Individuals who are interested in the above position must complete a very rigorous selection process. Therefore, because an indivi- dual applies for a position does not necessarily mean that person will be considered for an interview.TITLE\nSupervisor of Special Education QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 89 At least five (5) years successful teaching experience. A Master's Degree (Minimum). Eligible for Arkansas certification as a Supervisor. Evidence of a strong comnitment to quality integrated education. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. REPORTS TO: Director of Pupil Services JOB GOAL: To assist the Director of Pupil Services and the building principals in special education and other logistical and consultative support services provided to principals and special education teaching staff. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\nThe Supervisor of Special Education will have the responsibility for the development and supervision of a program of education for the pupils who need special instruction because of their intellectual or physical dif-ferences. Specific responsibilities are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Serves as the chief advisor to the Director of Pupil Services and the building principals on matters pertaining to curriculum development, education, logistical and consultative support to schools in the area of special education. Serves as a member of various district advisory committees - and task forces as assigned by the Director of Pupil Services. Coordinates the process whereby special education curriculum is developed to meet the school district's goals and priorities, and the needs of the children. I 4. Coordinates the development of educational programs designed to better enable the district and school level staffs to effectively implement the district approved special education curriculum. Page Two (2) 90 PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 5. Coordinates the activities of any personnel reporting to her/him who are providing logistical and/or consultative support to building principals and teaching staff. 6. Monitors the processes of implementing special education curriculum development, training, logistical and/or consultative support. 7. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of those staff reporting to her/him. 8. Assumes responsibility for seeing that evaluation results are utilized to improve the quality of special education instruction in the schools. 9. Assumes the responsibility for seeing that community, staff and where appropriate, students are involved in the development of special education curriculum and other planning responsibilities assigned to her/him. 10. Works cooperatively with other district personnel to develop federal programs and programs requiring inter-disciplinary and inter-departmental cooperation. 11. Familiarizes her/himself with recent trends, developments and publications in special education and instructional management and supervision. 12. To supervise the home-teacher program. 13. To direct in-service programs for professional growth of special education personnel and arrange visitation and observation for new teachers. 14. Keeps informed of the state of financial aid for special education. 15. Assists in developing plans for physical facilities in establishing building eligibility, and makes recommendations on design, furnishings, and equipment. 16. To perform other duties as assigned. TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: Eleven Months EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 17, 1986 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1986-87 school year: POSITION:' Teacher (Science)/Assistant Football Coach - Central High School QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A Bachelors Degree (Minimum). 2. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the times designated. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of the students. 3. Creates a classroom environment that is conductive to learning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students. 4. Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior. 5. 6. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals andin harmony with the goalsestablishes clear objectives for all lessons, units, projects and the like to communicate these objectives to students. 7. 8. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved. Strives to implement by instruction and action the district's philisophy of education and instructional goals and objectives. 9. 10. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. Page Two (2) BASIC PERFROKANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 11. Maintains accurate, complete,, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulations. 12. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 13. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under resonable terms. 14. Strives to maintain and improve professional competence. 15. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. 16. Coaches individual participants in the skills necessary for excellent achievement in sport involved. SALARY AND TERM: Ta I ffpy^tiased'on'' teacher * s nine and one fourth month salary scale. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: July 29, 1986 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF APPLICATION TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST May 22. 1987 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1987-88 school year. POSITIONS: Reading/Learning Lab Teacher (eight (8) positions) Locations: Cloverdale Junior High School (three (3) positions) Mabelvale Junior High School (three (3) positions) Fair High School (one (1) position) McClellan High School (one (1) position) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Certified Education. in reading as required by the State Department of 2. Evidence of mastery of effective teaching techniques. 3. Evidence in the belief that all students can learn. 4. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREEENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To develop and implement a structured individualized approach to learning for critical needs students in the area of reading. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the location and at the designated time. 2. Cooperates with core area teachers and plans an individualized program of study that provides reading remediation. reinforcement and/or maintenance of skills for students. 3. Utilizes the profile information to identify student strengths and weaknesses and to develop an Academic Skills Improvement Plan based on assessed needs. Reading/Learning Lab Teacher Page 2 BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\ncontinued 4. environment where each student can experience needed for Creates an _ acadanic success and develop the competencies functioning effectively in the regular classroom. 5 Prepares for classes assign^, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of inmediate superior. 6. Encourages students to set behavior. and maintain standards of classroom -1 instructional objectives which provide for individualized, diagnostic remediation of learning deficits. 7. Establishes clear 8. 9. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media consistent with the needs ana capabilities of the individual or groups. Utilizes learning strategies to improve study skills and thinking skills. 10. Provides ongoing assessments to ensure movanent of student in meeting the expectations of the Academic Skills Improvement 11. 12. Plan. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records for the program as required by law, administrative regulations. District Policy, Makes provision for being for education-related purposes available to students and parents outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. EVALUATION: accordance with Performance of this job will be evaluated in FeL-uLiuau\u0026lt;,\u0026lt;= J _ ,.,...4...^ Qf Professional provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation Personnel. SALARY AND TERMS: acement 'on~ TeacherrNfneana\"0ne9uarteritS\n25')^ Scale -plusr^enefixs-PackageReadingAeai^ning Lab Teacher Page 3 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Little Rock School District Reading Department Attention: Dr. Mary H. Mosley 1201 South Pine Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS OR APPLICATIONS\nJune 2, 1987 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. INDIVIDUALS WHO APPLY FOR A POSITION WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW.LITTLE ROCK SCHOTL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 1, 1987 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1987-88 school year: POSITION: Parent Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Must meet Arkansas Elementary/Secondary Teacher and/or Administrator certification requirements. 2. 3. A bachelor's degree or higher from an accredited college or university. Knowledge of the district's desegregation plan. 4. Some experience with conmunity and civic groups. 5. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District, 7. Evidence of successful experience with parents. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. , REPORTS TO: Associate Superintendent - Desegregation JOB GOAL: To assist parents in the process of selecting appropriate schools within the constraints imposed by the desegregation plan. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Facilitates school visits by parents. 2. Dispenses information and advice to parents in seeking the appropriate school setting for their children. 3, Assumes the responsibility of establishing support systems among parent, community, and civic groups. 4, Assists in disseminating information to parents about school activities and programs. '.Parent Coordinator BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPOMS13ILITIES: (Cont.) 5. Serves as a liasion between the Little Rock School District and community organizations. various 6. Assists in the implementation of student assignment and transfer pro- Lvuur 7. Other duties as assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Anriua1Eleven^fl-D-Month\nContract pl StinAnH RonoPn-t- uti__________ _ . r ax.... Stipend, Benefit Package, and Car Allowance?\" EVALUATION: Performance ol\" this position will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: July 15, 1987 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR FORa5\"'iStERVI^?^ necessarily mean that that PERSON WIU\nBE SnSIDEReT1987-88 Vacancies (Cont.): TITLE: Parent Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Must meet Arkansas Elementary/Secondary Teacher and/or Administrator certification requirements. 2. A bachelor's degree or higher from an accredited college or university. 3. Knowledge of the district's desegregation plan. 4. Some experience with community and civic groups. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parents. REPORTS TO: Associate Superintendent - Desegregation JOB GOAL: I  To assist parents in the process of selecting appropriate schools within the constraints imposed by the desegregation plan. SALARY AND TERMS: ^f6'7047'2'$20\n101\"Annual Eleven (11) Mdhth Contract plupESucatfonal Stipend, Benefits Package, and Car \u0026lt;ance. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 1, 1987 PLEASE POST  The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancies for the 1987-88 school year: TITLE: /Elementary- Reading .Teachers^Accel era ted Learning Program - Thirty-Seven (37) Positions QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor's Degree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas elementary teacher's certification with reading endorsement. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To help underachieving students master subject matter in areas of deficiency and gain skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and responsible men and women. SALARY AND TERMS: ^9.25 Months-^-Teachers Salary Schdeule- TITLE: .-rjunior High'School 'AcceleratedLearnlngtieachej^- Two (2) English and Two (2) Mathematics for each Junior High School - Thirty-Two (32) Positions QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor's Degree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas secondary teacher's certificate. 3. Preference of English/Social Studies and'Math/Science certification. 4. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. JOB GOAL-To help underachieving students master subject matter in areas of deficiency and gain skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and responsible men and women. REPORTS TO: Principal SALARY AND TERMS: j^dj.'25iMonths =\"7 ea'chers Sa 1ary^'Cheduie\"\n, I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST July 0, 1987 The Little Rock School District.is now accepting applications for the followinq positions for the 1987-88 school year: POSITIONS-Health Teacher/Head Football Coach - McClellan High School Physical Education Teacher/Head Basketball Coach - J.A. Fair High School QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. Bachelor's Degree (minimum) from an accredited institution. Must meet Arkansas Certification requirements for a teacher other than Physical Education. Must meet State Department of Education requirements for coaching endorsement. 4. 5. NOTE: Must meet Arkansas Activities Association requirements for coaches. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW^ BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. Coaches individual participants in the skills necessary for excellent achievement in the sport involved. Conducts team tryouts to select team members. Arranges for and supervises students during the physical examination clinic. Develops a schedule of competition in cooperation with the principal, athletic director and other coaches. 5. 6. Assumes responsibility for issuing and maintaining a current inventory of uniforms and equipment. Plans and schedules a regular program of practices during the regular season program within the confines of the time specified by the principal and athletic director. 7. Assumes the responsibility for striving to build good sportsmanship and developing good public relations in the school community. Page 2 Health Teacher/Head Football Coach -McClellan High School Physical Education Teacher/Head Basketball Coach - J.A. Fair Hinh School BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Cont.) 8. Assumes the responsibility for explaining all district policies. i.ivluJiuM the grade point average and citizenship requirements to all members of the team. including 9. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, ment, materials, and facilities. equip- 10. Oversees the safety conditions of the facility or area in which assianed sport IS conducted at all times that students are present. 11. Assumes responsibility for arranging transportati on. 12. Assumes responsibility for keeping records as required and requested by the principal and athletic director. 13. 14. Assigns assistant coaches their coaching assignments. Attends coaching meetings, conferences, district and local meetings. 15. Assumes responsibility for assisting in-district track meets. JOB GOAL: To provide leadership and coordination of the assigned sport program at the school level and to teach those skills and strategies necessary for students to derive maximum benefit from participation in the football program. organizational RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the principal EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with the the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. SALARY AND TERMS: provisions of *^st^Us DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: July 22, 1987 z SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROU.S SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW.1987-83 Vacancies (Cont.): TITLE: *:S?rrior-High-School-Accelerated LearningtTeachersr- One (1) Each - English , Mathematics, Science and Social Studies for each'Senior High School - twenty-four (24) Positions QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor's Decree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas secondary teacher'.s certificate with subject area endorsement English, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To help underachieving students, master subject matter in areas of deficiency and gain skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and resDonsible men and women. SALARY AND TERMS: \"9.25 Months - Teacher Salary Schedule TITLE: ^fComputerScience/Computer-Literacy.Jnst^tor Two (2) each Junior High School, Eight (8) Positions ' \" OUALIFI CATIONS: 1. Bachelor's Degree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas secondary teachers certificate (ANY AREA). 3. Strong mathematics background in Algebra and Geometry. 4. 5. Willingness to attend weekly training sessions during the initial year of course implementation. Willingness to attend special inservice/curriculum design sessions prior to the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. 6. Expertise or interest in specializing in one or more of the following computer areas: Base Programming, LOGO Programming, Interorated Software Applications^ Telecommunications and B.B.S. Operations, Information Search and Retrieval Techniques/ Systems, and/or Robotics. 7. Evi de:,re of a stro.ig commitment to quality integrated education. PLEASE POST . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 29. 1987 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1987-88 school year: POSITIONS: Computer Specialists - Computer :Specialty Schools - Four (4) Schools, Two (2) Positions: Baseline Elementary Franklin Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Terry Elementary QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor's degree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas elementary teacher's certification. 3. Background in educational Computer classroom applications, curriculum development and inservice. 4. Willingness to attend special inservice/curriculum design sessions prior to the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. 5. Willingness to attend weekly training sessions during the initial year of the specialty school implementation process. 6. Evidence of a strong comnitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To coordinate the computer program to be offered at the District's Computer Specialty Schools. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Aid classroom teachers in effectively using computers to promote student gains through on-the-job-training, individualized instruction, inservijce offerings, school wide contests, and the development of classroom curriculum materials. 2. Be responsible for the overall operation of the computer labs at designated schools. 3. Coordinate with Principal, staff and computer lab attendants to assigned schools to schedule classes and ALP students into the computer labs as Page Two (2) Computer Specialists - Computer Specialty Schools Positions (Cont.) BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Cont.) efficiently as possible. 4. Coordinate with Principal and staff in designated schools to identify the most useful student data needed by classroom teachers and to see that the computer lab/system provides as much of that data as possible in a timely fashion. 5. Conduct special student computer classes/projects beyond the scope of the average classroom teacher, eg. programming in BASIC or LOGOWRITER. 6. Be responsible for troubleshooting minor computer problems at designated schools. 7. Cooperate with the librarians to establish, support, publicize, and optimize a software lending library designed to support the schools curriculum. 8. Conduct special parent inservice classes after school and at night. 9. Conduct inservice training for teachers in other District schools after school and at night. 10. Coordinate with local computer clubs, etc. via VIPS to promote a computer club within designated schools. 11. 12. Be responsible for working with each school's gifted and talented personnel to develop and implement appropriate computer units. Coordinate with the District's 9th grade computer instructors. 13. Other duties as assigned by the Principal in cooperation with the District's Supervisor of Instructional Technology. SALARY AND TERMS: ff9^25*Mon'th^-Teacher-3alary3aedin:^^^s\n^iene^itsTpac^e^ EVALUATION: Performance of the job will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: August 10, 1987 t SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Ar. 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEWPLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST AUGUST 10, 1987 Inr School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1987-88 school year:  POSITIONS: Elementary Math Teachers - Accelerated Learnino Program - Thirty-Seven (371 Positions ' QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor's Degree (minimum). 2. Valid Arkansas elementary teacher's certification. 3. Interest in mathematics. 4. Evidence of a strong comnitment to quality integrated educati on. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To help underachieving^students master subject matter in areas of deficiency and gam skills that will contribute to their development as mature, able, and responsible men and women. EVALUATION: Performance of the job will be evaluated in accordance with the the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. SALARY AND TERMS: provisions of r-9.25 Months\"-Teachers^Sartary-Srhedtrie'^ DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: August 19, 1987 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELEC-TION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BE-Little Rock, Ar. 72201 CAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW. PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 12, 1987 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1987-88 school year: POSITION: Student Assignment Officer QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. Arkansas Elementary/Secondary Teacher and/or Administrator certification preferred. A Bachelor's degree or higher from an accredited college or university. 3. At least five (5) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district setting. 4. Experience in data management and statistical analysis is desirable. 5. 6. 7. Knowledge of the district's desegregation plan. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parents and staff involvement in decision making and communication. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW: REPORTS TO\nAssociate Superintendent - Desegregation JOB GOAL: To assist the Associate Superintendent - Desegregation in the assignment of students in accordance with the desegregation plan. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: I. 2. 3. Assumes the responsibility for the implementation of student assignment and transfer procedures. Assumes the responsibility for the maintenance of data, records, and the communication with parents regarding student assignment and transrer policies and procedures. Assumes the responsibility of processing all requests for student transfers from one school to another or one district to another. . ft  1^0 * * s 'Sibil it'.' of recording and referring aopeals from -2- Student Assignment Officer BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES (Pont.) 5. 6. 7. 8. Assumes the responsibility of transmitting the decision on appeals to the appellant, and implements that decision. Oversees the registration of new students to see that they are placed in the appropriate schools. Provides reports on student racial composition and processes the data as required for the successful implementation of the plan. Periodically reviews the implementation of data to insure that it is accurate and updated, and reports any and all discrepancies to the Associate Superintendent - Desegregation. 9. Other duties as assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: .*$lBWO^iy^22V534*'^Annu a'lSfl cititinal^ pend ,*^enef i ts' PackageT^nd Car 'Ahl owaric'e. EVALUATION: Performance of this position'wil1 be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: October 21, *1937 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE\\POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAl)SL^N_INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW. /LITTLE RO SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 '..'EST WiRKHAM PLEASE POST M,vi\\ , nhkAnSZ*.^ 17 UJ The Li October 27, 19S7 le Rock School District is nov\naccepting applications position for the 19C7-o school 3'ear: '\nr POST for tile follov.'ing I POSITIOfJ: Superintendent of Schools QUALIFICATIONS : 1. Must hold an Administrator's Certificate in school administration the State of Arkansas. from 2. Minimum of a .Master's degree\nterminal degree preferred. 3. High personal and professional integrity. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in an integrated urban setting. 5. Strong management credentials in the area of finance, personnel, and long range planning. operations, 7. Demonstrates an administrative style which is flexible, 07 the viev/s of others. open, and perceptive evidence of a strong conniitment to qualitj' integrated education. REPORTS TO: Board of Education SUPERVISES: D.reculy, or throuc.h delegation, all Little Rock School District employees JOB GOAL: To proviae the best possible educational programs and services for the children in the Little Rock School District. AREAS OF RESPONSISILITY: Provides leadership for the educ 2. In-orms the Board of the needs,- conditions, end accomplishments of all schools in the District. 3. Proposes needed policy and procedure changes for Board consideration. 4. Maintains citizen support for public education in Little Rock.  Maintains communication with the Board, Sta , Students, and Community. 6. I Page Two (2) Superintendent of Schools AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY: (Cont.) 6. Assures procedures to identify the needs of students. 7. the needs of students. implementation and evaluation of programs to meet 8. Develops and recommends the District. a budget that reflects the needs and priorities of 9. Maintains a highly qualified, dedicated, and effective staff. 10. Generates additional school income through appropriate sources. 11. Little Rock School District. JS!!!? whose aoti.ities affect the 12. Assures effective use of physical, fiscal. and human resources. 13. Performs such other tasks as may from time to time be assigned by the Board. SALARY: Low to mid eighties evaluation: The Board will mutually agreed upon process and Superintendent's performance in accordance with a procedure. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: November 13, 1987 SEND LETTERS OF INQUIRY TQ- Harold Webb Associates 525 Winnetka Avenue Suite 1 Winnetka, Ill. 60093 SPECIAL INSTRUCT!ONS: eXi'enTT LT\"\" QW'WfcaMons. Arrnmnf? ^^ascns for.interest in the position, and most sionificant S  Send current resume' and a list . . our personal reierences who can be contacted includino names, titles Send current resume' and a list addresses and telephone numbers, be sent to Harold Webb Associates. Request that your university credentials /PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 6, 1987 PLEASE PO The Little Rock School District announces the following vacancy: POSITION: Supervisor of Social Studies QUALIFICATIONS: 1. At least five (5) years' successful teaching experience. 2. A Master's Degree with graduate hours in one of the social sciences. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Eligible for Arkansas certification as a Supervisor. Evidence of strong commitment to quality integrated education. Evidence of successful professional experiences in dealing with students, parents, and staff. Evidence of organizational and managerial skills. Highly developed oral and written communication skills. 8. Knowledge of recent research and trends in social studies education. note APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS ---------IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW\n' REPORTS TO: Associate Superintendent - Research, Development, and Curriculum SUPERVISES: Staff assigned JOB GOAL: To assist the Associate Superintendent for Research, Development, and Curriculum and the building principals in curriculum development activities, staff development, and other logistical and consultative support services provided to principals and teaching staff in the area of social studies, K-12. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Serves as chief advisor to the Associate Superintendent for Research, Development, and Curriculum and the building principals on matters Pef-taining to curriculum development, staff development, and logistical and consultative support to schools in the area of social studies, grades K-12. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: continued 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Serves as a member of various district advisory committees and task forces as assigned by the Associate Superintendent for Research, Development, and Curriculum. Coordinates the process whereby the social studies curriculum, K-12, is developed to meet the school district's goals and priorities. Coordinates the development of staff development programs and activities designed to better enable the district and school level staffs, grades K-12, to implement effectively the school district's approved social studies curriculum, K-12. Serves as program advisor for the development and implementation of the Gibbs International Magnet School and the Law/Government/Economics elementary specialty schools. Conducts staff development activities (PET, TESA, Classroom Management, etc.) as needed. Coordinates the activities of any personnel reporting to him/her who are providing logistical and consultative support to building principals and teaching staff. Monitors the processes of implementing curriculum development, training, and logistical and consultative support in the area of social studies, K-12. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of those staff reporting to him/her. Also, assists the principal, upon request, as a consultant on matters related to evaluating personnel in the delivery of social studies 'instruction. Assumes responsibility for seeing that community, staff, and (when appropriate) students are involved in the development of curriculum and other planning responsibilities assigned to him/her. Works cooperatively with other district personnel to develop federal programs and inter-disciplinary/inter-departmental programs. Maintains a familiar!ty with recent trends, developments, and publications in social studies education, elementary and secondary education, and instructional management and supervision. TERM OF EMPLOYMENT: E{leveri'(ll) months EVALUATION: Effecti ve Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. SALARY AND TERMS: According to the salary schedule for supervisors, car allowance, educational stipend, and benefits package.DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: November 17, 1987 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Mr. Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS~SELECT'ION PROCESS. THEREFORE. BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED\" FOR AN INTERVIEW'.) PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 November 12, 1987 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1987-88 school year: POSITIONS: Elementary Art Teachers - Four (4) Positions QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A Bachelor's Degree (Minimum). 2. Must meet Arkansas Certification in Art K-12, 3. Endorses concept of all the arts in every child. 4. Demonstrates expertise in the visual and performing arts. 5. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To nurture and motivate student achievement and self-discipline through the inclusion of the arts and humanities in the delivery of the instruction program. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes in the locations and at the times designated. 2. Plans a program of study that, as much as possible, meets the individual needs, interests, and abilities of th'e students. 3. Incorporates the arts and humanities in-the total instructional program. 4. Identifies and utilizes community resources for the arts program. 5. Creates a classroom environment that is conducive to leaning and appropriate to the maturity and interests of the students. 6. Fosters in students the self-discipline inherent in artistic and academic achievement. 7. Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of preparation upon request of immediate superior. Page Two (2) Elementary Art Teachers - huur (4) Positions BAS7C PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Cont.) 8. Encourages students to set and maintain standards of classroom behavior. 9. 10. 11. 12. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of curriculum goals and - in harmony with the goals - establishes clear objectives for all lessons, units, projects, and the like to communicate these objectives to students. Employs a variety of instructional techniques and instructional media, consistent with the physical limitations of the location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved. Strives to implement, by instruction and action, the district's philosophy of education and instructional goals and objectives. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. 13. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities. 14. Maintains accurate, complete, and correct records as required by law, district policy, and administrative regulation. 15. Assists the administration in implementing all policies and/or rules governing student life and conduct, and, for the classroom, develops reasonable rules of classroom behavior and procedure, and maintains order in the classroom in a fair and just manner. 16. Makes provisions for being available to students and parents for education- related purposes outside the instructional day when required or requested to do so under reasonable terms. 17. to maintain and improve personal and professional competence by demonstrating a willingness to participate in inservice activities. Strives 18. Attends staff meetings and serves on staff committees as required. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: f^T^^ment'^ Teachers^''- SaTary^Scales^.25)\nMonths itraveTi? PI 'us^nsaiefl ts-packagewnd EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: / November 20, 1987 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple, Personnel Director, Little Rock School District, 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Ar. 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED I.'. THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCES A POSITION DOES NOT NECES rqr an interview. PORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR HAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDEREDPLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST June 2, 1988 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the followinq positions for the 1988-89 school year: POSITIONS: Instructional Specialists - Carver Magnet School - Two (2) Positions - K-3 \u0026amp; 4-6 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Arkansas elementary certification. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Evidence of knowledge of successful teaching strategies. Evidence of knowledge of total Magnet School Concept/Curriculum. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, parents, peers and supervisory personnel. Evidence of extraordinary knowledge of elementary mathematics and science. A willingness to work in a collaborative team approach to program planning with classroom teachers and other magnet specialists. 7. A willingness to participate in PET, TESA, and Discipline inservice. 8. 9. Evidence of knowledge of the LRSD recordkeeping system. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE OUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. 1 ' REPORTS TO: Principal JOB fiOAL: To assist classroom teachers in integrating mathematics and science instruction through use of the Young Astronaut Program and the STACs Concepts. BASIC PEP,FORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes as designated. / 2. 3. Orders and catalogs curriculum material from the Young Astronaut Program. Conducts inservice sessions for classroom teachers on use of Young Astronaut curriculum material and competitions. 4. Sets up Field Trips which correlate with the math/science curriculum. Page Two (2) - Two (2) Positions - K-3 and 4-6 5. Coordinates special events held to 6. Assesses the accomplishments of progress reports as required. recognize student achievement. students on a regular basis and provides 7. patrons and assists with orientation 8. Instructs Primary/intermediate 9. science lab classes as required. Pair and mathematicrcompetitiSP\"^\"^ Invention Convent! on, Science 10. Assists classroom and I centers. 11. teaching strategies Any other duties as assigned. application deadline- June 13, 1988 SALARY AND TERfiS: sPlacement on Teachers EVALUATION: Salary Scale\nNine and one-fourth (9.25) months Performance of this inh win policy on Evaluation of Profession] PersonSe?'''*\"'^\" provisions of the Board's SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF inquiry TO: Richard Maple Personnel Director Little Rock School 810 West Markham Little Rock, Ar. District 72201 NOTE: SsSSgSRgffiBa, DOES/WTLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1987-88 school year: POSITION: Mathematics Specialist - Carver Magnet School QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Arkansas Elementary Certificat''on. 2. Evidence of skills in mathematics, including algebra and geometry. 3. Evidence of knowledge of successful teaching strategies. 4. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interactionwith students, parents, peers, and supervisory personnel. 5. 6. A willingness to work in a collaborative team approach to program planning and delivery of mathematics instruction. Evidence of teaching experiences covering all levels (ages) of students is desirable. 7. A willingness to participate in PET, TESA, and Assertive Discipline inservice. 8. A willingness to participate in four (4) weeks of inservice and curriculum development - summer, 1987. 9. Evidence of a strong coimitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal of Carver Basic Skil1s/Math-Science Magnet School JOB GOAL: To assume the primary responsibility for teaching mathematics to assigned students and to coach/sponsor math competitions such as Math Olympiads and those designated through the Young Astronauts Program. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. Plans a program of study in mathematics and instructs designated students. Integrates mathematics and science instruction by illustrating mathematical applications. -2- fVither.atics Specialist - Carver Magnet School BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES (Cont.): 3. Facilitates the development of special events held to recognize student achievement. 4. Maintains membership and participates in professional organizations devoted to the advancement of mathematics education. 5. Serves as a liaison between Carver Magnet School staff and the Little Rock School District's Mathematics Department as related to mathematics curriculum development and identification of instructional materials. 6. Provides demonstration lessons to illustrate effective techniques for teaching mathematics concepts. 7. Other duties as assigned. APPLICATION DEADLINE: June 1, 1987 SALARY AND TERMS: ' Placement on Teacher's Salary Scale\n'Nine' and one-fourth (9.25)lii6nths- EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple, Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE. BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW,PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 1, 1988 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1988-89 school year: POSITION: Communications Specialist - Mitchell Elementary (1/2 Time) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Arkansas Elementary Certification. 2. Evidence of knowledge of successful teaching strategies. 3. Evidence of extraordinary knowledge of specialized communications skills. 4. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, parents, peers and supervisory personnel. 5. 6. A willingness to work in a collaborative team approach to program planning with classroom teachers. A willingness to participate in PET\nTESA, and Communications inservice. t' 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To assist classroom teachers in integrating conmunications skills throughout the core curriculum as well as through special activities, (i.e. Reader's Theatre, Drama Club, Storytelling, etc.) BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Meets and instructs assigned classes as designated. 2. Conducts inservice sessions for classroom teachers on the integration of the core curriculum and communication activities. Page Two (2) BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Cont.) 3. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis and provides progress reports as required. SALARY AND TERMS.- ^^mniitPMeachersE!sfsa7ary^ine^vand.\u0026lt;)ne.,QUl\nd4.^/^ EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: July 22, 1988 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: * INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED.PLEASE POST liitll pock school district 810 WEST MARr.HAM little ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 July 6, 1980 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following [)osition for the 1988-39 school year: POS ITI or!: Director of Data Processing QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A minimum of a B.A. degree in computer science, mathematics, or a related field plus six (6) years experience in data processing or an Associate degree and six (6) years experience, or a minimum of eight (8) years experience as a systems analysist or programmer analvsist. 2. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 3. Evidence of successful experience with staff and administrators in decision making. A. Demonstrates the conviction'that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District.  ' NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS- IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Administrative Manager of Business Operations and Support Services SUPERVISES: All personnel serving in Data Processing Department JOB GOAL: To help the district utilize date processing to increase effectiveness and reduce cost to the ultimate benefit of the educational program. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assumes prime responsibility in the processing of the payroll for all employees. 2. Plans, organizes, and controls the overall activities of electronic data processing, including systems analysis, programming, and computer operatinn activities as related to the district's business operations, instructional programs,'research activities and pupil record keeping. 3. Provides consultant services to those departments whichindicate a need, interest', or desire to develop data processing applications. A. Conducts inservice programs to keep personnel informed as to applications and developments in the field of electronic data processing in education. Tfloe T-.'O (t) Director oi Data Processing BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPQNSIB 1LIT!tS: Cent.) 5. Serves as a consultant to the instructors in data processing in the vocational arts program. 6. Projects data processing resource requirements, including personnel, equipment and housing, with associated costs, and coordinates with the planning and budgeting cycles of the district. 7. Develops, trains, supervises, and evaluates data processing staff. 8. Evaluates regularly the district's use of data procps-tinq tions and expansions as necessary. and recommends altera9. Analyzes, investigates, a..J leasing of suitable equipment. and advises the administration regarding purchase of 10. Maintains a cooperative relationship and o.^Vope.acive relationship and open communication with those holding simlar^positions in other districts in the region and state, to investiaate and implement feasible data processing programs on a multi-district basis. 11. Develops plans and budgets for the data processing activity. 12. Performs such other duties consistent ma}' be assigned from time to time. with his/her professional competence as SALARY AND TERMS: $31,229 position. .SA6,193, plus benefits package and car allowance. A Twelve (12) Month EVALUATION: po1ic\\' on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. bs evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board s DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OP APPLICATIONS: July 15 1988 SEND WRITTEN LETT, OP INQUIRY TO\nRichard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District p 10 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas. 72201 NOT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN SELECTION PROCESS.. -urnrrnnr - POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS JHEREPORE, BECAUSE AN 'INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION I necessarily mean that an interview will be conducted. DOES NOTPLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 September 7, 1988 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1988-89 school year: POSITIONS\nArts Magnet Curriculum Specialists - Booker Arts Magnet School - Two (2) Positions One (1) - K-3 One (1) - 4-6 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. Arkansas elementary certification. Evidence of skills in curriculum development, organization, and implementation. 3. Evidence of the knowledge of the total arts program and inroads to the total community. 4. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, parents, peers, and supervisory personnel. 5. A willingness to work in a collaborative team approach in curriculum planning, organization and implementation. 6. Evidence of a sensitivity to the needs of the specialist in each area and ability to provide a support system for principals. 7. Possesses the ability to write and obtain grants and other resources available for the magnet program. 8. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 9. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To assume the primary responsibility for curriculum development, organization, and coordination in the magnet school, to the total school program. To be a curriculum expert and a positive influence BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Plans a program of curriculum development in the arts magnet school. Page Two Arts Magnet Curriculum Specialists - Booker Arts Magnet School - Two (2) Positions (K-3) (4-E BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Cont.) 2. Writes and secures grants and other available resources for the magnet program. 3. Must be aware of the arts in the greater Little Rock area and surrounding areas which will benefit and complement the arts magnet program. 4. Serves as a liaison between the Arts Center, Arkansas Repertory Theatre and the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra. 5. Serves as a principal designee in the administration of the arts magnet program. 6. Other duties as assigned. SALARY AND TERMS\n\u0026lt;:bnefits package EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: September 15, 1988 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIONS MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 applications for the following position for the 1987-88 school year:  POSITION: Art Specialist - Gibbs Magnet School QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A Bachelor's Degree (minimum). Must meet elementary certification requirements. Evidence of succisssful teaching experiences. Understanding of the goals and purpose of the International Studies Magnet Program. Expression of an interest in international education. Evidence of ability to work cooperatively in developing and implementing an interdisciplinary program. General familiarity with one of three foreign languages. Willingness to participate (with stipend) in staff development activities prior to beginning of contract and throughout school year. Evidence of skills in the area of classroom management. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills. 11. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated educati on. 12. Must be certified in elementary art. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. - -------------------------------------1------------------------- REPORTS TO: Principal JOB GOAL: To help students facilitate the learning of all areas of the curriculum through regular classroom instruction. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Utilizes scheduled meetings and planning time to develop currcula for the magnet school. -2- Art Specialist - Gibbs Magnet School BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES (Cont.)\n2. Willingness to participate in inservice for personal and professional growth. 3. Assists in identifying and utilizing community resources. 4. Fosters in students the self-discipline inherent in artistic and academic achievement. 5. Facilitates the development of special events held to recognize student achievement, and attends school functions. SALARY AND TERMS: Placement on Teacher's Salary Scale\nNine and one-fourth (9.25) months EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: June 1, 1987 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple, Personnel Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW. /PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 27, 1988 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications-for the followinq position for the 1988-89 school year:  POSITION: New Futures Liaison QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree or higher. 2. Minimum of five (5) years experience in education and/or social services. 3. Experience in education and administration. 4. 5. 6. 7. Knowledge of the schools and District policy and procedures. Knowledge of New Futures Initiative and all of its component parts. Awareness of the community and all community groups involved in the grant implementation, either directly or indirectly. Knowledge of grants and grant implementation. 8. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 9. Evidence of successful conmunication skills with adults and children. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. ------------------------------------- REPORTS TO: Associate Superintendent for Schools JOB GOAL: To guide and monitor the implementation of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth (Annie Casey Grant) for the Little Rock School District and to monitor educational programs and services for the Little Rock School District as stated in the New Futures for Little Rock Youth grant. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Manages the New Futures Implementation process and taskplan in the targeted schools as stated in the grant. 2. -3. Serves as an advisor for the Associate Superintendent for Schools and the Superintendent regarding implementation and planning relative to New Futures. Aqts as a liaison among the schools, the administration and the New Futures Director relative to grant implementation and modification. A C V- New Futures Liaison BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 5. Manages the monitoring process for grant implementation and recommends modifications in procedure or budget as needed via the development for recommendation for ways to improve both process and outcome relative to \"youth at risk\". 6. Works with the technical advisor and evaluations from The Casey Foundation to facilitate their involvements in the District. 7. Manages matching grant monies and acts to facilitate appropriate staff development for personnel involved in the grant and its implementation. 8. Works as a liaison to all District programs and involvements related to youth \"at risk\". 9. Works to facilitate implementation in the context of site-based management. 10. Attends Board meetings and prepares reports related to grant matters as requested. 11. Establishes procedures required to accomplish school district goals in relationship to other agency efforts on behalf of Little Rock youth. 12. Other duties relative to New Futures in the schools as assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Salary to be determined - annual twelve (12) month contract, car allowance and benefits. EVALUATION: Performance of this position will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: November 7, 1988 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 February 13, 1989 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1988-89 school year: POSITION: Drug Abuse Prevention Coordinator QUALIFICATIONS:  1. Master's degree in Social Work or a related field. 2. 3. 4. Minimum of 2-5 years experience working in an educational school setting. Evidence of strong planning and organizational skills. Evidence of successful experiences in designing and implementing drug abuse prevention programs and strategies. 5. Evidence of successful experience in working with youth, community leaders, parents and school personnel. 6. Ability to compile and analyze data necessary to carry out program monitorinq and evaluation functions. 7. Evidence of effective interpersonal skills and strong verbal and written conmuni-cation skills. 8. Evidence of a strong conmitment to quality integrated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- - REPORTS TO: Director of Pupil Services JOB GOAL: To work cooperatively with the Little Rock Drug Free Schools Advisory Council and Little Rock School District personnel in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of specific programs/activities designed to prevent drug/alcohol abuse among Little Rock School District students. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Provides day to day oversite and monitoring of all drug/alcohol prevention programs implemented within the Little Rock School District. 2. Ensures that all activities contained in the Drug Free Schools Comprehensive Drug Abuse plan an ce ried out and on time. Drug Abuse Prevention Coordinator BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 3. 4. 5. Provides/coordinates appropriate training for District administrators, counselors, teachers and other staff in methods of detecting and effectively dealing with students who use drugs/alcohol. Coordinates the organization and maintenance of school-based drug/alcohol student assistance teams and other school-based approaches. Assists building staff in obtaining community and other drug education resources for use in schools. 6. 7. Plans and implements training programs for students and parents to develop effective communication and problem-solving skills. Compiles and analyzes pertinent information necessary to carry out program monitoring and evaluation functions. 8. 9. Provides quarterly and annual reports to the Advisory Council and the Little Rock School District Board of Directors relative to financial expenditures and the progress made in implementing its Drug Abuse Prevention Plan. Other duties and responsibilities as assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: travel allowance-and benefits package. An Eleven (11) Month-Contract. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated inaccordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 21, 1989 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERPLEASE POST little rock school 810 W. MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR DISTRICT 72201 May 11, 1989 The Little Rock School 10 beaching 1989-90 school year: District i POSirioNS: the rrtTCra Je~ TeacTiel* /  d^^'fea c fie?: - Tea cheF Sixth-Grade -Teacher^ QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2. \"?ree (some 3. A. 5. Must meet Arkansas elementary teacher Evidence of the ability to pl units and classroom a' '  Evidence of the abili ' learning styles and Evidence of the certification an activities. 6. ! . mathematics and Evidence of the ment of a wide : Evidence of a NOTE: graduate work preferred) requirements for an and develop interdisciplinary ity to apply skills in in a team teaching en-vito^me^^?^ ability to implement Lnds- c^ence education. ability to stimulate range of classroom Strong commitment on activities in participation in activities. to quality integrated and enjoy-education. REPORTS TO: initial SCREENINGiNrERVIE^.'''^ Principal JOB GOAL: To work in a cooperative relationship with other classroom teachers, every student's maximum development specialists and parents to ot seiKTrth, approbation for others. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Demonstrates mastery of the content areas. 2. Demonstrates an understanding and commitment to the goals and purpose of the magnet program. 3. Demonstrates the ability to . for instruction and counseling that will mee plan and implement activities designed * - _\n.  --.-.J.-.  .\n/-/cnni al the acaderaic/social A. 5. 6. 7. 8. needs of individual students. staff development the school year. Demonstrates the ability to interdisciplinary program. implementing an Demonstrates Demonstrates cteristics. work cooperatively in developing and an interest in mathematics and science. the ability to structure lessons to the ability to facilitate learnin Demonstrates -----------. instructional models and implement different ms learned chara- within different itructional formats. o 9. Demonstrates the ability to maintain a all children to pertorm. creating opportunities for high level of participation, the ability to select and use a 10. Demonstrates 1-- , . , . instructional materials and activities J variety of diverse within a class period. 11, Demonstrates a strong commitment to working with at-risk students. 12. Demonstrates a related to: willingness to be a role model for the students as - task commitment - acceptable dress and grooming - social behavior - traditional American values of good manners, responsibility, pride and patriotism. SALARY AND TERMS:EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: May Hi , 1989 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Service Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Ar 72201 NOTE : INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. INTERVIEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A SELECTION TEAM COMPOSED OF THE PRINCIPAL, TEACHERS AND PARENTS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER /TITLE: Supervisor of Adult Education QUALIFICATIONS: 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. Minimum of a Masters Degree. Must be eligible for certification as an Adult Education Supervisor. Minimum of five years classroom teaching experience. Evidence of a strong commitment for quality, integrated education. Evidence of successful experience in involving adult and staff in decision making. REPORTS TO: Director of Adult Education SUPERVISES^ Staff assigned JOB GOAL To extend the benefits of the districts educational program to as wide a section of the community as is interested and as can benefit from continued exposure to academic, vocational, and avocational courses. PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assists in the development, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and Instructional services. 2. Provides such assistance as may be needed in improving the instructional effectiveness of the teachers of adult education classes. 3. Assists Director in obtaining improvement in individual staff competencies in the area of instructional effectiveness. 4. Serves as consultant and/or advisor in the selection of textbooks and other instructional materials within a specific area. 5. Coordinates the revision and rewriting of curriculum guides and programs of study. 6. Maintains complete and accurate records of the program, and from these records prepares such reports as may be required by district personnel or other legal authorities. 7. Participates in county, state, and national activities designed to improve adult education. Page 2 (Cont) I 8. Supervises and coordinates the ordering and utilization of departmental instructional aids and materials for the assigned curricular area. 9. Keeps abreast of all new developments in his/her field and disseminates information about them on a regular basis to teachers in the assigned curricular area. 10. Assists in providing a program of orientation and inservice for teachers new to adult education. 11. Provides teachers with counsel and assistance toward the solution of instructional problems. 12. Assumes the responsibility for seeing that community, staff, and, where appropriate, students are involved in the development of curriculum and other planning responsibilities assigned to her/him. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: Ten Months EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel.i Please Post !! I! Administrative Vacancy ?l i I II ilPosition now open I i ii LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST Little Rock School District August 3, 1989 I1 IlIi ...IIII QUALIFICATIONS:. 1 . A master's degree or higher with emphasis in Labor Relations, Personnel Management, Educational Administration, or related field. 2. A minimum of five (5) years experience in Labor Relations and/or as a school administrator in a district which has employee bargaining practices. Evidence of a strong conjmitment to quality integrated education. 4. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. NOTE: APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TQ SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Deputy Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist in the administration of all union contracts entered into by the district with personnel in such a way as to ensure maximum fairness to all perries, minimum friction, and the ultimate benefit to the students in the Little Rock School District. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONS151LITIE 1. 2. Provides assistance to the negotiator for the Little Rock School Disirict in negotiations with recognized bargaining units and meet and confer units to arrive at agreement and proposals for changes in contract language. Assists principals and support services managers in the interpretation of contract language and proposals for changes in contract language. Assists the Director of Human Resources as facilitator at the informal level IO resolve 1 ebor/management problem:ms5 . 4. Serves as the official designee of the Superintendent at appropriate suages of me grievance procedure. r c I C {' Labor Relcticns Speciclist L ASIC PERFOR^^ANCE ftESPO^SIEIL] ! r (Continued): 5. Coordinates f.l I aspects various contracts with employee organizations. f contt-oct odrrinistretion during the term cf C. Coordinates a training program in contract eaministration for all management personnel. Assists the Director of Human Resources in processing reconri'endaLions for termination of employees, assembling substantiating information for dismissal of employees,- and arranging any necessary conferences and hearings. . Prepares information on cases for fact-finding, assists in selection of the fact finder, evaluates fact-finding decisions, and makes recommendations on acceptance or rejection of those decisions. 0 Provides information to the Board of Directors in regard to its responsibilities and roles in personnel actions. 10. Prepares an annual report to the Superintendent on grievances and terminations of employees. SALARY AND TERMS: $36,409 - 51,015 - A Twelve (12) Month Contract plus Educational Stipend, Car Allov/ance, and Benefits Package EVALUATION: Performance of this position will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: August 25, 1989 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District SIO West Markham Little Rock, A rkensas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS A POSITION DOES NOT NECESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR ILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDU L. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WEST MARKHAM AND IZARD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 9, 1989 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1989-90 school year\nPOSITION\nSupervisor of CARE Program (School-Age Child Care Program) QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Bachelor's degree or higher with certification as an elementary teacher and experience in an supervisory capacity. administrative or Minimum of one (1) year of successful teaching experience. Evidence of successful experience involving students. paren ts, and school administration. 4. Evidence of strong organizational and educational leadership qualities. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nDirector of Pupil Services SUPERVISES\nCARE Program office staff and CARE school personnel JOB GOALS a The supervisor will\n(1) work cooperatively with principals and CARE workers to provide each student enrolled in the program with educationally and developmentally appropriate experiences that will enhance his/her school day and (2) effectively and efficiently administer the program on a self-supporting 'basis. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1 . Recrui t, screen, interview and orient all CARE staff. Supervise, monitor and evaluate performance of CARE staff on a continuing basis. Provide leadership in planning. initial and ongoing training for CARE staff. implementing and evaluating 4 . Operate the program on a self-supporting basis. a. Prepare annual budget and monitor income and expenditures. b. Supervise billing, collection and depositing of fees. c. Order, purchase and deliver materials and supplies. d. Requisition payments for expenditures. 5. Secure substitutes for CARE Program. 6. Work cooperatively with building principals and Director of Pupil Services in the operation of the CARE program. 7. Plan, implement, monitor and evaluate all activities relating to operation of CARE Program. Design, develop and produce all materials for registration of CARE students. 8. 9. 10. b. c . d. e. f . Assure program food needs are met by working with Pood Service personnel. Coordinate with the Plant Services Department concerning custodial needs. Organize activities. food services, staffing and other arrangements for operation of program on school holidays and early dismissal or inclement weather days. Communicate and interpret the program to staff. patrons, principals and other administrative personnel. Oversee preparation of payroll for CARE employees and report to LRSD Business Office. Develop and keep current public information (brochures, f1 yers, handbooks) for a11'interested persons. Operate program to fulfill Arkansas child care licensing requirements. Other related duties as assigned. EVALl-IAT I ON s Performance will be evaluated in accordance with provisions ofthe Board's policy on evaluation. SALARY AND TEF^NS\nWWW9rTt:h'Con-tr'acrtr'for 1989-90\nsalary range-T\u0026lt;2341ii36t plus insurance and retirement benefits and mileage reimbursement. This position is not a regularly budgeted position. The position is for the contracted period only and continuation will depend on the financial status of the program. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF LETTERS OF APPLICATION\nAugust 16, 1989. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nDirector of Human Resources Little Rock School District West Markham and Izard Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, COMPLETION OF AN APPLICATION FORM DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE PERSON WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN INTERVIEW.I i ______________ PJease Post AdministrSTve Vacancy 1 Position now open associate si'fER].Ym\u0026lt;n.?\u0026lt;T or somis Little Rock School District NOTE: August 16, 1989 COMPATABLE POSITION AFTER THREE (3) ITARS. MIGIET BE SUBJECT TO REASSIGNMENT TO A QUALIFICATIONS: 1. isn (10.) years' sjzcessLul least fivffS) and administration, e [j) 01 uluch should have been in administration. at 2. 3. master's degree or higher. f-lisltillit)' [or Arkansas certification as a school administrator. 4. At least three (3) years' successful experience trator in an urban school district setting. as an educational adminis- 5. Evidence of a strong conwitment to quality integrated education. 6. Evidence of successrul experience with parent and sion making and communication. staff involvement in deciNOTE: REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools JOS GO.AL: STs-ssuy-iss.^^and services for the Little Rock BASIC performance PFSPQNSITEr rc. / 1. Serves as a member\nthe major responsib\n-- the Superintendent's Administrative Team, u-hich assumes ^luies ror the oay-to-day operations of the school district. which assumes . - Assumes the responsibilitv for evaluation results are used tc eeing that assessments, studies, sur\\^eys, and . improve program development and implementation.  rarticipates in the evaluation of building principals. '/vti (2) P. A Aisoc-ate Superintendenl c\nehools iVASTC PERTORWCE RESPONSIBILrTIES: ('Concinuec) JIGS the boarc of directors' iiiee Boaro' as the Supierintendont iiia) request. tiigs and prepares sucii reports tor the Maintains contact with state and federal officials so statutes, regulations, court decisions, and tl'ie operation of the public schools. le, igal opinions s to keep abreast of ich i\u0026gt;ertain to e. Serves, upwn the designation by the Superintendent, in the absence of the Superintendent. as Acti ~ SupG ntendent, c 1. pecial areas of super^ision will be assigned upon employment. TERM Or EMPL0i'M3\\T: Ti^'elve (12) Months SALARY\nCommensurate with that of other Associate Superintendents. EVALUATION: sions of PefiOrmance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provi- ---- the Board s policy on evaluation ot Administrative Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT Or APPLICATIONS\nAugust 25, 1989 LETTERS OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE S3\\T TO: Richard Maple Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST CO''^LET- SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT Aj\\' II'TERVIEv? WILL THEREFOj BECAUSE AN TI. TVIDUAl BE CONDUCTED. \\IERY RIGOROUS POSITIO.N DOES AN EOUAi OPPORTUNITl' S'lPLOY'ERI Please Post Administrative Vacancy Position nov/ open DIRECTOR OF PLANKING, RESEARCH AKO\"EVALUAT1 ON Little Rock School District August 31, 1989 QUALIFICATIONS: 1 . 2. At least ten years of successful experience in teaching and administration. A Master's Degree from an accredited college or university. 3. Eligibility for certification, as a teacher and school and/or administrator. supervisor 4. 5. 6. NOTE: Course work in research, testing, and statistics. Evidence or a strong commitment to quality' integrated education. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision makina. APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. ----------- REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned support personnel assigned to her/his department. JOB GOAL: Clerical and secretarial IO assjSu the Superintendent in providing the Board of Directors with pertinent evaluation data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONS131LITIES: 1 . To manage the process whereby the Board identifies, on a yearly basis, the programs and services which have priority for evaluation. 2. To supervise the development of an evaluation design for each of the programs and services which have received priority for evaluation. ?e-ge Two (2) Di'^ecter of Planning, .\nearch, and Evaluation BASIC PERFORf\u0026lt;ANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n(Continued) 3. To supervise the implementation of planning and evaluation design which have been approved by the school district. 4. To supervise the compilation of data, and the organization and reporting of evaluation results and recommendations. 5. To assume responsibility for coordinating the process for selecting outside planners and evaluators when they are needed. 6. To supervise the design and implementation of a district-wide testing program. 7. Serves as a member of the Superintendent's administrative advisory cabinet. o Serves on such patron and staff committees as the Superintendent may direct. 9. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of those staff reporting to her/him. 10. Assumes reponsibility for developing such reports as necessary' to keep patrons and sta better informed about school programs and services and to facilitate their participation in planning and decision making. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT\nTwelve (12) Months SALARY\n532,881 - S47,487 plus educational stipend, benefit package and car allowance EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation and Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR R I, I PT OF APPLICATIONS\nSeptember 7, 1989 LETTERS OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE SENT TO: Dr. Herbert H. Cleek Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHQ ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABQVE PQSITIOK MUST CDMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .I _______________Please Post________ Administrative Vacancy Position now open DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES  QUALIFICATIONS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. NOTE: Little Rock School District September 7, 1989 At least ten 3'ears of successful experience in teaching and administration. A Mester's Degree or higher from an accredited college or university. Eligibility for certification, in Arkansas, as a teacher, principal and/ or administrator. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. Evidence of strong organizational and interpersonal skills. APPLICANTS SHOULD EE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Deputy Superintendent SUPERVISES: All staff members assigned to the Director of Human Resources 005 GOAL: To recruit certificated and non-certificated personnel of the highest caliber available to ensure that district programs and services are implemented efficiently and e actively for the benefit of students, staff, and patrons. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIEILITIES: Works closely with the departments and schools to assess the personnel needs of the system. 2. Plans, directs, coordinates, end participates in the recruitment of certificated end non-certificated personnel. 1. 1 . f Dire or o\ntiucncir'. i.tS -CS BASIC PERFORHAATE RE^PONSlBlLn \u0026lt;\n (Continued) 5 Plans, directs, coordinates, and participates in the implementation of the school district's affirmative action [irogranr. Maintains an up-to-date application file of prospective candidates for all teaching, administrative, and supervisory positions. 5. Manages the interview process and forwards staff and conmittee recommendations for appointments to the Deputy Superintendent. 6. Screens and processes applications for consideration by personnel committees and administrators. 7. Develops and maintains a system of personnel records for all school employees, in order to provide a comprehensive, efficient, accurate, and current record of all matters pertinent to employment, transfer, tenure, retirement, leave and promotion. 8. Prepares and maintains statistical information on all personnel, and submits the necessary'statistical reports to the State Department of Education and to the Board. SALARY AND TERMS: 536,409 - $51,015 -- A Twelve (12) Month Contract plus Educational Stipend, Car allowance, and Benefits Packaoe. EVALUATION: Performance of this position will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT Or APPLICATIONS: Applications must be received no later than 12:00 Noon on September 14, 1969. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Herbert Cleek Deput}' Superintendent Little Rock School District 610 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS S CT I ON PROi A POSITION DOES NOT N S. TH Er Or BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR S5ARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL EE CONDUCTED. A . AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER_______ ______ Please Post Administrative Vacancy Position now open Director of Cbrmunicat ions (Extended) Little Rock Scho\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_896","title":"Early childhood/Hippy program","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":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1974/1993"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood/Hippy program"],"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/896"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nA Parent's Guide For a Successf u 1 EVEN START Program North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 7 2115 (501) 771-8163 l Foreword We are pleased to welcome you and your child to the North Little Rock School District Even Start Program. This guide is designed to acquaint the families participating in Even Start with the goais and objectives of the program. School District Staff James Smith Gene Jones Esther Crawford Jim Dyer Jann Pharo Nova Staggs Superintendent Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Director of Elementary Education Director, Even Start Even Start Coordinator Language Arts Coordinator School Board Members Mrs. Mable Mitchell Mr. Prentice Dupins Mrs. Pat Blackstone Mr. Lynn H~ilton Mrs. Dixie Harrison Mrs. Emily Denton Rev. J.W. Johnson President Vice President Secretary Member Member Member Member What is Even Start? Even Start is ... a home and center-based education program for ~ three year old children and their parents . .. . designed to provide early childhood education to young children while simultaneously providing basic skills and literacy instruction for their parents . . . . a commitment for parents to work with trained paraprofessionals on specific skills to help better prepare their child/children for school . .. . designed to equip parents with the skills necessary to improve their own education and to create a positive, nurturing home environment for their child/children . .. . a federal program which the North Little Rock School District is pleased to offer to patrons in target areas. What are the Even Start goals for parents? To learn to assess the educational needs of your child. To become aware of how to use everyday living experiences and materials to enhance your child's learning. To develop ideas and materials on how to become a better teacher of your child. To improve your knowledge and understanding of early childhood development. To improve your abilities to use your own resources to the best advantage. To help you reinforce your child's positive behavior. To help you assess your family's health, nutritional and safety needs and access appropriate resources. Once every two weeks a trained paraprofessional assigned to your area will visit your home. You and the paraprofessional will work together to plan and implement activities, techniques and lessons which will enhance learning for you and your child. Parents and children will also be scheduled for activities outside the home every other week. These activities include: field trips, computer-assisted instruction, arts and crafts, videos, workshops, and presentations designed for the interests and needs of Even Start participants. What are the guidelines and expectations for Even Start parents? Help us serve you better by observing the following guidelines: - Be at home at the time of your scheduled home visit. - Attend group meetings scheduled in your area or at the Parent Center. - Call your paraprofessional or the Even Start office if you are unable to keep your appointment. - Work with your child on a regular basis. - Have completed activities ready to be checked by your paraprofessional. - Call the Even Start office at 771-8163 or 771-8161 if your paraprofessional is not keeping appointments with you. Occasionally, an emergency or other unexpected situation will occur that will prevent you from keeping your appointment. Should this happen, we ask that you contact your paraprofessional or the Even Start office. Please work with your assigned paraprofessional to reschedule your make-up lesson as soon as possible. What kinds of skills will children in Even Start be taught? An Overview of Skill Areas and Activities Basic Skill Areas Tactile Discrimination Visual Discrimination Auditory Discrimination Conceptual Discrimination Types of Activities Using materials and objects of various textures, shapes, and sizes to: Touch Identify Describe Compare Using objects and pictures which vary by size, color, shape, direction and number to: Identify Describe Compare Using different sounds to: Listen Identify Describe Compare Imitate Using spatial concepts (up/ down, next to, between, on/ under, in front/behind) to: Describe Compare Identify Imitate Follow directions Give directions Language Development and Verbal Expression Eye-hand Coordination Pre-math Concepts Listening to stories Identifying pictures Asking and answering questions Completing sentences Describing real situations Describing imaginary situations Completing a story Telling a story Imitating parts of a story Reading pictures and symbols Expanding ideas Name common objects Classify Drawing lines over a pattern Copying lines and angle designs Drawing within a given path Discriminating by size Counting 0-10 Identifying specific quantities Identifying relative quantities (more/less) Matching same quantities Matching numbers to quantities Ordering quantities Recognizing numerals Writing numerals Logical Thinking Self-concept Creativity Motor Skills Using given pictures to: Analyze Organize Classify Complete information Sorting objects Sorting pictures Eliminating unnecessary information Ordering information Recalling information Describing oneself Describing one's family Expressing likes and dislikes Teaching newly learned skills Drawing freely Completing pictures Telling stories Completing stories Acting out parts of stories Fingerplays Work with clay Finger painting Scribble Roll Climb Crawl Jump What else do Even Start parents need to know? Q. Who is eligible for the Even Start Program? A. Families with three to four year old children (children must be 3 by October 1, 1991) who are not served by preschool or by a similar family-centered program and in which a parent has a need for basic skills training or literacy education. Q. What do the program activities include? A. Program activities include: identifying and recruiting eligible children\nscreening and preparing parents and children for participation, including testing, referral to necessary counseling, and related services\ndesigning programs and providing support services\nestablishing instructional programs for the adults, training them to support the educational growth of their children, and preparing children for success in the regular school program\nproviding special training for staff\nproviding and monitoring integrated, home-based instructional services\nand coordinating Even Start programs with other related programs. Q. How does a family enroll? A. Call the Even Start Office at 771-8163 or neighborhood elementary school office. Q. What is the purpose of adult literacy training? A. The purpose is to improve basic skill levels of parents in order to enable them to better serve as their child's first teacher and to improve their own educational level. Q. May parents who are Even Start participants elect to participate in only some of the family or parental activities? A. No. The Even Start program is a family literacy program. Its components are linked together in a unique effort to provide educational services to both parents and children. Both parents and children must participate in all activities intended to serve them. Q. How long must a family be in the program? A. A family must remain in the program for one school year. Q. Where will Even Start services and activities be located? A. Services/activities will be provided in the homes of the families being served, in the Parent Center, and in the community. Conclusion The North Little Rock School District is committed to providing a comprehensive, family-centered approach to both early childhood and parent education. The goals and objectives of North Little Rock Even Start are based on recognition of the fact that in terms of a child's education, \"home is where the start is.\" We realize that you, the parent, are your child's first and, in many ways, most important teacher. We look forward to joining with you as partners in building a strong foundation for your child's success in learning and in enhancing your skills as both a learner and a teacher. We thank you for your commitment to the goal~ of North Little Rock School District Even Start. Booklet compiled by Nova Staggs and Jann Pharo Children Learn What They Live If children live with criticism, They learn to condemn. If children live with hostility, They learn to fight. If children live with ridicule, They learn to be shy. If children live with shame, They learn to feel guilty. If children live with tolerance, They learn to be patient. If children live with encouragement, They learn confidence. If children live with praise, They learn to appreciate. If children live with fairness, They learn justice. If children live with security, They learn to have faith. If children live with approval, They learn to like themselves. If children live with acceptance and friendship, They learn to find love in the world. Dorothy Law Nolte A Parent's Guide For A Successful HIPPY Program North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72115 (501) 771-8055 Foreword This parent's guide is written to acquaint you with the HIPPY Program philosophy and the policies that help make this program so successful. We are pleased to welcome you and your child to the HIPPY family and know that with your cooperation, both you and your child will reap educational benefits for years to come. HIPPY is a successful preschool program that really works. It works because of people like you. School Districts throughout the United States have reported excellent outcomes as a result of families participating in HIPPY. Thank you for taking time to teach your child. We know that you will enjoy playing an active role in developing his/her learning foundation. Your are after all, your child's first, most important and most influential Teacher! School District Staff Mr. James Smith Mr. Gene Jones Mrs. Esther Crawford Mrs. Barbara Gilkey Superintendent Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Director of Elementary Education HIPPY Coordinator School Board Members Mr. Lynn Hamilton Mrs. Mable Mitchell Mrs. Dixie Harrison Mr. Prentice Dupins Mrs. Emily Denton Mrs. Pat Blackstone Rev. J.W. Johnson President Vice President Secretary Member Member Member Member Parent's Prayer 0 HEAVENLY FATHER, make me a better parent. Teach me to understand my children, to listen patiently to what they have to say, and to answer all their questions kindly. Keep me from interrupting them or contradicting them. Make me as courteous to them as I would have them be to me. Forbid that I should ever laugh at their mistakes or resort to shame or ridicule when they displease me. May I never punish them for my won selfish satisfaction or to show my power. Let me not tempt my child to lie or steal. And guide me hour by hour that I may demonstrate by all I say and do that honesty produces happiness. Reduce, I pray, the meanness in me. And when I am out of sorts, help me O Lord, to hold my tongue. May I ever be mindful that my children are children and I should not expect of them the judgement of adults. Let me not rob them of the opportunity to wait on themselves and to make decisions. Bless me with the bigness to grant them all their reasonable requests and the courage to deny them privileges I know will do them harm. Make me fair and just and kind. And fit me, 0 Lord, to be loved and respected and imitated by my children. What is HIPPY? HIPPY is short for Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters. HIPPY originated in Israel in 1969 and has been in the United States for six years. ltis spreading rapidly in other European Countries and the United States. The North Little Rock HIPPY Program began in 1989 in the Redwood attendance area. It is a home based education program for four and five year old children and their parents. Parents commit themselves to work with a trained home visitor for thirty weeks on specific skills to help prepare their child/children for school. HIPPY is an excellent program and North Little Rock School District is pleased to offer this high quality program to patrons in the school district who live in the target areas being served by HIPPY. The Role Of Parents In HIPPY There are many things parents can do to help their child get ready for school. There are also many things parents can give to help children do better once they begin school. Two of the most important things you can give in HIPPY are: 1. Yourself 2. YourTime Yourself HIPPY requires that once every two weeks you allow a trained home visitor to visit in your home for thirty minutes to one hour to role play the weekly activities with you. In HIPPY you are also asked to attend a group meeting that is planned carefully and with a lot of fun and information. These meetings will be scheduled and a location determined early in the school year. North Little Rock School District provides many of opportunities for parents to get information on how to help their child achieve to his/her maximum ability. Parents are usually amazed when they begin communicating more openly and freely with their children. Also, many parents have stated that being involved in HIPPY has actually strengthened their relationship with their child. Your Time HIPPY is a 30 week program that runs concurrently with the school 1ears. The daily activities with your child requires only fifteen (15) inutes per day for five days per week. You may teach your child when _ is convenient for you, however we do recommend establishing a schedule so your child and you will get in HIPPY routine very quickly. Your home visitor will visit in your home or other designated location for your personal training at a time convenient for the two of you. A Parent'sH IPPYD 0 1s IfyouhavecommittedtoparticipateinHIPPY,pleasehelpusserveyou better by observing the following program guidelines. - Be home at the designated time that you have agreed to with your home visitor. - Attend group meeting scheduled to be held in your area - Call your home visitor or the HIPPY Office if you are unable to keep your appointment. - Teach your child on a regular basis. Please try not to get behind. - Have completed activities ready to be checked by your home visitor. - Keep up with your supplies and materials. Scissors, glue, pencils, booklets and a container will be issued at the beginning of the program. - Call the HIPPY Office at 771-8055 if your a home visitor is not keeping appointments with you. A Parent's HIPPY Do Not's Occasionally, an emergency or other unexpected situation will occur that will prevent you from keeping your appointment. Should this happen, we ask you to contact your home visitor or the HIPPY Office and inform them. Please reschedule for a later date as soon as possible. This will enable us to provide you the professional service you deserve. Please read the list of do not's to receive even better service. Do Not - Forget to call your home visitor or the HIPPY Office if you will be unable to keep your appointment. - Complete your child's work for him/her. - Miss group meetings or other scheduled events in HIPPY. - Misplace your supplies and materials. HIPPY Booklets Aee4 There are nine booklets in the four and five year old curriculum. Each is designed to help you teach your child specific skills. The booklets and the approximate week you should receive them are: Booklet Sounds I Hear Sometimes Big, Sometimes Small The Cat Who Liked for a House A Cookie for Kate Who Wants to Play With Susie's Preschool Goodbye Berry Beware Ducks Crossing Secret Name Booklet The Brave Frog A Hundred Rooms Pete and The Vegetable Soup The Rooster and the Hen Gary The Gardener We'll See Three Hardworking Girls Something Else Dan Goes To First Grade Weeks 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14 15-16 17-20 21-23 24-26 27-30 Weeks 1-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-30 An Overview of Skill Areas and Activities Basic Skill Areas Types of Activities Tactile Discrimination Using materials and objects of various textures, shapes, and sizes to: Touch Identify Describe Compare Visual Discrimination Using objects and pictures which vary by size, color, shape, direction and number to: Identify Describe Compare Auditory Discrimination Using Different sounds to: Listen Identify Describe Compare Imitate Conceptual Discrimination Using spatial concepts (up/down, next to, between, on/under, in front/behind) to: Describe Compare Identify Imitate Follow directions Give directions Language Development and Verbal Expression Eye-hand Coordination Pre-math Concepts Logical Thinking Listening to stories Identifying pictures Asking and answering questions Completing sentences Describing real situations Describing imaginary situations Completing a story Telling a story Imitating parts of a story Reading pictures and symbols Expanding ideas Drawing lines over a pattern Copying lines and angle designs Drawing within a given path Copying letters and numbers Discriminating by size Counting 0 - 10 Identifying specific quantities Identifying relative quantities (more/less) Matching same quantities Matching numbers to quantities Ordering quantities Recognizing numerals Writing numerals Using given pictures to: Analyze Organize Classify Complete information Sorting objects Sorting pictures Eliminating unnecessary information Ordering information Recalling information Self-concept Creativity Describing oneself Describing one's family Expressing likes and dislikes Teaching newly learned skills Drawing freely Completing pictures Telling stories Completing stories Acting out parts of stories Questions and Answers You May Want to Know About the HIPPY Program Q. WHAT IS HIPPY? A. Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) is a home-based education program where a child is taught by a parent. Q. HOW WAS HIPPY DEVELOPED? A. HIPPY has been in operation since 1969 and was developed by Dr. Avima Lombard, Hippy Academic Director, the NCJY Research Institute for Innovation in Education, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Q. HOW OLD MUST A CHILD BE TO ENROLL IN HIPPY? A. A parent joins HIPPY when her /his child is 4 years old or the year before kindergarten. Q. HOW LONG MUST MY CHILD BE IN THE PROGRAM? A. A child must remain in the program for two years. Q. WHO IS MY CHILD'S TEACHER? A. Mon/Dad is the child's first teacher. However, a siblingmayteac1. the child when Mom/Dad is not available. Q. HOW MUCH TIME ID DEVOTED TO EACH LESSON? A. The lessons take about 15 to 20 minutes a day. Q. HOW DO YOU GET MATERIALS? A. A trained home visitor is responsible for the issuing of all HIPPY Program materials. Q. WHO WILL TEACH ME WHO TO USE THE HIPPY MATERIALS? A. Your home visitor is responsible for teaching you. However, the local HIPPY Coordinator will provide assistance. Q. HOW OFfEN ARE HOME VISITS MADE? A. Home visits are made bi-weekly by the a home visitor. Group meetings for the home visitor and all their mothers are held on the weeks following the home visits. Q. WHY SHOULD THE HOME VISITOR CONTINUE TO VISIT MY HOME ONCE I AM TRAINED TO USE THE MATERIAL? A. The materials change regularly and a parent leader maintains contact so as to assist with problems which may arise as you teach your child. Q. WHAT ARE TIIE CONTENTS OF THE MATERIAL? A.  The contents of the material are: 1. Language  2. Math 3. Sensory and Perception Skills Q. HOW LONG HAS THE HIPPY PROGRAM BEEN IN ARKANSAS? A. The HIPPY Program began in Arkansas in 1986. Q.  HOWLONG HASTHEHIPPYPROGRAMBEENINNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT? A. The HIPPY Program began in North Little Rock School District in 1989. CHARACTECRA N'TB EC OUNTERFEITED LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN Take a moment to listen today To what your children are trying to say Listen today, whatever you do Or they won't be there to listen to you Listen to their problems, listen for their needs Praise their smallest triumphs, praise their smallest deeds Tolerate their chatter, amplify their laughter Find out what's the matter, find out what they're after But tell them that you love them, every single night And though you scold them, make sure you hold them, And tell them \"Everything's all right.\" If we tell our children, all the bad in them we see They'll grow up exactly how we hoped they'd never be But ifwe tell our children, we're so proud to wear their name They'll grow up believing they're winners in the game. Take a moment to listen today To what your children are trying to say Listen today, whatever you do And they will come back to listen to you! A Home Visitor's Guide For A Successful HIPPY Program HIPPY USA North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72115 (501) 771-8055 Foreword This guide is written for Home visitors in the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters. It is designed to acquaint you with the HIPPY program philosophy and policies that govern the program. We hope it will provide the necessary information to help you become the best home visitor in the school district. We are pleased to have you as a staff member in North Little Rock School District and welcome you to the HIPPY Program. Please take a few minutes to read and familiarize yourself with the information in this booklet. HIPPY is a successful preschool program that works, but it requires a lot of dedication from home visitors, parents, other school district employees and community support. Many school districts throughout the United States have reported very good results after being involved in HIPPY for several years. We hope you will enjoy working with us, but more importantly, we hope you will commit yourself to providing the best possible service to families who will be entrusted to you. Good luck and remember that the staff is ready and willing to assist you in any way possible, all you must do is ask ! ! ! School District Staff Mr. James Smith Mr. Gene Jones Mrs. Bther Crawford Mrs. Barbara Gilkey Superintendent Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Director of Elementary Education HIPPY Coordinator School Board Members Mr. Lynn Hamilton Mrs. Mable Mitchell Mrs. Dixie Harrison Mr. Prentice Dupins Mrs. Emily Denton Mrs. Pat Blackstone Rev. J.W. Johnson President Vice President Secretary Member Member Member Member What is HIPPY! HIPPY is short for Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters. HIPPY originated in Israel in 1969 and has been in the United States for six years. It is spreading rapidly in other European countries and the United States. The North Little Rock HIPPY Program began in 1989 in the Redwood attendance area. HIPPY is a home based education program for four and five year old children and their parents. Parents commit themselves to work with a trained home visitor for thirtyweeks on specific skills to help prepare their child/children for school. HIPPY is an excellent program and North Little Rock School District is pleased to offer this high quality program to patrons in the school district who live in the target areas being served by HIPPY. The Role Of Home Visitors In HIPPY A home visitor can do many things to help families prepare their child/children for school. Once the home visitor arrives at the parents home, he/she must be ready to teach. Following is a guide for an effective home visit. At each home visit the home visitor should: 1. Review the activity packets from the previous week. 2. Instruct the parent in the upcoming week's material. 3. Discuss any problem which arose while the parent worked with the child and pass these concerns on to the coordinator for further discussion and assistance. 4. Let the parent know you are genuinely concerned about their involvement in HIPPY. 5. Be as professional and courteous as possible. You are the key to maintaining a working relationship with this family. Guidelines for Home Visitor's Home Visits 1. Before the home visit - prepare all materials to be used: a. Cut out pictures b. Prepare props - cups, silverware, stones, etc. c. Practice reading the texts aloud (both book and worksheets). d. Explore all problems and questions relating to the activities with the coordinator. 2. During the home visit: a. Establish a regular visiting day and hour. Help the mother maintain this regular contact by appearing punctually and well-prepared. b. Help Mother prepare the setting for working together: - turn off the television - sit next to a table or a similar clear flat working surface - settle children into activities or setting which will keep them busy. (Anticipate their needs and bring appropriate materials.) c. Examine the previous week's activity sheets - praise achievement and explore the reasons for incomplete work. Make a note of problems, children's responses, etc. on weekly report sheet. d. Work with Mother on the next week's activities:  Role-play throughout. If Mother is capable, alternate teaching role with her. Play every activity with the mother.  Make sure all necessary items are in the house - silverware, matches, coins, etc. and help Mother decide on alternatives where missing.  Make sure the Mother is comfortable and understands the material in the workbook. 3. At the end of the visit: a. Discuss which activities the child will like/ find difficult - easy. b. Remind Mother of the group meeting- write the day and time on Page One by the activity book. 4. Other points to remember: a. Some mothers need help in finding ways to store the HIPPY materials. Discuss possibilities with her and encourage care and attention to the materials. b. The Aide is a Model for the mother. What she does and~ how she reacts, and how she enourages the mother all serve as examples for the mother, and will directly affect Mother's behavior with her child. c. It is not enough for Mother to understand. She must engage her child regularly and happily in the HIPPY activities if the child is to learn and progress, so that Mother is reinforced for her successful teaching. All the aide's efforts are directed to helping Mother be successful. d. If the home visitor feels that he/she is in a threatening or dangerous situation - LEA VE IMMEDIATELY. Contact your coordinator to discuss your next action. The Issue of Confidentiality Confidentiality is very important in any job, however, it becomes even more important in HIPPY. Parents will occasionally discuss personal issues with you and do not want to run the risk of hearing this information in the community. Home visitors are encouraged to respect the rights and privacy of conversations between you and a parent. Treat the parents warmly and enthusiastically, but stay away from personal comments about their homes, their dress, hairstyles, religion or other moral issues. Convey to Parents that you are trustworthy and respect them through your words and actions. Appropriate Attire For Home Visitors HIPPY Home visitors are community role models and should always be aware of their visibility in the neighborhood in which they work. When preparing for home visits, weekly training sessions, regional or other state meetings please dress appropriately. Be as neat as possible by not wearing shorts, tank tops, or thongs. Please keep hair clean and well groomed. Wear coordinated blouses, skirts, pants or dresses. \"Parents See - Parents D0 11 There are regularly scheduled training sessions and workshops Home visitors must attend and \"punctuality\" or being on time is extremely important. If an emergency or other situation occurs that may detain you or keep you from attending a scheduled meeting, please call the HIPPY office at 771-8055 and notify them regarding your circumstances. Also, if you are unable to keep a scheduled home visit, you must contact the family immediately to inform them and reschedule for another time as soon as possible. Home visitors must give parents the courtesy they expect them to give. Contact the HIPPY office if major changes in your schedule should occur. The meetings you should plan to attend are: Weekly home visitors Training Sessions Regional home visitors Workshops Periodic State Training Sessions Child Development Associate Classes Other workshops as requested by the local or state office HIPPY Booklets Aee4 There are nine booklets in the four and five year old curriculum. Each is designed to help you teach your child specific skills. The booklets and the approximate week you should receive them are: Booklet Sounds I Hear Sometimes Big, Sometimes Small The Cat Who Liked for a House A Cookie for Kate Who Wants to Play With Susie's Preschool Goodbye Berry Beware Ducks Crossing Secret Name Booklet The Brave Frog A Hundred Rooms Pete and The Vegetable Soup The Rooster and the Hen Gary The Gardener We'll See Three Hardworking Girls Something Else Dan Goes To First Grade Weeks 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14 15-16 17-20 21-23 24-26 27-30 Weeks 1-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-30 An Overview of Skill Areas and Activities Basic Skill Areas Types of Activities Tactile Discrimination Using materials and objects of various textures, shapes, and sizes to: Touch Identify Describe Compare Visual Discrimination Using objects and pictures which vary by size, color, shape, direction and number to: Identify Describe Compare Auditory Discrimination Using Different sounds to: Listen Identify Describe Compare Imitate Conceptual Discrimination Using spatial concepts (up/down, next to, between, on/under, in front/behind) to: Describe Compare Identify Imitate Follow directions Give directions .. Language Development and Verbal Expression Eye-hand Coordination Pre-math Concepts Logical Thinking Listening to stories Identifying pictures Asking and answering questions Completing sentences Describing real situations Describing imaginary situations Completing a story Telling a story Imitating parts of a story Reading pictures and symbols Expanding ideas Drawing lines over a pattern Copying lines and angle designs Drawing within a given path Copying letters and numbers Discriminating by size Counting 0 - 10 Identifying specific quantities Identifying relative quantities (more/less) Matching same quantities Matching numbers to quantities Ordering quantities Recognizing numerals Writing numerals Using given pictures to: Analyze Organize Classify Complete information Sorting objects Sorting pictures Eliminating unnecessary information Ordering information Recalling information Self-concept Creativity Describing oneself Describing one's family Expressing likes and dislikes Teaching newly learned skills Drawing freely Completing pictures Telling stories Completing stories Acting out parts of stories Questions and Answers You May Want to Know About the HIPPY Program Q. WHATISHIPPY? A Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) is a home-based education program where a child is taught by a parent. Q. HOW WAS HIPPY DEVELOPED? A. HIPPY has been in operation since 1969 and was developed by Dr. Avima Lombard, Hippy Academic Director, the NCJY Research Institute for Innovation in Education, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Q. HOW OLD MUST A CHILD BE TO ENROLL IN HIPPY? A. A parent joins HIPPY when her/his child is 4 years old or the year before kindergarten. Q. HOW LONG MUST MY CHILD BE IN THE PROGRAM? A. A child must remain in the program for two years. Q. WHO IS MY CHILD'S TEACHER? A. Mom/Dad is the child's first teacher. However, a sibling may teach the child when Mom/Dad is not available. Q. HOW MUCH TIME ID DEVOTED TO EACH LESSON? A. The lessons take about 15 to 20 minutes a day. Q. HOW DO YOU GET MATERIALS? A. A trained home visitor is responsible for the issuing of all HIPPY Program materials. Q. WHO WILL TEACH ME WHO TO USE THE HIPPY WS:TERIALS? A. Your home visitor is responsible for teaching you. However, the local HIPPY Coordinator will provide assistance. Q. HOW OFfEN ARE HOME VISITS MADE? A. Home visits are made bi-weekly by the a home visitor. Group meetings for the home visitor and all their mothers are held on the weeks following the home visits. Q. WHY SHOULD THE HOME VISITORS CONTINUE TO VISIT MY HOME ONCE I AM TRAINED TO USE THE MATERIAL? A The materials change regularly and a parent leader maintains contact so as to assist with problems which may arise as you teach your child. Q. WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF TI-IE MATERIAL? A. The contents of the material are: 1. Language 2. Math 3. Sensory and Perception Skills Q. HOW LONG HAS THE HIPPY PROGRAM BEEN IN ARKANSAS? A. The HIPPY Program began in Arkansas in 1986. Q. HOWLONG HASTHEHIPPYPROGRAMBEENINNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT? A The HIPPY Program began in North Little Rock School District in 1989. CHARACTECRA N'TB EC OUNTERFEITED LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN Take a moment to listen today To what your children are trying to say Listen today, whatever you do Or they won't be there to listen to you Listen to their problems, listen for their needs Praise their smallest triumphs, praise their smallest deeds Tolerate their chatter, amplify their laughter Find out what's the matter, find out what they're after But tell them that you love them, every single night And though you scold them, make sure you hold them, And tell them \"Everything's all right.\" If we tell our children, all the bad in them we see They'll grow up exactly how we hoped they'd never be But ifwe tell our children, we're so proud to wear their name They'll grow up believing they're winners in the game. Take a moment to listen today To what your children are trying to say Listen today, whatever you do And they will come back to listen to you! NOV 1 9 l~~l Office of DesegregatioMn onitoring EARLYC HILDHOOEDD UCATIOMN ANUAL(P OLICIES, ETC.) SEE ATTACHMEN7 T NOV 1 9 1991 Oft1ceo f DesegregatioMn onitoring EARLYC HILDHOOEDN ROLLMENBTY SCHOOL,A GE LEVEL (e.g. FOUR-YEAR-OLPDR OGRAM)R, ACE, GENDER See Page 5 of Central Elementary Profile See Attachment 8 Pre K GRADE LEVEL K 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - 6 l)OTAL (Elementary ~PECIAL EDUCATION Resource t~lf-Contained more of dav or more .!!ehaviorAdjustment Chapter I Comp. Ed. p.m. Extended Day Lab Gifted Education Honors Program (Sec) Adv. Placement (Sec) II % . . ./ : . ..,.  .  #  #  # % #  # .  It  .  # .,. # ..., .  2 7.5 2 7.5 WHITE MALE FEMALE 2 7 3.8 13.2 9 11 18.8 22.9 15 11 28.8 22. 2 15 19 23.1 29.2 18 12 32.7 21. 8 18 14 32.7 25.5 15 13 31.9 27.7 90 80 28 25 4 11 12 15 41 44 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT TOT,._L BLACK WHITE MALE FEMALE 9 27 17 7.0 50.9 32 .1 20 15 12 1. 7 31. 3 25.0 26 11 13 ,o.o 21. 2 25.0 34 13 18 D2. 3 20.0 27. 7 30 11 13 4.5 20.0 23.6 32 10 12 8.2 18.2 21. 8 28 7 12 9.6 14. 9 25.5 170 67 80 53 20 25 23 85 ... 0- ... 1. Blt.CK 44 83.0 27 56.3 24 146. 2 31 47. 7 24 43.6 22 40.0 19 40.4 14 7 45 OTHER MINORITIES MALE FEMALE 1 2 .1 2 3.8 1 1.8 1 1.8 5 1. 3 TOTAL ENROLLMENT IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS WHITE TOT\"'L BLACK TOT4\\,. OTHER MINORITIES MALE FEMALE t,YHITE MALE FEMALE BLACK MALE FEMALE f'-..-..... ......._ ~I'\u0026gt; See SB / / I/ 25 25 50 66 63 129 3 13. 7 13. 7 27 36 34 .6 71 1 6 3 9 3 8 11 3 1.5 4.5 1.5 4 5.5 11 10 21 20 11 31 3 20 18 38 36 20 56 5 7 7 14 2 \u0026lt;\n7 33 33 66 9 23 33 TOTAi,. PTHEA 1 2 .1 2 3.8 1 1.8 1 1.8 ~ 1.3 TOT\"L OTHER 3 1 3 27 Attachment 8 Court approved ranges: TOTAL Elem.= ~., 37.3-62.3 48 52 65 55 55 4/ .\u0026gt;LL '\"\"'\"\" 182 LO 55 71 M.S.= 35.2-58.8 H.S.= NA NOV 1 9 1991 Officeo f DesegregatioMn onitoring HIPPY PARTICIPATION,I NCLUDINGA REAS ERVED,R ACE, GENDER See Attachment 10 Attachment 10 NORTHL ITTLE ROCKS CHOOLD ISrRICT HIPPY PROGRAM HIPPY program will be established in lower socio-economic elementary attendance zones The 1991-92 HIPPY program has been expanded to three new areas. Currently the program serves Redwoc,c, Seventh Street, Centi al, Boone Park and parts of Glenview attendance zones. Fifteen staff members have been hi~ed to work with approximately 184 families who are participating in this years' proqram. Each staf: member completes at least two days o: training provided by the State HIPPY Office d~ring the week of September 9-12, 19~1. !raining cor.tinues tc be an import2nt component cf HIPPY a~c each Home Visitor is required tc attenc weekly training sessicns. rour parent orientatio11 sessions were held to explain the program philosophy. sixty-one parents atcended the meeticgs. The following information reflects program statistics: Number 0 Number of Total Number Black Families White Farr,ilies Served Age 4 Prc~ram 130 15 145 Age 5 Program ~8 1 39 Total 168 16 184 WED 1 2: S 3 NLRSCHOOLS N0kfH LITTLE ROCK SOIOOL DlSIRICl' 2700 POPLAR, r'. 0. BOX 687 NOl{J'HU TILE ROCKA R 7211::'.-.5:_: ___ _ October 27, 1993 MEJ\\.TfOo. Polly Ramer.O fficeo f Desegregationr vfunitnring FROM: ~--\\ti-ltlM.ibBley numA, ssist:inSt upcrimcndcnfot r Dcsegreg-c1tion SUB.JECT: Pre-SchooEl nrollmenDt ata NorlhL illh, RockS chooDl istticri nitintr.da n on-campusp r\u0026lt;:-kiu\u0026lt;leq,'3Iten program Jwi11g Im:1 991-9s2c hooylC llt. PrC1Cl1tltyh ere aret lll\\.'e ~hoolsm th r,rc-t-\nnderg:arkpnro gi.:-u,lliE, nrollmenitn fonum:iofno llow~: ~neP.M\u0026amp; 199l-9Z 199?-93 _1993~ Black. 21 22 Non-Blaclc 12 13 Tutal 33 35 % Bll!Ck 63,6 62.9 Centrs1E.Il s:m Black 22 30 32 Non-Ulack 4 l Total 27 31 J\"G % Black 85.2 9G.8 88.9 Redwood Black (Janwry) 23 n Non-Black 2 1 Tobi 25 23 %Blaclc 92,0 9S.7 P. 0 1 Philosophy and Policies of The North LilUe Rock School District's Preschool Leaming Center Philosophy The North Little Rock School District believes that all parents want the best for their children. We also believe that some families need asSistance in preparing their children for school. Family mobility, single parent homes and changing values necessitate direct attention to the nuturing of the whole child in ways that neutraliZe the pressure and stress of daily living. A strong support oose from both home and school is important to the developing self-concept of the three and four-year-old. The North Little Rock School District's Preschool Learning Center Will address these issues by providing an environment that will sumwate and challenge each child as he/she proceeds through various stages of development. We will also encourage parents to become involved in their child's education through - newsletters containing activities that can be done at home, as wen as opportunities to come work with their child in the Center. . ....t he challenge of good education is to find the content and the methods of teaching that fit the young child. Then his mind Will really stretch ... Dur concern has to be to develop a love of teaming: James Hymes, 1974 Purpose The purpose of the North Little Rock School District Preschool Learning Center is : Goats  To create a developmentally appropriate environment that challenges the child to think critically, work cooperatively, and solve problems creatively.  To actively engage the child in constructing and reconstructing their physical and social worlds.  To promote the meaningful involvement of parents and other community members in the child's education. The child will: - develop a positive self-concept and attitude towards learning , self-control and a sense of belonging . - develop curiOSiyt about the world, confidence as a learner , creativity and imagination. - use language to communicate effectively and to facilitate thinking and learning. -become competent in the management of their bodies, acqUire basic physical skills both gross motor and fine motor. Operational Policies The Preschool Leaming Center wm be open Monday through Friday and begin accepting children at 7 :30 AM. All children should be picked up by 5:00 PM. Between 7:30 - 8:25, the children will be provided breakfast and an opportunity for qUiet play. The instructional day will begin at 8:25 and continue until school is dismissed at 2: 5 5. Af terschool care is available until 5:00 for children enrolled in the center. The center will adhere to the North Little Rock School District and Central Elementary's calendars for parent- teacher conferences, special events and holidays. Child Admission Policies Target Population The Preschool Leaming Center will serve - the children of high school children. - the children from the Early Childhood Education Project for Handicapped Children (not to exceed l /4 of the Center's population). - the children in HIPPY project communtities who cannot be adequately served by HIPPY because of the absence of a cooperative or capable adult relative. - other children \"at risk of school failure. Eligible students shall have at least one of the f on owing characteristics: I '- - low income level of parent (Dept. of Human Services and Head Start forms or copies of income tax forms may be used to document income level. See attached scale.) - low parental educational level ( A copy of school records or a statement from a school superintendent may serve as documentation.) - low birth weight -under five and one half pounds. (This can be documented by providing a copy of the hospital birth record or a birth certificate.) - teenage parent household ( Both the birth certificate of the child and parent is needed to document this.) - substance abuse/ addition ( A Jetter of ref erraJ from a physician. counselor, or a treatment center can serve as documentation.) - abuse or neglect(A Jetter from the Dept. of Human Serv. or SCAN documenting abuse/neglect wm acceptable.) ATTACnMENT A . I ABC PROGRAM .J\u0026gt; Lf)_L 1nCtJYC C\\ fj INCOME ELIGIBILITY SCALE FAMILY SIZE l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANNUALIN COME $ 9,600.00 12,553.00 15,506.00 18,460.00 21,414.00 24,367.00 24,921.00 25,475.00 26,029.00 26,582.00 Criteria for Dismissal The Preschool Learning Center is a part of the North Little Rock School District and will adhere to the district policies on the dismissal of a student. Staff Policies Hiring Prospective employees will follow the North Little Rock School District application process. In addition, personal or telephone contact whenever possible, will be made with the applicant's employers for the preceding siX (6) years to determine the employee's sUitability for child care. These contacts will be documented in the employee's records. The applicant must declare whether a court has denied him/her parental, custodial, or visitation rights as a resutt of child abuse and sign an authoriZation for release of confidential information contained within the Arkansas Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry. The applicant will also sign an authorization for a Criminal Record Check from the State Police. No person convicted of an offense involving child abuse or child neglect shall be employed by an ABC funded program. Dismissal As the employees of the Preschool Learning Center are also employees of the North Little Rock School District, District policies concerning evaluation and dismissal will be followed. Inappropriate disciplinary measures such as hitting, pinching, twisting arm, verbal/ abusive language or anyother maltreatment of child will not be tolerated and may be cause for dismissal. Principal The principal must fulfill a strong leadership role in establishing a high quality preschool program. The person in this position must carefully work with the community as well as the administration in identifying, planning, implementing, and evaluating the preschool program. Responsibilities: - Relate in an effective manner to the preschool children, their parents, the school staff, and the community. - Relate and enforce any standards as presented by the state and local boards. - Support the teaching staff in setting up and implementing a program based on sound child development principles. - Cooperate with the teacher in determining the needs and formulating the requests for instructional materials and equipment for use in the Center. - Interpret the preschool program to any of the auxillary services involved in the school operation. This would include: psychologists, counselors, librarians, cafeteria workers, and custodial staff. - Provide the appropriate teaching climate for optimum learning of young children. School Board The primary responsibility of the North Little Rock School Board is to\"set direction for the school system to follow. That direction is expressed through written policies which serve as a guidance to the superintendent, administrative and teaching staffs, and the entire educational community. Toe board is the agency through which the School District acts in regard to school matters ... ..T. he board shall be cognizant that all actions must be taken in good faith, with reasonable prudence, sincerity and based on belief that such actions are correct and in the best interests of the School District in accordance with statutes and pertinent Judicial precedents. *taken from the North Little Rock School District Policy manual and Adminstrat1ve Handoook. Discipline Policy Be positive, firm, fair, and consistent. Center Rules 1. Listen 2.Share 3.Clean up 4. W a1k in the building. 5. Be polite. 6. Think of others. Disciplinary Procedures 1. Redirect the child ...t.o an acceptable activity of behavior. 2. Talk with the child ... in a positive manner. Discuss the rule, reason for the rule, and a workable solution to the problem. 3. Time_ out....i n a \"think spot\" in the room until the child regains self-control... not to exceed .S minutes. 4. Time out .... in the Center Office until the child feels he/she is ready to rejoin the group .... not to exceed 5 minutes. 5.C ontactp arent... .e ither by phone or in writing to elicit their help. 6. Parent Conference.. a t the Center to further discuss the problem and develop a plan together. ***Positive behavior will be rewarded through verbal praise, written awards, stickers and special activities. '\"\"'Discipline shall not be associated with food, rest, toilet training, or isolation for illness. ***Physical punishment will not be used at the Center. Child Abuse Policy \"'All accidents/ incidents will be documented usmg the following form and placed in the child's folder. This procedure will also be followed for accidents/incidents that occur in the home and are brought to our attention by the parent, child or a staff member. * The program director will be notified of all accidents/incidents as soon as possible.  The Center's licensmg specialist will be notified of any serious accidents /incidents occuring at the center.  By law, it is the responsibility of all staff members to report suspected child abuse or child neglect to SCAN or the Child Abuse Hotline 1-800-482-5964.  Any report of neglect or abuse committed by a staff member will be investigated and handled on an individual baSis. Protective services will be notified immediately.  Any staff member found gUllty of child neglect or abuse will be dismissed immediately. ACCIDENT /INCIDENT REPORT Check one Accident D Incident D To be filled aout as soon as possible on day of accident/incident by the person witnessing the occurance Child's Name ______________ _ Parent's Name ______________ _ Person in Charge ----------------------------------- Time of Accident/Incident _____________________ Date _______ _ Describe Accident/Incident (What happended) _______________________ _ Place of Accident/Incident Cause of Accident Describe the lnJury I Occurance ---------------------------------------- Names of Witnesses ----------------------------------- Who was not1f1ed (Parenti Relative) When, Date, Hour ________ _ Was child taken to Doctor) (Name. address. place. time)--------------------- Describe treatment administered by staff Slaff comments ---- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ This f Orm Is available upon request from the Child Care Licensing Specialist C:FS-S~4(R 11 '86)-105240 \\\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_705","title":"Student assignment","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":["1973/2005"],"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 management and organization","School administrators","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Student assignment"],"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/705"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"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\nC/-44 Little Rock School District Job Description JOB TITLE\nDEPARTMENT: LOCATION: Director of Student Assignment Student Assignment 501 Sherman Street SALARY: GRADE: SUPERVISOR: $34,139-$54,859 ADMN12 Associate Superintendent PREPARED BY: C. Russell Mayo_______________ APPROVED BY: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent DATE: January 6, 1995 DATE: January 6, 1995 SUMMARY Directs and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office by performing the following duties personally or through subordinate supervisors. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Directs student assignment program and reviews exceptional assignment cases\nConfers with staff and principals to explain assignment requirements based on the Little Rock School District desegregation plan\nDirects preparation of printed materials explaining assignment requirements and policies for dissemination to schools and patrons\nCounsels patrons having problems understanding assignment procedures and supervises assignment coordinators\nSupervises the student recruitment program\nKeeps the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nAssists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nAssists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\nAssists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nStays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nProvides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\nAttends LRSD Board of Director meetings and other meetings as requested\nCoordinates the student assignment appeals committee\nand. Performs other duties as assigned\nSUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES Manages three subordinate supervisors who supervise a total of six employees in the Parent Recruitment, Student Assignment, and Student Assignment Information area. Is responsible for the overall direction, coordination, and evaluation of these units. Also directly supervises one non-supervisory employee. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the organizations policies and applicable laws. Responsibilities include interviewing, hiring, and training employees\nplanning, assigning, and directing work\nappraising performance\nrewarding and disciplining employees\naddressing complaints and resolving problems. 1M/95U.S. DiSTS\nt court EASTEP,?! DISTRICT A-.'t\u0026lt;.t\u0026gt;K'R4S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT t  3 1995 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McC0R?*5ACK. CL??:/ By\n----------------------------- op- 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 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines\". This document is being filed in order to apprise the court. the monitor and the parties of the desegregation efforts being made by LRSD. 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 Byr Jistopher Helled Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of February 1995: 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^ 2Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines It is the intent of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") that LRSD Interdistrict schools exist primarily to bring non-black students from surrounding school districts together with black students from the LRSD. LRSD non-black students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the District's assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to all interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50 percent black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. (Interdistrict Plan, p.3) 2. b) This plan will permit the treatment of interdistrict transfers (including the NLRSD) where students are moving from a situation where their race is a greater proportion of the total student body of a school to a school where their race is a lesser proportion of the student body of a school as Interdistrict Majority-to-Minority transfers under the Court's Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The process described below will be followed during the LRSD winter pre-registration each year. Following pre-registration each year. additional students may be enrolled at an interdistrict school if there is a seat available for the student and if his or her enrollment does not cause the school's proportion of white students to reach or exceed 50% and does not cause the school's proportion of black students to exceed 60%. as follows: The pre-registration process will be conducted a) Black students from the school's attendance zone will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, those students who cannot be assigned will be placed on a waiting list. Placement on the kindergarten waiting list will be determined by a lottery. Students who cannot be assigned because of These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.3. 4. capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. If the student's closest school with capacity is an incentive school, that student may choose to attend that incentive school where such an assignment would not inhibit the initial reservation of seats for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. Priority for incentive school seats, however, would remain with those students who live in the incentive school attendance zone. b) c) d) Non-black students from the school's attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from the Pulaski County Special School District assigned through (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be the process or appropriate state statutes. Majority-to-Minority transfer The proportion of non-black students will not reach or exceed 50% of the school's total enrollment. Once the Majority-to-Minority transfer students have been assigned, students will be assigned to the school. will not be allowed, however, non-black LRSD An assignment if it would cause the proportion of non-black students to reach or exceed 50% of the total enrollment or would cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of the acceptable racial balance range. Children of staff members will be attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. assigned after Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the LRSD Desegreijation Plan, p. Employees. 141. Transfer of Children of Those LRSD non-black students currently attending an LRSD interdistrict school may remain until they matriculate out of the sixth grade. However, the siblings of those students may not be assigned to an interdistrict school unless such an assignment complies with these Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. LRSD black students who move out of the interdistrict school zone will be reassigned. at the time their address change is processed, to the new attendance zone school. In no event will non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be allowed to enroll in a LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that school's enrollment to shift from being majority black to majority white. thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school. lottfayVIaiARlialriet.CuidelioM 2Office 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 May 30, 1995 Mrs. Verma Simmons 2715 Montreal Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mrs. Simmons: I am responding to your letter on behalf of Judge Susan Webber Wright. Although she is sensitive to the concerns community members have about desegregation and other educational issues, as a matter of policy. Judge Wright does not correspond directly with citizens. Instead she relies on us in her Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to discuss school matters with individuals and organizations. In the letter you sent to Dr. Williams, you described concerns about the enrollment procedures followed by the Little Rock School District and asked the district to reconsider your daughters assignment to Central High School. While I am sensitive to your concern, individual student assignment issues are generally beyond the purview of our office. ODM serves as an arm of the United States Federal District Court and assists the Court in monitoring the three Pulaski County school districts compliance with their desegregation plans and court orders. While the districts refusal to reconsider your daughters assignment may seem unfair, it appears that the Student Assignment Office followed established procedures. It is unfortunate that an official change of address was not recorded prior to the magnet school assignments being made. I hope you are able to work with the district to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to this issue. If in the future you have questions or concerns which may be appropriate for us to address, please dont hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 J*' AUG 5 1 1955 a JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. via Facsimile - 371-0100 CJfice of Dessgregaiion Mcnixnng August 29, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This is a followup to our just completed telephone conversation regarding Little Rock School District pupil assignment practices. Our discussion centered around the experiences of Samantha Smith and her mother, Ms. Joanne Mitchell. Let me recap the conversation for the record. Arkansas. Ms. Mitchell lives at 101 Ellis Drive, Apt. N, Little Rock, ---- She is in the Central High School attendance zone. During the spring, 1995, she applied for Samantha to attend Parlcview Magnet. She was advised by the Student Assignment Office that Samantha was number (3) three on the waiting list for Visual Arts. Later, when she called the Student Assignment Office, she was advised that Samantha was number (5) five. Surprised that she could move up the list rather than down the waiting list, Ms. Mitchell inquired about viewing the list. Student Assignment told her that list was confidential and did not share it with her. In visiting with Dr. Russ Mayo about the matter, he indicated that there was nothing he could do because she was already on the waiting list. At that point she went to Dr. Williams for assistance. This occurred in April, 1995. Upon being presented the facts, Dr. Williams made the following statement: \"why don't you apply for another program?\" Mitchell indicated that the only one for which there was not a This occurred in April, 1995. Ms. waiting list was the one for Band and that her child was not interested in Band. Dr. Williams indicated that she should have Samantha apply anyway in order \"to get her feet in the door.\" Ms. Mitchell indicated that was deceptive at which point Dr. Williams indicated \"that's how you play the game.\" Mitchell indicated that she wanted to teach her child the concept of honesty. Dr. Williams indicated \"teach her the game of life in When Ms. order to get what she wants.\"Page 2 Letter to Ms. Ann Brown August 29, 1995 Ms. Mitchell did not provide a false reason, as suggested by Dr. Williams, for getting into Parkview and to date she has not received a Parkview assignment. I spoke with Dr. Williams this morning and provided him a brief synopsis of Samantha Smith's case. I asked him to check into it and to let me hear from him by the end of the day. now 11:00 a.m. and I expect to hear from him at the end of the It is day. This letter is being written for two reasons: 1) to demonstrate the arbitrariness and unfairness of the Student Assignment/Lottery system which is in use in the LRSD\nand 2) draw attention to the teaching example which emanates from the to Superintendent and extends to parents and pupils of this I intend to ask Ms. Mitchell to take a polygraph examination to verify the foregoing facts. District. She also informs me that Samantha's grandfather, Grady Smith, from Little Rock, Arkansas, was present during the meeting with Dr. Williams and heard his comments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Joanne MitchellJ u y .Ai  FILED ii-S DISTRICT COURT eastern district ar wnsas SEP 2 9 1995 Cffics of D65egregai!cn Moniioiifig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 2 6 1995 JAMES W.McL9HMACK.Cl.fiK \\ A Ml' , M.U oiew LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF j vs. No. 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 The Joshua intervenors filed three motions which have now been resolved by agreement among the parties. The motions were for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and to cite the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") for contempt of court in connection with student assignments at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. [Doc. # 2477.] At a hearing on August 28, 1995, the attorneys for the Joshua and Knight intervenors informed the Court that the intervenors and the LRSD had settled the matter. Therefore, the motions are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this r day of September 1995. JUDGE 5 PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPI ON ' ICE WITH RULE 5 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ^^E^T^R^I BY 0 1A- /./ty ,\u0026gt;i hbrc/iry- ''' R liiX ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 JAN 1 199\u0026lt;j Oifice d OeseyiegaiioT! Monm MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: January 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Student Assignment Handbook 1996-97 Enclosed is a draft copy of our Student Assignment Handbook for 1996-97. Please review and return with your comments by January 19. Thank you. NA:pt EnclosureLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 RECE f-' FEB d 1990 ^-/r 9 Office of Deseflfegation Mo,wormy TO: FROM: Principals ^7^ Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: February 1, 1996 SUBJECT\nStudent Assignment Handbook  lt'brar Enclosed you will find a copy of the 1996-97 Student Assignment Handbook. It details the process for registering students for the 1996-97 school year. A packet of registration materials has been distributed to your secretary/registrar. Although very few of the procedures have changed since 1995 Pre-Registration, we would like to call your attention to several items. 1. The acceptable racial ranges have been re-calculated (page 2). 2. Transportation will not be provided for any four-year-olds except those attending Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet School or Clinton Interdistrict Magnet School. 3. Retention lists must be submitted at the end of the third nine weeks and at the close of the school year. High school lists should include any kindergarten students who will be retained (page 2). 4. Do not allow anyone to complete pre-registration forms before February 6 (page 5). 5. Do not distribute OERFs to NLRSD or PCSSD students (page 10). 6. Register only those students who live in your school's attendance zone. If you have any questions concerning these procedures, please contact either Julie Wiedower or Audrey Lee at *44. cc: Assistant Superintendents Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation MonitoringStiinmary of the Court Proceedings of May 13, 14, 15 Judge Wright stated that she had chosen to review the settlement agreement after six years although the settlement agreement does not require such a review. She stated that the portions of the settlement agreement that trouble her are INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS. Dr. Herbert Wahlberg, an educational psychologist, testified that the extra funding and enhancements of incentive schools have failed to raise achievement scores of black children. He stated that he did not believe that incentive schools were effective in raising achievement levels anywhere\nhe stated that he did not know whether the failure was caused by poor implementation or whether the theory simply does not work. Wahlberg testified that the schools fail in three aspects: They fail to attract white children, achievement scores of black children are not raised. and the \"exotic\" curriculum is inefficiently implemented so that it harms learning. The judge asked Dr. Wahlberg if he had an opinion as to whether black children benefit from going to school with white children. He answered that the percentage of white children in the room has no bearing on what black children learn. He stated that some studies show a mild gain to black children and some show a mild harm so that his conclusion is that there is no effect. In the witness' opinion the socio-economic status of the parents has a consistent relationship with ability.Wahlberg states that there is an achievement gap between minorities and whites which is measurable on the first day of school. He states that children between birth and eighteen years only spend ten per cent of their time in schools and it is unreasonable to expect a school to bear the burden of closing the achievement. He says that it is impossible and that no school district has ever done it. Dr. Wahlberg enumerated 9 factors which affect the quality of learning: 1) Abilityprior achievement. A good reader in the 3rd grade is usually a good reader in the 6th grade. 2) Motivationcapacity to persevere through a difficult situation. A good view of oneself. 3) Ageall thi^s being equal, older students know more. 4) Amount of instructionMore homework, longer school years result in more learning. 5) Quality of instructionMastery learning and cooperative learning have more effect on achievement than desegregation. English, math, civics, history, geography, foreign languages, art and music should be concentrated upon. 6) Classroom environmentChildren should be appropriately challenged. A pleasing climate with good morale results in more productivity. 7) Home environment90% of waking hours spent there. If a child is read to, stimulated, and taken to extracurricular activities, he learns more.8) Peer groupappropriate friends and appropriate activities, particularly in early adolescence when youngsters are geared more toward friends than home, will help a child be a better student. He or she should be steered toward academic competitions, chess. ballet, etc. 9) Televisionthe more television a child watches, generally the poorer they do in school. Wahlberg was asked what he would do to help disadvantaged students. He stated that he would concentrate on learning. He stated that there is a crisis of achievement in the United States. He would assign more homework and extend the school year. He would also change methods of teaching and incorporate mastery learning and cooperative learning. Wahlberg stated that parent education programs have had good success rates. He stated that the above ideas would help the achievement of minority students more than desegregation. Wahlberg testified that the reason socio-economic factors are so important is that if a child's parents value education, have money, and are well-educated, it is more likely that the parents have a wider vocabulary, have taken the child on outings, and that the child was read to and may know his alphabet before beginning school. He stated that child is generally more motivated, will try harder, and may be healthier and miss less school. Wahlberg stated that the benefits continue as the parents go to school more often. coach their children, know other parents so can better keep up with what their child should be doing, and they reinforce what their 34 children learn. Wahlberg pointed out that Asian Americans generally do better in school than white children but not because white children have been discriminated against in favor of Asians, but because of the culture of the Orient. He stated that in that culture parents and teachers are revered, academic achievement reflects on the family. and the school year is longer with a more demanding curriculum. Dr. Wahlberg testified that up to 50% of a child's capacity for achievement is formed by four years of age. By age 8, 80% of a child's achievement in the twelfth grade is predictable. Children of low socio-economic status adjust more poorly to moving from school to school than do middle class students. In very large cities there is lots of movement between schools. particularly where there is mandatory desegregation. According to Dr. Wahlberg, the difference in racial achievement levels in all states is fairly consistent. The main reason for achievement disparity is socio-economic. The witness was asked whether establishing themes at schools helps achievement. Wahlberg stated that a heavy vocational theme hurts academic learning but a foreign language theme helps. An experiment that Wahlberg helped conduct had the following requirements for students in one group: 1) Parents signed pledge to send children to school clean and neat everyday\n2) Homework every night (teacher pledge)\n3) Principal signed a pledge\n4) Merchants contributed money for books. The children in the above group had better test scores than the children in the control group. Wahlberg said that hjgh schools have three tracks: general.vocational, and academic. Dr. David Armor, a sociologist, testified next. He stated that he has concluded from his studies that mandatory integration was not having positive effect either sociologically or a academically. He stated that mandatory busing produces so much white flight that it is ineffective as a remedy. Armor testified that much of the achievement gap between black and white children is because of the long history of segregation. but he believes that desegregation will not eliminate the achievement gap which is influenced so much by home environment. He supports Title I programs to help achievement and magnet schools to voluntarily desegregate a school district. He stated that a magnet should not be based on non-academic programs. Armor stated that he knows of no desegregation plan that he is aware of that overcame the achievement gap. He stated that the majority of the gap lies outside the school purview because the capacity to learn is formed in the early years. Armor stated that studies show that between 87%-100% of the achievement gap in 6th grade is due to home environment. When a lawyer questioned Armor as to whether the lowered expectations of teachers toward children from low socio-economic backgrounds could cause the difference in achievement, the witness answered negatively. Armor stated that the gap is there from the first, so it couldn't be caused by the teacher. Dr. Armor also pointed out that in Wilmington, Delaware, where the school district is fully and successfully desegregated, the achievement gap has stayed the same.Ie Araor testified that he does not believe that most people have a negative attitude toward mandatory busing because of racism. He stated that he thinks parents just don't believe race is a legitimate basis for assigning children to schools. Armor stated that the only school districts that have stabilized with mandatory busing plans began with a very large (80/20) white to minority ration, and were all metropolitan areas which included the central city and huge parts of the suburbs. Armor testified that most districts that began 60/40 or 50/50 are becoming resegregated because of white flight. The judge stated that racial balance requirements are \"choking\" the school districts. Armor testified that our consent decree^ requires much stricter racial balance than most districts. Armor testified that once school district becomes 70% a minority, the considerations for desegregation change. He stated that at that point a district should just try to have as many integrated schools as possible, and live with the fact that the rest are predominantly black. Armor testified that for even a voluntary plan. with neighborhood schools and desegregation options, to stabilize a district racially, there need to be some 50/50 schools or schools that are 60/40% white, or the district will become all minority. His recommendation for Little Rock is to have no more mandatory student assignments. He stated that in the voluntary plans that he has designed, all students are assigned first to neighborhood schools. He said that he tries to draw zones that make sense but may naturally integrate some schools. Thenvoluntary options are adopted such as M to H transfers, and magnet schools strategically placed in minority neighborhoods. An attorney asked Dr. Armor if it was feasible to build schools in one-race neighborhoods. He answered affirmatively if there is a growing population or other need. He stated that a district should build instead of bus\nhe wouldn't deprive a minority of a new school just because it is going to be all black. He stated if the new school was going to be all white, it could probably be integrated with M to M transfers. If the new school is in the inner city, it should have magnet programs. Dr. Armor testified that a study in Boston showed that black children have high levels of self-esteem whether they are in an integrated environment or not. Armor said that he also sees no correlation between more resources and higher achievement.Summary of Court Proceedings on May 30 Gary Orfield The judge stated that the focus of the hearings is to give evidence to the parties so that they can reach modifications. She wants the opinions of the witnesses to generate some new thinking. The judge stated that she was gravely concerned about continuing the incentive schools as they are now. Gary Orfield is a professor of education and social policy at Harvard. He is a political scientist who has studied school desegregation since the late 196O's. He started and heads the Harvard Project on Desegregation which was begun in 1992. That project studies Milliken remedies. Milliken I held that mandatory desegregation remedies must be limited to districts that could be proved to have committed discriminatory practices. Milliken II gave district courts the power to fashion remedies with the contemplation that you could solve the harms of segregation with remediation components. Orfield testified that most districts hurriedly put remedies together by educators with no significant evaluation components\ntherefore, the districts are unable to see if the remedies are effective. Orfield stated that he reviewed the planning process documents and the monitoring reports. He also visited four of the incentive schools. Professor Orfield stated that the incentive school plan has lots of severe problems conceptually. He stated that those problems are magnified by poor implementation. He testified that there were a lot of good ideas in the plan but the ideas were conceived in a rush without thinking how they would play out in actually running the school. He testified that it would be very burdensome to manage the plan\nthat the plan directs so much energy in ways that have nothing to do with achievement progress. Moreover, he stated that the complication of the plan contributes to the administrative implementation problems. Orfield commented that the plans call for very complicated after school and weekend programs along with constantly filling out forms. Orfield stated that there was no reason to expect anyone to cany out the plan. There is no clear sense of purpose because the plan requires too many responsibilities of the staff with the result that the incentive plan does not produce a strong educational product. Orfield stated that the goals for he plan are extraordinarily demanding. Professor Orfield concluded that incentive school remedies are very hard to implement, that school districts rarely succeed in doing so. He stated, however, that there are programs which, if chosen carefully and monitored carefully, are effective in helping disadvantaged students achieve. Professor Orfield testified that incentive schools should have superior staff, administrative support, and significant additional funding. He stated that if you have underachieving students, a low status community, teachers who are unhappy teaching there, and students with no future, it is unlikely to be a successful school. Professor Orfield testified that he has seen very little that has taken place in the last five years which would result in remediation. He stated that there have only been modest educational gains. Orfield stated that the plan contemplated that the process was supposed to be secondary to the outcomes. He testified that if the district only complies with a lot of the details of the plan but does not show good results, then the plan is a failure. When asked to characterize the other experts, Walberg and Armor, Professor Orfield stated that Armor has not done very much independent research and that now he works for parties in civil rights lawsuits. Orfield stated that Armor argues that only parts of a district should be desegregated because only those parts were guilty of discrimination. Orfield stated that Armor ran on an anti-desegregation platform when he ran for the school board in Los Angeles. Orfield said that Armor believes that schools dont affect the achievement of student and therefore schools do not have to provide an equal education. Orfield stated that most scholars in the field disagree with Armor. Orfield stated that schools DO make a difference and that is why everyone sends their children to the best colleges that they can afford. Professor Orfield testified that Walbergs opinions are based on meta-analysis (combining hundreds of studies and then constructing giant statistical models) instead of relying on original research. Orfield stated that this method is highly criticized in education research, but also widely used. Orfield testified that the majority of school desegregation studies are for only one year and are done in the first year of desegregation\ntherefore, Orfield concludes that the majority of the statistics plugged into the giant model are defective. Orfield stated that there is a vast pool of scholars that do desegregation research and neither Walberg nor Armor are in the pool. According to Orfield, Armor has testified that desegregation actually harms black children but he has abandoned that viewpoint. He named many other researchers who have come up with a lot of information on conditions for effective desegregation. Orfield stated that the researchers are nearly all in disagreement with Walberg and Armor. Professor Orfield said that compensation education is a very difficult task and that only a small number of programs have clearly proven results. He stated that it is very important to target those programs with good track records and specially trained persons must be used. Some of those programs are Reading Recovery\nM 444 Success for All, and Algebra Project. Some of the Title One programs are successful and some are not with no net effect from Title One.Schools with disadvantaged students and Title One programs do worse on achievement tests than less impacted schools with no Title One. Children with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to score worse on achievement tests and the converse is also true. If you want to remedy the gap due to socioeconomic status, effective schools have a clear mission, and strong leadership. Good results require extraordinary educational leadership. Standardized tests evaluate content that is not taught exclusively within a school system. Orfield testified that some lower socioeconomic children who dont perform well on standardized tests, do better when put with children with higher socioeconomic status who do perform well on standardized tests. Children need the right level of challenge and motivation. If kids are segregated, disadvantaged kids generally get worse programs and such schools reinforce social status difference. With the low level of competition, they are not challenged and they will not do as well. Professor Orfield stated that if a school has an identity as a minority school or a weak schoolit is hard to attract students. But if you could change identity AND offer a scholarship that would be a great incentive for attracting students. Orfield stated that if you put all gifted programs in poor areas, that whites would come. He stated that if all the white kids come, the school will get better programs. He also stated that all black schools can be very attractive. Professor Orfield said that a number of needed changes are immediately apparent in the incentive schoolsstructural changes that would release a lot of money. He stated that the number of schools should be examined as well as the programs that they offer. He stated that as it is the staff has too much to comply with. He stated that after school programing does not make sense-that the teachers do not want it. He said that the after school program is too expensive and that since there is no required participation, many student who need it may not get it. He stated that there should be targeted tutoring so that children who need help are identified. Orfield stated that the student educational plan takes too much of the teachers time, that there should be a better assessment to identify warning signals for students who need tutoring. Teachers should have to make a long term (five year suggested) commitment and there should be special incentives for principals. He said that perhaps one incentive school should be closed and one should be made a magnet school. Professor Orfield said that there are so many compliance requirements that the staff is unable to focus on the education of children. He stated that based on the plan and interviews with teachers and principals, there is too much pressure on teachers and principals. Professor Orfield said that there is a great deal of evidence that there is no harm to the education of white children by putting them in class with blacks . He stated that black children significantly profit when they got to school with whites. He stated that there is a significant but not large increase in achievement scores when blacks and whites go to school together. The larger gains are what happen in black childrens lives. There is significant evidence to suggest that black children are more likely to go to college if they are in a majority white high school. Most gains are from interaction of isolated children with more successful children. He stated that there is significant research to suggest that if we do certain things in class (like mutual academic projects) that these gains are enhanced with the result of higher achievement and more mutual respect. He stated that desegregation has more benefits than any other intervention. He stated that children that go to desegregated schools are more likely to live in integrated neighborhoods as adults. Separate schools lead to separate lives and separate destinies. Orfield stated that although school has a major influence, it is not more important than the influence of family. Orfield stated that some mandatory desegregation plans work well and some do not. They are usually better when they are in very large metropolitan areas. He said that the maximum education benefit from mandatory plans is when a disadvantaged, racially isolated child is bused to a majority white, middle class school from 1-6 grade. It should be substantially integrated with staff and students and with no tracking on the basis of race. It should also involve parents. He stated that the districts that have gone to neighborhood schools have extremely low achievement in the 100% poor schools, parental involvement did not increase, and white flight did not stop. Orfield stated that the United States is changing from 10% minority to the point that it will be 50/50 in the year 2025. Orfield stated that best kind of goals reflect the metropolitan community and, therefore, he is no advocate of strict racial balance. The higher the racial balance gets in a community, desegregation is more complicated and a schools racial balance must be within a reasonable range. Professor Orfield stated that Little Rock needs a magnet school with a 50/50 ratio in a developing area to get people away from going to private schools.Ir r k I 11/14/96 12:48 501 324 2023 LRSD COIIMLNICATI -^ \u0026gt; ODM Little Rock School District November 14,1996 @002/003 Kress Release More Information\nZeomee Hens. .124-2020 LRSD OrientiitioD Designed to Make 6th to 7tb Grade Transition Smooth for Parents and Students Parents of .students who are currently in the sixth grade will have an opportunity to explore rhe options for their child's educational future on Sunday, November 17. 1996. from 2\n3{) - 4 00 p.m. at Henderson Junior High School. 401 John Barrow Road. The annual Junior High Transition Meeting, spon.sored by the l.inle Rock School District (LRSD) Student Assignment Office, is designed to give parents a closer look at the eight LRSD jurdor high schools and the programs offered at each school. Each school will be given one classroom at Henderson which will be decorated to be.sT showcase their school. Principals, teachers and parents of current students will be available to an.swer questions and give prospective parents helpful information to make the transition to iunicr high sthoui a smooth one. The meeting will be followed by open house tours at the schools at 10:00 a.m, and 1 :S0 o.in. as follows: Monday. xNovember 18 Monday. November 18 .Cloverdale Junior High ITunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; 1? '' .'.La Vi'ednesday, November 20 Wednesdai'. November 20 Taler.tsd Education Magne! Junior High .Forest Heights Junior High Henderson Heaidi Science Magnet Junior 1 810 West Markham Street li iiO li i'lDors! Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)524-2000 T f  t} 4\n\u0026amp; D s e J H a I J if. I t- k' t i: Ei   11/14/96 12:49 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 121003/003 I I fky I Press Release  Transition Meeting (11/14/96) Page 2 Thursday, November 21 Thursday, November 21 Monday, November 25 Monday, November 25 Mabelvale Junior High Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Junior High Pulaski Heights Junior High .Southwest Junior High School registration uill be held January 21-31,1997. tirTr V- V. '11 I ?1 f '  3 :i 'w? -'A \"A* .y I 5\n-97 NON SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.Ol DISTRICT JLT9GE SUSaN ''AEBBER WRIGHT 600 W. C/NPiT'.A.. i.i niE RIX'K, AR 72201 JUL 101997 JLIDGE WRiQHT. u s. JUDGE SINCE JANT.LARY 1997 i HAVE BEEN V^ ORKING WITH THE LITD_E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THE .STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OF CHILDREN LIVING IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA AFTER A GREAT AMOUNT' OF EFFORT \\RV LITITE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED I HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF KNOftT.EDGE ABOUT THE PROBLEM PARENTS LIVING IN MY AREA ARE SO UPSFT WITH. THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE TOLD ME THAT OTHER AREAS OF TO'WN HAVE RECRLTTINCt MEETINGS. WELL, I TRIED THAT AND IHE ASSIGNMENT OFFICE WAS KIND .E.NOUGH TO PROVIDE ME WITH SW FLYERS AND ABOLT A DOZEN POSTERS. I WENT IX'XIR. TO DOOR TALKING TO P.ARENTS IN SANDPIPER WEST A.ND CHERRYCREEK SLEDIVTSIONS AND I P'lJT UP THE DISTERS ATTENDANCE FOR THE MEETING WAS IN MY OPEMON DlSM.-\\L. .,2 PARENTS FROM SANDPIPER \u0026amp; 3 FROM CHERRYCRETK. ALL OF THE OTHER PERSONS W.TERE FROM THE SCFEJOL DISTRICT. (THE ?. FROM ?.vNDPIPER CAME AS M\\' SLRFORT) AFIT- \"i '. \u0026lt;1 ' '  rO ICO OR so HOUSEHOLDS IN MY NE.1.GHBORHOOD I HEARD THE SAME I- R AND OVER.-T WON'T PLY MA' CHILDREN IN WILSON . IVE NEVER S rUDENT ASSIGNKLENT OFFICE, .ID PVT MA' CHILD IN SCHOOL IF raEY Il NEIO.rIBORHOOD BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PUT THEM IN WESSON....MA' . I -\u0026gt;K JI )LD WERE ASSIGN.E.D TO WILSON A.ND THEY PUT THEIR KIDS IN A  Ki, ATE' .MTHOOL ^O I'M GOING TO DO TOAT TOO' .. OF ALL THE PERSONS THAT 1 7 ^(L.KED TO ONL Y 1 PARENT HAD THEIR CHILDREN IN' PUELiC SCHCXTLS AND IT WAS A magnet there .  -NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT .ALL THE CHILDREN IN OLTi AREA IN MAGNET SC HOOL S'SO THE ONES TB.AT DON T MAKE IT TO THEIR CHOICE OPT OUT TO PxRIVATE SCHOOl \u0026lt; -M MOST M.l. CF IHE PARENTS COMMENHED .ABOUT HOW ANGRY THEY WERE THAT F HAVE 2 SCHCK.LS LESS THAN 1 xMILES FROM OUR HOMES AND WERE NOT assigned TO THE.M .AND CANNOT EVEN APPLY TO CO THERE I .AM CVRREN FLY WORKENG WTIH THE LITll.E RCX.K SCHOOL OlS'rRlCT TO COMMLINTCATE WITH THESE P.ARENTS THAT PUHi IC SCHOOLS APE GCOD SAFE PLACES FOR OUR CHILDREN. I SINCERELY HOPE YOU'LL TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT OUR .LRE.'- AND PROVIDE. Ol R CfflLDRF '\u0026lt; '.VITI-i .A CHOICE THAT WE CAN GET THESE PARENTS TO AGREE OX N.TLDING .A NEW SCHOOL IN OLR AREA. YObR CONSEJER.a IiON OF .MY CONCERNS IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND I lCOR FORW ARD TO GREAT THINGS HAlPENING IN 'CHE LITILE ROCK SCHCXX. DISTRICT .iRFLV 7/\n'CZ/Uy/- M.AR\\'ANNF CAMfBF.Ll, 77c(z MON 6:24 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 1 * anti respond to my person via telephone or writte.u communication, I work.within the Pulaski County School District as a substitute teacner, while waiting to be placed as a secondary Engiish tsacnsr (certification by the Ark. Dept, of Education), but 1 air, also a concerne,d parent. I want to rrake sure that my son and the other black males receive justice in this matter. have a fear that they are being used as a scapegoats, simply because there is not anyone to connect to the liquor bottle alleyedly found by Ms. Clark. 1 I would appreciate my son's name being placed with the black asst, principal, instead of Mr. Allison, whom 1 feel will not properly treat my son fairly because he is a black male. I believe the Asst. Principal I am referring to is a Nr. Twilley (I apologize if I did not spell his name correctly). One final, remark, I do not appreciate the fact that Ms. C.lark fl yei.led at these students and told them to shut up when they asked for permission to speak to tell their side of the. story. We have havQ constitutJ.onal_ rights^ regardless of our age. I hops someone will remind Ms. Clar.k of this fact. It sp-.ct.fu 1 1 y submit I d ^ary rin? Anderson cc cc .Attorney John Walker Judge Susan Webber Wright Retained V.\"' t ! i V JUl M? MON 8:23 To\nFront} Ref J SUSAN W WRIGHT Kupt\nBobby ester, Mary , Artdereon, Dab Artc!e?son, This /iiatC\nr Is relevant FAX NO, 5013246576 pcssn 8fcb Grade Student, SHJH P. 02 'J. .-V to a teiephcne call I received from Prlncxpal^Sue Clark at,the Sylvan Hills Jr. High Schoo at* Thursday, Ui\u0026amp;ids the boy' s, bathroom and observed four Stated bathroom. Ms. Clark also stated tnat, she Saw Dah .With u ...d., gave him to buy a cold soda drink at school). Jr. High School at \"'-A, ''Ass- She stated Ms. Clark also a soda can in his hand (money T. At 7jj3 a...ii. . .1 dropped my. mornxng from home . i, drop my children off at .school every\" rnornxng, and .they dq not leave the school oremises for any reason. _ 1 Wa.tCxhed my son pack his backpack with his books\n^ne orixi items ,in his backpack were books, This same fact holds'trri^ for my daughter, son and my daughter off at SHJH this pencils and paper, Tammy, as well. that, she \"did not\" witness the four s..udenvS drinking.,any kind of wine, but she what was in the strawberry soda of the contents (an assumption) fr assumed\" this Is can from sniffing the remainder I was also advised by, my Ms Cl^irk (wljich she did not mention to a green liquor bottle in .the wastebasket oathroom. Eric, Lewis, au anun, not have this grse.h .bottle,and that he t.ie. soda he bought front the machine at  * ' ' '   I Below Is the son my person) found __ inside the boy's aiSd a strident at SHJH, Version of my son's^ school. can attest that was drinking and I want an investigation conducted by the Superintendent's office. I ..ou judgment of Mr. Allison,' nor do I trust the judgment into\na boy's bathroom drawing a T^hdipg an .igoiated bottle inside the bathroom and on a. cohvenxent 90ap$goat.\ni feel that this the fact thfttfmy son^istblack, arid I do not trust the of a a conclusion placing is due to inside the.\nbathroom.'  * ....... treatmenh of.the blackstudents , rd SO are the four other students I-have often been told that there the crenc oi.tne^biack scudents are different from the treatment of the wnite students,.and I am concerned this complaint. 1 and disturbed regarding Aafon Walker, and other black rendered at this school, and how they are followed Constantly when they go in the bathroom as a 5roup, as opposed to white students who gather in this same bathroom ahd are not followed or questioned. What is going on withan. this overall enVirotmerit or questioned. Mr. Lester, again, please (investigate this matter to its fullest }7-3-^7 Cr JUL 11 19g/ ANN BROWN OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 E. MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 nro DESEGfiEGAKONMOWTOWS DEAR ANN, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU CONCERNING THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PARENTS IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA. ALTHOUGH WHITE PARENTS MAY HAVE MORE OPTIONS THAN BLACK PARENTS ON WERE TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, I BELIEVE IT IS TOO COMPLICATED AND MANY PARENTS LIVING IN WEST LITTLE ROCK SIMPLY DONT WANT TO PUT UP WITH THE HASSLE THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET THEIR CHILDREN ASSIGNED TO A MAGNET SCHOOL OR AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL. I PLAN ON WORKING WITH THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL SYSTEM TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PARENTS IN THE WEST LITTLE ROCK AREA ABOUT THE OPTIONS THEY HAVE AS YOU RECOMMENDED. I ONLY HOPE YOU WILL COMMUNICATE TO JUDGE WRIGHT THAT MORE COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS IN THIS AREA IS GREATLY NEEDED. AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU SEE ANY WAY I CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE TO YOU I WOULD BE GLAD TO HELP. THE LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE GOOD SAFE PLACES FOR OUR CHILDREN BUT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO REACH THE UNBELIEVERS. BEST REGARDS, MARYANNE CAMPBELLOffice cf 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 July 23, 1997 Ms. Maryanne Campbell 2623 Creekside Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Maryanne: Thank you for your recent letter. Im glad we had the opportunity to talk over the phone, and I commend you for your .zeal in wanting to recruit parents to the public schools. Like you, I believe the public schools are a good place for cliildren. I appreciate your ofter to be of help. I think one of the best ways for you to do that is to work with officials in the Little Rock School District to help make parents aware of the various options for their childrens education. When you give the districts recruiters the benefit of your perceptions and ideas, they can better serve the information needs of the community. Your interest in the educational of children is very important, and I hope you will continue to actively support our citys schools. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEJVSE 11998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING via Facsimile 376-2147 / March 31, 1998 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Revised Plan LRSD Student Assignments Dear Chris: A question has arisen with respect to student assignment for which I would like your input. The question is whether white students who wish to attend Incentive or double funded schools who live outside the attendance areas of those schools be allowed to do so? This appears to be an inquiry regarding whether a minority (white in this context) pupil may transfer into another school his/her race is also a distinct minority. I have interpreted 2.3, page 3 of the revised plan to allow the Incentive schools to be desegregated. This seems to be confirmed by 3.1's preamble, i.e. \"this revised plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan. II (p.7) If your interpretation is consistent with mine, please confirm in a responsive writing as soon as possible\nif it is not, will provide your separate determination. The matter is urgent in view of the fact that white parents may feel that they may not be able to attend Rockefeller and other schools because of the 40-60% numbers that we established essentially for the area schools. If our views diverge, I suggest we address the matter at once. STHcerely Cldh W. Walker JWW:js cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Mrs. Ann Brown501374418? uhlker lau firm 935 P02 PPR 01 98 18:09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HCRSCREL R. XRIOAT \u0026lt;|ltS-lSS4J WILUAM R. VWTTONi P\u0026lt;A. JAMES W.MOORE  TRON M. CtStWAN. JA-. JO\u0026lt; 0. BClU. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. SUTTnV. P.A. PREOERICK 9. UH9ERV. P A. OSCAR C. SAVIS. JW.. P A. JAMI9 C OLARl. J\" . P * THOMAS P LEBOtTT. P.A. JOHN BEWEV WATSON. P A. PAUL B. BENHAM 1(1. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WVCKlIPP NISBET, JI., P.A. JAMtB EoWaRO HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMCa M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M lAXTQN, J. IHEPHSRS RUBBELL. hi. p a. OOHALO M. SACQN. p.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BARTER. P.A- BBRWV E. COPLIN. P A. RICHAROO TAVtOR, p.A. JOSEPH B. nuhBT. JR.. B.A. ELISABETH NOBBEM BBURRAV, P.A. CHRISTOPHES HELLES, P.A. LAURA HENBlET smith. p.A. ROBERT B- BNAFCR, P.A. WILLIAM M. aRI^PlM III. P.A. MICHAEL B. MOORE. P.A. OIANE 1. MACKtb P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. XEWIM A. CSaES. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR., P.A. A I'ARTNEIOHIP at: INDlVlQUAlS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS attqsnevs at law 2000 FIRST'COMMERCIAL aUlLDINO AOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE SOCK, ARKANSAS 71tOI-3l3 TELEPHONE SOI-STS 201 1 FAX NO. B01-3TS-1147 April 1, 1998 lOOTTJ. LANCAOTEB. F * M, QAVLE COWLEV. P A. ROBEWT a BEACH. JR.. P.A. J LEE IffOWN. P.A, \u0026gt; JAMES C. BAWeW. HBBHV A. (.IBMT. P.A SCOTT H TUCKEW, P.A. JOHM CI.BVTQN RAMOOLPR. F.A 4UV ALTON WADE, P.A. PWrCEC QARDNCR.p.a. TOMIA P. JQMB6. P.A. OAVIO B. WILSON. P.A. JEBPNCV R, MO0RE, P.A. ANOWEW T. TURNER, P.A. OAVtd U(. WRAP, PlA. CARLA OUNAWII SPAINmOUR. P A JOHN e. SENdLE*. JR.. P.A. ALLIBdN CNaVCS WARNES. P.A. W. ohBIUTSPHCR Lawbon CREBONV D. TATLQR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN AETTV J. OCUOWy lARIARA J. WANO JAMES W. SMITH CLIRPORO W. PLUWKETT OaMiSL L. MERRINOTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL TOGO A. CRECR CllCN M. OWENS HELENE N. RaVOCR JA3Oli S. HEUGREN BUBAN N. CMILGCRS 4euwcti william J. (MlTH I.B, CLARK WILLIAM L. TIRRT WILLIAM L PaTTOn. Jh H.T, LAWIELEXE, P.A. f nitecT . |60n 370-032a Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 VIA fax: 374-4187 re: LRSD Revised Plan Student Assignments Dear Mr. Walker\nWe have reviewed the LRSD Revised Plan related to the question raised in your fax of March 31, 1998. We cannot agree with your It is overbroad to say that Section interpretation of Section 2.3. 2.3 'allow[s] th incentive echoola to be desegregated.\" Section 2.3 was intended to permit the gradual implementation of the student assignment provisions of the Revised Plan. Because the Revised Flan has yet to be approved, LRSD has assigned students for the 1998-99 school year based on the present student assignment plan. We believe this will be consistent with Section 2.3 should the Revised Plan be approved.5013744137 kWLKER LAU FIRM 935 P03 APR 31 9S 13:10 Mr. John w. Walker April 1/ 1998 Page 3 We agree that section 3,2,1 places certain limitations ' ' . However, voluntary student transfers to incentive schools. However, we believe it is premature to consider modification of section 3.2.1 until the district has adopted revised elementary student assignment zones. Even so, we will consider any proposed modification you would like to present at this time. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. sincerely, CC! ^ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John Dr, Leslie V. Carnine (via fax 324-2146) MiRECE Little Rock School District JUL 2 7 1998 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Memo To: From: Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Date: 07/24/98 Re: Revised Student Assignment Plan This notice is to provide information regarding the process and timeline anticipated within the restructuring and student assignment component of the Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Sections). As we approach the start of the 98-99 school year, we are also in a position whereby initial plans must be implemented toward '99-2000 and proposed transition of our schools to reflect elementary - grades K-5, middle school grades 6-8, and high school grades 9-12. At present, we are thoroughly reviewing parameters that exist in our plan to provide baseline information toward the development of newly drawn assignment zones that will be proposed. The following timelines are anticipated: July  School attendance zone/baseline information is compiled and reviewed. August - September  Review of proposed attendance zones with the LRSD Board of Education.  The LRSD Student Assignment Work Team will be asked to reconvene. (Please note enclosure)  A representative from Office and Desegregation and Monitoring will be placed on this committee (Melissa Guldin).  The Student Assignment Work Team will meet weekly.October - November  The proposed plan will be presented and made available throughout the City of Little Rock  A series of informational announcements / programs will be provided (i.e. media / press releases, publications. Town Hall meetings, cable program presentations).  The Little Rock School District will survey students and parents to seek input toward the proposed restructuring and their 99-2000 intended school assignment. November  Necessary revisions and modifications in the plan will be made. RECEIVpd  The LRSD will vote to approve the new assignment plan. December - January JUL 2 7 1998  Make plans for '99-2000 registration (i.e. forms, building capacities) OFFICE OF desegregation MONITO W  Hold registration for kindergartners, new students, M-to-M applications. Magnet applications. Desegregation Transfer request. Employee Preference requests, and P4 students. Two of the primary individuals with the Little Rock School District that are assigned to this project include Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services and Ms. Julie Wiedower, Interim Director of Student Assignment. While recognizing this significant task, we are positive toward successfully incorporating accurate baseline data and necessary input for work team members that will prompt favorable transition. We are moving rapidly beginning to place things in motion and will communicate with you soon on our initial planning session. If you have questions regarding information that has been provided, I ask that you contact Mr. Babbs. Enclosure: Middle School Pamphlet Student Assignment Work Team (Introduction / Members) cc\nJunious C. Babbs, Jr. Julie Wiedower  Page 2STUDENT ASSIGNMENT WORK TEAM NEW SCHOOLS AND AREA SCHOOLS JUL 2 7 1998 OmCEOF desegregation MONFiDRlNG 1. INTRODUCTION The Student Assignment Work Team (the Team) was requested by Superintendent Don Roberts to consider whether the Little Rock School District (LRSD) should construct new schools, and whether the school district should consider changes to its present student assignment plan. The task of the Team did not include reconsideration of magnet concepts or interdistrict schools. The Superintendent suggested that the Team specifically examine the need for, and the benefits of, constructing a new Stephens Elementary School and a school in a growth area in the western part of the city. The Superintendent also suggested that the work group consider possible changes in student assignment plans which could lead to more integration and less student transportation. The Team began meeting in late March and generally met weekly through mid-July.Student Assignment Work Team New Schools and Area Schools Junious Babbs (newly appointed) Mary Ann Campbell (newly appointed) Michael Daugherty Pat Gee Melissa Guldin Bill Hamilton Baker Kurrus J.J. Lacey, Jr. Jim McKenzie Leonard Thalmueller Narcissus Tyler Julie Wiedower (newly appointed)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 April 14, 1999 Mr. Junious Babbs LRSD Student Registration Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Junious: Thank you for spending time with me on Monday discussing the concerns I had raised in my March 18\" letter about assigning four-year-olds at Rockefeller. Its wonderfully easy to talk matters over with you. Your openness and positive thinking is a real asset to the district and a joy to me personally. Im glad we both value the importance of preserving Rockefellers success. As we agreed. Im going to call on some creative thinkers to come up with possible options that might allow the children in Rockefellers early childhood program to remain at the school throughout the elementary years, while still accommodating the assignment zone children who have priority for attending the school. The first step toward that end is a brainstorming session next week with Anne Mangan, Pat Price, and Melissa Guldin. Then well schedule some time with you, Francis, Sadie, and Brady (or whomever you think should be involved) to talk over the ideas that have surfaced and get the benefit of the groups collective thinking. Ill keep you posted on all developments. Meanwhile, so we can work from a solid information base, well appreciate having Rockefellers latest enrollment figures for 1999-2000 by race and grade level, including the number of four-year-olds in the zone, the number of four-year-olds enrolled this year who arent slated to return, and any other figures that will help us get an accurate enrollment picture for next year. Thanks so very much for your help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Anne Mangan Pat Price Melissa Guldinmi 810 West Markham Little R.ock, .AR. 72201 T. 4\n.- T, -,.   A C t 1 _ 4 ^ . . ^Lxi.i.v.utiac xvcie^c July 19, 2004 For more information\nJulie Davis, 447-1027 LRSD Seeks Community Input iQ Student Assignment Flan The Little Rock School District seeks input from the community in the formulation of its revised Student Assignment Plan. For this purpose, the district has organized three community forums where ideas and opinions may be exchanged. The public is encouraged to attend these forums. Tuesday, July 20\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Little Rock Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 West 12* Street Thursday, July 29\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Dee Brown Library, 6325 Baseline Road Tuesday, August 10\n6:00 to 7:30 p.m. LRSD Administration Building Board Room, 810 W. Markham Street The primary focus of the meetings will be the snident assignment policies for the districts specialty magnet schools (Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan high schools\nCloverdale, Dunbar, Henderson and Mabelvale middle schools\nand King, Rockefeller, Romine and Washington elementary schools). The LRSD Board of Education encourages the community ro participate, obtain information and provide input at the meetings. ###RECEnn=r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OCT 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORi?a OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 E-Mail: jcbabbsff:stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us October 5, 1999 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication regarding possible areas that may warrant attention in the 99-2000 LRSD Student Assignment process, a meeting is being scheduled with appropriate staff persons to review projected enrollment / capacity compositions and possible strategies that may be enacted. You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, .^nious Babbs Date: October 19, 1999 To: Melissa and Gene From. Am Re: LRSD Meeting Attached is a communication from Junious Babbs, who has invited us to attend a meeting in the Student Registration Conference Room next Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.. This meeting is probably to mollify me, because I have suggested that it would be appropriate to review the present student assignment zones to determine whether some minor adjustments (tweaking) might be appropriate. As you know. Ive been particularly concerned about the Rockefeller zoning, because it has created some big kindergarten enrollment numbers that could develop into overcrowding at the successive grade levels. Other schools might have similar problems, although Im not aware of them. At any rate, please plan on attending this meeting with me next Tuesday. Thanks. Enc.10/14/1999 11:20 501-324-2231 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 little rock school district 501 SHERMAN STRFFT LITTLE ROCK. AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMLMSTRATIVE SER-VICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272   L-Mail: icbabbsf^stuasn lrcrf L-n October 5,1999 Mrs. Ann Brown OflSce of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham LittleRock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication attention in the 99-2000 LRSD Student Assignment appropriate staff persons to review projected enrollment / strategies that may be enacted. regarding possible areas that may warrant process, a meeting is being scheduled with capacity compositions and possible You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, inious Babbs 10/14/1999 11:20 501-324-2281 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 Qi little rock school district 501 SHERMAN STRFFt little ROCK, AR 72202 OFnCE or ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 '  E-Mail\nicbabbs@stuasn lrrt kn October 5,1999 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Momtorine 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: In an attempt to follow-up on earlier communication regarding oossible areas that o,,,, - strategies that may be enacted. capacity compositions and possible You and / or representatives from your shop are invited to attend. We look to be in touch regarding the scheduled time. Sincerely, L Juinniioouuss BBiabbs Message Page 1 of 1 Ann Marshall From: Sent: Rousseau, Nancy [Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org] Friday, October 17, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: FW: Memo from Mr. Babbs Parents - If you are interested in attending this meeting, please let me know, and you can be the LRCH delegates. Obviously, LRCH cannot have 50 parents at this meeting! I cannot attend b/c I already have two places to be during this time. I know that a great many of you are concerned about the proposed assignment plan. Feel free to get involved if you are interested. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: Eggleston, Deana Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:23 AM To: Rousseau, Nancy\nNorman, Cassandra\nSmith, Vernon\nBuck, Larry\nMunns, Angela\nBacon, John\nBurton, Marvin\nBlaylock, Ann\nMangan, Anne\nZeigler, Gwendolyn\nScull, Lillie\nHarris, Tyrone Cc: Holmes, Morris\nMitchell, Sadie\nStewart, Don\nGlasgow, Dennis Subject: Memo from Mr. Babbs This following message is from Mr. Babbs: This notice is to provide an update regarding proposed 2004-05 student assignment plan activity and mav where things exist for the moment. It is being pulled as an action item for the October 23^ meeting of the Board of Directors. Given recent conversation through Dr. Holmes, and respective board members, thinking is to seek expanded school/program conversation and input opportunity. This__ include members of your Campus Leadership Team (CLT), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and/or school representatives that you 'd like to bring on board. A called meeting for principals and/or your representative is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 3:30p.m. in the Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. In this session Dr. Holmes is  scheduled to provide an overview of this charge. We will look to review background, pertinent data, our present state, anticipated timeline and availability to obtain additional thinking toward recommendation / adoption of a new student assignment plan. Look to see you Tuesday afternoon. cc: Dr. Holmes Deana Eggleston Student Registration (501)447-2955 deana.eggleston@lrsd.org Got I OOO*G of Smiling Facco for your EmoHol Gat tKam r*owl J 10/17/2003Message Page 1 of 1 Ann Marshall From: Sent: Rousseau, Nancy [Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org] Friday, October 17, 2003 3:47 PM Subject: FW: Memo from Mr. Babbs Parents - Sorry! I goofed! The message I sent to you about the meeting was incorrect. Tuesday's meeting is for administrators only. The LRSD will be setting up a meeting soon for parents to get information and give feedback. The October 23'^'* vote has been delayed until the November agenda meeting. I will let you all know of the meeting date when I get the information. Nancy This following message is from Mr. Babbs: This notice is to provide an update regarding proposed 2004-05 student assignment plan activity and where things exist for the moment. It is being pulled as an action item for the October 23^ meeting of the Board of Directors. Given recent conversation through Dr. Holmes, and respective board members, thinking is to seek expanded school/program conversation and input opportunity. This may include members of your Campus Leadership Team (CLT), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and/or school representatives that you 'd like to bring on board. A called meeting for principals and/or your representative is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 3:30p.m. in the Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. In this session Dr. Holmes is scheduled to provide an overview of this charge. We will look to review background, pertinent data, our present state, anticipated timeline and availability to obtain additional thinking toward recommendation / adoption of a new student assignment plan. Look to see you Tuesday afternoon. cc: Dr. Holmes Deana Eggleston Student Registration (501) 447-2955 deana.eggleston@lrsd.org Got I noO's of Smiling Foccs for your Emails! Get thorn nowl j 10/17/2003uo. o L K S D SRO RASE 02/02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student RegistAtion Office 2004-05 School Choice Option Survey I am presently affiliated with: O Wo- TjlB -Use a No.2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Do not fold Or staple a. Original Magnet School b. LRSD Magnet/Specialty School c. Attendance Zone School d. No School I Strongly Disaarge No Opinion Disagree Attendance Zone are important. options outside the Neigh jorhood J__________Agree Strongly Agree School 2. It IS important that schools reflect a diverse st ident population. 3. Diversity promotes equal opportunity and bro? i experience. dens the educational 4. School choice options are desirable even if trs i provided. nsportation is not CJ '-vJ 5. Diversity should take into account factors in addition to race. 6. It is possible to have too many choice options. 7. What options Successful schools must be diverse. attendance zone? should be considered If any, to diversify asJignmentoutsIde of the 8. Random Selection (Luck of the draw) .J O I r L C O O o r 9. 10. Socio-Economic (Free/Reduced Lunch) C o Academic Proficiency (Test Scores) o o o 11. Race (Cultural Group) 12. Sibling Preference (Brother or Sister Living in tie Same Household) C.J O o For District Use Only I P S ci Parent Forums School Choice Proposal The Little Rock School District (LRSD) is proposing changes in the student assignment plan for the 2004-05 school year. The LRSD Board of Education wishes to allow parents additional opportunities to provide input before the Board makes a decision on the recommendation. Two parent forums will be held: Elementary schools: Tues., Oct. 28 Secondary schools: Wed., Oct. 29 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Location: Board Room, LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. If a parent cant attend the session designated for his/her childs school level, the parent is invited and encouraged to attend the other session. The primary reason for revision of the current school assignment plan is that recent court decisions (Unitary Status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the manner in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. The plan will affect our current students only when they move to the next school level-for example, when our current fifth grade students enroll for middle school or eighth grade students enroll for high school during the January 26 - February 6, 2004 registration period. The Board of Education and district administrators remind all parents of the districts commitment toward diversity within our schools. We will closely monitor the equitable allocation of resources, including funding and personnel, in order to ensure that students at all schools have experienced teachers, appropriate materials, updated technology, equipment, and current textbooks that promote equal educational opportunity and academic excellence for all students. i October 22, 2003 Dear Specialty Magnet School Patron: You may have heard that the Little Rock School District is developing an updated student assignment plan for implementation during the 2004-05 school year. This proposed plan will be presented to the Little Rock Board of Education for review/approval on November 6, 2003. I want to share with you information about the plan and meetings that will be held to allow for additional input. Attached is a list of Frequently Asked Questions, or FAQ, providing information about the proposed plan. The plan will affect our current students only when they move to the next school level-for example, when our current fifth grade students enroll for middle school or eighth grade students enroll for high school during the January 26 - February 6, 2004 registration period. The primary reason for revision of the current school assignment plan is that recent court decisions (Unitary Status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the manner in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. The Board of Education and district administrators remind all parents of the districts commitment toward diversity within our schools. We will closely monitor the equitable allocation of resources, including funding and personnel, in order to ensure that students at all schools have experienced teachers, appropriate materials, updated technology, equipment, and current textbooks that promote equal educational opportunity and academic excellence for all students. Please read the attached FAQ. You are invited to attend one of the scheduled meetings to provide input regarding the proposed student assignment plan:  Elementary schools- Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:30 - 7:00 p.m.  Secondary schools- Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Location\nLRSD Board Room - 810 West Markham Street If a parent cannot attend on the specified night for the school level, he or she is certainly welcome to attend the other session. I encourage you to provide your input on either of the scheduled evenings outlined above. Sincerely,b a 2004-05 Proposed School Assignment Plan Frequently Asked Questions Why is the district proposing a change in the student assignment plan? The primary reason for revision of the current assignment plan is that recent court decisions (unitary status / U.S. Supreme Court - University of Michigan) have affected the maimer in which we assign students. Need is identified to develop a student assignment procedure where race-based decisions are no longer the sole factor in determining assignments. What guided the proposal being presented to the School Board? A survey was done of more than 1000 stakeholders (parents, staff, community) representing every school in the Little Rock School District. More than 85% of those responding (535) agree that School Assignment Options outside the Neighborhood School Attendance Zone are important. Additionally, 90% felt that It is important that schools reflect a diverse student population. In addition, the district Strategic Plan Mission Statement (developed by members of our community) states that our schools should not only reflect, but embrace, diversity. Our School Board has been equally clear in its Covenant for the Future which was adopted in February of 2001. Will attendance zones be changed? No Will there be significant student movement as a result of proposed changes? No. Approximately 90% of LRSD students attend their attendance zone school, stipulation magnet, or participate in the M-to-M program. Will the Stipulation! Original Magnet (Parkview, Mann, Booker, Carver, Gibbs, Williams) assignment process change? No. These schook will continue to operate under the current assignment plan. Two meetings are scheduled for additional input from parents and other community residents. They are: Elementary schools - Tuesday, Oct. ZS** 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Secondary schools - Wednesday, Oct. 29**\"Location: LRSD Board Room Administration Building 810 West Markham Please invite your thinking and input. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11,1993 LRSD hired former official to draw up alternate plan The short-handed Little Rock School District turned to an old ally recently. The district hired Dr. James Jennings, its associate superintendent of desegregation from 1987-92, as a consultant July 27 to write an alternative student assignment plan. He was paid $1,381.25 for his services, a district spokesman said Tuesday. The district has a desegregation office, plus a number of staff members who work in its student-assignment section. Jennings was a temporary addition to that department. His job was to develop a student assignment plan to use if U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright had refused to close Ish Elementary School. Wright Oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case. Jennings student assignment plan was built on the premise f that the judge would require the district to operate Ish and the nearby Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School in the same 1993-94 academic year. But Wright ended up accepting the districts proposal to close Ish and let the students attend King, so the district scrapped Jennings plan. The new King school is scheduled to open Aug. 23, the first day of classes. As a district employee, Jennings gained experience writing student assignment plans for the district. He is now teaching at Hendrix College in Conway.FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1993  9B LR district delays assignment of 12,000 to elementary schools BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The 1993-94 school assignments for as many as 12,000 elementary pupils in the Little Rock School District have not been completed and were not mailed as scheduled Thursday. Marie Parker, associate superintendent for organizational and learning equity, said Thursday that the need to establish an attendance zone for the new King Interdistrict Elementary School has caused a slight delay in sending out assignments to the districts elementary schools. The only exceptions are the elementary magnet school assignments, which have been mailed. Junior high and senior high school assignments were mailed Thursday as scheduled. Parker said she did not know exactly when the elementary assignments will be mailed. A proposed attendance zone for the new King School at Ninth Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive has been developed, she said. That proposal has been submitted to the superintendent and the districts attorney, who will pass the proposal on to the other parties in the 10-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit and to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright for approval. Also, community meetings are being planned for next week to allow members of the public to review the proposed zone boundaries for the new school. Parker said it is necessary to establish the King zone so that children who live in the zone can be assigned to the new school when other school assignments are made. Otherwise, children might be assigned-to one school now, only to have their assignments changed once the new zone is approved. 1 King is supposed to serve children who live in the area of the school, as well as white children from the Pulaski County Special School District who volunteer to attend the school. . The school, which is to be completed by mid-July, will accommodate about 700 children and will have a special academic theme. A district commit-  tee has interviewed candidates for principal of the school. Nei- ther the principal nor the theme of the school has been selected. Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette  THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997  West LR neighbors to meet, size up idea of single school ARK.-\\NSAS DEMOCR.-\\T-GAZErTE West Little Rock parents who I want to learn more about their public schools will have the oppor- [ tunity to speak with Little Rock School District officials this i evening. ' School district parent re- ' cruiters from the Student Assignment Office will meet with parents today in the Books-A-Million party room at 12201 W. Markham St. from 6 to 7 p.m. Maryanne Campbell, a resident of the Sandpiper Creek subdivision, organized the meeting to rally her neighbors behind the idea - of sending their children to a sin- i gle school, in effect making it their neighborhood school. Most children in the Sandpiper Creek area off Bowman Road south of Kanis Road are in the attendance zones of Wilson or Dodd elementary schools. In fact, Camp: bell said, very few of them attend either one, with many opting out of the public school system altogeth-. er. I dont think its normal for kids to have to go to private, schools, but its an accepted norm here, Campbell said. Unless we imite, nothing will change. Becky Rather, one of the school districts two full-time parent recruiters, said that children from- this part of west Little Rock are scattered through Wilson, Dodd,' magnet and private schools. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2003  5B |Parents question diversity plan at forum zone boundary lines for the BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A proposal to lessen the role that race plays in student assignments to some Little Rock magnet schools may be intended to promote diversity, but it has the potential to create more one-race schools, parents told district leaders Tuesday night. About a half-dozen parents attended the forum at the districts administration building on proposed changes to the assignment plan that could go into effect next school year. That plan, if adopted by the School Board on Oct. 23, would take into account a students standardized test scores and family income level, in addition to the students race, in creating a mix of students in the districts 12 special-academic-program or magnet schools that have attendance zones. Thats different than the current system in which race is the main consideration in attempting to achieve a particular mix of students at each of those schools. Delaney Fleming, a black parent, questioned how relying on family income and test scores could lead to diversity in student enrollment when black families are typically poorer than whites and black children on average have lower test scores than their white classmates. He said the two new criteria reinforce racial differences. What safeguards will be instituted to ensure that the plan wont resegregate the schools? Fleming asked. What steps will be taken so schools in the western part of the city wont become predominantly white while the schools in the test of the district will remain or become predominantly black? Junious Babbs, associate superintendent for administrative services, said a new plan is necessary because the district has been declared unitary or desegregated by the U.S. District Court in terms of its student assignments to schools. The district cannot continue to use race as a basis for assignments without that being considered discriminatory. TTie district has the option of assigning all students to schools based on the attendance zones in which they live, Babbs said. About 70 percent of districts 25,000 students already go to their attendance zone schools while 10 percent attend the attendance-zone magnet schools. However, district leaders decided to keep schoolchoice options after getting the results of a community survey that showed 90 percent of parents and school staff said diversity is important in schools and more than 80 percent favored school choice. Babbs agreed that the district, which is now 69 percent black, may end up with more one-race schools. But district leaders will monitor schools to prevent the inequitable distribution of resources among them, he said. Debbie Carreiro, a white parent at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, said giving top priority to students living in the attendance zone will likely leave few seats for others to transfer to Dunbar for its unique gifted education and intematioii^ studies programs. Her own family selected attendance-zone magnet schools years ago when her west Little Rock attendance-zone school was too full I hit all the negatives in the Little Rock School District and found a positive, she said. The proposed assignment plan wont change existing attendanceschools. Nor would It affect the way students are assigned to the six original magnet schools  Parkview High, Mann Middle, and Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams elementaries  which do not have attendance zones. Students now attending the attendance-zone magnet and specialty schools will be grandfathered, or be able to continue attending those schools.O c t o b 8 r 3 0. 2 0 0 3 1  CD  oo CD u !/\u0026gt; co X u 3 tf) o !Z) OD CZ3 s  g I/) o ap:: o C g b s !3 0-3 e CO s  G 03 03 z: \u0026lt;0 s g^ M I 13 .S' SO\n S P \u0026lt;U C *3 .2- OJ -S aj *3a-i.3 QJ fl) fl S\" - 00^ Q.-5 o \" 2 W O 3 (U -2 S  tUn boO Gc I, 9P^ 'J X e 3\u0026gt; C SJ2 e w J3 3 J g r A \u0026gt; 0 ) G,  2 G   Oe 5 C s C S p-S^cgS iJ-Ss p o.-a  ?  u tS .S bn I \u0026gt;. G \u0026lt;U C *3 O U n) fi U U X U ' uIS*3 Eg UI-O'S.^ 2I :s g 35 M s o s g 2UD PO3 ngj utj- SflrSis o \u0026lt;U U p Tun nof O V proposal stands, all lawsuits, he said. IldllOlCl children who apply to go to mag- net schools that have attendance tor, just not the only factor, as  Continued from Page 1B zones would be put into the ap- the result of a U.S. Supreme ifications, but isnt the fact that plication pool. But students who Court order last summer on Student race can still be a fac-you have this plan running more differ the most  in terms of admission decisions at the Uni-whites away from the school dis- race, academic achievement and versity of Michigan law school, trict? asked one black audience family income  from the stu- Babbs said. Although the case member. dents living around the schools centered on a specific law Russ Carter, a parent of two would be given preference in the school, the decision is viewed in district students, urged Junious selection process. In other legal circles as having implica- Babbs, an associate superin- words, their names might go in- tions for admissions procedures tendent for the school district, to the pool more times, giving in other education systems, and others to adjust the pro- ^ejn a greater chance of being The change in the Little Rock posed system so the magnet and ^dpjnly selected for the school, assignment plan is being prospecialty schools can retain their 'JS jfiiue Honeycutt, whose chil- posed for next school year even current racial ratio goals of 60 dren attend King Elementary, though Wilsons order on unipercent black and 40 percent said the proposal is an attempt tary status is being appealed to white. to prevent the district from fac- the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-, Gina Parker, another parent, ing another 30 or more years in peals and state lawmakers are on  o. \u0026gt;\u0026gt; s\nJ VI y VaI ? j= o .g .2 o o. .w   cflTSflwi^O.S- ^-5543.2. G 13 o G D3 i:\n3  13 IK 3 13 3 2^ \"G _fl j_i Ui .y o .5  Q c-T GSg 3 2 \u0026lt;U 2 .G crt *3 aj ftO ' .eg5 2 \u0026gt;1 Cm \u0026lt;D ..Q tc aczj \u0026lt;9 - g G S G 5 n SP-E g \u0026gt; .G G-- G S - B S's -n I\" .17) o also asked for some assurances court. the brink of meeting in a special about the racial make-up of the Ann Marshall, the federal de- legislative session to consider i schools under a new plan. Mt E Da 3-2 3 s S* G O .G ,0 -G efl E G  S'S*\" 2 S 7 .3 K'S \".a u n '2 o o V.  SS rt O D3 W \u0026gt; .y  fS e O V) 73 .!U c xj .5 U   O O 3 2 tUJ {UJ JI3- Q_ 2 Ui fl tuf) ^3 o 3 G G  X D C iZ)/3GGa)gJ'(UC^X 'U'^_ .w cfl*- E spa P  H  2 \"73 S' S?-2 it li nJ uJ G m flj fl /i _ hG G S bfi O D3 d U u u \u0026lt;D r\u0026gt; G-XJ j3 no c/: .3 lA  O  oO u\u0026lt;ut /()/) 5 O nJ  X b i- 9(/-) u -o) *o oo ca G O 132 4G=  S J a 2  c E  (Z)y) 13 I Im yj G 13 G jj:\n- - - tZ) Q segregation monitor in Pulaski a range of education reforms, in- I dont want to see us back County who said she was at- eluding the way school districts where we were [with racial seg- tending the session as a district are funded. regation], Parker said. Is there parent, said the fed-e--r-a-l- -c--o-u--r-t-s Pressed by a parent at the some middle ground where we arent actively forcing the school Tuesday session about why the could have 60/40 split without districts to abandon race-based hurry to change the system when making race the sole factor? Is school assignments and that an there are so many uncertainties, there a way to design that? alteration now might be prema- Babbs said it was being done on LeRoy Mayfield, a black par- ture.--------------------------------- the basis of research and legal  ent who lives in southwest Lit- Babbs said at both forums advice. : tie Rock and has children at this week that the plan would af-ra Parkview and Central high feet the 10 percent of district stu- g I schools and Williams Magnet El- dents who typically opt for trans- signment process,\" he said. The , ementary School, complained fers to the 12 affected magnet legal decisions indicate to us that I that the proposal is too compli- schools. The district could go to we must change. We are step-csted. a strict attendance zone olan. nine out on that Snnreme Cmirf We would be ill-advised to retain our present student as- . a strict attendance zone plan, phig out on that Supreme Court This is totally confusing, he Babbs said, but results of an Au- ae^isjon. :S 5 \"y S u 5P o \u0026lt;u ! c ts .G  C.2 o o c t, c J2 _  2  o \" X o tn .. O \u0026gt; u 0 w 2 N o on u  .^\"0 \u0026lt;u 2 3 P -G G *' c5 E 5 \u0026lt;D (Z) I \"Gd= 2 0 X Ss o (/) E h  2 ^12 \u0026lt;/) S 1 _M_M. ['/5) *- 3 G \"G fl c OJ G O U  *0 U \"O u said. In laymans terms, how can gust survey sHbwed that over- 'iTh'^ School Board was ini- I get my son into, say, Dunbar? whelming percentages of par- tially scheduled to vote on the Babbs said that under the cur- ents and employees believe stu- changes Oct. 23 but delayed a rent system. Mayfields child is dent diversity and school choice vote until Nov, 6. ineligible to transfer to Dunbar are important. Board member Baker Kurrus because only whites can trans- Babbs has repeatedly cited told parents Tuesday that he is fer from another attendance court orders as the reason for up in the air about what the zone into Dunbar. Mayfields making the proposal. district should do child can still apply to the dis- One of those orders was UU..SS.. I think there is a chance tricts six original magnet schools District Judge Bill Wilsons Sept, we wont do anything this year, unaffected by the proposal sys- 13, 2002, decision declaring the Kurrus said. There is a risk in tem. Those are Parkview, Maim, Little Rock district unitary, or doing that, but there is a chance Carver, Gibbs, Williams and desegregated, in most areas of it wont change. The Sth Circuit Booker magnet schools. its operations. The district has could rule tomorrow that this Wilma Hill, who is raising her spent the past 40 years under district is not unitary. What grandchildren, said education court order trying to achieve a would be most productive quality has to be the main con- racial mix of students in schools, would be for you to communi-cern of the district but also ob- Once unitary, a district cannot cate with your board members served that the proposed as- make race-based school assign- not what you think about all of signment system offers some ments without risking accusa- this but how do you think it hope of diversity. tions of discrimination in new should be. M O HM jS rSa? G[fl suz U U a X U E 3 _ flj O u L 2 \" 5 U* O \"  73 -c c E \u0026gt;-B 5 S SS Ovio.SranjU.SpQ e SO O' O. C _ oS\"G y) arot abjf*l'^i p53 S P-G- C0 05 2-g.S S  1 S \u0026gt;,5 o.i cc-^.aocc^ \u0026lt;\u0026lt;ySN_gMQ.2Sr uu .1 ufc 3 a 5.: W C \u0026lt;u Q V) \"O G g *CH C CZTJ f-flj .3 O 3 N di nj -3 1^2 E O o M-s g 2 g u S*-5 3 G 2 (/\u0026gt; o o CM (D E (D o z LR board tom on factoring in students race Assignment plan eludes panel Race  Continued from Page IB The desire by some board members to eliminate race from the assignment process puts the district at odds with parents, Berkley initially motioned to approve the policies that would have created the framework for the new assignment plan. Strickland seconded the motion but later expressed reservations. Day asked Strickland to withdraw her second to the motion, causing the motion to die and no new motion was put forward. \"I was counting in my head, and I think the vote [on the revisions] would have been 3- 3, Day said later. That would not have done anybody any good. This is so important. Its a lightning rod of an issue. We \u0026gt; ............... ------ .need to be unanimous or close even in a diminished role  is The other schools are Hall, Junious Babbs, the associate su- to^t Sharply divided over unacceptable as it would give Chris Heller, the districts at- whether race should be a factor some preference to white stu- Cloverdale, Mabelvale the ch^ges in the assignment torney, warned the board that , r.. AA A 1. . flv ..X. _ J__x__. J__x____ ,1 .  fl, flx XJ A fl.ff.y.xM ... r.1 r. T^l 9 3X7 9 n CT 73 73-17* 17 .  .  .  x . The proposed plan calls for employees and community family income and test scores members who responded over- to be considered, along with whelmingly in favor of school student race, as factors in per- choice and diversity in a district mitting students to transfer out survey in August. of their neighborhood schools That was validated by par- to go to any of 12 magnet or ents attending a series of three special-program schools such public forums on the plan in teas Central High, Dunbar Mag- cent weeks. net Middle and Martin Luther In the public sessions, race BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE continued reliance on King Jr. Magnet Elementary was the factor on which there schools. was the most agreement, said Fair and McClellan high perintendent who is overseeing I in making student assignments dents over black students for Henderson middle schools\nplan. They wanted to go back .......auigiuuciit v.ci Miduik biuucnts lor ----, -----.-----\"z7\n---------------: i . ' ,  to certain magnet schools, a transfers to the special-program Romine. Washington and to using race alone, stymied Little Rock School schools. Rockefeller elementaries.---------------Several of the parents at the Board made no decision Thurs- Im all for promoting di- Those schools serve students forums said they feared the diday on proposed assignment versity [at the magnet schools] their surrounding neighbor- minished reliance plan revisions that would put but I dont think it is appropri- hoods  most of which are pre- would result in some of the the district into compliance with ate to use race as a classifica- dominantly black  but also ac- magnet schools becoming vir- federal case law. tion, Kurrus said. It punishes transfer students from else- tually black while other schools The boards failure to act some people because of their where in the city. Virtually all would become predominantly , marked the second time in two race\nit promotes some people white. weeks that it has delayed a de- because of their race, and I think have been white. Babbs said the assignment cision on changes to the as- hs time to put that behind us. signment plan. The delays are Im very concerned about using beginning to hamstring districts race as a diversifier, even for preparations for the 2004-05 reasons we think are good. I pre-registration period that be- think were making a mistake. gins the last week in January. Board members Sue Strick- , . Additionally, district leaders land and Mike Daugherty also and income  as  including the districts at- said they were unwilling to vote **hnhibtv tnr c.  torney  say that a failure to for the plan because of the con- change the existing system of tinued use of race as a factor, assigning students to schools while board members Larry based solely on student race Berkley, Tony Rose and Bryan makes the district vulnerable to Day favored it. Board member accusations of discrimination Katherine Mitchell, who has and new lawsuits. been critical of the plan, missed But board member Baker the meeting. of those students to this point whitCA on race its The proposed revisions proposal was prompted by the would enable all students to ap- districts release last year from ply for transfers to a special pro- federal supervision of most of gram school, but more weight its desegregation efforts and by would be given to students a U.S. Supreme Court decision whose race, achievement level that said race cannot be the sole measured by factor in school admission deeligibility for subsidized school cisions. meals  would provide the Its a unique approach.\" Day most diversity in a school. In said Thursday night about the other words, the names of those district proposal. \"Theyve tried students would go into the pool jq protect what we have, yet of applicants more often giving conform with the law. It's im- them a better chance of being pedant to me to protect what selected in the random lottery, have been working on for so Kurrus said the proposed plans See RACE, Page 5B long without ending up back in court. there is a legal risk of new lawsuits if the assignment system is not changed. I think given the state of the law and our goals this is probably the best we can do. Weve tried to follow the Supreme Courts guidance. Other (^stricts are in the same situation trying the same kinds of things. Asked about eliminating race from the assignment equation and relying just on farnily income and student test scores for diversity in schools, Heller said there is a significant overlap between students of low income and black students, \"but you would have less racial diversity if you took race out ... maybe 15 to 20 percent less racial diversity. Rose said Thursday night that he expects the board to discuss the issue again and attempt to make a decision by the boards next meeting, Nov. 20.April 2 3. 2 0 0 4 11 to study pupa assignment plan ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Mike Daugherty, a Little Rock School Board member, and Ju- nious Babbs, the Little Rock School Districts associate superintendent for administrative services, will co-chair an U-member committee charged with recommending a long-term student assignment plan for a dozen of the districts magnet and other special-program schools. School Board President Tony Rose announced the names of the committee leaders and members Thursday night. The committee will likely conduct one or more public forums before making a recommendation on a plan to the School Board, possibly as soon as mid-June, Rose said. Faced last fall with some legal issues that made a change in the old assignment plan necessary, School Board members struggled with the issue before settling in December on a one- year plan for 2004-05 only. The board agreed at the time to form a committee to make recommendations on an assignment plan for future years. The assignment-plan changes affect those special-program schools  other than the citys six original magnet schools  that were initially designed to attract a racially diverse student body even if students didnt live in a schools surrounding neighborhood. Some of the affected schools include Central and Hall highs as well as Dunbar Middle and Martin Luther King Jr., Elementary schools. As the plan has been changed for the coining year, diversity in student achievement and family income are considered along with student race. The temporary plan carries no guarantees that the enrollments at the affected schools wont become virtually all black while others become largely white. The committee members are Lisa Black, Tom Brock, Jody Carreiro, Tommy Hodges, Duane Jackson, Mallory JeweU, Freeman McKindra, Stephanie Purifoy, Jan Vasques, Alma Viscarra and Carol Young.August 2 5. 2 0 0 4 Group demands LR halt assignment plan School district panel stands by changes 75 00 to ft 73 P o y3 y y) fcj C 3'cR 2. yT y\u0026gt; n - 0 3-^ 3 CL O 5 Ts' as BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAMAZETTE A local activist group Tuesday called on Little Rock School District leaders to slow the train down on developing a new student assignment plan for 2005-06 so officials can get more public input on a new plan and find ways to improve some neighborhood schools. The Concerned Citizens United, which formed earlier this year to advocate for students who organizers say are underserved, made the demands at a news conference outside the districts Student Registration Office. District leaders worked over the summer with a 13-member citizens committee to formulate a new assignment plan for 12 specialty program schools, including Central High, Dunbar Middle and King Elementary, which are popular with students and parents. The committee is expected to put the finishing touches on its proposal over the next several days so it can be presented to the School Board in early September. Terence Bolden, chairman of e Concerned Citizens United, said Tuesday that more legwork needs to be done before any new plan is enacted. He urged the district to hold more public forums on assignment plan issues. Three forums were held in the summer, but community members who might have otherwise attended i were likely distracted by vacations and not necessarily focused on school-related issues, he said. Additionally, he said district leaders and the committee should include measures in the new plan to improve the quality of education at individual neighborhood schools, 'We believe the student assignment plan cannot be looked at alone, Bolden said. Teacher assignments to schools and the quality of education provided at neighborhood schools should be part of the approach to developing a long-term scheme for student assignments that the community at large can sup- See PLAN, Page 5B ys yj S' o' 5- y\u0026gt;  fO w \"t:  ... 2 CT 3 - \u0026gt; P ni 2 3 o- n2\u0026lt;^ftO'**a3F 2 5 as :: o 13 S-- ft S'- - 3 ft='\u0026lt;(ren ooeg-Q Stj *- Z^x5?3 to^^3S^ O ra i gra  J-g ig O S 1'5? HS: ft C c  3 \u0026amp; -r, O C 73 -t as r'e.S \u0026gt; \u0026lt;5 - a- ~  c \u0026lt; -. S 3 in O o c r* ys ft y as  2 S to 73 fB 3 n as n o = 2 5 g 5 CL 73 I ft ft era \u0026lt; y\u0026gt; m ft ft (JQ  as =! a.:  LOCjq \u0026amp;3 TJ ft c - 2 3- S Z 3^ ft\nrt O yi ft 5 O tT ft 5^ c 13**' BJ c n * 3 c 2 ni 03 ft yi ifS S c -  . 3 c  S 2 2 o o 2 ft 325\"-.8S3 \u0026gt;3-2.5^rt'3S2' 2 73 E 7) Q c ft O' 3 ft 75 TJ as as Q 3 = 3 3 ft 2 o = S' 2. -Sn^'S- 73 O as Q. ^3 3 T3 0} co a\u0026gt; I ai CD = s:  Sie'S Y P ft ft 73 o 2 a . s ft as 7Q : 3 73 5 ft c-c ft cu o O O 3 T* ft C. 2.73 TJ CL 0 ST to  y) 2-  03 C/i ft ft CT.'S \u0026lt; ft = 2.S S\ns g-i g\"? i\n= 5. - ^2. 3 . 8 ?g-g'E.2.ra3ra o n \"o'g = = 5 e=  2.Sirs -S S'\" \u0026lt;  !   n-?  c. 5 E-\" = . ra ~!,312 ra\":ot! ci-5- ra 05 3- -g-o s 2 =-3 o re Si : ft 3 CL 2 ni no 2. w 2 O 3 3 ft O J. 03 O as f? \u0026amp;} ,7' w 1/3 ft as ? 3 ft \u0026amp;3 3 ft o 2 cn yj H rt,  rt .  in CL as 3-3 u 3 K' 03 = 5' 3 S'  no 7 3.2: =r s g1^=SS 3 rt- 75 CC 3* Bi -------------  ft\u0026gt; a. 2. to   CT to to 7= rt. Lf  ft =  3  3  rt*   -3 3 CT* \" ri'ftrt. oSl-^ns: clOv3 3 3 cl2 rzT K 2 g S w alS y]  y\u0026gt; irt cC \u0026amp;} y3 3 n ft b3 y) 3 S g -CT o 2 3 ft CT O 3 O O 3 ft  rt- -1 I 73 to ft it \"O 71 rj 73 O __ 3* C n. 3 o x.  2 n DT- fn as o Z75'?2 05 O S3 ft 3\u0026gt; ft ft CD C CL O  as 0 2 = 3 .2 OS a cr as \" ft 1 Bs t/s as 3 as C- .^2 o o ? * S. 75 3  C . 73 O 75 O (re N 3 c =r i 3\n? = fl,^ y) 2. cn fc X BS 7) as as 3* to 3- 2 W5 cr fh O. o C CL. ftrtto 'F'  \"'\"2b -S-S 3 :g,a o 3 3 S-=S!?.' = 3.03 2 c 2. . 3. 5. CTO n = s'i = \"rag 5'2 5 O TJ ft XJ o / y3 - a. o 5:3 = GO f Zt. r- = 75 as 03 o Cl - ..c ~ - as 3- O 5. ft = C/t = \u0026gt;5 ETTft 3 3'\u0026lt; - n 3. r. '\u0026lt;^3f6gn\u0026gt;3to  S \" a- m g  W - ft O CD CL 2 c^c  to X- ft 3. ft ft w 3- 3t\n as c S-o^ B, Q 73 JU 3 rt ** r*.  i ? ft ft S\nra g'o 3 = o.ra QQ Cl d . ft to ft to   Q 3 73  S g S m 3 3* O CLj^ ft r I O  2  to CT S CL 52. O CL as x\nft 7) f\u0026amp; f^ ZT* 3* to 2- 2 BS 75  ^eng ra S  -^5 ra g 2 g 3-'.. .nSS^gns- ^g O J erg  3 2. to LS yj ... 5'0'g ra o M ^n?-gS.g3 ra3\"?ra. gNSa.wg$g.3Ci. :Lsra_oggS5a.5-3o^3,^gSre. = ^o = w = ra5S!iire35a. gg$3craaQra-'\u0026lt;_ = raTO'Orj_-, sSraJ'ra^ _3_ \"  2=-S-.re-nig^o0 2 3. N 75 to o 2 CTrt.  ^30^\n^ \u0026lt;5 ft Ti ft 7) -\"Cre 3 \u0026lt; ft 5. ft ft - ra -? S S S == 2 S^ra-2 o H re 5  nJS.-3 3: ft 2.cre to ? s. ft a. {/) ft 3 2 3 ft 2. O O 5  S\n 2 S - as Cl O ft as ft Q. O !=L 3\" 3 3 ft Cro 2 ra ys  0 X,  a K.1 \u0026gt;-t cr ft  3. N o 2. (T 2 5  ft 3 73 ft ft CL C n as 7) c o *2 3 to a\u0026gt; . uj  3 3 n. n n\u0026gt; rt. ft 73 3 Tftft*i^7)30 2.2 11, 5 ft C - 73 ZT ft ft 3 3 = ys y) zi BJ o .. 03 y\u0026gt; = 3 S 3 BS CL Q- \u0026lt; o ere \u0026lt;  -2. r m '75 5 O . \u0026lt; \"J ft 2.  3  S \"I 3- 5 5 w \" 3\" _ 7) 0 75 ft 0 ft ft 3. 3\" ft S-i :eS'3 5 ?E2?_Xin3ra -  re o  \" 3'  7- ? ,2 5 Q- 73 ft 73 3 -ere ft S \u0026lt; 3:' 2 2  == fS nJ \" w 2_ y, \u0026lt;2wto3^2a''' 2-~cl\u0026lt; c c 3 \u0026lt; I fp I fD r.* f5 rtf f5 3 O CL - 22 - '5 to  L CX.2 ft = S 'E- S S -U as ft  r ft as as n ZTs \u0026gt;1  i 3 ft 3  7  \" ra . T* ^T* f5 o \u0026lt; ra 3 Z = 5' 2.- o * n '*3 73 ft O o as Bi 3 X 2 O 3  O C ft CTO rt 8  tw rt 2 tj S-\" ? era 5 \"o' (/3  3  ere 3\" ?r i\n: \u0026amp; 2  g-s o  '' 3 as  -.3 3 rt. to ft 3 yi ft ~ --------re 3 3 ft yi O ? ? w O O S ns a. 3. as ft as 3 2 Q to fD a. 3 n ~ S 3\" ra p 3' o'grs = r ft 3-G.3-3 '  rt 2rt^a5ftrtf/3 rtto(-t73l-|rtCl,3^U^y)^^ft ~'rt^as. 73rttoJr373^2 rt 2 BS K b 7) O 2 T3  3 fB Cu as 7) 3 O Si f^ 73  \u0026gt; _, - to 3* O 75 2. M 7 to ft n to  3 O = =25 o o W ra a. c to o ft - as ft ft CL Si X' O ft O ft 3 Vi C\u0026gt; 3* O 3- Z ft ft 3 o  ft ft o *\u0026lt; O- to 2.3 * 3 ft CD . cl' 2 ao w 3-ra 8 5 o ra K  SiO - 3 85 Si 3. 2 're' - ra - - - 5 s ra as 3 73 Z o 5 c 3 ft ft CL 3 n Q ft o 7)\n S era  2^22 :Z' 3. S. ftrt rt. 3-^ 2 2  o hi zrt 73 M . r \u0026lt; 3* I 1 ft I O I ft ft 2. re 3* 75 to ft ** 73 ZC-' s   a.\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_764","title":"Student assignment","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":["1973/2005"],"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","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Student assignment"],"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/764"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["228 pages"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. LR-64-C-155 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) \u0026gt; Defendants. ) i DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT } -A STIPULATION Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race Is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother dr sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5, The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of \"tracking\" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term \"tracking\" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of \"achievement grouping\" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the sepondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings . 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' in resolving desegregation problems . The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. X- JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ROBERT V. LIGHT' Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973. ATTEST^ President t. I, Secretary Page 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U-Si DI8TRJCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 CA^R.fi^S, CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CEP. CLERK The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the \"Partial K-6 Plan\".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation, the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Kock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, which was simply a continuation of the original litigation, was fxlea in 1964. 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT JThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent becli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b.b% 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 5. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979^ 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year, it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work, the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly ' in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalraueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable 30b of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"6535\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceived stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composed of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much in^jut from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory committee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. a 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black -School closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicated that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding burden on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded\" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where 8 white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terms of an attendance plan in 1982.- - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff, programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenoent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ she was not hired by the Board. for the vacant position, but Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one anu he harbors some bitterness toward the District. Dr. :e 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influenced personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any dis- criminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There IS no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to Dr. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in dispropor- tionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to do so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers, that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Art. St^. 80-404, seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scnools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken'v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena Cit' of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Bd. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race. schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. at 26. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena Cit- Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial consi- derations. and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitled to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case. Partial K-6 Plan IS a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 TO: FROM: SUBOECT: 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 Monitoring and Program Development New Location of Student Assignment Office TheLRSD Student Assignment Office is now located on the southeast corner of Capitol (5th) and Sherman Streets. Our new office telephone number is 324-2272. Hailing Address: LRSO Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 228/28/92 . 16:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dist 121002  'Sy. Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Mrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake, Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. I appreciate their cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden sincerely. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools APPROVED: Ann BrownOffice 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 Date: February 17,1993 To: Marie Parker Frown Subject: Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-1994 Thank you for sending a copy of the LRSDs \"Student Assignment Handbook for 1993-94,\" which ODM received February 9,1993 promptly after requesting it. Ill appreciate routinely receiving a copy of such materials as they are published. I have certain questions and observations about some of the Handbooks information. Since this guidebook impacts the districts current registration and assignment process, lets get together as soon as possible to discuss the following: 1. What is the basis upon which the district has determined the maximum percentage of black students which may be enrolled in an elementary area school? The following statement appears on page 1 of the Handbook: The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. However, according to the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 139): The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white.And the Interdistrict Plan (page 4) states: There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. Basing calculations of \"acceptable ranges\" on the plans language, I concur that the minimum black percentage for each elementary area schools is 40 percent, but I cant agree with the Handbooks stated maximum percentages for elementary area schools. 2. What data were used as the basis for calculating the \"acceptable ranges\" for attendance zone schools listed on Handbook pages 1,13, and 20? Even using the percentage ranges identified on page 1 of the Handbook, Im unable to calculate the same \"acceptable ranges\" that appear throughout the Handbook. Using figures from the LRSDs \"Summary of October 1 Enrollment 1992-93\" (copy attached,) ODMs calculations yield the following \"acceptable ranges\": Elementary 40.00% - 72.00% Junior High 50.25% - 75.38% Senior High 45.00% - 67.50% 3. If the Summarys October 1, 1992 enrollment figures are used as the basis for calculating the \"elementary acceptable range,\" then three of the four sections in the chart on page 15 of the Handbook (the \"Student Assignment Chart\" for \"Elementary Acceptable Racial Range\") are incorrect. Using the October 1 percentages from the LRSD Summary as the calculation basis, three of the four sections that appear on the page 15 chart differ by one student. For example, \"Class Size of 20 Students (Kindergarten)\" would change from a minimum of 5 white students to 6 white students and from a maximum of 15 black students to 14 black students. There would also be a difference of one student on both the minimum and maximum numbers in classes of 25 students and classes of 28 students. 4. What is the basis for the Handbooks statement about the racial population of Washington? Page 17 of the Handbook asserts that \"the racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white.\" Yet the LRSD Desegregation Plan (page 144) states that \"the target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\"5. Why is Baker Interdistrict School omitted from the Handbook and why is Crystal Hill listed as an interdistrict school rather than a magnet? Page 18 of the Student Assignment Handbook lists Romine and King as interdistrict schools, omitting PCSSDs Baker Interdistrict Elementary School. In this same section, Crystal Hill is incorrectly listed as an interdistrict school. Last year, the Court designated the school a magnet as requested by the PCSSD without objection from the parties, including the LRSD. 6. What has been done to correct information in the Handbook that includes NLRSD as a full-fledged participant in the elementary M-to-M program? Pages 19-20 of the Handbook include NLRSD students as participants in M-to-M transfers. According to recent information from NLRSD (see attached,) the district will no longer send new elementary students to LRSD under the M-to-M program. cc: Mac BerndI SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 19 9 2-9 3 ir'. V H ITE Tl T'U TCTLL K 715 1188 19 30 4. 719 1305 21 204 5 IQl 1323 30 2060 4 5 6 UN TOTAL ELEM 7 Q 9 UN TOTAL JR HIGH 10 11 UN TOTAL SR HIGH SP, lAL CHOOLS FOUR YR. OLD DI 'RIOT TOTAL 67 3 6 5 4 6 6 5 640 46 4319 611 591 23 1948 719 704 7 00 8 2131 43 141 9082 118 5 1214 1295 1367 117 8994 1431 1430 1241 36 413 8 1326 1098 93 9 15 3373 28 188 16,726 '^SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - : M 34 23 28 0 190 21 1 80 34 4 8 41 0 0 11 404 OTHER 135 227 re 18 9 2 1891 1988 2034 163 14,003 \"\u0026gt; T T q T 074 1853 60 6166 2079 1850 1680 5632 2 6 , 71 340 CATEGORY: IK IMO /AMER. IND. OTHER,. (S?:/ / ,7/ \nT 81 t 64 6 2 6 4 6 5 67 6 4 6 El 69 67 60 67 6 4 5 9 56 6 5 60 39 55 64 20ft NET3I LETTILE SJ ! J 21 '-Q) -i Li ADMINISTRATP/E OFFICES 2700 POPKVR STREET January 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2 3 1953 OHics 0! Cesegresaucn Me: iC'iny Dear Mrs, Brown: Please be advised that the majority-to-minority transfer option will not be available for additional elementary students in the North Little Rock School District during the second semester of the 1992-93 school year. Currently the elementary school population in North Little Rock Schools is majority black with a 50.6 percent ratio. Elementary students currently enrolled under the m.ajority-to-minority option will not be affected by this change. The North Little Rock School District will continue to participate in majority-to-minority transfers at the secondary level in the following schools: North Little Rock High School (East and West), Lakewood Middle School and Ridgeroad Middle School. Rose City Middle School now has a majority black enrollment, thus can no longer accept or permit majority-to- minority transfers. Enrollment at all schools in the North Little Rock School District will be closely and continually monitored. If any changes occur that affect racial balances at any organizational level, the District will notify the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the Magnet Review Committee and all parties of any adjustments for majority-to-minority participation. If there are questions, please feel free to call Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, North Little Rock School District, 771-8000. Sincerely yours, James R. Smith Superintendent of Schools JRS:aw CC: Magnet Review Committee All Parties AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0637 501/771-8000 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1993 OlticQ of Desegregation Monitoring FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 Basis of calculations: October 1, 1992 enrollment Elementary\nEnrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Total 14,003 2,057 Area School Enrl. 11,946 Black 8994 1140 7854 %Black 64 55,42 65.75 65.75 X .125 8.22 73.97 74.00% Maximum Black % 40.00% Minimum Black % (Set by Plan) Junior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 6166 849 5317 4138 505 3633 67 59.48 68.33 68.33 X .125 8.54 76.87 76.75% Maximum Black % 68.33 X .25 = 17.08 51.25% Minimum Black % Senior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 5632 871 4761 3378 501 2877 60 57.52 60.43 60.43 X .125 7.55 67.98 68.00% Maximum Black % 60.43 X .25 15.11 45.32 45.50% Minimum Black %1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE I-' March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIG: gjjgjgi In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Wiltiams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. AU junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information caU the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000f * RECESVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 '95 WESTERN DIVISION53H 9 PH 5' foliice of Desegregation Monitorinj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS u 1 I.-\n. V. NO. LR-C82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SPECIAL STATUS REPORT In order to complete the student assignment process. the Little Rock School District must delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification of elementary student assignments. Magnet school, junior high school, and high school assignments will be made as scheduled. The Little Rock School District will file a pleading within the next five days concerning elementary school assignments. 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 5 Bar No. kaitayXSfscial Suba Report CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this Sth, day of March, 1993: 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle: ka(hy\\SpectAl Status Report 2  03 10.93 09:22 0501 324 2032 L R School [list \u0026lt;?hrls Holler @1112 1102 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 10, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DELAY ELEMENTARY AREA SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS In order to complete the student assignment process for the 1993-94 school year and to assign the attendance zone for the new Marcin Luther King Jr. Elemencary school opening the same year, the Little Rock School District will slightly delay the previously scheduled March 10 notification date for elementary student assignments. Carver, Gibbs, Booker, and Williams Elementary Magnet School assignments will be made as scheduled. All junior and senior high assignments will also be made as scheduled. For further information call the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2272. ### 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000nMt bF-RECEiVEO July 27, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 UlflCc Jill 2 7 1993 Dear Mrs. Brown: In regard to the student assignments that are made for the Little Rock School District. I feel that the assignments are unfair in the overall assessment of the primary target markets in which you are focusing upon. Case in point being the issue of King Elementary, in which the Little Rock School District approached the downtown business areas as being the primary target market for white patrons, which was not disclosed honestly in a survey circulated at Arkansas Children's Hospital when voting on a theme for that particular school and at the time of registration of the children. Our paperwork was completed during early Spring 1993 and when following up on the paperwork as to its completion. We were informed that the slots had been filled, and contradicting what we had been told, a local newspaper ran several articles on the King Elementary School, indicating that slots were still available, but not specifying that the slots available are for white students only. Not only does this constitute false advertisement but a certain prejudice seems to be self-evident. We do not feel that our children should deprived of receiving the best education possible, which we feel is in the Little Rock School District, we are approaching school starting Just around the comer and have no where to go. This matter will not be taken lightly and if there is not any type of satisfactory response to this letter very shortly, then we will be forced to take legal action. Thank you for your time and cooperation in advance and will be expecting to hear from you in the near future. I know that we all have the same goal in mind, which is the children. Sincerely, ^.NJ320-2915 Nursing Manager Outpatient Services Arkansas Childrens Hospital Lauren Russell/320-4370 Marketing Assistant Arkansas Childrens Hospital AUG-23-93 MON 10:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 A. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION O fv' r\u0026lt;'.' 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERTENORS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION .TO ENFORCE AGREEMENT OF PARTIES The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its motion for clarification of the King Interdistrict School's student assignments or, in the alternative, motion to enforce agreement of the parties, states: 1. The parties herein are operating under court-approved desegregation plans and settlement plans. In particular, the LRSD is operating under a Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. It is also acting under an Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. 2 . The plans make provisions regarding the various types of schools in the several schools districts. Namely, the plans refer to magnet schools, interdistrict schools, elementary area schools and incentive schools. The intent of the plans was for each type of school to serve specified purposes and perhaps, certain patrons.AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 3. The plans also contain provisions outlining the recruitment and assignment of students to the various types of schools. For instance, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that students will be assigned to area schools by attendance zones. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- 139. As for Interdistrict Schools, the plans provide that such schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. 4. Incentive school assignments are to be made from attendance zones that encompass the neighborhoods around the school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 139. By so assigning, those schools designated as incentive schools would be. at first, virtually all-black schools. Accordingly, the parties agreed that incentive schools would be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools and by designating a number of seats for white students. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, P- In 4 . addition, desegregation transfers may be made where such transfer enhances the desegregation at the incentive school. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 140. 5. The plans also envision that efforts will be made to recruit white students currently attending private schools either back to or into the area school which serves the attendance zone where those students live. LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 95. 2AUG-23-93 MON 10:37 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 6. Under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the parties agreed that various interdistrict schools would be constructed and/or operated in the LRSD and the PCSSD. In fact, the LRSD I agreed to, and did, construct a new King Interdistrict School to serve students at the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The parties attempted to locate the school such that it would be attractive to those whites from the PCSSD and outside Pulaski County who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 11. 7. The development of interdistrict facilities and programs which would allow for black children in the LRSD and white children in the PCSSD to attend schools in a desegregated environment was one of the primary aims of the parties. However, the development of the interdistrict schools also served as a mechanism through which the parties could receive financial assistance by way of the majority to minority transfer program. It was understood that vigorous and sustained recruitment would be necessary to maximize such transfers. By doing so, funds would be available to continue the operation of the agreed upon interdistrict schools. 8. In recruiting students to attend King Interdistrict School, whites within the LRSD attended meetings and expressed a desire to enroll their children in the school. Based on reasonable information and belief, less than 60 white students within the LRSD have been placed on the list to attend King Interdistrict School. 3AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 9. Prior to the start of the 93-94 school year, while the fall registration process was being completed, the Interim superintendent, Mrs. Estelle Matthis, learned of these assignments. The in-coming Superintendent in the LRSD, Dr. Henry Williams, in consultation with the Interim Superintendent was preparing to resolve those questions surrounding these assignments so that parents could be notified prior to the start of school for the 93- 94 school year. 10. Dr. Williams and Mrs, Matthis concluded that there were solutions available to the LRSD such to allow full compliance with the desegregation plans. They also concluded that the necessary corrective action could be taken prior to the opening of schools so that parents could be advised where their children would be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. See Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 attached hereto and incoirporated herein by reference. 11. Prior to final action being taken by the LRSD, the LRSD received word, through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and its attorneys, that this Court had expressed concern (on Tuesday, August 17, 1993) regarding the possibility that the LRSD would notify some or all of those LRSD whites that they would not be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 Teachers in the LRSD returned to contract on Monday, August 16/ 1993 . The students are set to return on Monday, August 23, 1993, 1 4 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 school year. Being reluctant to permit LRSD whites to attend King interdistrict School because of the uncertainty whether such would be in compliance with the court-approved desegregation plans as well as the spirit and intent of the parties when the plans were developed, the incoming superintendent deemed it most advisable to seek clarification from this Court. 12. In light of the foregoing, the LRSD prepared to request the indulgence of the court and seek clarification regarding several concerns\n(a) whether LRSD whites may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court-approved i desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans?\n(b) If the response to question number 1 is in the affirmative, whether those LRSD whites who are allowed to attend King Interdistrict School will be permanently assigned or assigned only for the 1993-94 school year?\n(c) Whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School during the 1993-94 school year?\n(d) whether LRSD whites, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict school during the 1994-95 school year and beyond?\n(e) If the answers to ths foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD whites will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School?\n(f) Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer 5 1AUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by PCSSD white students (either this year or in future years)?\nand, (g) whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD to provide transportation to the LRSD white students, from scattered areas of the city, to attend King Interdistrict School? 13. The LRSD would be pleased to accept white students from the LRSD into King Interdistrict School as long as such can be done in accordance with the court-approved desegregation plans or any court-approved modification thereto. Because of these numerous concerns raised by the incoming superintendent, it is respectfully submitted that a good-faith basis existed for clarification and direction from this Court. In light of the impending opening of schools, it was critical that this matter be resolved immediately. i. 14. Before the request could be made. the parties and representatives from ODM met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, as instructed by the Court. Present at that meeting were\na. b. c. d. e. f. g- h. i. j  k. 1. m. Dr. Henry Williams, in-coming LRSD Superintendent Estelle Matthis, interim LRSD Superintendent Sterling Ingram, LRSD Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney John W, Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Connie Hickman-Tanner, ODM Melissa Guldin, ODM Bill Mooney, Court-Appointed Budget Specialist Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent Billy Bowles, PCSSD Ruth Herts, PCSSD 6 IAUG-23-93 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 08 15. During the meeting, concern was expressed that the assignment of some LRSD white students to King Interdistrict School could constitute a violation of the desegregation plans. Notwith- standing, those present were advised that the Court wanted the parties to come to an agreement regarding those students (less than 60) such to allow them to be accommodated at King Interdistrict school for 1993-94 and beyond. The LRSD does not concede that the plan prohibits it from so assigning some LRSD whites to King Interdistrict School. Arguments can be made to the contrary. 16. After much discussion, the parties drafted an agreement (the \"Agreement\") whereby those LRSD white students, outside the King Interdistrict School Assignment Zone, who had received written notice of assignment, to that school before August 19, 1993, would be allowed to attend the school for 1993-94 and beyond. No other LRSD White students, not within the King assignment zone, would be 'I allowed to attend King Interdistrict School. A true and accurate copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit \"3\" and incorporated herein by reference. 17. As a result of that meeting and the Agreement, those present agreed that the LRSD could proceed under it, even though it would not be fully executed until Friday, August 20, 1993 . The LRSD did so proceed. Further, the LRSD faxed copies of the type- written agreement to all those who had been present as well as to: a. b. c. d. Dr. James Smith, NLRSD Superintendent Steve Jones, NLRSD Attorney Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Richard Roachell, Knight Intervenors Attorney 7AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 18 . At mid-morning on Friday, August 20, 1993, the LRSD received a telephone call from Attorney Walker indicating, among other things, that several other issues would prevent him from being able to sign the Agreement as the parties had contemplated. Recognizing that its dilemma was now even more critical than it had been, the LRSD resolved that judicial clarification was absolutely necessary. The LRSD later received a memo stating the Joshua Intervenors position. A true and accurate copy of that memo as faxed to the LRSD and others is attached hereto as Exhibit \"4\" and incorporated herein by reference. 19. Based on the foregoing, the LRSD does hereby request guidance and direction from this Court. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, prays that this Court enter an order clarifying the issues raised herein. as well as any other related concerns\nor, in the alternative, that I Hb an order be entered enforcing the agreement of the parties based on 1 the detrimental reliance of the LRSD and that the parties be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone No. (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District Jerry L. Malone Bar I.D. No. 85096 a AUG-23-93 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE the foregoing certify that a copy of Request for Clarification of King Interdistrict School Student Assignments has been served on the following by depositing a copy of the same in I the United States mail on this Th day of August, 1993 : Mr, John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets  f Little Rock, AR 7201 Mr. Richard Roachell. First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney II i 9 JAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 I PARENTS! Wednesday, August n, 7 p.n]. ' Little Rock Administration, Board Room .810 West Markhamstreet t area also Provisional status J, ~3/ /U 3 uAUG-23-93 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 PAREiNTSU LUTHER KING JR 1 bKDISTRICT MAGNET* ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Wednesday, August 1 J., 7 p.m. Little Rock Adniinistration/Board Room .810 West MarLHamStreet Elementary School is open school attendance zones and approved School DisS WhSPulasrCounty area alsX^S^opS??oSSiSa2 Provisional status { J Sa 2- \"3/ /! irAUG-23-93 HON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 agreement The parties met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, pursuant to the instructions of the Court, to discus initial enrollment at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* Elementary School (\"MLK\") 1993-94 school year. for The parties are in substantial disagreement about certain matters which relate to the plan and the manner in which ) i .1 assignments would be made under the plan to MLK. Joshua Intervenors strongly oppose the placement, assignment or enrollment of LRSD white students, who live outside the Martin Luther King Interdistrict School assignment zone, to MLK. The PCSSD is also concerned about future year's effect of LRSD white students being assigned, enrolled or allowed to attend Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. All parties are mindful of the admonitions of the Court regarding school district/parent cooperation and integrity as well as the other needs for both desegregation and certainty about school opening for this year at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School, Based on these concerns and considerations. and the I encouragement of Court, the parties have agreed that for the 1993- 94 school term only, LRSD white students, who have received written assignment notices to MLK from the LRSD as of the date of this agreement, shall be allowed to attend or be enrolled or assigned to MLK. Once assigned to MLK, those children shall be afforded all the rights and privileges of other students who are being assigned Exhibit 3\"AUG-23-93 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 14 Page 2 to the Martin Luther King Intardistrict Magnet* School (i.e,, including continued enrollment) . However, there shall be no ! 1 preference available to these students so assigned. No other LRSD white students may be assigned to MLK. The parties will seek Court approval of this Agreement. DATED THIS day of 1993 . John W. Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Bobby Lester PCSSD Superintendent'  Dr. Henry Williams LRSD Superintendent J I James Smith NLRSD Superintendent Richard Roachell Knight Intervenors Attorney I 1 *ProvisionalAUG-23-93 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 15 MSMORaiNDDM TO: Mr. Jerry Malone Mr, Billy Bowie Ms. Ann Brown FROM: John W, Walker RE: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School DATE\nAugust 20, 1993 This is to advise that Joshua has not signed the Stipulation upon which we agreed upon in principle yesterday at ths Little Rock School Board offices. This is because information that we have received causes us to conclude that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from outside the Xing attendance zone than Most of these youngsters are from other We cannot be parties to assignment the number we were given, incentive school areas. practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendancs at the incentive schools nor can wa support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement of the plan-''For these basic reasons, as Joshua counsel, I am withholding endorsement of the stipulation and putting LRSD on notice that we will not agree to the Court's suggestion that we let LRSD white pupils be assigned to King under the circumstances. i J li j J ! 1 3 // 1Office 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 Date: September 3, 1993 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Sterling Ingram, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation School Assignments for Residents of the Battered Womens Shelter This memo is to confirm our phone conversation held this morning. As you will recall, we discussed enrollment figures and I inquired about the status of school assignments for the children living at the Battered Womens Shelter located at 12th and Battery Streets. The Shelter is in the King attendance zone, a fact confirmed by Sue Pederson on September 2, 1993, when she drove by the center. I do not quite understand what caused the district to question the right of these children to attend their assigned school, since the population at King is significantly below the capacity of the school. Despite the original misunderstanding, I am pleased that you have now agreed to abide by the districts assignment plan and assign all children residing in the King zone to that school. If you recall the August 19 meeting we attended to discuss King assignments, the fate of assignment zone students was never debated. The group even discussed the fact the students from within the zone, regardless of race, would always receive an assignment to King. This entire assignment issue has been a great concern for the staff at the Battered Womens Shelter. I plan to call the Shelter and report our conversation. Perhaps a district representative could also contact the Shelter and confirm the residents right to go to their assigned school. Im sure the staff there would really appreciate hearing from the district. Thank you for dealing with this issue promptly, and please thank Sue Pederson for working so diligently to help track down the correct zone assignment for the Shelter. cc: Ann Brown Estelle MatthisLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January ii, 1994 TO THE PARENT OF: BROUN, ANDREU J- 1201 UELCH ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 Dear Parant, The Li+tle Rock School District Student Assignment Plan allows nonattendance zone tudents to transfer to their attendance zone school if a seat desegregation reiuirements- is available and the racial balance complies with does not attend his/her attendance zone school. Our records indicate that your child If you are interested in applying for a transfer to your child's attendance zone school for next school year, please mark the appropriate box on the enclosed form and return the form to your child's current school assignment or the LRSD Student Assignment Office, 501 Sherman Street. THE FORM MUST BE RETURNED BY: JANUARY 25, 1994. In order for your child to be considered for assignment to his/her attendance zone school, you must return the enclosed Transfer Re\u0026lt;iuest FormIn an effort to keep our waiting lists as up-to-date as possible^ we will delete names currently on waiting lists unless a Transfer Reiuest Form is returned- Should you have questions concerning the Attendance Zone Transfer Re\u0026lt;iuest, please call us at 324-2272- Little Rock School District Student Assignment OfficeATTENDANCE ZONE TRANSFER REQUEST Student's Name: ID Number: Zone B L oiz k : BROWN, ANDREW J. 934304 0210 Current School: ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL Grade: 01 DIRECTIONS: CHECK ONLY ONE \u0026lt;1) BOX Hy child presently attends ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I would like for him/her to be transferred to his/her attendance zone school, school year, waiting List JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for next I understand that my student will be placed on a if assignment is not possible. My child presently attends I would Like for him/her to remain at ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL I do not want my child transferred to his/her attendance zone schoo L, JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I understand that attendance zone transfer re\u0026lt;iuosts are subject to capacity and desegregation re-iuirements. Parent/guardian Signature Telephone Number PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL OR THE LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE \u0026lt;501 SHERMAN STREET, 72202\u0026gt; BY JANUARY 25, 1994. IMPORTANT: List any other sibling zational level (example: elementary. currently at this organi- j un i or hi gh, sen i or high). NAME BIRTHDATE SCHOOL i I I IOKice JAN 3 1 1994 cl Desegregation Monitoiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. 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 JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 Respectfully Submitted FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By\nJerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 TCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January 31, otherwise indicated: 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91\n2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243\n3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189\n4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby\nthose rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this Jie day of January, 1994. 11 W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD if t r Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2, 1994 Meeting February 1, 1994 lies of Des\nViviiitOi u'Q f^E3 7 toqi Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and I are meeting next week so I may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40?^ to 60?6. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64?o. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40?o for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and I will tiy to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C\nDr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyRECEP \u0026lt;33 u U.S OIST.\"ICT COURT cASTERM DISTRICT AR.LANSAS FEB 7 WA Office of Desegregaticn McnitcnniJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION l-tB 0 4 1594 -'A.McSW. McCOfiMACX. CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or. in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an . J, D vs. Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD J ' Mr. Walker Stales I he inunher he as that a larger niimhcr ol pupils are being assigned tn King from otil.sitie the King attendance zone than ul the incentivi iven. iiikl ihal Joshua cannoi be a parly \"to assignment practices which allow decline in emphasis and attendance schools nor can we support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement ol the plan. See Exhibit 4, LRSD s motion for clarifieation or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties. 'Kj 2 0 9seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. Whether LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans\n2 . If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, allowed to whether those LRSD white students who attend King permanently assigned school year\nInterdistrict Whether LRSD or white assigned School will are be only for the 1993-94 students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\nIf the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\nwill Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)\nand or 6. Whether provisions be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the can city to King. Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King 3 . 4. 5. Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or the -2-spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced, the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. regard, the plans envision that white students attending In this an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King or any other of the interdistrict schools. The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 9, 1993 hearing. this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated tt [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want.\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-18. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied, I think you're -3-exactly right, your Honor. II Id. at 18. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perform that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have a supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools. For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\n62 of the school's 84 white students were intradistrict transfers. Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are \"open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. II The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan, dated March 20, 1993, states that it was \"designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-H well as Little Rock. (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. It LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148. Neither the desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation,\" and that the districts will It [k]eep the promises they make.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand. while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable. the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days, the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994. UNlTfiD\" 'r2ct JUDGE -6- MS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm-I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP  by \\,T INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District l RSO NLRSO PCSSD 1909-90 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 190990 199091 1991-92 1992-93 199094 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B B B B W B B B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 305 0 339 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 165 261 60 11 * Information not available 155 210 34 151 35 133 62 84 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 203 204 196 180 193 158 175 N/A N/A 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 N/A- Not Applicable Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD: Memos dated November 18, 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD: November 26,1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: district reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11,1990, December 3, 1991, January 12, 1993, and December 14, 1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.Student Assignment Handbook 1993-1994 Little Rock School District TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 13 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 24 25 28 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS/ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT TIMELINE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre-registration General Information Pre-registration 1993-94, Feb. 8-19 A, Elementary Schools B. Secondary Schools Optional Enrollment Requests Address Changes How to Assign/Elementary Attendance Zone Schools ELEMENTARY ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE CHART WAITING LISTS INCENTIVE SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS MAGNET SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS Washington Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Henderson Health Science Magnet Central High International Studies Magnet McClellan Business/Communications Magnet INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS King Interdistrict School Romine Computer Science \u0026amp; Basic Skills Interdistrict Crystal Hill Communications Interdistrict Magnet School EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSIGNMENTS M-M TRANSFERS DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS ACT 609 TRANSFERS LEGAL TRANSFERS ACT 624 TRANSFERS KINDERGARTEN WAIVER HOME SCHOOLING STAFF PREFERENCE TRANSFERS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT APPEALS COMMITTEE CARE PROGRAM (Before and after school care) HOMELESS CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR ROUTES -SPECIAL EDUCATION ROUTES -M-M ROUTES -EMERGENCY ROUTES FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH PROCEDURESDesegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation re- quirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegregation to occur in classrooms. School desegregation requirements and equitable classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Educational Frograms, of Organizational and Learning Equity, and of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. The acceptable range is listed below: Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% - 74.00% 51.25% - 76.75% 45.50% - 68.00% 1Jan. 6 - Jan. 24 Jan. 25 - Feb. 3 Feb. 8 - Feb. 19 March 10 Mar. 15 - Mar 26 March 15-June 9 April 9 April 9 June 10-July23 July 26-30 Aug. 30 1993-1994 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE survey Dunbar AZ 6th graders survey 4 year olds/remain at present school? Open Houses Mon., Jan 25 Tues., Jan 26 Mon. Tues. Wed. Feb. 1 Feb. 2 Feb. 3 Incentive and Interdistrict schools Elementary Magnet Schools Area and Magnet High Schools Area and Magnet Junior High Schools Area Elementary Schools Pre-Registration/ Kindergartners, New students, OERFs, Employee Preference Requests, 4 year old application period, AZ Transfer Requests Notification letters to all students Desegregation Transfer application period Pre-registration reopens at Area Schools Notification letters to Desegregation Transfers Notification letters to 4 year olds Summer Registration at Student Assignment Office No Registration Accepted First Day of Classes 2PRE-REGISTRATION GENERAL INFORMATION February 8 -19 Final assignment lists will be submitted by all schools after the beginning of the second semester. These lists will be used to confirm the number of students enrolled in each building for 1992-93. Corrected lists must be submitted to the SAO by Wednesday, February 10. Students enrolled after Feb. 8 for the remainder of the 1992-93 school year will not be guaranteed a seat at the school for the 1993-94 school year. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Address verification, birth certificate, and Social Security numbers must be presented at pre-registration. Immunization records may be accepted at this time, or presented during the August registration. Kindergarten pre-registration information will be distributed throughout the community. Kindergarten and new-student pre-registration will be held during February 8 - February 19. Parents will be notified of their assignment by March 10,1993. Applications for the early childhood (4-year-old) program will be accepted in the schools with a four-year-old program or in the Student Assignment Office, from Feb. 8-19,1993. Parents will be notified by April 9,1993 . Transportation will not be provided bv the LRSD for fourvear old students. Sibling preference will be granted only to those students attending their attendance zone school. Sibling preference will be granted for students currently enrolled in non-attendance zone schools who wish to be assigned to their attendance zone school with a sibling. SIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET OR NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS. Optional Enrollment Request Forms (OERF) will be available for magnets, incentive schools, interdistrict schools and high school kindergartens. Carbonized forms will be used. Optional Enrollment Request Forms will be available during the period February 8 - February 19,1993. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial by March 10,1993. All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all magnet school, incentive school, interdistrict school, high school kindergarten, and M-M assignments. Parents may make up to four choices for optional assignments at elementary schools and three choices for optional assignments at secondary schools. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order. Parents are NOT requited to use all choices. Sixth grade students in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they are not interested in the magnet program. The SAO will contact these students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their students assignment by March 10,1993. 3All students will be notified of their assignments by mail by March 10,1993. This will include rising students (6th to 7th grade, 9th to 10th grade) and grandfathered students (who will remain at their current school). The assignment notification letter will be used to explain the registration process in August and desegregation transfer process. Desegregation transfer applications for secondary students will be accepted in the Student Assignment Office from March 15-26,1993. Parents will be notified no later than April 9,1993. ATTENTION PRINCIPALS: Tentative retention lists must be submitted to the SAO at the end of the third quarter. Updated and final retention lists must be submitted immediately aftei the last day of school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. No assignments will be made from July 26 to July 30,1993. 44 YEAR OLD/KINDERGARTEN/NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION PROCEDURES FOR 1993-94 Children who will be five (5) years old on or before October 1, 1993 will be eligible to attend kindergarten in the LRSD next year. In order to receive a school assignment by March 10,1993, parents must pre-register their children. Pre-registration will be held districtwide beginning February 8,1993 and continuing through February 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between February 22 and March 12,1993. Pre-registration will resume at the attendance zone schools on March 15. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must preregister in the Student Assignment Office. Children who will be four (4) years old on or before October 1,1993 will be eligible to apply for a seat in the Four Year Old Program in the LRSD next year. In order to be considered for placement in the Four Year Old program, parents must pre-register their child APPLICATION DOES NOT GUARANTEE PLACEMENT IN THE PROGRAM. Pre-registration will be held at all schools with Four Year Old Programs and in the Student Assignment Office beginning Feb. 8,1993 and continuing through Feb. 19,1993. Pre-registrations will not be accepted between Feb. 22 and March 12, 1993. Pre-registration will resume on March 15 at schools with 4 year old programs and in the SAO. Beginning June 10, and continuing through July 23, parents must pre-register their 4 year olds in the SAO. Under the Little Rock School Districts student assignment plan, all students will remain at their 1992-93 school assignment until graduation from the organizational level, unless otherwise specified. However, students may request a transfer to their attendance zone school. This request form should be completed at the SAO. Each school will be responsible for pre-registering students who live in their attendance zone. The following is a list of forms and supplies which will be necessary to complete the pre-registration process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pupil Information Forms (PIFs) Pupil Information Change Forms Address Verification Forms Optional Enrollment Request Forms 4 Year Old Application (Schools with 4 yr. old programs only) School Attendance Zone Map District Attendance Zone Map 8. Special Envelope (for mailing) 9. Street Index Schools should contact the Student Assignment Office for additional PIFS and Optional Enrollment Request Forms, 4 year old applications, or to replace zone maps. Pupil Information Change Forms may be ordered from the Supply Center. Each school will be responsible for duplicating the Address Verification Form. Pre-registration forms should NOT be distributed before the first dav of the ore- registration period or after the deadline. 5A, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Schools will receive flyers to be sent home to parents notifying them of kindergarten/new student pre-registration. These flyers should be sent home as soon as possible after they are received. Parents/guardians of K/new students must pre-register at their attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of 4 year old students must pre-register at any school with a four year old program or at the SAO. Application does not guarantee placement in the program. School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parent/guardian to their attendance zone school for pre-registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill) 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the Pupil Information Form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. First, Middle, and Last Name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last school attended and grade Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide all of the required documents, the pre-registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete preregistration process. 5 Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form. Staple the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the students PIF. Give the parent copy (yellow) of the Optional EnrollmentRequest Form to the parent. 67. 8. 9. 10. Only schools with 4-year-old programs will have applications for the program. Parents who wish to apply for the 4-year-old program should be given an application for selecting their school choices. These applications, should be stapled with the PIFs and address verification forms and sent to the SAO for entrance on the database and for assignment. Place in env- lope marked \"FOUR YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS.\" Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registration period the computer system will be modfied to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period a list can be generated from the computer identifying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. Place the PEF in a TO BE ASSIGNED file and hold for the initial assignment process. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF and Address Verifiction Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labeled: Student Assignment Office Data Entry Department SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 7B. SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Parents/guardians of new students must register at their attendance zone school. All students under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult School staff will verify the students address and check it against the attendance zone map. If the student does not live in your attendance zone, refer the parentZguardian to their attendance zone school for registration. If the students address is in your attendance zone, give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Form and the Address Verification Form. Advise the parent/guardian of the required documents. a. Required documents: 1. Certified copy of birth certificate or visa/passport. 2. Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, personal property tax bill). 3. Social Security number b. The following information MUST be supplied on the form: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. First, Middle, and Last name Race Sex Address Date of Birth Last School attended and grade 7. Social Security number (See page 27) If the parent cannot provide the required documents, the registration cannot be completed. Advise the parent to obtain necessary document(s) and return to complete the registration process. Check completed PIF against required documents. If the parent wishes to request an optional school enrollment, allow him/her to complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). Staple the OERF to the student's PIF. Give the \"parent copy\" (yellow) of the Optional Enrollment Request Form to the parent. Enter student information on the database and record ID# on completed PIF. During the pre-registation period the computer system will be modified to allow all schools to assign students registering for the 1993-94 school year to a special district. This modification will allow schools to enter all students who register on the database without assigning them to their school. At the end of the registration period, a list can be generated from the computer identfying students to be assigned for the 1993-94 school year. For students requesting an optional enrollment, enter the PIF information on the database and then place the entire PIF, Address Verification Form and Optional Enrollment Request Form (stapled together) in the special envelope labelled: SAO, Data Entry Dept. SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY 8OPTIONAL ENROLLMENT REQUEST PROCEDURES Parents/guardians who wish to request an assignment to a school other than the attendance zone school may do so by completing an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF). All optional enrollments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Optional Enrollment Requests will be accepted for the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Incentive Schools (for non-attendance zone students) High School Kindergartens Magnet Schools Interdistrict Schools Parents/guardians of kindergarten/new students who wish to request an optional enrollment should complete the Optional Enrollment Request Form when they pre-register their child at the attendance zone school. Parents/guardians of current students who wish to request an optional enrollment for the next school year may complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form at the students current school during the pre-registration period each year. Students presently on the magnet school waiting list do not need to reapply unless rising to another organizational level. After the pre-registration period has closed, parents/guardians wishing to request an optional enrollment must do so at the Student Assignment Office. No optional enrollment requests will be accepted between February 22 and March 12. The school staff should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Optional Enrollment Request Form. Forms should be made available only to LRSD parents who request them. a. Parent should read the information provided on the Optional Enrollment Request Form before completing the form. b. Parents of elementary students may make up to four (4) choices. Choices must be prioritized in numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Choices may be made from one or all of the categories, not to exceed the maximum of four choices. Parents of secondary students may make up three (3) choices. Students whose optional enrollment requests cannot be granted will be placed on a prioritized waiting list. Parents will receive written notification of approval/denial of their Optional Enrollment Request. When the parent/guardian has completed the Optional Enrollment Request Form, the school staff should check the form for accuracy and forward to the SAO as follows: (NOTE: Make sure you give the Parent Copy (yellowl of the OERF to the parents'). a. b. c. For kindergarten/new students, staple the OERF form to the PIF. For current students, mail the OERF to the Student Assignment Office. (Current students do not need to complete a PIF.) Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: 9STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN SCHOOL MAIL DAILY. REMINDER: EIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET SCHOOLS. North Little Rock District students call: 771-8010 Pulaski County Special School District students call: 490-2000 10ADDRESS CHANGE PROCEDURES Parents/guardians are required to report address changes immediately to the schools main office. Students who process address changes have the option to remain at their current school or to transfer to the new attendance zone school (if space is available and the assignment complies with desegregation requirements). THE DISTRICT WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION IF STUDENTS ELECT TO REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT SCHOOLS. The address change procedures are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Before the address change can be processed, the parent/guardian must present one of the following documents as verification of their new address: a. Lease Agreement b. Sales Contract c. Personal Property Tax Bill d. Current Utility Statement (a drivers license or check book will not be accepted) Parent/guardian should complete a Pupil Information Change Form and an Address Verification Form (including those who wish to remain at the current school). The school staff person should give the parent/guardian instructions for completing the Pupil Information Change Form. When the parent has completed the necessary forms, the school staff person should: a. Check the Pupil Information Change Form against the required document, b. Complete the Official Use Only box on the Address Verification Form, c. Write in new zone blockin the box labelled \"ZONE/BLOCK\" on the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Check to make sure the parent has indicated whether to reassign student. If the parent/guardian wants the student to remain at the current school: a. Write the students LD. Number in the appropriate box. b. Enter new address and zone block (map grid) on database c. Retain a copy of the Pupil Information Change Form for your files. If the parent/guardian requests a transfer to their new attendance zone school: a. Check the district-wide attendance zone map for the new attendance zone school. b. Write the new zone block in the box labelled ZONE/BLOCK on the Pupil Information Change Form. c. Write your school number in the upper right comer of the Pupil Information Change Form. d. Return the Pupil Information Change Form and Address Verification Form to the parent/guardian and refer them to the new attendance area school for assignment 117. Schools receiving students as a result of an address change should: a. Follow the kindergarten/new student procedures for assigning students. . b. If the student cannot be assigned, the school should forward the Pupil Information Change Form and the Address Verification Form to the Student Assignment Office for reassignment. Write \"Reassignment: accross the top of the Pulil Infomation Change Form.The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for notifying the parent of the students reassignment and placing the student's name on the attendance zone school waiting list 12PROCEDURES FOR ASSIGNING STUDENTS ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS** Kindergarten/new students will be assigned to their attendance zoned schools based on their current home addresses. Assignments will be made on the basis of the Little Rock School Districts desegregation requirements, assignment preferences and capacity. The ratio of each school and of each grade within the school will be considered in making assignments. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement, or acceptable range. Seats will be reserved to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. A SCHOOL CANNOT ASSIGN AND/OR ENROLL A NON-ATTENDANCE ZONE STUDENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE. The acceptable range for Elementary Schools is 40.00% - 74.00%. 1. 2. 3. 4. Before the assignment process begins, each school will receive the following information from the Student Assignment Office: (See chart page 20) a. The maximum capacity for each grade level-(count screen,'94) b. The current assignment count for each grade level.-(count screen,'94) c. The minimum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.2O) d. The maximum number of black students allowed at each grade level.-(chart p.20) e. The current black percentage for each grade level and the school.-count screen f. Waiting list During the initial assignment process, March 1-3, 1993, all grades 1-6 students living in the schools attendance area will be assigned to the school as long as the assignment satisfies desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accom- date overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be re-assigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. ALL '94 KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WILL BE ASSIGNED BY THE SAO. Sibling preference will be given to kindergarten/new students who have siblings currently enrolled in the attendance zone school. Sibling preference is subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. To complete the assignment process: March 1-3 a. Determine the number of seats available for black and white students at each grade level. See Student Assignment count screen - Option 7- Student Management Menu and Chart on Page 20 **ALL KINDERGARTEN, MAGNET, INCENTIVE AND INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MADE BY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE.b. Refer to the waiting list provided by the SAO. Students on the waiting list must be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. c. Remove PIFs from the \"To Be Assigned: file and sort them by grade level. Then sort by race within each grade level. d. Identify students who are to receive sibling preference. Assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for assignment e. For the remaining students, assignments can be made as long as capacity and desegregation requirements are met. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacant seats. PIFs for students who cannot be assigned must be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an alternate assignment and placement on the waiting list. 5. When all assignments have been completed, the school staff person should complete the PIFs as follows: a. For students who have been assigned: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Write your school number in the box labelled SCHOOL NO. Write the current date in the box labelled ENTRY DATE. Write the entry code (04) in the box labelled ENTRY CODE Enter assignment on computer (option 3 - Student Management Menu). Sign your name in the SUBMITTED BY: Place \"green copy\" in special envelope. b. For students who cannot be assigned: 1. Write your school number in the box labeled (zone school). 2. Write REASSIGN across the top of the PIF. 3. Send in the school mail by March 3,1993 6. 7. 8. 9. On March 15 you should order a print out showing 93-94 assignments. Attendance zone schools resume pre-registration March 15 - June 9,1993. Student Assignment Office is responsible for summer registration June 10 - July 23, 1993. No registration will be accepted July 26-30,1993. Place all forms in the special envelope labelled: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE DATA ENTRY DEPARTMENT SEND IN THE SCHOOL MAIL BY March 3,1993 14STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CHART Elementary Acceptable Racial Range CLASS SIZE OF 20 STUDENTS (Kindergarten) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 23 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 average) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 25 STUDENTS (Grades 1-3 maximum, Grades 4-3 average) 1 2345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22232425 I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS CLASS SIZE OF 28 STUDENTS (Grades 4-6 maximum) 1 2345 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I I I I I I I MINIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MINIMUM BLACK STUDENTS MAXIMUM WHITE STUDENTS MAXIMUM BLACK STUDENTS 151. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. WAITING LISTS Any student who cannot be assigned to his/her attendance zone school due to capacity or desegregation requirements will be placed on a waiting list for that school. An updated waiting list will be sent to all area schools before March 1, 1993. These waiting lists will be used for 1993-1994 pre-registration process. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. Schools should assign these students the week of March 1-3,1993. All students on a 1992-93 waiting list will be moved up on the list to the next grade for the 1993-94 school year. (NOTE) This does not apply to students rising to the next organizational level or students who have been retained. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements or capacity, the students Pupil Information Form (PIF) will be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for an assignment. ALL additions and deletions to waiting list will be made by the Student Assignment Office immediately after assignments are made by the attendance zone schools, (week of March 1- 3,1993) The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for assignments during the period of June 10 - July 23. Students on the waiting lists will be assigned before new attendance zone students are assigned to a school. If a new attendance zone student cannot be assigned because of desegregation requirements, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school in the feeder zone that meets desegregation requirements and has a seat available. In such cases, these students will be added to the waiting list for the attendance zone school. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. Updated waiting lists will be sent to all area schools during the week of July 26  July 30. Schools will be responsible for assigning students from the waiting lists. The Student Assignment Office will maintain waiting lists for all interdistrict magnet schools, incentive schools, and interdistrict schools The SAO will also maintain all waiting lists for reassigned students, high school kindergarten students, and pre-kindergarten students. 16Incentive School Assignments\nThe Student Assignment Office will make all assignments to incentive schools and will maintain the incentive school waiting lists. Incentive schools staff should follow the elementary school pre-registration procedures steps 1-7 (see page 6) and send aU PIFS to the SAO daily. Magnet School Assignments: Transfers to magnet schools will be granted prior to Octoberl of each school year and during semester break. All magnet school assignments will be subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. A request for an assignment to a magnet school cannot be granted if it adversely affects the desegregation requirement for either the sending or receiving school. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for making all magnet school assignments and maintaining all magnet school waiting lists. A random selection process (a lottery) will be used to assign students to magnet schools at entry level positions (K, 7th, 10th grades). Students who are not currently on a waiting list must complete an Optional Enrollment Request Form (OERF) in order to be added to the magnet waiting list.. Students who are not selected for immediate placement in a magnet school will be placed on a waiting list for that school. Students on the previous years waiting lists will receive preference for magnet school vacancies in the current school year. A students rank on a waiting list will be determined by a random selection process. However, first choice magnet options will be ranked above second choice options, etc. Students who live in the shadow of a magnet will receive preference at entry level grades. Parents will be contacted by the SAO when their child's name has advanced to the top of the waiting list and a seat is available. Assignments to Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School: Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to-minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (theSchool Choice law). LRSD non-attendance zone students should complete an OERF. The racial population at Washington should reflect 55% black, 45% white. Preference will be given to students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School. Assignments to Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Dunbar attendance zone and through the OERF process. nPulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Dunbar through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Preference will be given to students in the LRSD who live in the attendance zone for Dunbar. (Sixth grade students who live in the Dunbar attendance zone will be given the option to transfer to another school if they have no interest in the magnet program. (The SAO will contact these sixth grade students by mail prior to the pre-registration period to determine which students desire an alternate assignment. All alternate assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. Parents will be notified of their child's assignment by March 10,1993. Any alternate assignments will be made by the Student Assignment Office.) Assignments to Henderson Health Science Magnet: Seventh graders will be assigned from the Henderson attendance zone and through the OERF process. Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students may transfer to Henderson through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Assignments to Central High School International Studies Magnet: Students from the North Litde Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the international studies curriculum at Central High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the international studies program at Central. Assignments to McClellan Business/Communications Magnet: Students from the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will be able to participate in the business/communications program at McClellan High School through the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock students will use the OERF form to request an assignment to the business/communications program at McClellan Interdistrict School Assignments: Interdistrict schools are schools with specialty themed programs which supplement the regular elementary curriculum. These schools are intended to attra\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_550","title":"Needs assessment","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":["1967/1995"],"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 planning","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Needs assessment"],"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/550"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["538 pages"],"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\nTHE LITTLE V hock school !ISTKICT Vol. A - No. I REVIEW Ll!* Arl(n $npt(nbor, 196/ Eiectors Of The Little Rock School District Asked To Approve Continuing Construction Program Tuesday September 2flth, is an imp.ortant date for the '.ittle Rock comm-mlty and more especially for the Little Ro-ck Pnb-ilc Schools. On this date all oi the. ouaii-fled electors of the school dls-tric. t wtii have the op.oortunity to vote For or Against the con-ttr. uation of the system's con. Ma.w High School biiildblg. t., Remodeling, Including ctr.. struction of a library and biology laboratory at Central High Scho\u0026lt;)l~S.S50.dOO This item is a musti Thu present Central High Schw) 11- lirary is totally inadequate to serve the needs of a pupil etv several of these collecticns are housed ill lens than adequate space. The SSH.OCO .iTocatiob to rJtls pvoiram would en\u0026amp;bie us tc ..-emode! existing fac.litics ic house three additional centtai hbraries level. Ht the elsrr.isriiary strjctlon program. We read about the problems in other citieshalf-day atisslons, overcrowded classrooms, tempornty buildings, Snadequats housing, et cetera' Our physical facilities are far from perfect bl* the e'jpport Saf previoija school bond issues h.as enabled youi achcois to keep up wit.n the growth, meet the needs of a shifting population, and to occasionally \"p.hase oui . building that is nd longer functional. Permission to conrmue this orcerly building program is the request of September 26th. The Board of Directers has unanimously appiwed bond issue of $l,52O,Oild. No Increase In the scho(.'l tax rate la requested in Uil$ connection. The Ixirds, upon approval, can be retired within the present Jinanclal structure of the district The following Is a list of the board-approved projects to be iiic'uded in the proposed i-sswe 1, Pairing of Mann High ScliocJ p.nd Mettopciitan Sigh School$200,000 The initiation of this project will enable Metropolitan High School to double its enrollment. About $175,000 of the 1200,000 allocation would be spent at Met ropoiitan for the purprse of converting present academic ciass-rooms to vocational-technical shops and laboratories. The remaining $25,000 would be spent roilment in e.tciss of 2.000. Thsre is no biology laboratory at Central High Schoiil at tlie present time. These two items plus some other genera\nremodeling are needed In order Uj maialain Centi-al High School as a mod em and functlotiBi part of our secondary school prugrain. 3. Purchase of site on Wrtst 12tb Street-llSO.OOO This is a site containing ap-proximately 12 acres located in he Univerfity Park Vrbao Ke-newai area. I Construction ol elemeii-tarv school on West I2th Street  J-150 (1'1)0 These funds would be allocated to build a 12-clasarootn 7. CoD.sfruct a mainteojoce warehousL*$150,00(1 The entire msintenance operation of the Little Rock Public Sch.acl .System ha.s been housed under Quigley Stadium, The space xnd facilities 'here are inadequote to enable the maintenance department to actually do the work that needs to be done io connection with m.ain-tainiiig buildings, groun.ds, fur niture, and equipment . ExWrlc! the lemotleliiif\nbutJdrng with the nece.esary auxiliary space? (of,'ices, kitchen dirdiig area, library, etc,) on the site identified sSrve, 5. Completion of Parkview High Schoolil25,(l00 This additional sum of money has become necessary 'o fully complete ihe Parkvit*' High School located .at 26th and J.\u0026gt;.hn Barrow Road, .A,dt!iticr!i that have teen made to the building after the contract was ori,a-inally let have madij It necessary tc allocate more funds for the completion of this project. pi'tijett to or.\n: M twe addilionel floors at the Board of Educuticn Annex$125,006 The Board of Education Annex is located at We.st .Markham and Arch St.-aets. The extenor of this building has recently been covered with brick and one of the tout floors has been renscdeled into office space. As additional federal progrUrns are made available to us, wc find it necessary to employ more and more people to handle these programs, T.here is need now for the remodeling of one additional floor of :h-s annex This rernodehng would p.-.3vide suf- ident office sp.ace tc meei our needs for another one years. b'Rimately the V. ? tn.ire 6. Retnode.l and expand lected elemantar^j .seschool h. 02:91 branes- -$85..Wi Every elementary school in our city now has a central 11- building .should he converted to office .ipac\" .as ar. annex tu ..be Board of Education Building. S. Dressing rooms, toilet .ind shower lacilitiiis in count,':'\ncn with the E'jrest Heights ' -'cit and fieldJ'S.OdO O dS.t I Don K. Roberts Roberts Assumes Position of Deputy Mr Don R. Kubert.s has assumed ihe position of Interim Deputy Superinlendent cf the Little. R'Oek Public .Schools since July 1 Mr. Paul Pair Deputy Saperintenrtent is on sabbatical lea'-e, .s.nd is studying for his doctorate a\nthe LUitversity of .^rkaibsas. Mr. Roberts. 32, is a native of McNeii, .ArK\u0026amp;n.sss where he attended slem.pntary and secondary schools. He received hi,s B.A and Masters' degrees from Her.ilersoji State Teachers College, and ha? don-? graduate work a!. Easterr. Oregon College, La Grande, Oregon: Walla Walla College, Wail,a Walh, Wasniagton\nOregon Slate Sys-te.- r. \u0026lt;.l H.gher Edo.'.at..on Pur!:- !and. Oregon\nand the Mniver-sity of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon. He IS Wrth the Little Rock Pub- In: schools\nii prepsrisio\", for receiving a deg.-ee of Doctor of Education In Educational .Ad-minisirctio,'' from t.ne L'nivers\n. t.v of Arkar.sas at Fayetteville. He was president of the student bo.dj' when he w.ss a senior at Henderson Otato Teachers College, and was itichided in the ?i\n0Tii3 Pg* * the REVIEW 1967 i DID you  KOW TMSr___ _______________ Ml School Lunch Menus for October cncaK!: Each sch.Xr! Wil! have ftt lean two television set.s to re-ceive educational programs over the state education tele-vislon .station, KET3 - TV. Channel 2, located at Conway xMonday ... T T Tuesday j Wednesday ! Thursday i Friday 15 Te Phjsica!  * * education pro-grams will be expanded tn Include golf and badminton. Principals (Continued From Page 3) $as, and received his BSE in Elementar. Education from State College of Arkansas at Cor.way. H19 Masters degree was obtained at the U.niversity of Mississippi. His first assignment with the Little Rock Schools w.3s as a s'jtth grade teacher at Pu-lasR\nHeights Elementary ir. the 1964-9.5 school year. He was principaj nt a junior high, school at Marianna, Arkansas to:- two years. and ha.s Li'tle RccL f Mitchell rejoined the as pnncipat Mi Clark has beer, selected twice to Whv's Who in Americ.an College? and Universities. was captain of his footha'l team his senior year, and wa-t named to the Al! Arkiinsa? Intartiolleglate Conference team as a defe.'.isive end for two successive yeirs Roberh (Continued From Page 1) '.Vho's Who in American Colleges and Vniversitiss Roberts served with t.oe U.S. Marine Carps in Korea and be. gm his career in education as n teacher and Coach at Welsh, Louisiana. He was vtce-princi-oa! in a school district in Wes, ton. Oregon .and Later was FfBnJrfi'rter H.kaiJ Beafi* Vuhbftg\u0026gt;F.al^*b Cefnfrraarf Butiwi' Hwulxirfpir Wai}ii 3Pota*? Otk) ^Ind ?nuch Ponj2 CcbRltf I P'vld Cbckw Graver ww lUc Pmi b Carrc'K CAmg*J4 Fndt BlCtfLUUi Ho0v-ultr I 1 I 9 41 Pjh CfoucatT* Tomato Saliuce Cro^def ?\u0026lt;# Com tA'ojtd SVC .\u0026gt;rn Ba Tnsnei\nDramin^\n^uz1\u0026lt;y-SvUftrsa ClWTOtt Cinftiufnwj RoUn I Ori-VSeri Ddl Pic-kl Cole ^Ifiw iTfMCkffTft ifrtH* C-akv 16 1 .18 Ttina Fifth HaUd mi. Lat(.i\u0026lt;Sr Or-MQ BiM.rut PoUtiOM IP.O^'.II OlWIXgA JiuOv I 1 CbUI Omx Cttn* Cckl* AUiw Appbwucw Cc.|rciwr QiD(*rbr4 i-Ur4 8uc* !12 13 I Tc**i.u Dot S4ua*a3nd WiUdan' SU\u0026gt;d ChtiCK^ .JuiC* .lOQfc/*4 : 19 I I Hirabuy\u0026lt;r MxiiiCizd RnLAh Lettuce  TotJUi.'O r'Mfticb Ctip S20 Tuna Vuih 3l*4 O4Kl FjuBt Clip A ButLw ChocpLftMf Chip 23 PuaetHc ChMrM VA2Uhl Soup Apc\u0026gt;U Wedgm l\u0026amp;kk*d CuiU/n 30 MftCA.i'Oni 3i C2i4KM ^.*3 Oqvi!d Kg* Dr^'cn.i Pickiod Bt3i Hoc Ro}l*Buttw Api.u I I CouftT.ry Pt'swt 'diMk Of*vy Bflgliih Peaft ^rsUafMJSiM RaEa Apple PflKl Gttvy ovr CoU Sl\u0026gt;v StKAttU HcPv-BuX#f Ckwioy# Jaiet I Chih Coo VaVeflrftd Cn'ow CnckArt Giagrb-(td [ 1 Hmj.xknirtw Muatwd Ra/jiah Catsup GfAYi -FrraCh C'rftiaicij O.\nan\u0026lt; Jnii:* O*\u0026gt;.k.irv 24 Giouod Bm) Patti* Qra*r,y Ma*h*d PotatiMr] Oriwn B.c.ft Hpt ROila-l^tutLt'i 7rax\u0026gt;\u0026lt;e Jiuea CAki( 131 II n..mad superintenderu Mr. Roberts, his wife, Janis, and their three chlidren, Don, Jr , 8 Jon. 7, and Suaer., 3, live at 2107 Ridge .Perk Drive. The boys will altand Baie Elementary School He is a tn ember of AEA. .NEZ, Phi Delta Kappa fraternity, ar.d the Ar.itansos School Ad-minrstratars Associetion. Vote Ki FOR Public School Improvements immiB WWW mCv I Cn^Otn il,y ( fij LI! 3 I dar I 2.5 26 IS 27 Fn\u0026lt;l 'Z^iclMO avM Ric CwfliiUd Pifvjt \u0026amp;Ud Pea* Ke DiacuM# r-kMitv-ButUf SpaghuM) Man*- Siic ClsritM Grtdtu Ffiitt'f'h r-r#a35tf .TlkKd.Bnttc? Fiuii \u0026lt;\u0026gt;bWr 'halMlhUPfW I 01 TwrtnUf Bft.la'f EkLkird Vntato fz-a-m* Juirft Corttert M\u0026lt;*at .\u0026lt;/ 'l'om.B**Q Save* fipuutclt Cotnbrwfcd BuHit 'Or\u0026lt;o\u0026lt; .?aUo HrTc'I'mc. Caka MILK IS LMCLUOEO IN EACH OAVS MENU i Principal.s Reassigned  F.cnt from left: Mrs. Lois Walcers, who moves from Parham Eletrientary to Mead-owcliff Elememary. and Mrs. Eirna Keiiy. formerly at Granite Mountain Eiemertary, is now at Gibbs Elenien- ta Bac.k ro.v, from left: James V/i,se goe.s from Pfeifer Elenentary lo Granite Moantsin Elementary\n___ Maijor.e Hubbard frum Fair Park Elementary to Ro-- mine Elementary\nDon Arick, principal of Mitchell last UPnr ic rsnnnt -.! rtf s., _____ _ _______*______ Mrs. y\u0026lt; ear, is rp rincipal of tvhaixe,. n*Se'TwT \u0026gt;M'XNc. KD.o'te, Ir tm.J 1 \u0026gt;o. i gt tL E1_ lemeUn lt.ta'l rL yJ\nard Clarence Horn who changes from Gillam Elementary to Pfeifer ElemenTarv. :^-l': JIG :h3 'JIH  pec. Prta/'aivi si LriTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 RECEIVED APR 8 1991 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Office of Desegregation Monitonng Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. Additional documents will be submitted to you upon completion. Thanks for your patience. Sincerely .eiL P. williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT 1993-94 PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT March 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1 Mission Statement 2 Goals 3 Description of Needs Assessment Data 4-6 From Recommendation to Needs: The IVocess 7 Needs Listings Curriculum Area 8-11 Desegregation Area 12-14 Support Area 15-18PREFACE The Little Rock School Districts 1993-94 Needs Assessment Report is the result of a District-wide effort to collect information for two purposes: (1) specification and verification of needs and (2) making budgetary and planning decisions which will positively impact the growth and development of the Districts students. The Superintendent, Cabinet, and Board provided leadership and direction throughout the needs assessment process. First, the entailed the development of a mission statement and goals with input from District faculty and staff as well as community patrons. Secondly, varying perceptual, empirical, and objective data were collected for study and analysis. Finally, Ihe results and recommendations yielded by the data were compared with the Districts mission statement, goals, and legal obligations for the development of a needs assessment listing. Throughout the process, the Superintendent, Cabinet, and Board driven by the intent to compare \"where we are\" with \"where we want to be.\" were The 1993-94 Needs Assessment Report has been reviewed and feedback has already occurred with respect to some of the reported findings. While some of the recommendations from the Report were used to make decisions with respect to the Districts program planning and budgeting process, some of the recommendations were not used at this time.  It should be noted that the 1993-94 Needs Assessment Report is the first \"formal\" needs assessment report with respect to the Districts current program planning and budgeting process. As such, the process for using the findings of the Districts annual Needs Assessment Report will be \"fine tuned\" and used more extensively as the process becomes institutionalized. In summation, the planning and budgetary decisions for the 94-95 school year will be rationally based decisions and will not have been made casually. Specifically, Ihe Districts improvement efforts will be based upon real resources and needs revealed by the analysis of the data relative to the mission statement, goals, and legal obligations. * 1MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. 21. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. GOALS The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. on The Little Rock Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fuUy support our schools, including our desegregation plan. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for ail students. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 3DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT DATA Below is a descriptive account of the different data analyzed to verify and specify needs of the District. Community Forums (CF). The purposes of the community forums were: to provide a setting where the public was informed about the mission statement and goals\nto provide a forum whereby future directions which were based upon the mission statement and goals were diffused throughout the community\nto solicit from the community any concerns about budgetary and planning implications\nto afford the District with an awareness of the publics perceptions about new and continuing concerns. The Superintendent conducted six conununity forums. The community forums were held at Cloverdale, Parkview, Bale, Forest Heights, Rockefeller and Garland. Attendance at the community forums ranged from thirty-one at Bale to forty at Forest Heights. District Dialogues (DD). The audience for the district dialogues was the employees of LRSD. The intent for the district dialogues was: to provide a platform whornkn ihu omni nay nne nC f Ian d Inf win# naaweSen.* nf f Ka a_ a_____a  a_ _ ..a.a  - -------------- uj aa. |yLv*iuc. a |yidLlVKllK Whereby the employees of the district were apprised of the mission statement and goals\nto afford the employees of the District information concerning future directions based upon the mission statement and goals\nto solicit from the employees any concerns about budgetary and planning issues\nand to provide for the Administration an awareness of the employees perceptions of the Districts operations. The Superintendent conducted four district dialogues specifically for the central office staff, teachers, principals, and classified staff. Attendance at the districts dialogues ranged from eighteen at the central office dialogue to thirty-five at the classified staffs dialogue. Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT). Since its inception in 1988, the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) has been administered each spring to all third, sixth, and eighth grade students. The MPT was initiated by an act of the Arkansas Legislature through the \"Education Assessment Act of 1970 \" and later expanded by the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983.\" Until 1993, the State of Arkansas required eighth grade students to pass the MPT before they could be promoted to the ninth grade. Eighth grade students were given three opportunities to pass the test. Beginning in 1993, failure of the MPT could no longer serve as the sole basis for retaining a student in the eighth grade. In 1994, the MPT will not be administered in Grade 3, and only one administration will occur for Grades 6 and 8, respectively. Curriculum Audit/Review (CA/R). A review of selected curriculum programs was conducted during the first semester of the 1993-94 school year. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors, supervisors, and coordinators facilitated the review. A plan of action was developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/or new programs could occur for the 94-95 school year. 4DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT DATA (continued) Educational Equity Monitoring (EEM). The task of monitoring is the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. The goals of desegregation are: to end or substantially reduce racial isolation In schools\nto increase racial understanding and respect through a willingness to interact together among children and adults of all races\nto improve academic performance of low achievers\nto increase social equality for minorities through access to quality education which leads to better jobs and higher incomes. Educational Equity Monitoring provides appropriate data and technical assistance for planning and implementing equitable learning experiences for all students based on the goals of desegregation. Educational Equity Monitoring begins in October and continues throughout May of each school year. School ClimatcZHuman Relations Survey (SC/HR). The annual survey of attitudes toward school dimate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1993 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/fauman relations in the Districts schools. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was administered to approximately 18,781 students in grades one through eleven in April, 1993. Scores were reported for total reading, total mathematics, language/English, science, and social science. Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG). The purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant is to provide funding beyond the regular budget to all area schools in assisting them to Increase academic achievement and to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. Academic Support Programs (ASP). The Academic Support Program is designed to improve learning experiences of identified students. The instructional focus is on the use of multiple strategies designed to provide students with more global and complex tasks building on things that they already know. Library/Media Program (L/MP). The Library Media Program supports the instructional program of the District by providing a full measure of varied instructional resources and by extending and enriching basic skills that are taught in the classroom. A variety of teaching/learning strategies are presented to students through library media center activities designed to meet a wide range of student needs. Recruitment Program (RP). The purpose of the LRSD recruitment program is to devise a system in which the entire Greater Little Rock community is knowledgeable about school programs and options, and to encourage parents to voluntarily sign up for schools which aids desegregation in the LRSD. 5DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT DATA (continued) Stephens (S). This specific program is the construction of the new Stephens Inter-District Elementary School. It is an aspect of the tri-district desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter-district schools. Special Education (SE). Special education is specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. This includes instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings\nand instruction in physical education. Substitute Teachers (ST). Substitute teachers are employed by the District to teach in classrooms when the regular teacher is unavailable. In most instances, substitutes are used on a short term basis. Occasionally, it becomes necessary to employ a substitute to teach in a classroom for a teacher who must be absent for an extended period of time. Vocational Education (VE). Vocational education is designed to provide a program of learning experiences to develop skilled and adaptable workers who are prepared to pursue additional learning opportunities that may result in more productivity. Vocational education also develops satisfying life enhancing family, civic and personal responsibilities. Facilities Study. This is a review of the school districts capability to meet the projections of the junior high enrollment. At the printing of this document, the Facilities Studys recommendations are incomplete. Recommendations will be contained within the Facilities Study which is to be filed with the Court after review by the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. Proportional Allocations Fonnulas (PAF). This is a set of formulated guidelines used to allocate various budget items (i.e., instructional materials, supervision aids, etc.). No changes are recommended at the time of printing. 6FROM RECOMMENDATIONS TO NEEDS: THE PROCESS Purpose and Source. Based upon the recommendations of the reports, studies, fast-track evaluations, district dialogues, and community forums, the Needs Assessment Report of the LRSD was compiled to identify, specify, and rank recommendations/needs according to planning and budgetary significance. Recommendations Ranking. Initially, recommendations were rank ordered into four categories based upon planning and budgetary significance by the Cabinet. The following describe the categorical planning and budgetary guidelines used for ranking: Category A. Recommendations identified as Category A will have a strong possibility of being funded given adequate resources. Category A recommendations are consequences of legal obligations of the Desegregation Plans and state legal obligations. Priority attention for strategic and programmatic planning will be given to the recommendations designated with a Category A classification. Category B. The recommendations classified as Category B may be funded, if sufficient funding is available or secured. TTie recommendations classified Cat^ory B are a result of existing or newly developed obligations that are not legal requirements. The recommendations classified as Cat^ory B may be considered as issues for strategic and programmatic planning but will not receive preferential attention before the recommendations which have been classified as Category A. Category C. Recommendations specified as Category C will receive funding only after Category A and Category B initiatives have been fulfilled, if vaiegory k.. necuiniiienuauons speciiiea vaiegory u wiu lunaing alter category a funding source is available. Category C recommendations have been determined not to merit superiority attention for strategic and programmatic planning. Category D. Recommendations designated as Cat^ory D do not require specific funding sources. Additionally, Category D recommendations do not indicate any particular rank for strategic and programmatic planning directions. (Note: Category D recommendations were not included in this report because of their low rankings and in an effort to maintain focus on needs of greater priority.) Summing and Averaging. After the categorical assignment (i.e., A, B, C, D) of each recommendation by individual Cabinet members, an average of each recommendation was performed. The following weighted values were assigned to each recommendation by Cabinet members for providing an average Cabinet response for each recommendation: \"A=4'\n\"B=3'\n\"C=2\"\n\"D=l. From Recommendations to Needs. The recommendations which yielded an average in the \"A\", \"B, and \"C\" range became the list of needs, and all other superfluous recommendations (i.e. recommendations averaging D\") did not attain the \"needs\" listing based upon low ranking of priority by the Cabinet members. Area Classification. Tlie listing of needs were then grouped into the Districts operational areas of Curriculum, Desegregation, and Support. Source. The source(s) of input for each need follows the stated need. 7CATEGORY A NEEDSUSTINGS CURRICULUM AREA Needs identified as Category A will have a strong possibility of being funded given adequate resources. Category A needs are consequences of legal obligations. Priority attention for strategic and programmatic planning will be given to the needs designated with a Category A classification. Analyze test data to properly remediate students who do not pass the MPT. AMPT Utilize the District Summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for instructional planning and delivery AMPT Provide pre and post assessment for meaningful instruction based on needs revealed by MPT results. AMPT Develop and adopt a comprehensive board policy framework for curriculum management. CA/R Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional management. CA/R Develop and implement a participative curriculum management process. CA/R Develop and implement functional curriculum documents. CA/R Consolidate curriculum functions to facilitate curriculum planning, development, and delivery. CA/R Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. CA/R Continue staff development for certified and support slalT in the areas of Educational Equity, Multicultural Curriculum Delivery, Discipline and Class Management. EEM Provide parent-teacher training in non-violence and socialization skills. SC/HR Infuse social skills in the regular elementary curriculum. SC/HR 8CURRICULUM ARELA (continued) Category A (continued) Place greater emphasis on effective reading and mathematics instruction in grades K-12. SAT Provide in-depth workshops and inservices related to mathematics and science during the summer and during the operational school year in order to provide teachers with effective strategies for enriching the curricula. SAT Use standardized test results for diagnostic purposes. SAT Constroct teacher-made tests to focus on student growth in higher order thinking through comprehension, analysis, application, and problem solving. SAT * Implement a change in the delivery of academic support in secondary mathematics by providing additional instructional time for targeted students rather than providing assistance within the regular class time. ASP Evaluate the resources for each elementary librarys capability to support the Districts revised curriculum L/MP Offer effective and efficient instruction for the Summer School Program. CF/DD Provide developmental experiences for kindergarten, first, and second grade students. CF/DD Provide survival and social skills for faculty/staff in urban school settings. CF/DD Provide on-going staff development, mentoring, and advisement to new employees of the District. CF/DD Identify and implement alternatives to suspension. CF/DD i IVovide strategies/programs to teach conflict resolution and problem-solving. CF/DD 9CURRICULUM AREA (continued) Sfe Provide instruction, centers, and technology to embellish and improve curriculum for non -English speaking students. CRF/DD CATEGORY B The needs classified as Category B may be funded, if sufTicient funding is available or secured. The needs classified as Category B are a result of existing or newly developed obligations that are not legal requirements. The needs classified as Category B may be considered as issues for strategic and programmatic planning but will not receive preferential attention before the needs which have been classified as Category A. Structure a close working relationship among instructional supervisors, StafT Development, classroom teachers, and the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. AMPT Implement at each building specific methods for communicating to students information relative to honors and awards requirements, extracurricular requirements and discipline expectations. EEM Initiate home visits and phone contacts by teachers and principals. SC/HR Promote interactive learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator. SC/HR Establish a systematic procedure for the teaching of listening skills at the primary level and grades 7 and 8. SAT Teach organizational techniques and study skills. SAT Integrate the teaching of language (mechanics, usage, writing skills) in all subject areas and oi^anizational levels. SAT Use a variety of enriching materials and resources to expand science and social science instruction. SAT Provide extra class activities in all subject areas to enable student to assume responsibilities through self- directed learning. SAT Stimulate student interest with homework that is meaningfully directed through assignments that enhance school achievement. SAT Implement a District-wide, well organized, year-long inservice program with continuous supervisory assistance to beginning teachers in curriculum planning, classroom management and discipline management. SAT 10CURRICULUM AREA (continued) CATEGORY B (continued) Plan staff development and inservice programs to meet the developing needs of teachers and staff. SAT Provide staff development and training to all vocational staff members who have not received vocational training in identified teaching strategies. VE Provide instruction at the right level of difficulty for gifted students. CF/DD Utilize innovative and varying strategies to address varying learning needs of students. CF/DD Provide computer literacy for all teachers. CF Design and implement a check-and-balance system and a remediation process for students who are not academically functioning at the junior high level and beyond. CF CATEGORY C Needs specified as Category C will receive funding only after Category A and Category B initiatives have been fulfilled, if a funding source is available. Category C needs have been determined not to merit superiority attention for strategic and programmatic planning. Encourage principals and teachers to share workable ideas and techniques at the building level and District- wide. SAT Expand the Early Childhood Program to additional schools. CF/DD Provide registration information in the spring for succeeding school year in order to enhance instructional planning and forecasting by principals. CF/DD Promote collaborative efforts with UALR to develop educational programs in the science and mathematics area. CF/DD Adjust the curriculum using practical deletions and additions for more meaningful instruction. CF/DD 11CATEGORY A DESEGREGATION AREA Needs identified as Category A will have a strong possibility of being funded given adequate resources. Category A needs are consequences of legal obligations. Priority attention for strategic and programmatic planning will be given to the needs designated with a Category A classification. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. CA/R Adopt and follow a policy for improved board governance. CA/R Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. CA/R Establish consistency and equity in educational programs. CA/R Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. CA/R Conduct inservice for District faculty/stalT on the requirements of the Court approved Desegregation Plans. EEM Link expectations for implementing the Desegregation Plans and for achieving desired plans outcomes to the performance evaluation process for all personnel. EEM Develop and implement a plan for equitable stalTing in schools that do not meet the staffing goal for black staff members. The plan should include inservice to assist personnel in developing strategies for improvement. EEM Create a monitoring entity to ensure recommendations of educational equity monitoring are implemented. EEM Hold principals accountable for developing and implementing school-based recruitment plans. RP Develop and implement a detailed plan of action and calendar for educating realtors, relocation specialists, churches, civic groups. Chamber of Commerce, and etc. throughout Pulaski County. RP 12DESEGREGATION AREA (continued) CATEGORY A (continued) Survey incentive school recruitment teams and incentive school staffs for the development of a recruitment plan specific to each individual incentive school. RP Pursue and foster a stronger commitment from the PCSSD in recruiting white students into all LRSD schools, particularly Incentive, Interdistrict, and Magnet. RP Conduct research which will assist the District in determining whether or not there are racial and/or gender differences in practices pertaining to the identification and placement of students with mental retardation. SE Increase efforts to close the disparities in minority staffing in identified District schools. VE Develop a budget which will properly provide for the maintenance and operations of ail districts schools in an equitable manner. CF/DD Afford a curriculum which decreases the disparity in achievement between ethnic groups. CF/DD Implement strategies which will accelerate the implementation of the Desegregation Plan. CF/DD Educate the Districts faculty/staff about the mandates of the Desegregation Plans. CF/DD Implement strategies which will increase the communitys understanding of the Desegregation Plans. CF/DD Conduct studies which will determine the effectiveness of the many programs mandated in the Desegregation Plans. CF/DD 13DESEGREGATION AREA (continued) CATEGORY B The needs classified as Category B may be funded, if sufficient funding is available or secured. The needs classified as Category B are a result of existing or newly developed obligations that are not legal requirements. The needs classified as Category B may be considered as issues for strategic and programmatic planning but will not receive preferential attention before the needs which have been classified as Category A. Revise the School Climate/Human Relations Survey. SC/HR Examine current demographic information for redrawing current attendance zones based on current area composition patterns to more effectively achieve desegregation. RP Build a new inter-city elementary school based on the following needs: to decrease the schools operational expenditures\nto enhance education through new, modem, up-to-date facilities\nto close outdated facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet current Districts needs. S Cut transportation costs. CF/DD Increase the Districts administrative capabilities to serve, support, and enhance principals efforts at the school buildings. CF/DD CATEGORY C Needs specified as Category C will receive funding only after Category A and Category B initiatives have been fulfilled, if a funding source is available. Category C needs have been determined not to merit superiority attention for strategic and programmatic planning. Request more money from the State for support of the District in implementing the Desegregation Plans CF/DD Develop a public relations campaign geared toward the Little Rock Board of Directors and the community. CF/DD 14CATEGORY A SUPPORT AREA Needs identified as Category A will have a strong possibility of being funded given adequate resources. Category A needs are consequences of legal obligations of the Desegregation Plans and state lega obligations. Priority attention for strategic and programmatic planning will be given to the needs designated with a Category A classification. Consolidate and restructure business services and support services. CA/R Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of Provisions which unduly limit board control of key educational programs and practices. CA/R Improve educational facilities based upon a District-wide needs assessment. CA/R Develop and implement a plan for utilizing all groups of parents in the school program. EEM Upgrade facilities where special education and gifted and talented education classes are located to ensure that the locations are comparable to other programs. EEM Provide Chapter I training to parents. CF/DD Address the needs of students who have on-going emotional and behavioral problems. CF/DD Publish an employee newsletter. CF/DD Provide the necessary instructional supplies and materials for all schools. CF/DD Improve the safety image in the District. CF/DD Improve accessibility conditions in school buildings and on buses for students with physical handicaps. CF/DD Pi'ovide parental involvement training for parents of students who are under-achieving. CF/DD 15SUPPORT AREA (continued) CATEGORY B The needs classified as Category B may be funded, if sufficient funding is available or secured. The needs classified as Category B are a result of existing or newly developed obligations that are not legal requirements. The needs classified as Category B may be considered as issues for strategic and programmatic planning but will not receive preferential attention before the needs which have been classified as Category A. Forward printouts which identify eligible students for each building prior to the close of the school year in order to facilitate the identification process for the next school year. ASP For Special Education, continue to increase the number of staff providing indirect services. Currently, three teachers work full time in this capacity, and over 140 students are served using this option. SE Form a joint ad hoc committee composed of administrators and union representatives to study data for making recommendations on measures to reduce absenteeism and substitute usage. ST Use cameras and aides on buses to assist in providing a safer environment on buses. CF/DD Use alternatives to offset budget cuts. CF/DD Utilize mental health workers to impact students with severe emotional and behavioral problems. CF/DD Solicit voluntary services from parents and community to help offset costs. CF/DD Increase community support. CF/DD Increase the morale of LRSDs faculty/staff. CF/DD 16SUPPORT AREA (continued) CATEGORY C Needs specified as Category C will receive funding only after Category A and Category B initiatives have been fulfilled, if a funding source is available. Category C needs have been determined not to merit superiority attention for strategic and programmatic planning. Implement and maintain consistent expectations for the maintenance of school records EEM across the District. Continue funding the Academic Progress Incentive Grant in those area schools meeting stringent approval criteria. APIG Make funds available in September of funding years in order to extend the impact time for the academic Progress Incentive Grant. APIG Increase the funding level to original levels for the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. APIG Implement strategics to assist library staff in streamlining clerical tasks. LIMP Disseminate decision-making process for executing repairs of schools. CF/DD Conduct demographic study to determine what schools should be closed. CF/DD Increase the number of counselors serving our schools. CF/DD Allow principals more decision-making authority concerning termination recommendations of teachers CF/DD Give principals more autonomy concerning teacher assignments at their schools. CF/DD Piovide incentive schools principals with knowledge concerning their declining enrollments and possible ramifications for their schools as a result of declining enrollments. CF/DD 17SUPPORT AREA (continued) CATEGORY C (continued) Increase custodial staff. CF/DD Revise the current grievance process for expelling poorly performing teachers. CF/DD Conduct a salary schedule study with input from all faculty/staff. CD/DD Improve coordination of volunteers and parents for optimal support and assistance for the schools. CF/DD Improve the social relationships between staff at differing administrative levels. CF/DD 18(Sm RECESVFP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN 1 7 1995 NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1994-95 PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT January 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 2 Mission Statement 3 Goals 3 The Process 4-5 Description of Programmatic Areas 6-9 Needs/Recommendations Listings 10 Sorted by Programmatic Area 11-12 Sorted by Funding Category 13-14 IPREFACE The Little Rock School District's 1994-95 Needs Assessment Report is the result of a District-wide effort to collect information for two purposes: (1) specification and verification of needs and (2) making budgetary and planning decisions which will positively impact the growth and development of the District's students. The 1994-95 Needs Assessment identifies needs/recommendations from studies and reports identified in the District's current Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (\"Gray Book\") along with results from \"extended evaluations\" that the District incorporated into this Needs Assessment Report. This report also reflects \"carry-over items\" from the 1993-94 Needs Assessment Report. The terms \"needs\" and \"recommendations\" are used interchangeably in this report. The Superintendent, Superintendent's Council, Superintendent's Cabinet, and Board provided leadership, direction and/or assistance throughout the Needs Assessment process. Varying perceptual and objective data were collected for study and analysis. The results and recommendations provided information that was compared with the District's mission statement, goals, and legal obligations for the development of a Needs Assessment listing. Throughout the process, the District was driven by the intent to compare \"where we are\" with \"where we need to be.\" It should be noted that the 1994-95 Needs Assessment Report is the second \"formal\" Needs Assessment Report with respect to the District's new program planning and budgeting process. As such, the process for collecting and using the findings of the District's annual Needs Assessment will continue to be \"fine-tuned\" as the process becomes more and more institutionalized. In summation, the planning and budgetary decisions for the 1995-96 school year will be rationally based decisions and will not have been made casually. Specifically, the District's improvement efforts will be based upon real resources and needs revealed by the analysis of the data relative to the mission statement, goals, and legal obligations.MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, of a dedicated and competent staff, and of students, parents, and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity, and adequate support for education. GOALS 1. 2. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure all students grow academically, socially, and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. 3. 4. 5. The Little Rock Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 3THE PROCESS All desegregation and nondesegregation programs in the District underwent a \"short form\" evaluation. The results of those evaluations were reviewed by the Superintendents Cabinet. Based on the Cabinets review, the Cabinet then made recommendations to the Superintendents Council for programs that were in need of an extended evaluation. The programs identified for an extended evaluation were programs in which Cabinet members perceived additional information was needed in order to better understand District needs. Programs that underwent an extended evaluation were also programs that were perceived to be candidates for potential program development. The Council reviewed the Cabinets recommendations and reached consensus regarding which programs would undergo an extended evaluation. Primary and Secondary leader(s) responsible for identified program(s) were then notified to conduct an extended evaluation. The Council subsequently met to review the results of extended evaluations and reports or studies. Council members were asked to rank the needs/recommendations statements, (it should be noted that not all programs that underwent an extended evaluation necessarily had forthcoming needs/recommendations statements). Consensus was reached on programs with moderate to high needs/recommendations. Recommendations with low rankings which had little or no implications for strategic and programmatic planning were not included in the needs listing. Recommendations were placed in an A, B, C, or R category based on consensus by Council members using the following guidelines: Category A. Category B. Category C. Category R. Recommendations identified as Category A will have a strong possibility of being funded given adequate resources. Category A recommendations are consequences of legal obligations of the Desegregation Plans and state legal obligations. Priority attention for strategic and programmatic planning will be given to the recommendations designated with a Category A classification. The recommendations classified as Category B may be funded, if sufficient funding is available or secured. The recommendations classified Category B are a result of existing or newly developed obligations that are not legal requirements. The recommendations classified as Category B may be considered as issues for strategic and programmatic planning but will not receive preferential attention before the recommendations which have been classified as Category A. Recommendations specified as Category C will receive funding only after Category A and Category B initiatives have been fulfilled, if a funding source is available. Category C recommendations have been determined not to merit superiority attention for strategic and programmatic planning. Recommendations specified as Category R are expected to result in a budgetary reduction. This category was created because of the realization that some of the needs/recommendations could result in savings if implemented. 4The process for listing of the needs/recommendations was further refined by Council in order to make the Needs Assessment Report more manageable and less cumbersome. Where possible, needs/recommendations were folded-in or collapsed to avoid repetition. Four general categories (Assessment/Achievement, Discipline, Parent and Community, and Safety and Security) were created to deal particularly with recurring themes. The 1993-94 Needs Assessment results were reviewed and similarly collapsed so that items could be listed in parallel with the 1994-95 Needs Assessment Report. The result was a more manageable list of needs/recommendations. Council also identified programmatic areas for Business Case development during the needs/recommendations review process. Primary and secondary leaders were subsequently notified to prepare Business Cases as the District moves from its Needs Assessment phase and further into the Program Development phase of the program planning and budgeting cycle. One significant change from the previous year's reports was the elimination of the Desegregation, Curriculum, and Support categorization. This was a further effort to make the report more manageable and keep classification less subjective where these categories could potentially overlap. One final note: an Audit of Obligations was coordinated and compiled by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. The purpose of the Audit of Obligations is to catalogue and merge into the Program Budget Document all desegregation obligations incurred during the previous year. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports, and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The obligations were extracted from the documents and listed. The list was reviewed by the Superintendents Council, the Superintendent, LRSD Attorneys, and the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The Audit has been filed with the U. S. Federal Court and distributed to the Council and other members. The Audit was not merged with the Needs Assessment but is mentioned in this report because of its identification of District obligations. Council members reviewed the Audit prior to the development of the Needs Assessment Report. 5DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMMATIC AREAS Below is a descriptive account of the different reports, studies, extended evaluations, and generalized categories that were analyzed to verify and specify needs of the District. Achievement/Assessment Broad category used in this report which synthesizes multiple criteria needs/recommendations from the Stanford Achievement Test, AMPT Report (1993-94 was last school year it was administered), teacher-made tests, Portfolio, etc. Evaluations or reports that were folded into this general category included Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, Student Assessment Report, Goal Setting Work Session, Safety and Security Reports, School Climate/Human Relations Survey, and other reports which included achievement/assessment related items. Academic Progress Incentive Grant The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000.00. Area schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Academic Support Program The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades K through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support is provided by certified reading specialists and English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, in additional classes, and in labs. Coopers and Lybrand Report The Coopers and Lybrand Report reviewed nine non-instructional support functions in the District to determine the feasibility of outsourcing or privatizing those areas. Coopers and Lybrand outlined the work flow and management of the following functions: Financial Services, Information Services, Human Resources, Communications, Safety and Security, Transportation, Food Services, Procurement and Materials Management, and Plant Services. Curriculum Audit/Review A review of selected curriculum programs will be conducted annually in accordance with state standards, guidelines, and regulations. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors, supervisors, coordinators, principals, and teachers will participate in the review. A plan of action will be developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/or new programs may occur for the 94-95 school year. 6Discipline Broad category used in this report which synthesizes needs/recommendations from reports or evaluations that concern discipline issues, from.sources such as the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, Safety and Security Reports, School Climate/Human Relations Report^ and other reports which included discipline related items. Districtwide Facilities Study The districtwide facilities study will review demographics, facilities, and develop long-range planning needs. Anticipated recommendations will include which District facilities to close, continue, or expand. The districtwide facilities study should conclude during the summer of 1995. A preliminary study to the comprehensive assessment was conducted to determine which schools were candidates for closing for the 1995-96 school year. Educational Equity Monitoring The task of monitoring is only the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. Monitoring occurs twice during the school year at all of the LRSD schools by the local school biracial committees, composed of parents and patrons and a specialist from the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. Recommendations are provided to assist the District with improving recurring areas of concern. These recommendations are based on the first and second semester Equity Monitoring Reports. Family Life Education The Family Life Education program was begun eight years ago to address the teen pregnancy problem in the Little Rock School District. The initial program was begun in the seventh grade. The curriculum was developed by personnel in our district to meet the needs of our students. Four-Year-Old Program The Little Rock School District's four year old program is a developmentally appropriate instructional program, at no cost to parents, to help meet the needs of disadvantaged students and to help improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Guidance Services Guidance Services are systematically planned and delivered programs that address the social/personal, academic and career development needs of all students. These activities and services are designed to help students focus on the attainment of knowledge and skills for developing healthy life goals and acquiring the behaviors to reach these goals. Health Services The Health Service Program provides health care and health education to all students in the school district. 7HIPPY HIPPY is a home based developmental program which recognizes the parent as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists parent(s) in preparing the child to be successful in kindergarten, therefore assisting in the reduction of the disparity gap between black and white students. HIPPY'S major focus is in the shadow areas of the incentive schools. Southwest Little Rock, and other economically and educationally disadvantaged families. McClellan Community School The McClellan Community School provides a wide variety of programs and services by expanding the use of the McClellan High School facility to serve the community after school, evenings, and weekends. New Futures The purpose of the New Futures junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. A variety of data collection strategies were utilized including program rosters, agendas, minutes, analysis of student achievement and disciplinary records, as well as teacher, student and parent interviews and surveys. Both qualitative and quantitative data were utilized. Non-Desegregation Contingencies Those activities concerned with maintaining a funding reserve for future operations as well as unforeseen events. Parent and Community Broad category used in this report which synthesizes needs/recommendations from reports or evaluations, such as the Town Hall Meetings. District Dialogues, Goal Setting Work Session, School Climate/Human Relations Report, and other reports which included parent and community related concerns. Recruitment Program The purpose of the LRSD recruitment program is to devise a system in wliich the entire Greater Little Rock community is knowledgeable about school programs and options, and to encourage parents to voluntarily sign up for schools which aids desegregation in the LRSD. Safety and Security Broad category used in this report which synthesizes needs/recommendations from reports or evaluations, such as the Safety and Security Evaluation, the Blue Ribbon Task Force Report, District Dialogues, Town Hall Meetings, Goal Setting Work Session, School Climate/Human Relations Report, and other reports or evaluations which included safety and security related items. 8School Climate/Human Relations Survey The annual survey of attitudes toward school climate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1994 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/human relations in the District's schools. Staff Development The Staff Development Department will provide support for the professional and personal growth of staff, both paid and volunteer, through comprehensive, ongoing training programs that are critical to successful desegregation. Training and staff development enable staff to increase their skill levels, mature in their understanding and harmonious relationships with one another, and learn to live the principles which uphold quality and equitable desegregated education for all children. Inservice is designed to enhance the quality and effectiveness of curriculum delivery that will result in improved achievement for all students. Stephens This specific program is the construction of the new Stephens Inter-District Elementary School, desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter-district schools. It is an aspect of the tri-district Substitute Teachers Substitute teachers are employed by the District to teach in the classrooms when the regular teacher is unavailable. In most instances, substitutes are used on a short term basis. Occasionally, it becomes necessary to employ a substitute to teach in a classroom for a teacher who must be absent for extended periods. Vocational Education Vocational Education is designed to provide a program of learning experiences to development skilled and adaptable workers who are prepared to pursue additional learning opportunities that will result in more productivity. Vocational Education also develops abilities, attitudes and appreciation that contribute to a satisfying life enhancing family, civic and personal responsibilities. 9NEEDS/RECOMMENDATIONS LISTINGS Based upon the recommendations of the reports, studies, extended evaluations, the previous year's Needs Assessment Report, Town Hall meetings, and District Dialogues, the Needs Assessment Report of the LRSD was compiled to identify, specify, and rank recommendations/needs according to planning and budgetary significance. Needs/recommendations are sorted two ways\nby programmatic area and again by funding category. This is an additional effort to make the Needs Assessment Report more manageable and user friendly. The reader will notice at the far right hand side two columns, labeled 1994-95\" and 1993-94. An asterisk (*) may appear in one or both of the 1994-95 or 1993-94 columns. Needs/recommendations are marked with an asterisk (*) to indicate the need/recommendation item for the year in which it was identified as a need or recommendation. Again, as noted earlier in this report, needs or recommendations have been folded-in or collapsed to provide a more manageable report. 10FUNDING CATEGORY A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A R C C c R Little Rock School District Needs Assessment Recommendations - 1994-95 Sorted by Programmatic Area REPORT NAME Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Achievemenl/Assessment Achieveinent/Assessment Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Discipline Discipline Districtwide Facilities Study (Preliminary Study) Educational Equity Monitoring Educational Equity Monitoring Educational Equity Monitoring Family Life Education  RECOMMENDATION/NEED Review grant requirements and funding levels. Modify delivery model within existing guidelines. Increase achievement of all students which should result in the reduction of disparity. Develop multiple criteria for assessing teaching and learning, i.e., SAT-8, portfolio, test item bank, teacher-made tests.__________________ For Information Services, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Taclical Planning, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training._______________________________________ For Transportation, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Tactical Planning, Management Information and Repotting, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training.________________ For Plant Services, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Tactical Planning, Management Information and Repotting, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training._________________ Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. Adopt and follow a policy for improved board governance. Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. Establish consistency and  ,..iily in educational programs. Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. Consolidate and restructure business services and support services. Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of Provisions whicli unduly limit board control of key educational programs and practices.________________________________ Improve educational facilities based upon a District-wide needs assessment. Improve quality of current services. Develop long-range plan to address discipline issues. Recommendation that at least one and perhaps two schools be closed for Ihe 1995-96 school year (based on varied criteria Ihe schools under consideration for closing include Badgett, Baseline, Fair Park, and Woodruff).__________________________ Develop a districtwide, long-range technology plan to replace outdated equipment. Develop a long-range plan to review building and facilities for needed repairs. Provide quality and relevant staff development for all employees/parents. Continue funding Ihe program with changes to the delivery system. II 1994-95 1993-94Little Rock School District Needs Assessment Recommendations - 1994-95 Sorted by Programmatic Area FUNDING /s CATEGORY : C R R R C R A A A A A C A B R R R J REPORT. -NAME-b'-^' Four Year Old Program Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY McClellan Community School New Futures Non-Desegregation Contingencies Parent \u0026amp; Community Parent \u0026amp; Community Recruitment Program Safety \u0026amp; Security School Climate / Human Relations Staff Development Stephens Substitute Teachers Vocational Education Vocational Education REC0MMENDATI0N7NEED\n5 Delete or modify the program. (Program effectiveness and goals questionable.) Staff in accordance with ADE/NCA standards. Maintain the present level of coverage, but change delivery system. Delete or modify program. (Program effectiveness and goals questionable.) Delete or modify program. I Review Staffing/Teaming for restructured schools. Analyze discipline management reports, achievement results and attendance records. Compare with non-New Futures schools. Review tor course duplication (such as learning foundations).____________________________________ Maintain existing practices. Expand collaborative efforts between the school and community agencies. Increase and improve quality of parent involvement in school activities. Pursue and foster a stronger commitment from the PCSSD in recruiting white students into all LRSD schools, padicularly Incentive, Interdistrict, and Magnet.______________________ Review overall needs of the district in determining safety and security requirements. Develop and enhance strategies to improve school climate, student achievement, parent involvement, and staff development.________________________________ Maintain present services with changes to delivery system. Build new inter-city elementary school based on the following needs: to decrease the school's operational expenditures\nto enhance education through new, modern, up-to-date facilities\nto close outdated facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet current District needs Reduce current level of usage/funding. Review curriculum for appropriate use of funds al Metropolitan. Check enrollment levels and duplication of programs from school to school. 12 1994-95 1993-94FUNDING CATEGORY A A A A REPORT NAME Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Achievement/Assessment Achievement/Assessment A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Report Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Discipline Discipline Non-Oesegregalion Contingencies Parent \u0026amp; Community Parent \u0026amp; Community Recruitment Program Safety S Security Staff Development Little Rock School District Needs Assessment Recommendations - 1994-95 Sorted by Funding Category RECOMMENDATION / NEED \u0026lt;  Review grant requirements and funding levels. Modify delivery model within existing guidelines. Increase achievement of all students which should result in the reduction of disparity. Develop multiple criteria for assessing teaching and learning, i.e., SAT-8, portfolio, lest item bank, teacher-made tests.____________ For Infonnation Services, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Tactical Planning, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training._______________________ For Transportation, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Tactical Planning, Management Information and Reporting, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training._______ For Plant Services, recommend enhancements through Strategic and Tactical Planning, Management Information and Reporting, Capital and/or Technology, and Expertise and Training. Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. Adopt and follow a policy for improved board governance. Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. Establish consistency and equity in educational programs. Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. Consolidate and restructure business seivices and support services. Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of Provisions which unduly limit board control of key educational programs and practices.________________________ Improve educational facilities based upon a District-wide needs assessment. Improve quality of current services. Develop long-range plan to address discipline issues. Maintain existing practices. Expand collaborative efforts between the school and community agencies. Increase and improve quality of parent involvement in school activities. Pursue and foster a stronger commitment from the PCSSD in recruiting white students into all LRSD schools, particularly Incentive, Interdistrict, and Magnet,______________ Review overall needs of the district in determining safety and security requirements. Maintain present services with changes Io delivery system. 1994*95 1993*94 13FUNDING CATEGORY B C C c C \"c c R R y r R r REPORT NAME Stephens Educational Equity Monitoring Educational Equity ________Monitoring________ Educational Equity Monitoring Four Year Old Program McClellan Community School School Climate / Human Relations Districtwide Facilities Study (Preliminary Study) Family Life Education Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY New Futures Substitute Teachers Vocational Education Vocational Education Little Rock School District Needs Assessment Recommendations - 1994-95 Sorted by Funding Category RECOMMENDATION / NEED Build new inter-city elementary school based on the following needs: to decrease the school's operational expenditures\nto enhance education through new, modern, up-to-date facilities\nto close outdated facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet current District needs_______ Develop a districtwide, long-range technology plan to replace outdated equipment. Develop a long-range plan to review building and facilities for needed repairs. Provide quality and relevant staff development for all employees/parents. Delete or modify the program. (Program effectiveness and goals questionable.) Delete or modify program. Develop and enhance strategies to improve school climate, student achievement, parent involvement, and staff development._______________ Recommendation that at least one and perhaps two schools be closed for the 1995-96 school year (based on varied criteria the schools under consideration for closing include Badgett, Baseline, Fair Park, and Woodruff).____________________________ Continue funding the program with changes to the delivery system. Staff in accordance with ADE/NCA standards. Maintain the present level of coverage, but change delivery system. Delete or modify program. (Program effectiveness and goals questionable.) Review Staffing/Teaming for restructured schools. Analyze discipline management reports, achievement results and attendance records. Compare with non-New Futures schools. Review for course duplication (such as learning foundations)._____________ Reduce current level of usage/funding. Review curriculum for appropriate use of funds at Metropolitan. Check enrollment levels and duplicatiorr of programs from school to school. 14 1994-95 1993-94C'. ECCC:^EB^|5 Little Rock School District /995 December 11, 1995 oec Office of ^^^^Sregation ^onitonng MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation RE: Enclosed Reports Please find enclosed a draft of the 1995-96 Needs Assessment document and a copy of the Extended Evaluations for the Little Rock School District, Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. drg Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 RECEIVED little ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEC I 2 1995 NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1995-96 J F PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT November 1995 ITABLE OF CONTENTS Prcfiice Mission Sliilciiicnl Cools The PriKcss Dcscriplioii of Prograiiiinalic Areas Nccd/Recoiiiiiiciidalioiis Lisliiigs Sorted by Pi ograinmalic AreaIKEPACE The Little Rock School District's 1995-96 Needs Assessment Report is the result of District-wide information collection for two piimary purposes: (I) specification and verification of needs and (2) making budgetary and planning decisions which will positively impact the growth and development of students in the Lillie Rock School District. The 1995-96 Needs Assessment identified necds/recommendations from studies and reports identified in the District's ciirrciit Irogram Ilanning and Budgeting Manual (\"Gray Book\"), Strategic Planning Cominitlce recominendations, and results from \"extended evaluations\" that the District incorporated into this Needs Assessment Report. This document also reports \"cariy-ovcr items\" from the 1994-95 Needs Assessment Report. The terms \"needs\" and \"recominendations\" are used interchangeably in this report. ThcSnpcrintcndcnt, Siipcrinlcndcnt's Cabinet and Board provided leadership, direction and/or assistance thronghont the Needs Assessment process. Varying pcrccptnal and objective data were collected for study and analysis. The results of the iccoiiiiiiciKlafioiis provided iiiroriiintioii Hint were compared with (he Dis(ric('s mission s(a(emeii(, goals, and legal obligations for the devciopniciil of a Needs Assessment listing. Thronglioiit the process, the District was driven by the intent to compare \"where we r*B*CV* larallt Iba arc\" willi \"where we need to be.\" The Little Rock School District's Strategic Planning Team, a group representing various constituents in the community, and school district developed a comprehensive, long range action plan with implementation strategies that covers a broad range of Little Rock School District programs. The Strategic Plan Mission Statement, Goals and Strategics have been approved by the LRSD Board of Dil ectois and incorporated into (he 1995-96 Needs Assessment Report. As a result of ninie months of planning, research, and indepth study of the Little Rock School District, the strategic plan identified needs for the district. Based on these needs, strategies and action plans were developed and approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors on November 16, 1995, A complete list of strategics is listed on page four of this document. 1Hie Lillie Rock School DisIricI is assessing needs in a unique siliialion where resources are extremely limited. Therefore, criteria for reducing programs may not be limited to the success of a particular program. Therefore, some of our highly productive programs will be considered for possible elimination as difficult budget reduction decisions are being made. You should be aware however, that there arc no guraiiiccs that business cases will be funded, just because they have been prepared and submitted. It should be noted Hint the 1995-96 Needs Assessment Report is the third \"formal\" Needs Assessment report with respect to the District's new program planning and budgeting process. As such, the process for collecting and using the findings of the District's annual Needs Assessment will continue to be \"fine-tuned\" as the process becomes more iiislilutionalized. In sninniary, the planning and hiidgetaiy decisions for the 1996-97 school year will be rationally based. Specifically, the District's iinprovcmcnl strategics will be based upon real resources and needs revealed by the analysis of the data relative to the mission slalement, goals and legal obligations. 2MISSION STATEMENT* 1 he mission of the Lillie Rock School District is Io equip all sliidcnls with Ihe skills and knowledge Io realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously, and face the future as productive contributing citizens. I bis is accoinplisbcd Ihrongh open access Io a diverse, innovative and challenging enrrienhim, in a secure environment with a slalT dedicated Io excellence and empowered with Ihe IrnsI and support of our coniniiinily. GOALS/OBJECTIVES* By Ihe year 2001, average sliidcnl peiTorinancc for cvciy idcntiricd sub group (race,gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as mcasiiied by standardized tests. No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 sliidcnls will mcci or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core cm i iculiim. Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored Io his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related Io incaningfnl, higher learning, citizenship or service Io olhci'S. * Taken from llic Strategic Plan approved by Ilie Lillie School District Board of Directors on November 16,199S. 3SIRATEGIES* In partnership with our coniniiinily, wc will establish standards in the core ciirriculiim (reading/langiiage arts, malbenialics, science, and social studies) al each approprialc level, as well as develop Ihe means of assessing whelhcr sludcnis have met (ficse sfandards. We will develop Ihe means Io successfully implement or modify Ihe Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in Ihe Siralcgic Plan. Wc will develop and implciiicnl a broad range of allcrnalives and inlervcniions for students scoring below Ihe 50lh percentile on standardized tests or who arc al serious risk of not achieving district standards in Ihe core curriculum. Wc will design and implement internal and external communication plans Io improve public trust and coniniiinily support. We will build strong partnerships with oilier coniniiinily agencies and oi-ganizalions Io address external issues that are inlei-fering with our sliidcnis' learning. Wc will develop mid iinplemeiil pei^oniiel policies mid pioccdiircs (o ciisiiie all employees are making oplimal coiilrilinlions Io oiir mission and olijeclives. Wc will design a comprehensive slalTdcvelopmciil system Io best achieve Ihe mission and objectives in Ihe Strategic Plan. We will construct a dclivciy system that allows us Io plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD sludcnis Ihal docs not prcdcicrmine or limit options al an early age. Wc will develop and iniplcnicnt plans Io eslablish financial stability and achieve Ihe strategic objectives of Ihe district. Wc will develop and iniplcnicnt plans Io restore public confidence in Ihe safely and security of our schools. Wc will inicgrale appropriate Icclinology to help achieve our objectives, as well as cITcclively operate Ilie district. Wc will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes Io best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Flan, * Taken from the Strategic Plan approved by Ihe Lillie Rock School District Board of Directors on November 16, 1995. 4THE PROCESS AU desegregation and non-dcsegregation programs in the Little Rock School District underwent a \"short form\" evaluation. The results of those evaluations were reviewed by the Superintendent's Cabinet. Based on the Cabinets review, program managers were asked to write extended evaluations for programs that were in need of additional study. Primary and secondary lcader(s) responsible for writing extended cvaluation(s) were notified to prepare an in-depth evaluation. Programs identified for an extended evaluation were those in which Cabinet members determined additional information was needed to make an informed planning decision. Other determiners were the Little Rock School District Strategic Plan, District needs, funding priorities, and desegregation and legal obligations. Following extended evaluation reviews, specific programs were identified as potential candidates for program development. Cabinet members were responsible for the review of all extended evaluations, identifying programs for \"Program Development, and an in-depth study of all District repoils and studies leading to (he development of the Needs Assessment Document. Following these responsibilities, Cabinet was asked to rank the needs/recommendations statements. (It should be noted that not all programs that undenvent an extended evaluation necessarily had forthcoming necds/rccommcndafions). Consensus was reached on programs with moderate to high needs/recommendations. The Nccds/Rccommendafions are grouped in four general categories (Assessment/Achievement, Discipline, Parent/Community, and Safcty/Sccurity) to address recurring themes. The 1994-95 Needs Assessment results were reviewed and listed in parallel with the 1995-96 report. Recommendations with low rankings which had little or no implications for strategic and programmatic planning were not included in the needs listing. Cabinet identified programinafic areas for Business Case development during the extended evaluation and needs/recommendations review process. Primary and secondary leaders were notified to prepare Business Cases as the District moves from its Needs Assessment phase into the Program Development phase of the planning and budgeting cycle. 5All Aiiilit (iroblignlioiis \u0026lt;l(iciiiiicii) has been licvrhipcd and is iiiniiilorcd by (be Associate Siipcriiilciidciit for Desegregation. The pin pose of this dociiiiienl is to catalogue and incite into the Program Planning and Budget Document (PBD) all desegregation obligations incurred (hiring the previous year. All coiii-t orders, hearing transcripts, inonitoriiig reports, and stipulations were reviewed for the period. Little Roch School District obligations have been extracted from the docuiiicnts and listed. The list has been reviewed by the Superintendent's Cabinet, Superintendent, LRSD Attorneys and Ihe OIBce of Desegregation and Monitoring. Ihe audit has been tiled with the U.S. Court and distributed to Ihe Cabinet. The Audit has not been merged with Ihe Needs Asscssmciil bill is menlioiicd in Ibis report because of its idenlilicalion of District obligations. 6DliSCklP I ION OP PROGRAMMATIC AREAS Listed below arc descriptive accounts of the extended evaluations, reports and studies that were analyzed to verify and specify needs of the DisIricI: Acliieteiiieiil/Assessiiteiil This report calcgoiy is a syiKlicsis of iiuilliplc iieeds/rccomiiiciidations crileria has been groiiped/conibined to include Stanford 8 I csts, Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, School Cliniate/Hiimaii Relations Survey, and other reports which include achicveiiicnl/asscssincnt related items. Actiileiiiic Iroffress Incentive (iraiii flic Acadeniic Progress Incciilive Grant (APIG) was Hi's! made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the siiiii of $25,000.00. Distribulion procedures were changed for the 1995-96 school year allowing $20.00 per child per year resulting in easier access Io funds by building principals. Area schools may request and receive these funds Io identify and implement slrnlcgies based on promising practices Io enhance sludcnl achievement and reduce the disparities in academic achievenicnl among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and ecoiioinic status. Academic Support Irograiu The purpose of the Academic Support Program is Io provide support for participating students in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathemalics in grades K though twelve. Academic Support-funded by Title I-has been changed Io reflect certified specialists assisting targeted students and the regular classroom teacher by working in large and small groupd. In addition, specialisl.s conduct deinoiislralion lessons and model innovative instructional practices. Alternative Learning Center The Alternative Learning Center provides learning experiences for sliidcnls of the District's junior high schools who have dcmonsiralcd continued lack of success in the regular classroom setting after educational and behavior modincalions strategics have been applied. Booher Arts Magnet Booker Arts Magnet School provides unique learning experiences in math, science and the basic skills. By utilizing the arts Io compliment the regular academic program, students develop an iinderslanding of the interrelationships among the disciplines and Ihcir place in student's lives as a whole. 7( iirvef ScienceA\\ fiitli 4 fnpnet Caivcr Magnet School provides unii|uc learning experiences in math, science and Ihe basic skills. A basic function is Io enhance cdncalional achicvcnicnl by improved use of ediicalional Icchnology Ihrongh slaffdevelopment and computer technology. Ccnlrnl High International Stinlies Magnet The Inicrnalional Studies Magnet program al Ccniral High School is designed Io prepare sludenis Io function effectively in Ihe global coniiniinily. Throngh this program, sludenis develop awareness and knowledge so Ihal they can rclale Io people of oilier ciillures and conntrics, learn Io coinmunicalc proncicully in al least one foreign language, develop skills for analyzing complex issues, juul lijivc a soHd working knowledge of histoiy and geography. Connniinicdtitins Sen'ices flic Cuniniunicniions Dcpaiiincnl of the Lillie Rock School District is responsible for both internal and external communications for Ihe largest school district in Arkansas. These responsibilities include communications among sliidcnls, employees, Ihe Board of Directors, parenis, the news media, the business commiinily, and all city residents. A major responsibility of this program is Io fiiirill Ihe public rclalions fiiiiclion as onllined in Ihe desegrcgalion plan. With limited personnel and eqiiipineiil resources, the C'onininnicalions Deparinicnl successfully fnlfills its piiblicalion responsibilities inchiding newsletters, school calendars, brochures, and news releases. CnniciiInin Anilit/Reiiew A review of selected ciirricnliim programs will be conducted annually in accordance with stale standards, guidelines, and regiilalions. The appropriate cniTiciibiiii dircclors, siipeivisoi-s, coordinaloi'S, principals, and leachci'S will parlicipalc in llic review. A plan of action will be developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/or new programs may occur for Ihe 1995-96 school year. Discipline Reports in this category synthesizes needs/recoinmcndations from reports or evaluations that concern discipline issues, from sources such as Ihe Town Hall Meetings, District dialogues. Safely and Security Reports, School Climale/numan relations Report and other repoiis which include discipline related items. District-mie FnciliticsSliiily The disliict-wide facilities study has reviewed demographics, facilities, and has developed long-range planning needs. Rccommendalions identify District facilities to close, continue, expand or use for other purposes. 8Dunbar International Sliiilies/Gifletl and Talented Magnet I he Dunbar Inicrnalional Sludies/Gificd and Taicnied Magnet seeks Io develop Ihoiighlful, creative individuals who are able Io participate effectively a,s citizens of an inlernational society. The needs of a diverse student body are being addressed through a challenging curriciihini, emphasizing creativity and higher order thinking skills\nas well as an awareness and understanding of various global issues, cultures and languages as a pa.ssport Io the future. Eiliiciilitiitiil Equity moiiiloniig 1 lie (ask of moiiiloring is (lie iiii(inl phase (owaid adaiiiiiig (lie desegregalion goals. Monitoring occurs twice during (lie school year a( all LR.SI) schools by (he local school biracial coiiiiiiidecs. These committees are composed of parents, patrons and a specialist from the Piaiiiiiiig, Research and Evaluation Department. Recouimcndatioiis are provided to assist the District with improving recurring areas of concern. These reconimcndalioiis arc based on the first and second semester monitoring rcpoils. Eonr- Year Ohl/City-U^ile Early Chililhooil The program provides experiences for young children which mccl their needs and sliinulale learning in all developmental areas- physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites has been given Io areas Ihal have a very high conccniralion of low income sliidenls and in schools Ihal arc difficull Io dcscgregale. The Disiricl's preschool curriculum model is iinplcmcnicd in all inccniivc schools and olher selected schools in Ihe Lillie Rock School Disiricl. (iibhs fiileritniioiin/ Magnet Gibbs Inlernational Studies and Foreign Language Magnet School was designed to emphasize a global perspective in the curriculum and learning process during Ihe elementary year's. Henilerson Health Sciences Magnet The Henderson Hcallh Sciences Magnet Program was developed and implemented due Io a decline in while student enrollment. The ralioiiale was Ihal an additional junior high school with a science related specially program would help serve rising sludcnis from Carver, Romine and Washingion who had programs with an emphasis on science would select Hendci-son for their junior high educalional program. Unman Resources The lliiman Resources Dcpai'tmcnl sci-ves the District as the focal point for all staffing functions including rccniiling, slaffing, transfers, promotions, salary schedules, benefits coordinalion and compliance with stale and federal regulations as they apply Io public schools. The Human Resources Dcpartnienl also serves as Ihe unit responsible for the coverage of classes needed with substilulcs. 9Arix arulScience Mann Aris and Sciences Magncl consists of Iwo dilTercnl curricular programs, the School of Sciences, and Ihe School of Ihe Arts. Students will select one school or (he oilier depending on (heir iiKeresls and apddide. There are no academic performance rcipiircmenls for cn(iy inlo eidicr program\nhowever, i( is recommended (ha( applicaids have a s(rong in(ercs( in or ap(i(iidc for an area of niagnc( ciirricnliim in (he school for which lie/she applies. McClellan llusinexs/Communications Magnet I he BusincssZComnuinicatioiis Program at McClellan Community High School was developed in the spring of 1992 as a means of achieving the desegregation goals of both the school and the Little Kock School District. The busincss/communications theme was selecled hccaiisc of McClellan's already exisliiig hiisincss program, (he largcs( in (he dis(ricl. The program was designed (o serve sindenis in McClellan's allcndancc zone, s(iidcn(s from oilier LRSD allendance zones, and sliidcnls in Ihe North Lillie Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. 1 he program seeks Io provide students with a comprehensive and cqiiilahlc educational program that will lead Io a Ihoroiigli knowledge of hiisinc.s.s and coinmiinicalions concepts, and provide markelahlc skills in varioii.s fields of hiisincss and commiinicalions. McCicUan Community School The McClellan Community School provides a wide variety of programs and services by expanding the use of (he McClellan High School facility to serve the community afterschool, evenings, and weekends. New riitiires The purpose of Ihe New I'liliires junior high school reslrticliiring inilialives is to establish a school climate, culture and curriculum that is responsive Io Ihe dcvelopmenlal needs of early adolescent youth and Ihe particular needs of at-risk sliidenls. A variety of data collection strategics were utilized including prograin rosters, agendas, minutes, analysis of student achievenienl and disciplinary records, as well as teacher, student and parent interviews and siii-veys. Both qualitative and quantitative data were utilized. Parkrieyv Arts/Science Magnet Parkview Arts/Science Magnet is committed to providing educational experiences that will promote the development of each student. These learning experiences will foster academic/aesthetic growth of students who express an interest and/or need in (he Ai'tsZSciences. The prograin is also designed and implemented to include identifiable learning outcomes in all magnet program areas of academic and aesthetic study. 10Schoo! Cliinote/HunioH Helofions Soney I he annual suivey of attitudes toward school climatc/liiiinan relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1995 school year. Students and teachci*s at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climatc/liuniaii relations in the District's schools. Transpofiation Sen'ices (Special Education) The Transportation dcpartmeitt provides transportation services to support basic academic programs, Special Education programs/aclivllics and Athletics. l^ocafionaf EdHcaiion Vocalioiial Ediicafioii is designed (o provide a program of learning experiences (o develop skilled and adaptable workers who arc prepared to pursue additional learning opportunities that will result in more productivity. Vocational Education also develops abilities, attitudes and appreciation that contribute to satisfying life enhancing family, civic and personal responsibilities. lyilliciitis Haxic SkiUs Magnet Williams Magnet School is a high performance, high expectations elementary school that best serves responsible students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are motivated by competition in all areas. This traditional school promotes a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic and social behaviors for grades kindergarten through six. nREPORT NAME Academic Progres.s Incentive Grant Academic Supiwrl Altenialivc Learning Center Achievemcnt/Asscssmenl Acliievemcnt/Assessmcnt Mwlily Iliiulittg procedures. Modify delivery model. Increase pcrsotuicl Utile RnrU School District Needs Assessment Recommendations - 1995-96 Sorted by Programmatic Area RECOMMENDATION / NEED 1995-96 199-1-95 Booker Aits Magnet Carver Science Magnet Central High School International Studies Magnet Coinmunicalions Services Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Cuiricuhun Audit/Review Cutricuhnn Audit/Review Cutriculum Audit/lievicw Curriculum Audit/Review Curriculum Audit/Review Cuniculum Audit/Review Increase achievement of all students which should result in the reduction of disparity,___________________________ Develop multiple criteria for assessing teaching and learning, i,c,, SAT-8, portfolio, test item bank, teacher-made tests.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Change theme and up-date technology_________________________________________________________________________ Up-date technology_____________________________________________________________________ Improve curriculum olTeiings, technologv and |x:rsonncl Curriculum Audit/Review District Dialogue District Dialogue id Dialogue District Dialogue District Dialogue District Dialogue District Dialogue District Dialogue Dislrictwidc Facilities Study Districtwidc Facilities Study Districtwide Facilities Study Districtwide Facilities Study Increase niinkeling, and improve channel 4 and video production_______________________________________________ Establish a funclioiial assessment program and e.xpand testing,__________________________________________________ Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. ________________________________ Adopt and follow a policy for improved board governance.______________________________________________________ Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages._______________________________________ Establish consistency and equity in educational programs._______________________________________________________ Develop and use long-range strategic planning process._________________________________________________________ Consolidate and restructure business services and support services.______________________________________________ Purge the professional Negotiations Agreement of Provisions which unduly limit board control of key educational programs and practices._________________________________________________________________________________________ Improve educational facilities based u|x\u0026gt;n a District-Wide needs assessment.____________________________________ Study oursourcing, salary and benefit issues.____________________________________________________________________ Increase discipline efforts (Altcnrative Schools)________________________________________________________________ Increase K-4 crusade training___________________________________________________________________________________ Study the timing of scheduled administrator meetings.___________________________________________________________ Clarify transportation issues.____________________________________________\n______________________________________ Strategic Planning update._____________________________________________________________________________________ Qualifications of monitors study.________________________________________________________________________________ OlTicc procedures review._______________________________________________________________________________________ Preventive maintenance capitol fimd. Establish capilol fund. Achieve unitary status. Consolidation and re-use. 12REPORT NAME IJldr Rock School District Needs Assessment Recommendions - 1995-96 Sorted by Programmatic Area Districtwide Pacilitics Study Dunbar Intcnrational Studies/GiUcd Magnet Educalional Equity Monitoring lidueatiomil Equity Monitoring IMucalional Erpiily Monitoring Pour-Year Old City/Wide luirly Childhorxl Gibbs Intemattonal Studies Miigncl Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Program Iluimin Resources Human Resources Mann Science and Arts Magnet McClellan Conununitv McClellan Uusincss/Communications New Futures Parents and Community Parents and Community Parents and Community Parents and Community Parkview Sciencc/Arts Magnet School Climate/Human Relations Strategic Planning Develop leadership core. RECOMMENDATION / NEED Allow non alicndance zone black students access to Giflcd Magnet program. Develop a districtwide, long range plan to replace outdated technology. Develop a long range plan to review building and Incilitics for needed repair and replacement. Provide (pialiiy and relevant stall'development for all employees/parents. Modil'icalion for program eHecliveness. Planning and technology. Total iinpiementalion of existing program Comprehensive siilary study. Substitute program automation Up-date technology and improve instruction Delete or modify program Modify attendance zones and curriculum Modify school progranuning. Equity in all schools. Thourough examination of Strategic Plaiuting. Rcluni to neighborhood schools. Cominunily involvement in Desegregation Plan. Expand technology, equipment and facilities 1995-96 1994-95 Transportation, S|x:cial Education Vocational Education Vocational Education Williams Magnet Develop and enhance strategics to improve school climate, student achievement, parent involvement and staff development.___________________________________________________ Tlrrougl) the Strategic Planning process, 40 rccommcndalions were made and are rellcclcd (liroughout in Ihe programalic areas.___________________________________________________________________________________________ Outsource and improve services. Reduce stair wlicre appropriate Check enrollment levels and duplication of services from school to school Teclinology up-grade. 13\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":156,"next_page":157,"prev_page":155,"total_pages":157,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1860,"total_count":1881,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1875},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3},{"value":"Sound","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":314},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":221},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":70},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":35},{"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":1749},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1272},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1213},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":894},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":723},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":693},{"value":"School integration","hits":631},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":602},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":566},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":490},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":456}],"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":6},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1},{"value":"Lester, Bobby","hits":1},{"value":"Porter, Austin, Jr.","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":1880},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1867},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1830},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1569},{"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":1867},{"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":377},{"value":"1996","hits":335},{"value":"1993","hits":315},{"value":"1992","hits":294},{"value":"1999","hits":274},{"value":"1997","hits":269},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":253},{"value":"2000","hits":252},{"value":"1998","hits":246},{"value":"2002","hits":183},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":149},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":63},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"2012","hits":43},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"2013","hits":31},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"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":"2017","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":"2015","hits":7},{"value":"2016","hits":7},{"value":"2018","hits":7},{"value":"2019","hits":7},{"value":"2020","hits":7},{"value":"2021","hits":7},{"value":"2022","hits":7},{"value":"2023","hits":7},{"value":"2024","hits":7},{"value":"2025","hits":7},{"value":"2026","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2026","count":5188,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":830},{"value":"filing","hits":544},{"value":"reports","hits":256},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"projects (object groupings)","hits":62},{"value":"planning","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","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":1881}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1881}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1881}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1881}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1881}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}