Magnet Review Committee: Report

Report from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
c .... OCT 2 0 1992 MAGNET RE.VIE.W C01MITTEE REPORT TO 'IHE COORT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: January 22, 1987 The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. The committee is prepared to present the report orally with supporting in formation as you may direct. I jle1iv,'f-,~s f
1tlc 3 ,__ /fl R c.. ~,~Al'.P~ s ~ Ct> rTs- ? a- S ,i ((,1- 1 .{( Lht1fJtVJ11~ h 1-Y c>NSpwr '7 S"'t-v&-3 fJJ'ld( F 5vLu(r 1 & J
Or~.v!l
& () c~ jr Attachments II I 7 Sincerely, -f!~a
rman
J~"f
:/~'X'.
li: Morris Holmes Arkansas Department of Education ~ t(,~' ----- Marcia Harding Arkansas Department of ucation ( Jc,e- A-N-.c.-lv,/_ Mi'tt6r
+1 ~e,p,y-f) Jesse Rancifer Little Rock School District ~..?Uv James Smith North Little Rock School District I. I rHRODUCT Im~ The Magnet Review Committee IMRCI has been charged by the District Court with "planning an 1nterdislrict. inagnet school program." The MRC's duties and respons1bil1t1es set forth 1n the Court's order 1nclurle: .cons1der1ng plans and proposals for magnet schools submitted by the parties and hearing e idence 1n relation thereto~ .developing 1nter1m proposals for consideration by the parties
.e~aluating segregative and desegregative effects of magnet school proposals
.making findings and recommendations to the court concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios. and themes of magnet schools
.making recommendations as may be necessary to the eff1c1ent operation and administration of magnet schools
.monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of the magnet schools implemented
and .making an annual report to the court pertaining to the approved 1nterdistrict magnet school progr~rns. The court directed that this report with the MRC's recommendations be submitted on or before January 22, 1987. This document addresses that charge. The report is organized into the following major areas: I. Introduction
II. Activ1t1es of the Magnet Rev1ew Committee
and III. Recommendations. 2 II. ACTIVITIES OF THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE CMRC> Parties appointed representatives to the MRC as directed by the Court. Currently those serving on the MRC are: Mr. Gene Jones (White), Chairman, Pulaski County Special School District Dr. Reginald Avery, Ex - Officio (Blacl: ), Vice-Chairman, Joshua Intervenors Ms. Marcia Harding (White>, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Morris Holmes <Black), Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Jesse Rancifer- (Black), Little Rock School District Mr. James Smith (White ) , North Little Rock School District The MRC first met on September 24, 1986 and agreed to meet weekly at sites to be determined at each meeting. The Committee also agreed to and held additional meetings as they became necessary. At the September ~4 meeting, the MRC organized itself into a working group and began developing the rules and procedures that would govern its mission. Under the rules and procedures developed by the Committee, the following activities were c8nducted: .The MRC considered all plans and proposals that were submitted for magnet schools by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC heard evidence and considered the views presented by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC e valuated both the segregative and desegregati 1e effects of all proposals for magnet schools . . The MRC reviewed demographic data on each district . . The MRC secured consultative assistance from Dr. Benn~t Mullen, Director of the Technical Assistance of the South~Jest. 3 .The MRC visited the Williams Magnet School, the Mann Science Magnet School, and the Booker Arts Magnet School, all located in the Little Rock School District. At each school, a discussion of the school's philosophy, goals and objectives was conducted with the principal and various staff . . The MRC reviewed considerable research and information on magnet schools and added to this knowledge by visiting magnet schools in Cinc1nnatt1, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri. Both visits provided valuable insight on the operation of magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education has exercised a positive leadership role in all activities of the Magnet Review Committee. ADE Director Tommy Venters and his staff developed thoughtful proposals which had a major impact on the Committee's recommendation. Additionally, The Department allowed Dr. Angelo Coppola to work full time for the Committee doing valuable research and data gathering. 4 III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Magnet Review Committee Organization 1. General Organi ::at1 on Membership and general responsibilities have been outlined for the MRC in the District Court order. The MRC believes this order sufficient to address the membership issue and recommends that each party retain discretion in appointing its representatives on the MRC. Tt-,e MRC has proven itself capable of handling the additicnal organizational aspects of the Committee's work and will continue to do so in the future. ~- Staffing and Funding Efficient and effective operation of the Magnet Review Committee is critical to the success of desegregating the public schools of Pulaski County, Arkansas. In order to function effectively, the MRC recommends it have a staff consisting of at least two staff members- one professional :1.r.d one suppor-t. In addition to a staff, the Magnet Review Committee requires an operating budget consisting of funds for an office, eau1pment 1 travel, staff and consultative services. Consultative services will be critical to data gathering, program monitoring, evaluation and preparation of annual reports to the Court. A budget within a range of $100,000 to $150,000 will be needed, with 50 percent of the 5 cost being borne by the State and the remaining 50 percent being shared by the three school districts. 6 B. Costs and Funding 1. Accounting and Budgeting: The Magnet Review Committee recommends that separate accounting and budgeting procedures for approved magnet programs be maintained by the district(s) hosting each of th~ programs and th~~ magnet program budgets recei v e prior review by the Magnet Review Committee. 2. Construction/Renovations: In accordance with the Eighth Circuit order the State shall pay 50 percent of construction and renovation of approved magnet schools. The remaining 50 pecent shall be paid by the participating districts (See Attachment A, pg. 26). The recommendations on actual allocation and payments are as follows. The State shall pay its 50 percent allocation in quarterly payments upon actual expenditures for renovation and remodeling of approved magnet schools. The host school shall be responsible for the bond issue and payment of the remaining 50 percent since the ownership and management shall stay with that host school. The two remaining districts shall pay their prorated share by the inclusion of debt service payment, both principal and interest, in figuring the cost per child for those children participating from their respective districts. In the event that allocated seats are not filled by any district, the district to which that seat was allocated 7 shall pay t~e host school the per child cost of their debt service payment, both principal and interest. Since the State would have met its obligation up front there will be no debt service payment of principal and interest f1gured into the State's 50 percent cost per child for operation of magnet schc::iols. It 1s recommended that the State be a full partner in all phases of construction and renovation, from selection of the architect to final approval. 3. Operating Costs: The Magnet Review Committee recommends funding the operating costs for the approved interdistrict magnet programs as outlined in Attachment B, pgs. 27-32. The figures ~sed for examples were determined using 1986-87 school year data. This data will change with the change in local wealth, 1ncrease or decrease in WADM, and increase or decrease in State funding. In compliance with the Eighth Circuit order. the State wil l pay to each district the table rate that each respective district qual1f1es for that school year. In addition to the table rate (Customary State Aid) per D1str1ct. the state will pay 50 percent of the cost per student for operation of the magnet schools less the transportation cost and debt service cost. As a result, those stude,1ts at tending magnet schools wi 11 not be counted in any District's WADM for aid. 8 C. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS STAFFING The men and women selected to staff each of the magnet programs are responsible and accountable for assuring parents and the community that quality exists in both the process and product of schooling. The staff"s performance should evidence their beliefs.that all children can learn, that the school makes a difference, and that a desegregated school environment has positive effects on the schooling and lives of students. 1. Staff Composition The staff should be composed of appropriately certified and otherwise highly qualified educators. The MRC recommends that the staff represent a 50-50 ratio of Black to White administrators and teachers. If such a ratio is not possible to attain at the time the magnet programs open, a goal sho1ld be set to achieve the ratio within a reasonable time frame. To help ensure interdistrict and community ownership and support, effort should be taken to attract administrators and teachers from the three school districts. ~ Staff Selection The actual selection, hiring and evaluation of the magnet program staff is the responsibility of the district operating the magnet program. However, the MRC will assist 9 with the deveiopment of criteria for staff selection, as well as monitor and evaluate magnet school program effects on student learning and desegregation. 10 D. Community Participation The Magnet Review Committee advocates that the community should participate in planning and developing interdistrict magnet programs developed after the initial year of desegregation. We therefore recommend that a community-school partnership model be adopted by the districts 1n accomplishing the continuing work of the magnet schools. Such a model would include the following components: 1. Awareness Campaign Awareness activities are necessary to: a. Establish within the community and schools a sense of the need for a partnership
b. stimulate interest in the community-school partnership
and c. motivate involvement in such a partnership. 2. Public Education Campaign The community must be provided with a base of information about educational equity and e xcellence in a desegregated environment and about the issues in this case. Such information should include, but not be limited to, the following: a. History of desegregation efforts in this community b. Impacts/effects of court rulings and 11 desegregation plans c. Explanation of how the community-school partnership works in planning and implementing desegregation d. Orientation to issues related to educational equity 0. Needs Assessment It is important to identify needs and decide upon priorities among them. Such a process should be utliized to ensure that citizens and educators have the opportunity to participate in quality education planning. 4. System for Processing Input A system must exist for acting upon community input to planning. This is necessarf to any sincere effort to establish and maintain community involvement and support for educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment. The following process is an example of a system which encompasses this aim. a. Any individual or group is encouraged to submit ideas to the district aimed at affecting educational equity including, but not necessarily limited to, ideas for magnet schools and specialty programs. b. The district sorts and channels t~e ideas(s) to appropriate group(s) for consideration. 12 c. The designated group(sl does the following: (1) Analyzes the ideas (2) Makes a recommendation (develop, postpone, reject) (3) Corresponds with the author regarding the decision d. If the idea is supported, broader community comment is solicited to determine the public's reaction to the proposed idea. The method previously described to involve the community can be applied here. e. If support is apparent, individu~ls are identified to more fully develop the concept into a proposal, which is then shared with the school board. f. The district plans and holds public hearings on the proposal following a period of publicity to stimulate public interest. g. The School Board considers the community reactions and recommendations in decision-making on the proposal. h. If approved by the Board, the program is readied by the district staff. publicized as appropriate, and implemented. 1. As part of the evaluation of each program's effectiveness relative to educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment, 13 parent/community satisfaction should be assessed and considered before modifications are made. With minimal modifications, a system of this type will work equally as well at the building level (for school-based management) as at the district-wide level. Additionally, when a proposal is made for the establishment or modification of an approved magnet school program, steps would be included to provide for the proposa1 to be brought before the Magnet Review Committee for consideration and ~ndorsement. 14 E. Transportation In fulfilling its responsibility to provide, either directly or indirectly, the magnet program students with transportation, the MRC recommends that the State keep in mind two primary considerations, these being: 1. delivery of magnet school students to their designated schools in a safe, orderly and expedient manner
and 2. cost efficiency. 15 F. Student Enrollment Guidelines 1. Racial Ratios The Magnet Review Committee recommends that a 50-50 Black to White ratio be used for magnet program enrollment. 2. Seat Allocation The Committee further recommends reserving the first 25 percent of the seats in each magnet school for students in the host district who live in the shadow of the school. The remaining 75 percent of the seats in magnet schools should be allocated to the three districts on the proportional formula based on the percentage of each race residing i" the affected district. The formula will be revised to maintain the mandated 50-50 ratio. 3. Existing Magnet Programs The Committee recommends that students presently attending existing magnet schools should be allowed to continue i" those schools as appropriate, but that seats in 1ncominG grades and seats vacated by attrition be allocated to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District on the interdistr-ict formula described above. 16 G. Interdistrict Magnet School Programs The MRC recommends that six schools in the Little Rock School District become approved magnets. This proposal incorporates the cont i nuation of the three magnet schools currently in existence and suggests the addition of Carver, Dunbar, and Gibbs. A total of 3,722 students can be educated in the interdistrict magnet programs recommended. In this section of the report, the MRC's rationale for the inclus ion of each proposed school is discussed. 1) \.Ji 11 i ams Ma.gnet School ( ~~-6) The Little Rock School District ha~ recommended the continuation of Willic,ms as a "basic skills" magnet school for elementary students. As presently operated, Williams has continued to attract students since 1982. The waiting list of children whose parents would like to have them attend Williams now stands at 396, indicating much interest in the school and its program. We recommend the continuation of the Williams Magnet School. We also recommend that tl,ose characteristics which appear to have made the program a success be carefully studied prior to making c,ny cha,nges. The Magnet Review Committee, in conducting its monitoring and evaluation activities, will monitor practices such as ability grouping relative to possible segregative and desegregat1ve effects. 2) Booker Arts Magnet <K-6) 17 Booker is also recommended for continuation as an elementary arts magnet. Because it appears to be a highly successful program, the MRC recommends its continuation. The $916,000 estimated by Little Rock for construction and renovation of Booker appears to be too high. We believe that the projects proposed for these funds could be done for 1 ess money. This issue 1s addressed in more detail in the section of the report which deals with construction and renovation costs. 31 Mann Junior High Arts and Sciences Magnet 17-91 The Mann program has entered its fourth vear with a sci er,ce magnet program which is a "school within a school," serving approximately 300 students in grades 7-9. Making the entire school a junior high science magnet next year has been considered. However, its waiting list consists of onl y eight students, hardly enough, even when combined with students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock to fill the school with over 1,100 junior high students all eager to study the sciences. The MRC recommends instead that Mann Junior High School become c>.n "arts and sciences" magnet. To combine thes e themes within one magnet school would a c complish several objectives. First, it would bring together junior high students with strong interests and/or aptitude in two major a r eas but wh o may not yet be either willing or ready to nar row their choices entirely to one field or the other. For elementary students interested in the arts, 1t would 18 provide a natural extension for =hildren now attending Booker, but it would also help to expand, rather than narrow, students participation in other fields of i,nowl edge. It would accommodate the present math/science orogram (300 students) as well as the number of students who presumably would have gone to East Side under another proposal. It would be far less expensive than renovating East Side. It has an auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,100 and a gymnasium which could be useful for various arts activities as well as science presentations and e,1hibits. It is closely located to Booker and the Arts Center, thus providing opportunities to both schools to utilize consultants, artists in residence, craftsmen, and performers. We support the continuation of Mann as a magnet school. However, we believe that students interested in both the arts and sciences could be accommodated there. 4) Carver Math and Science Magnet CK-6) The Little Rock District contends that Carver should become a magnet school because it will be impossible to desegregate the school otherwise. It proposes to tear down the present structure and relocate it on other land somewhere in the neighborhood that has not yet been purchased. C~rver is said to be improperly located on its present school site, and the playground particuarly dif~icult to maintain because of neighborhood v~ndalism. Little Rock has proposed that Carver become a "b.=1sic skills" school similar to Williams, though without 19 the dress code and without ability grouping. The District views the "basic skills" theme as one particularly likely ta generate parent support. The MRC agrees that the basic skills theme is likely ta generate support, but we also believe that a basic skills program which emphasizes mathematics and science would enhance this school. In recommending Carver as a ma~n~t, the MRC advises caution in changing characteristics which appear ta have made the other basic skills program a success. We envision a science program at Carver which would not only enable youngsters to study the sciences through hands-on laboratory experiences but would also enable them to take part in such national competitions as Invent America, a program which encourages creativity and problem salving in the development of new inventions and the uses of technology. Carver could also host science fairs and exhibits for other students 1n the area, as well as throughout the State, and could serve as a model for other districts in Arkansas. 5) Dunbar International Education Complex (l<-9) In order to provide mare magnet choices far parents and students at an affordable cost, the MRC reco,nmends that Dunbar and Gibbs (which are located adJacent to each other) become a magnet school complex with an 1nternat1onal studies and global cultures theme. Gibbs would provide the elementary (K-6) program and Dunbar would provide the junior high (7-9) program. We 20 believe this magnet program holds excellent promise for offering an educational program that truly prepares youngsters for life and work in the twenty-first century. Such pr-epar ation means, in large measLwe, preparir"-
i a populace who can understand, interact with, and appreciate people rep r esenti~g many different cultures. A school experience t~at pr-ovides opportunities for growth, development, and understanding in these areas will be crucial for our continued success in the world. We must educate young people who can function effectively as the citizens our- country must have in the "global village" in which we live. Included in the K-9 curriculum at the Dunbar International Education Complex would be foreign languages, technology, multi-cultural studies, international relations, geography, government, and law. Students would be involved in cr-oss-age grouping and multi-disciplinary studies and would have opportunities to learn within their own miniature "globed villi:\ge," consisting of the two campuses. would learn about the operation of government through functioning in a "micro-society" which 1-iould require their full par-ticipation. Student exchange programs would be encourc'<.ged. Teachers would also be exchanged among schools to provide specialized educational opportunities for students of different ages. Satellite instruction would bring programs to the schools from throughout the country. School "wa.11 s" would be mini mi zed as students par-ti ci pated 21 in "community" act1-1ities intended to strengthen and enhance the culture of the school and community and their understanding and appreciation of individual differences among themselves. These schools would establish linkages with the UALR Visitor Center, the business community, UCA, and the city's international community. The Complex could host "Academic 01 ymp i cs" for othet- schools throughoL1t the State. It would serve as an educational model for other schools in the State, showing how schools could be structured in such a way as to prepare youngsters for effective and intelligent participation in local, national, and world communities. Benefits to be derived from the Dunbar International Educ a ti on Comp le
: are as foll 01-,s: (a) A continuous program in grades K-9 would be provided with themes that would foster multi-cultural understanding, exploration of international studies and global cultures, and the study of languages. (bl n program such as the one described for the Complex would serve as a model for providing students with an "1nternationally competitive" educc,tion. Cc) The cultural resources of the area (e.g., Quapaw Quarter, Dunbar Alumni Assoc1ation, UALR International V1s1tor Center, Arts Center, etc. 1nter~at1ona l studies program. would enrich the (dl Programs in these schools appear to have a good possibility of meeting the three object1~es of magnet 22 schools as stated by the Court, i.e., to provide quality ed1Jation, serve as a tool for achieving integration, and attract white students back to the Little Rock School District. le) The Complex could host contests, exhibits, and cultural events for other st~dents throughout the State and could serve as a model program for other districts. Attachment C, page 33 , visually displays the MRC ' s proposal for interdistr1ct magnet school programs. 23 H. Governance The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the day- to-day operations of magnet schools be the responsibility of the host school district. 24 I. E~tended Dav Care The Magnet Review Committe recommends that self-supporting extended day care services be available for students at each of the interdistrict magnet schools. A substantial number of parents living in the metropolitan area drive long distances to work each day. The Committee believes that the availability of extended day care services will substantially enhance the desegregative effects of the magnet schools. The cost associated with the extended day care services shall not be included in the operating costs of the magnet schools . 25 BUILDING Carver Booker Mann Williams DJnbar Gibbs LRSD ESTIMATE $2,420,00. $2,070,000 $ 916,000 $2,511,400 None $1,220,000 $ 605,800 FACILITIES RmRl' ~CJll/RU01ATIOf srATE BUILDI~ SERVICES REPORT ~uct $350,000 for laoo purchase 12% too much oontingency ($248,400) 8% too much oontingency ($73,280) 9% too much oontingency ($226,026) 20% too much contingency ($244,000) 5% too much oontingency (30,290) "ID'mL STATE'S PCRTIOO 26 REVISED ESTIMATE $1,821,600.00 $ 842,720.00 $2,285,374.00 $ 976,000.00 $ 575,510.00 $6,501,204.00 $3,250,602.00 .. RESCURCES: MFPA CALaJIATICffi CHER ,er 34 (SCHXL Fnw:E IC'f) 1. Real property assessmant tirnes 19 mills (.019) AlTNllIDrl'B 2. Personal property assessment (year before base year) tirnes current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 3. Utility assessment (year before base year) times current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 4. Seventy-five (75) percent of miscellaneous revenue. 5. Masters' degree credit. calculations: 6. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 - 5 = Resources 7. Resources divided by WAI1-1 = Resource Rate 8. State Base F.qi.Ja.lization Rate minus Resource Rate= Table Rate 9. Table Rate times WAil-1 = MFPA (Minimum Foundation Program Aid) 27 Magnet School Stooents Total Little Rock (25% shadow) plus 43% of 2791 Pulaski County - 40% of 2791 North Little Rock - 17% of 2791 M1aE:r sanx.s BASE Di\.TA 931] 1200J 'lUfAL EXPENSE"' Bt.n::GET 86-87 3,722 2,131 1,116 475 EXP/AI::M +12%** Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $49,510,543 $24,633,000 $69,057,078 AI::M 19116 9419 30015 $2,590.01 $2,900.81 $2,615.25 * $2,300.75 State Base Equalization Rate= $1,687.02 Table Rates (State Aid per Stooent): Little Rock $ 635.86 North Little Rock$ 986.04 Pulaski County $1,136.17 I:bes not include transportation costs ** 12% has been added to the Little Rock expense per AI::M for estimated increased operation costs for magnet schools within the Little Rock School District. 28 Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student Nunber of Magnet School Students State Aid per Student (Table Rate) LITILE RXX $2,900.81 $2,590.01 2131 $ 635.86 1he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet ScOClOls plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share $1,450.41 - $635.86 = $814.55 Cost per student for a Little Rock student. $814.55 X 2,131 = $1,735,806 Little Rock's costs for magnet students. Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,590.01. $2,590.01 less $1,687.02 (State Base F.qualization Rate)= $902.99 Expenditure per regular stooent. $902.99 (available funds for each stooent) less $814.55 = $88.44 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Little Rock's cost. $88.44 X 2131 = $188,466 Total incentive savi~s for Magnet participation 29 RRl'B LIT.ILE RXlC Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student (North Little lock) State Aid Per Stl.rlent (Table Rate) Nunber of Magnet School Stl.rlents $2,900.81 $2,615.25 $ 986.04 475 '!he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share. $1,450.41 - $986.04 = $464.37 Cost per student for a North Little Rock student. $464.37 X 475 = $220,576 North Little lock's rost for magnet school stl.rlents. North Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,615.25. $2,615.25 less $1,687.02 (State Base Fqualization Rate) = $928.23 Expenditure per Regular student. $928.23 (available funds for each stl.rlent) less $464.37 = $463.86 Excess funds per magnet stl.rlent over and above North Little Rock's cost. $463.86 X 475 = $220,334 Total incentive savi~s for magnet participation. 30 POI.ASKI cnNlY Magnet School Expense per Student Expense for Regular Student {Pulaski County) State Aid per Student {Table Rate) Number of Magnet School Students $2,900.81 $2,300.75 $1,136.17 1116 'l11e State will pay one half of the expense of the ~net Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State share. $1,450.41 - $1 136.17 = $314.24 COst per student for a Pulaski County Student. $314.24 X 1116 = $350,692 Pulaski County's oost for magnet school students. Pulaski County's expense for a regular student is $2,300.75. $2,300.75 less $1,687.02 {State Base F,qualization Rate)= $613.73 Expenditure per regular student. $613.73 {available funds for each stooent) less $314.24 = $299.49 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Pulaski County's oost. $299.49 X 1116 = $334,231 Total incentive savin
Js for magnet participation. 31 * SIM1ARY OF IaiE'l' SCRX>L <m'l'S Total nunber of students - 3,722 Total Cbst of Magnet Students$ 2,900.81 X 3,722 = $10,796,815 State will pay a total of $8,489,760 Districts will pay a total of $2,307,055 * Note that Custcmary State Aid is incllrled in this figure. Cbst to the State in excess of custcmary State Aid $2,210,672. 32 .AT'rllCIMXl' C ~ FCE MAGNET SCRX>L PRXiRN'6 ESTIMATED STUDENI' RE<n!MENDED BUILDING SQJOOL CAPACITY nIEMES RENOVATION COOTS Williams 432 Basic Skills None Booker 478 Fine Arts $ 842,720 Mann 1,194 Arts & Sciences $2,285,374 Carver 478 Math & Science
a Basic Skills $1,821,600 C 792 International Stooies
Global Cultures $ 976,000 Gibbs 348 International Studies
Global Cultures $ 575,510 'IDTAL STCJIll'S 3,722 'IDTAL cnrr $6,501,204 STATE'S PCET!Cfi $3,250,602 t 33
This 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.