Little Rock School District Analysis of Student Attendance Zones Prepared for the Little Rock School District by Dr. James M. Jennings July 8,1994 Dr. Henry Withams Superintendent of SchoolsCERTIFICATE 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 25th day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & 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 ristopher Heller 1 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 5 1994 Office of Desegregation 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 Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the "Little Rock School District Analysis of Student Attendance Zones" which was prepared for LRSD by Dr. James M. Jennings. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher Hei Bar No. 810831 Introduction The majority of students in the Little Rock School District were assigned to attendance zone schools prior to the 1987 court approval of the Pulaski County desegregation remedy. The Pulaski County Desegregation case ushered in a new magnet program, with aU of the magnet programs located in the Little Rock School District, and a new student assignment plan. The new student assignment plan, "controlled choice," had the effect of making every school a magnet school-at least in terms of providing other options for students. In the succeeding years after the 1988-89 school year, the student assignment plan was changed from a "pure controlled choice" system to a different attendance zone plan stacked with various options. The "pure controlled choice system" for assigning students was not implemented until the 1988-89 school year. The first year of controlled choice, 1987-88, was actually a hybrid system that included a mandatory attendance zone assignment plan with a controlled choice option. All students, with the exception of those enrolled in magnet schools during the 1986-87 school year, were assigned to an attendance zone school. All attendance zone students could submit choices for other schools-both nonmagnet and magnet schools. The selection process was "controlled" by racial balance requirements, building capacity, and two zones. Students who lived in Zone A could only apply to Zone A schools. Students who lived in Zone B could only apply to Zone B schools. II. In 1988-89, the zone lines were eliminated. This change created a 'pure" controlled choice system. All students new to the district were assigned by the choice plan as opposed to the 1987-88 attendance zone plan.2 Subsequently, the choice plan was eliminated and a new attendance zone plan was created. It should be noted that each time a new student assignment plan was implemented, beginning with the 1987-88 plan, it was simply added to the current assignment structm-e. In other words, the old plan was grandfathered (or became dormant) and a new dimension (the new plan) was activated. The old plans were never eliminated by reassigning all students based on the provisions of the new assignment plan. As a result, students in the Little Rock School District during the 1993-94 school year had assignments based on the 1987-88 attendance zone plan, the choice options from the 1987-88 assignment plan, the 1988-89 "pure" choice plan, OR the current attendance zone plan (which includes various options). The first full year of implementation of the current attendance zone plan was the 1990-91 school year. This plan includes various school categories. Each school category, whether magnet, incentive, or interdistrict schools, has a unique set of requirements for assignment purposes. In addition to the school categories, several transfer options are available to attendance zone students. It is interesting to note that the 1993-94 school year was the last year for any school assignments made under the 1987-88 assignment plan (either mandatory or by choice). The kindergarten class of 1987-88 completed sixth grade in the current school year-1993-94. The kindergarten class of 1988-89, assigned under the "pure controlled choice" plan, will complete sixth grade in the 1994-95 school year. The end of next school year, 1994-95, will represent the fifth year of operation of the ciurent attendance zone plan in the Little Rock School District. The purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which attendance zone students are actually attending their attendance zone 3 schools and, if possible, identify areas of concern. The overall goal of an attendance zone plan is to have each student attend his/her attendance zone school. In the case of the Little Rock School District, this goal is complicated by desegregation requirements, building capacity limitations, transportation needs, and the availability of various transfer options. This report begins with a summary of the limitations of this study. The purpose of this section is to acquaint the reader with the terminology and methods used in this report. This report will not.address population projections for Little Rock and/or Pulaski County. Next, the relationship between attendance zone students and building capacities will be examined, Emphasis will be placed on two aspects of building capacities: (1) the extent to which the school building can accommodate all of the attendance zone students
and (2) the percentage of attendance zone students in each area school. The third section of this report will address the racial percentages of the attendance zones. Simply stated, the purpose of this section is to determine if the attendance zone plan, in its purest state, will yield the necessary desegregation requirements. Finally, this report will examine the assignment patterns of attendance zone students and non-attendance zone students. Limitations The terms enrollment, attendance, and assignments should not be used interchangeably when discussing the system used to determine where a child goes to school. Enrollment refers to the number of students who have attended a school at least one day. Attendance refers to the number of students at a given school on a particular day. Of course, all of these students have to enroll in order to be counted in the school's attendance. This report does not address school attendance. Assignment refers to the 4 school in which the student is expected to enroll. A student can be assigned to a school and never enroll in that school-simply because the student never attends that school for one day. This report examines the attendance zones in the Little Rock School District. An attendance zone is a geographic area which constitutes the assignment area for a particular school. Although the attendance zone is designed to accommodate all of the students in that geographic area, these students may never enroll, attend, or even be assigned to that particular school. Thus, a distinction must be made between students who live in an attendance zone and students who live in an attendance zone and actually enroll in that school. Theoretically, the goal of an attendance zone plan is to have alLattendance zone students assigned to, enrolled in, and attending the attendance zone school. In the Little Rock School District, each attendance zone school has three groups of students: (1) attendance zone students enrolled in the attendance zone school
(2) attendance zone students enrolled in another school (a non-attendance zone school)
and non-attendance zone students enrolled in that school. The second and third groups were caused by the process of grandfathering (explained earlier), a transfer option, or a mandatory reassignment. All of the attendance zone and building capacity figures used in this report were obtained from the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office. The attendance zone figures do not include magnet students. These figures were taken from printouts dated March 16, 1994, March 24, 1994, April 21, 1994, and June 10, 1994. The elementary building capacity figures are based on grades K-6. Any questions related to the 5 accuracy of the raw data presented in this report should be referred to the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office. All schools with attendance zones will be examined. This includes elementary area (non-magnet) schools, incentive schools, and interdistrict schools. Emphasis will be placed on elementary schools since most secondary (junior high and senior high) schools are affected by the desegregation transfer process. The desegregation transfer process allows non-attendance zone students to transfer to a school based on the desegregation requirements and the number of seats available. As a result, the secondary schools cannot be expected to have all attendance zone students enrolled in a particular school. Finally, three geographic areas were designed arbitrarily for the purpose of analysis. The three areas are
(1) East of University Avenue/South of Markham Street
(2) West of University Avenue/North of Markham Street
and (3) Southwest Little Rock. The elementary schools in the respective areas are listed in Table 1. These areas were designed to facilitate some degree of geographic analysis. For instance, the area east of University Avenue and south of Markham Street has experienced a decline in population over the past decade. As a result, the degree to which these attendance zones are meeting the needs of these schools should be of interest to the Little Rock School District. A case of underpopulated zones and population decline may raise the question of rezoning or school closings. A case of overpopulated zones and population decline may necessitate rezoning. In either case, the desegregation implications must be considered. The area west of University Avenue is probably the fastest growing section of the city. The fast growth rate of West Little Rock raises a different set of concerns. In this case, the District should be concerned about the 6 likelihood that the schools will be able to accommodate the future growth of their respective attendance zones. The growth rate of West Little Rock presents a likely scenario of overpopulated zones and population increase. This scenario is complicated by the need to maintain desegregation requirements when the new residents are predominately white. The figures cited in this report do not accoiuit for new resident projections and/or future students recruited from private schools. Table 1 Geographic Areas for Elementary Schools East of University/ South of Markham West of University/ North of Markham Southwest Little Rock Badgett Woodruff Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller "Stepheiiaj Bale Brady Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowdiff Terry Western Hills Wilson Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Geyer Springs Mabelvale Otter Creek Wakefield Watson King Washington Fair Park Forest Park Pulaski Heights Romine The next section involves the first phase of analysis in this report. The extent to which the current attendance zone plan will meet the needs of the District depends on the simplest level of analysis--the number of attendance zone students and the building capacity available to accommodate these students.7 Building Capacity This section will address the extent to which the school building can accommodate all of the attendance zone students, and the percentage of attendance zone students in each attendance zone school. The capacity figures provided in this section do not include four-year-old classes. The term "attendance zone students" refers to (1) attendance zone students enrolled in the attendance zone school and (2) attendance zone students enrolled at another school (a non-attendance zone school). Both groups constitute the term "attendance zone students." It is important to include both groups in such an analysis because they represent the ideal situation in an attendance zone plan. They represent all of the students who live in the attendance zone. In this analysis, the question is asked, "Does the school building have enough capacity to accommodate alLof the students who reside in the attendance zone-the ideal situation in an attendance zone plan?" Table 2 Attendance Zone Students and Building Capacity AZ Students Capacity Vacancies Southwest Little Rock Basebne Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Geyer Springs Mabelvale Otte r Creek Wakefield Watson 313 526 431 270 260 443 365 433 479 354 540 438 328 292 497 351* 492 456* 41 14 6 58 32 54 -14 59 -23 Total 3520 3748 228 Over capacity8 Unfortunately, there are several cases in the Little Rock School Disrict where the building does not have enough capacity to accommodate all of the attendance zone students. Tables 2, 3, and 4 show the total number of attendance zone students, the capacity, and the number of vacancies by school and geographic area. In Southwest Little Rock (Table 2), 2 of the 9 schools (22%) would be over capacity in an ideal attendance zone situation. In other words, 22% of the schools in Southwest Little Rock would not be able to accommodate all of their attendance zone students because of building capacity limitations. The case of Otter Creek School is rather mild with an overage of 14 students. The case at Watson, however, involves an overage of 23 students. Once again, it should be noted that these figures represent the ideal situation if all Table 3 Attendance Zone Students and Building Capacity AZ Students Capacity Vacancies West of University/ North of Markham Bale Brady Fulbright Jefferson McDermott MeadowcUff Terry Western Hills Wilson 337 339 638 543 509 423 558 278 430 365 449 540* 492* 517 465 515* 328 376* 28 110 -98 -51 8 42 -43 50 -54 Fair Park Forest Park Pulaski Heights 320 428 298 315* 399* 374 -5 -29 76 Total 5101 5135 34 Romine 381 451 70 *Over capacity9 non-magnet students attended their attendance zone schools. In the West of University Avenue/North of Markham Street area, 6 of the 12 schools (50%) would be over capacity in a pure attendance zone situation. This is a serious problem because of the rapid growth in this area. Only one of the six schools would be over capacity by a single digitFair Park School by 5 students. The overages that would occur at Forest Park, Terry, Jefferson, Wilson, and Fulbright (29, 43, 51, 54, and 98 respectively) could cause serious problems for the District. These schools represent four of the six schools in this geographic area that attract the largest number of private school students. In a pure attendance zone situation, 15% (98 of 638) of the Fulbright attendance zone students would have to be reassigned to another school and no private school students would be able to enroll at the school. In regard to Wilson School, 13% (54 of 430) would have to be reassigned to another school. The West of University/North of Markham area has slightly more than enough building capacity (an additional 34 seats) to accommodate all of the attendance zone students. This problem deserves attention in light of the rapid growth in this area, the District's desire to place as many students as possible in their attendance zone schools, and the District's rehance on some of the schools in this area to attract private school students. The situation at Romine School should be noted because the attendance zone students would consume 84% of the building capacity. Romine is an interdistrict school. If all of the attendance zone students were assigned to Romine, only 70 seats would remain for interdistrict students from the Pulaski County Special School District. Likewise, if all of the attendance zone students attended Romine and PCSSD filled the remaining 70 seats with white students, the school would be 75% black. Romine would10 be 89% black if all of the attendance zone students enrolled and the 70 seats remained vacant. This means that the size and racial makeup of Romine's attendance zone prohibit compliance with the special requirements for interdistrict schools. Table 4 Attendance Zone Students and Building Capacity AZ Students Capacity Vacancies East of University/ South of Markham Badgett Woodruff 132 148 221 288 89 140 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller 500 291 297 306 218 362* 280* 280* 240* 415 -138 -11 -17 -66 197 Total 1892 2086 194 King Washington' 405 630 656 782 251 152 *Over capacity Table 4 is of particular interest because it includes the incentive schools. The incentive schools are double funded for the sake of remedying the vestiges of segregation and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. Table 4 indicates that the latter objective would be virutally impossible in a true attendance zone situation. Four of the five incentive schools (80%) would be over capacity. Likewise, in a pure attendance zone situation, the five incentive schools (as a group) would not 11 have enough capacity to accommodate all of the attendance zone studentsA The East of University/South of Markham area, however, has enough capacitywith or without the two interdistrict schools-to accommodate all of the attendance zone students. All of the King attendance zone students would account for 62% of the building capacity. If all of these students (405 students^) attended King, 251 seats would remain for Pulaski County Special School District students. If all of the attendance zone students attended King, the school would be 60% black if PCSSD filled the remaining 251 seats. All of the Washington attendance zone students would account for 81% of the building capacity. If all of these students (630 students) attended Washington, 152 seats would remain for interdistrict students from the Pulaski County Special School District. If all of the attendance zone students attended Washington and PCSSD filled the remaining 152 seats, the school would be 78% black. The size and racial makeup of Washington's attendance zone prohibit compliance with the special requirements for interdistrict schools. It should be noted that 379 of Washington's 630 attendance zone. students (60%) attend a non-attendance zone school. The next aspect of the building capacity analysis involves the percentage of attendance zone students in each area school. In this analysis, the term "attendance zone student" only refers to a student who lives in the attendance zone and is enrolled in the attendance zone school. The purpose 1 Ilie five incentive schools have a total of 1,612 attendance zone students. The total capacity is 1,577. As a result, the incentive schools (as a group) would need 35 additional seats to accommodate all of the attendance zone students. The District needs to review the capacity figures for the incentive schools. Since each K-6 class has a capacity of 20 students, the building capacity for each incentive school should be divisible by 20. Franklin's K-6 capacity is 362, and Rockefeller's K-6 capacity is 415. 2 It should be noted that 177 of the 405 King attendance zone students currently attend another school.12 of this analysis is to attempt to get some idea of the effectiveness of the attendance zone plan after the fourth year of implementation. The first full school year of implementation of the current attendance zone plan was 1990- 91. If the attendance zone plan is working, then each school should have a relatively high percentage of attendance zone students. Table 5 shows all attendance zone schools by geographic area and the interdistrict schools. This table includes the number of attendance zone students enrolled in the school, the capacity of the school, and the percentage of school capacity occupied by attendance zone students. The degree of effectiveness of the attendance zone plan is actually an arbitrary matter. It is reasonable, however, to expect to have at least half of the school capacity occupied by attendance zone students after four years of implementation. A higher standard might be desirable but, once again, such a measure of effectiveness is an arbitrary decision. In the Southwest Little Rock and the West of University/North of Markham areas, most of the schools were above 50% of building capacity. In other words, the attendance zone students accounted for at least 50% of the building capacity. Overall, the attendance zone students accounted for 54% of the overall school capacity in Southwest Little Rock. In the West of University/North of Markham area, the attendance zone students accounted for 55% of the overall school capacity. The Little Rock School District should give special attention to the schools in these areas that are below 50%-- Baseline, Chicot, Cloverdale, Dodd, Geyer Springs, Bale, Brady, and Fair Park. Although the 50% level is an arbitrary standard, the District should consider devising strategies to accelerate the number of attendance zone students assigned to these schools. In particular, the District should make sure that the assignment process does not allow non-attendance students to13 be placed in these schools before attendance zone students are assigned. The purpose of an attendance zone plan is to place all attendance zone students, Table 5 Attendance Zone Students and % of Building Capacity AZ Students Capacity %of Capacity Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Geyer Springs Mabelvale Otter Creek Wakefield Watson TOTAL 165 262 208 149 142 278 253 303 280 2040 354 540 438 328 292 497 351 492 456 3748 47% 49% 47% 45% 49% 56% 72% 62% 61% 54% Bale Brady Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowdiff Terry Western Hills Wilson Fair Park Forest Park Pulaski Heights TOTAL 144 153 346 308 287 250 338 193 192 134 255 200 2800 365 449 540 492 517 465 515 328 376 315 399 374 5135 39% 34% 64% 63% 56% 54% 66% 59% 51% 43% 64% 53% 55% Badgett Woodruff Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller TOTAL 102 90 159 115 102 113 88 769 221 288 362 280 280 240 415 2086 46% 31% 44% 41% 36% 47% 21% 37% King Romine Washington 228 156 251 656 451 782 35% 35% 32% to the extent possible, in their respective attendance zone schools.14 In the East of University Avenue/South of Markham Street area, all of the schools are below the 50% of capacity level. The same concerns stated for similar schools in the other geographic areas should be applied to the East of University Avenue/South of Markham Street area. The close proximity of the incentive schools could account for the low percentages of attendance zone students in these schools. For instance. Garland is less than 10 blocks from Stephens. Mitchell School is 11 blocks from Rightsell School. As a result, some students might be assigned to a non-attendance zone school that is in walking distance. If this is the case, the District should take whatever steps necessaTy to minimize these occurrences in the future. When non-attendance zone students are assigned to a school, they occupy seats that could be assigned to attendance zone students in the future. Hence, a domino effect takes place and the District can become engaged in a cycle that defeats the overall goal of the attendance zone plan. The current attendance zone plan was designed to have all schools below full capacity. It has already been demonstrated that several schools will exceed full capacity in an ideal attendance zone situation. The next section is based on the assumption that all schools have ample capacity to accommodate their attendance zone students. Of course, it is now evident that this is an unlikely assumption. This assumption will be used in the next section, however, for the sake of examining the racial percentages of the attendance zones. Racial Percentages Attendance zone schools are different from neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools tend to disregard desegregation requirements for the sake of giving every student the opportunity to attend the school closest to home. In a community with racially segregated neighborhoods, the15 neighborhood schools will follow the same racial balance pattern. Attendance zone schools are used as an attempt to provide the best of both worlds-close proximity to home, to the extent possible, and schools that meet some sort of desegregation requirement. In an attendance zone plan, the close proximity to home may be sacrificed for the desegregation requirement. Schools located in racially segregated neighborhoods may have attendance zones which include satelhte areas. A satellite area (zone) is used to help the school achieve and maintain the desegregation requirement. Satellite zones are helpful because they can be used to modify the school's racial percentage without redrawing the entire attendance zone. The disadvantage of a satellite zone is its inherent reliance on busing. Several schools in the Southwest Little Rock area and the West of University/North of Markham area have satellite zones in the East of University Avenue/South of Markham Street area. As a result, satellite students in the East of University Avenue/South of Markham Street area (black students) are bussed to schools in the other areas for the purpose of achieving desegregation requirements. The opposite practice does not occur in the Little Rock School District. The schools in the East of University/South of Markham Street area must rely on volimtary measures, rather than satellite zones in white neighborhoods, to achieve desegregation requirements. The implications of these practices are problematic when the racial percentages of the attendance zones do not comply with the desegregation requirements. Table 6 is a list of schools that would be racially isolated, in danger of racial isolation, or below the minimum black percentage if all attendance zone students were enrolled. In other words, if the Little Rock School District16 achieved its goal of placing all students in their attendance zone schools, several schools would have extreme racial percentages. The fulfillment of one goalan attendance zone plan, would mean the violation of another goalto achieve the desegregation requirements at all schools. If all attendance zone students enrolled in the incentive schools, it would be impossible, with the exception of Rockefeller, to desegregate these schools. Both of these goals were developed as the same time, and they were developed as part of the same desegregation plan. Yet, both of these goals cannot be fulfilled in the Little Rock School District without some modifications. Table 6 Extreme Racial Percentages AZ Students % Black Building Capacity Watson 479 82% 456* Forest Park Pulaski Heights Terry 428 298 558 36% 24% 36% 399* 374 515* Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller 500 291 297 306 218 96% 96% 97% 97% 90% 362* 280* 280* 240* 415 *C)ver capacity All of the racial percentages cited in Table 6 are above 80% black or below 40% black. It is evident from Table 6 that Watson, Forest Park, Terry, Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, and Rightsell would be over capacity and have extreme racial percentages if all attendance zone students enrolled in these schools. Pulaski Heights has enough capacity to accommodate all attendance zone students. If all attendance zone students enrolled at Pulaski Heights,17 Table 7 AU Attendance Zone Students and Racial Percentages AU AZ Students Capacity % Black Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Geyer Springs Mabel vale Otter Creek Wakefield Watson TOTAL 313 526 431 270 260 443 365 433 479 3520 354 540 438 328 292 497 351* 492 456* 3748 70% 67% 78% 59% 72% 63% 41% 72% 82%** 68% Bale Brady Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowdiff Terry Western HUls Wilson Fair Park Forest Park Pulaski Heights TOTAL 337 339 638 543 509 423 558 278 430 320 428 298 5101 365 449 540* 492* 517 465 515* 328 376* 315* 399* 374 5135 69% 50% 50% 44% 45% 63% 36%** 56% 58% 48% 36%** 24%** 48% Badgett Woodruff Franklin Garland MitcheU RightaeU Rockefeller TOTAL 132 148 500 291 297 306 218 1892 221 288 362* 280* 280* 240* 415 2086 64% 61% 96%** 96%** 97%** 97%** 90%** 92% King Romine Washington 405 381 630 656 451 782 98% 89% 97% *Over capacity **Extreme racial percentage the remaining seats would have to be filled by black students in order for the school to reach a racial percentage of 40% black. If all attendance zone students enrolled at Rockefeller, enough seats wotdd remain for the school to18 reach a racial percentage of 47% black. Once again, these observations are based on a scenario in which all attendance zone students are assigned to their attendance zone schools. These scenarios have to be used to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of an attendance zone. (NOTE: See Table 7 for all schools.) It was noted earlier that the Little Rock School District should give some attention to geographic analysis as well as the status of individual school attendance zones. Table 8 provides the racial percentages of the three geographic areas listed in Table 1 and referred to throughout this report. These figures represent all attendance zone students (enrolled and not enrolled in the attendance zone school) by race and geographic area. These figures do not include: (1) magnet students
(2) students at King, Romine, and Washington
and (3) Little Rock M^iority-Minority (M-M) students. Table 8 Racial Percentage of Geographic Areas East of University/ South of Markham SW Little Rock West of University/ North of Markham Black Students 1909 2384 2445 Nonblack Students 177 1136 2656 Total 2086 3520 5101 % Black 92% 68% 48% Several observations should be made concerning the information provided in Table 8. First, the attendance zones east of University Avenue have the lowest population. This refers to earlier observations concerning a decline in population. Second, the attendance zone schools west of University Avenue and north of Markham Street serve the largest population. Although19 this observation relates to the growth trend in West Little Rock, it should be noted that 2,445 of these students are black. Most of these students live in satellite zones that are east of University Avenue and south of Markham Street. The zones in the West of University area affect a population that is twice the size of the attendance zone population that is east of University Avenue. Clearly, the future of the Little Rock School District will be directly related to the schools west of University Avenue and north of Markham Street. The District should take note of the dwindling school population east of University Avenue. The third observation relates to the racial percentage of each geographic area. Most of the schools east of University Avenue and south of Markham Street are incentive schools. All of the schools in this area rely on voluntary transfer options to meet desegregation requirements. The racial percentage for this area is 92% black. The racial percentages for the remaining areas are substantially lower than 92% black. Actually, these percentages (68% black for Southwest Little Rock and 48% black for West Little Rock) are bolstered by the inclusion of black satellite students who reside in the area east of University Avenue and south of Markham Street. Finally, the change in racial percentages from east to west reflects the racial aspects of the residential patterns that will continue to affect the District's attendance zone plan. The next section is probably the most important section of this report because it examines the relationship between the assignment process and the success of the attendance zones. Assignment Patterns The success of phasing in an attendance zone plan can be measured by the extent to which progression and regression occur over a period of time. In this case, the period of time refers to the beginning of the current attendance20 zone plan, 1990-91, to the most recent school year, 1993-94. The 1990-91 school year was the first full year of plan implementation. The terms "progression" and "regression," as measures of success, are harder to define. Progression refers to a steady increase in the enrollment of attendance zone students in their respective attendance zone schools. Regression refers to a steady decline in the number of non-attendance zone students enrolled in a particular attendance zone school. Regression also refers to a steady decline in the number of attendance zone students not enrolled in their respective attendance zone schools. Each trend is a measure of success. Tables 8 and 9 examine the attendance zones with the lowest and highest black percentages. These attendance zones were selected because they represent future problem areas for the Little Rock School District attendance zone plan. In measuring success, the ideal situation is to have progression in the number of attendance zone students enrolled, regression in the number of non-attendance zone students enrolled, and regression in the number of attendance zone students not enrolled. The ultimate goal is to have no non-attendance students enrolled. Of the 12 schools examined in Tables 8 and 9, Otter Creek and Fair Park are the only schools with no non- attendance zone students enrolled-kindergarten and third grade at Otter Creek and second grade at Fair Park. Most of these schools experienced gradual progression or regression where needed. In some cases, the patterns were erratic. Tables 8 and 9 are based on the assumption that most kindergarten attendance zone students will remain at the attendance zone school in the upper grades. As a result, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the 1993-94 third graders enrolled in the21 attendance zone school as kindergarteners in 1990-91. These assumptions are made for the purpose of analyzing progression and regression. In general, the "Attendance Zone Enrolled" row tends to increase from 1990-91 to 1993-94. Further analysis is needed to determine why these numbers decreased in some instances. It should be remembered, however, that these patterns are based on certain assumptions. The same observations apply to patterns of regression for "Non-attendance Zone Enrolled" and "Attendance Zone Not Enrolled." Some patterns can be caused by factors beyond the District's control. For instance, a decrease in the number of "Attendance Zone Enrolled" students could be directly related to the availability of students in a particular year. One factor that the District should be able to control, however, is the discrepancy between "Non-attendance Zone Enrolled" students and "Attendance Zone Not Enrolled" students in almost every instance cited in Tables 8 and 9. For instance, Franklin's kindergarten (1993-94) has five II. 'non-attendance zone enrolled" black students and 47 "attendance zone not enrolled" black students. This pattern occurs at every grade level and school cited in Table 8. This situation is compounded by the case at Rockefeller where there are more "non-attendance zone enrolled" students than "attendance zone not enrolled" students (grades 2 and 3).22 Table 8 Progression/Regression Analysis-Black Students 93-94 K 92-93 let 91-92 2nd 90-91 3rd Total Franklin AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 36 5 47 26 7 58 28 13 49 13 23 41 103 48 195 Garland AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 13 5 19 16 10 28 16 9 20 15 4 30 60 28 97 Mitchell AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 10 8 34 17 9 16 10 9 23 20 15 32 57 41 105 Rightsell AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 15 2 16 16 6 25 14 10 22 18 8 23 63 26 86 Rockefeller AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 16 13 21 11 19 21 2 19 9 13 22 19 42 73 70 Stephens AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 15 3 16 14 3 17 9 13 13 10 7 22 48 26 68 Terry's kindergarten (Table 9, 1993-94) has four "non-attendance zone enrolled" nonblack students and 17 "attendance zone not enrolled" nonblack students. Again, this pattern occurs at every grade level and school cited in Table 9, with the exception of the exemplary cases already referred to at Fair Park and Otter Creek. This pattern is compounded by the case at Jefferson23 where there are more "non-attendance zone enrolled" students than tl attendance zone not enrolled" students (grades 1 and 2). Table 9 ProgressionZRegression Analysis-Nonblack Students 93-94 K 92-93 1st 91-92 2nd 90-91 3rd Total Fair Park AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 7 3 21 7 2 18 12 0 15 5 2 15 31 7 69 Forest Park AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. ! AZ Not Enr. 36 1 6 29 6 9 29 6 9 37 7 7 131 20 31 Jefferson AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 33 3 10 42 6 4 30 9 4 41 6 7 146 24 25 McDermott AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 30 5 7 26 8 18 24 10 18 28 8 12 108 31 55 Otter Creek AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 24 0 5 22 2 2 27 0 2 33 2 2 106 4 11 Terry AZ Enrolled Non-AZ Enr. AZ Not Enr. 42 4 17 48 6 12 36 13 17 33 8 12 159 31 58 The main issue in this section is the obvious case of non-attendance zone students enrolling in schools ahead of attendance zone students. This observation is not intended to suggest that District officials are or have been24 engaged in deliberate acts that penalize attendance zone students. It does suggest, however, that immediate steps should be taken to discontinue a practice that will paralyze the implementation of the District's attendance zone plan. Conclusion It is not necessary to repeat the observations that have been cited in this report. Instead, it is very important that the District understand the need for holistic and long-range planning in the area of student attendance zones. Isolated adjustments to the District's attendance zone plan will most certainly activate a domino effect that will prove to be costly over a period of time. The findings in this report tend to imply that the Little Rock School District's attendance zone plan will have to be modified at some point in the future. If this occurs, all aspects of the attendance zone plan, and the assignment process that accompanies it, must be addressed.
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 Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Jennings, James M.</dcterms_creator>