Democrat 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.
The 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 & 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
King Romine TOTAL Magnet schools
Booker 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
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 & 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
401 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
247 294 256
161 198. 224, 260 226, 268' 122! 72: 961 103! 227: 36: 290
9 69 129' 280! 224! 1331 0, 8i 41 20' 14 141 8. 7! 7: 6, 6 121 2b 27! 71 13! 6. 21
9' 2261 17: 1151 61 1911 198! 4: 1231 69: 1 4! ~8~ 151 3! 14. 16'
iosed 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
3.94% -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
10: 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& u u ' Hl i 18911 9541 -293 -84 12911 -374 11991 -284 o3ao(> 13^'^ ^<i5 7 10001 -152 63351 -1187 5335
-1035 868: 8121 658! -231 -72 -85 9071 -113 6141 -103 231 329 431' 325 205, 307 . 30. 701 151 2081 27
961 10, 971 249' 216
269 140' 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
45.69% 428 86.45% 656 63.87% 4531 82.12% 318. 66.35% 5131 51.46% 382 80.10% 239 66.53% 46
36.96% 8879
4723 ' 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
12069 67.43% 16651
7567 774
24992 . 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
-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
022% 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
7371 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 <il83 - 75 2^4 235 <^4-/ -67 -175 <- ^3 515! 4921 19 -64 8361 -180 492
328
5171 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
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 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 ./< 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
Pursuant 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
Pursuant 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
Pursuant 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
cr 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
Pursuant 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 < 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
sgaiicn 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 & 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 & 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 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
Plant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District
and. 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
2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof
and. 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
however, 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
course. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis
zones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs without close construction
attendance 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
(2) the age of the buildings
and, (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
and, (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
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
____________________ 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 & 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
be 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
Special class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30
capacity. 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
The 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
The 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
the 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
Methodology
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. The sum If 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%. 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
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. 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
of 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 & 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
ndn?.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 +< -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
must 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
special-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> 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
even 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<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
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 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
Each 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
---- 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
5,317 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
It 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
even 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
OTES: (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 & 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 & 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 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
Plant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District
and. 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
2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof
and. 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
Intra-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
however, 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 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
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 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
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 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
Between 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
course. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis
zones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs close without construction
attendance 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
(2) the age of the buildings
and, (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
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. zone. within This the is due (1) to shifting populations School District
and, (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, < ' 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
conclusions 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
analysis 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 & 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 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
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 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
must be considered when The following nine (9) areas secondary facility. calculating capacity 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
Special class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30
capacity. 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 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
The 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
The 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
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: 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
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 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 & 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
A) 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---- < 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
ho ^-^PS^q^rationn
The 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
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. purpose (3) 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 Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. ' (4) gpggiQl Class Requirements
requirements __________ With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30
even 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 SizeLimi
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.