Construction

TO
FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development ' Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Building Plan for Incentive Schools Please find attached the proposed plan for expanding the capacities of the e incentive schools.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO
FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring TTiS and Program Development Building Plan for Incentive Schools According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District must submit a detailed plan for closing incentive schools with small capacities and enrollments and building larger schools in the approximate vicinity for the purpose of integregation. The plan must be submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor by April 1, 1990. The District has discussed this matter with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office on several occasions. It is the District's understanding that certain parameters must be followed in developing plans to close and rebuild incentive schools. First, the purpose of this plan is to increase the elementary building capacity in central and east Little Rock. Any school closings must be accompanied by a building expansion at some other school(s) and/or the construction of a new school building. The increase in building capacity will eventually help reduce the burden o" busing on black elementary students. Second, in a case of a building expansion, the new capacity must yield enough seats to enable the school to meet desegregation requirements. The incentive schools must have enough space to obtain a racial balance of approximately 60-70% black. The same requirement applies to the construction of a new scheol building. Closing a school also involves reassigning students to either a new building, an expanded facility, or an existing school outside of the target area. Whatever the case, the reassignment process must comply with desegregation requirements. Another parameter involves the number of classes at each grade in a particular school. Each grade must have enough seats to accommodate the total capacity at the preceding grade. This factor is often overlooked in preparing for future capacity needs. For instance, some schools have three classes feeding into two classes at the next grade level. The only way to correct this problem without reassigning students is to move a teacher to the problem grade level. This factor must be considered in developing plans to expand school buildings. p (1)The last factor for consideration relates to physical limitations at the school site and/or in the target community. In considering building expansions, attention must be given to the space limitations at the school site. Some of the incentive schools do not have enough space for extensive expansions. The District has observed these factors as an extensive search for a new school site in the target area has been underway since 1988. Real estate agencies and others who are familiar with availability of properties that might be suitable for a new school site have been engaged to assist in the identification of potential sites. The old King School is the only site east of / University Avenue that the District has been able to identify for new con- struct!on. In addition to the mandate to close and rebuild/expand incentive schools, the I ri-Di strict Desegregation Plan also directs the Little Rock School District to place four-year old programs in all incentive schools. The following is a plan which addresses the need to provide an early childhood education program in each incentive school as well as the closing and rebuilding/expansion of existing incentive schools. The plan is based on the following assumptions: a All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. b. c. d. e. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year, in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. included for magnet transfers The K-5 students No projections are All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. If necessary, seats will be reserved to ensure a 60/40 racial balance. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incen- tive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. ^f. __ pl eted before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if thq All building expansions, if necessary, and construction will be com- Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. g. Meetings will be scheduled with parents and other community representatives to discuss plans for closing and/or expanding schools in their neighborhoods. (2)I I fl I Ish Ish school will be closed at the end of the 1990-91 school year. Approximately 146 black students in grades 1-6 will be enrolled at Ish at the time of the school closing. The students at Ish will be reassigned to Rightsell and Mitchell for the 1991-92 school year. A site selection committee will be appointed to identify a site for a new school in the general proximity of Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Within the allowable time frame, the District will use every legal means to acquire adequate property for a new school in this proximity (including the right of eminent domain) and will engage the assistance of professional real estate agents in its search. The committee will submit its findings to the Metropolitan Supervisor's office by May 15, 1990. If the District is unable to acquire a site for a new building, the District will proceed with the following plan to expand Mitchell and Rightsell. Mitchel 1 Seven classrooms will be added to Mitchell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fi fth grade one ixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. The addition of 75 students from Ish will still enable Mitchell to obtain a 68/32 black/white racial balance if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. Rightsell The classroom presently in use for Rightsell's mass media specialty will become a fourth grade classroom. Also, six classrooms will be added to Rightsell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Rightsell's capacity from 260^to 380 students. The addition of 71 students from Ish will still enable Rigtitsell to obtain a 70/30 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. These plans are contingent upon adequate space at Rightsell to complete the proposed classroom additions. Rockefeller The CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the This 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T. At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade UIThe classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. The new capacity will allow Rockefeller to obtain a 53/47 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) Old King Site A new school will be constructed on the old King site. the incentive school program and will have a capacity of approximately 700 students. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. All students enrolled at Garland and Stephens will be reassigned to the new school. The school will offer open in the 1991-92 school year. The new school will Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested using Ish. These closings will also require that the District give prompt attention to a new site for the IRC. In addition, the District will give special attention to maintaining the names o'' King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor them with school names. Fundi ng The District will use proceeds from the 8 mill tax increase to fund the incen- tive school building plan if approved by the voters. If the tax increase is not approved, the District will ask the Metropolitan Supervisor's Finance Committee to make the incentive school building plan a high priority from desegregation funds. - ............... -- If the Finance Committee disallows funds for the incentive school building plan, then the District will ask the Court for funding. (4)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 29, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUB3ECT: r.'- \ Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools First Quarter Enrollment - 1990-91 School Year Please find attached the enrollment report for the first quarter of the 1990-91 school year. cc: Senior Management TeamLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR FIRST QUARTER OF 1990-91 AND 1989-90 1990-91 Actual enrollment as of October 31, 1990, First Quarter of the 1990-91 School Year. WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten) Junior High Schools 48 4041 1861 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2159 26 8209 4004 3077 0 144 87 87 74 12,394 5,952 5,323 35% 66% 67% 58% SUB TOTAL 8109 15,316 318 23,743 65% Ki ndergarten 681 1,206 21 1,908 63% GRAND TOTAL .8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% 1989-90 Actual enrollment as of November 1, 1989, First Quarter of 1989-90 School Ysdr WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten Junior High Schools 47 3905 1917 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2408 28 8212 3883 3186 1 76 119 12,236 97 83 5,897 5,677 37% 67% 66% 56% SUB TOTAL 8277 15,309 300 23,886 64% Ki ndergarten 628 1,269 20 1,917 66% GRAND TOTAL 8905 16,578 320 25,803 64%GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNGR TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UNGR TOT. 3R HIGH 10 11 12 UNGR TOT. SR HIGH TOTAL: SPEC SCHOOLS DIST TOTALS SUMMARY OF FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT October 31, 1990 WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 681 727 659 670 684 666 595 40 4722 589 638 601 33 1861 703 718 709 29 2159 8742 48 8790 1206 1450 1271 1279 1408 1380 1309 112 9415 1366 1391 1182 65 4004 1082 980 967 48 3077 16,496 26 16,522 SUWARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN "OTHER" SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 21 30 21 24 29 14 26 0 165 21 26 40 0 87 32 30 24 1 87 339 0 339 CATEGORY: - 93 - 218 - 24 - 4 1908 2207 1951 1973 2121 2060 1930 152 14,302 1976 2055 1823 98 5952 1817 1728 1700 78 5323 25,577 74 25,651 63% 66% 65% 65% 66% 67% 68% 74% 66% 69% 68% 65% 66% 67% 60% 57% 57% 62% 58% 65% 35% 64%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT OCT. 31, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK l^CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 203 174 227 604 0 604 5 308 278 307 898 49 947 0 12 9 13 34 0 34 5 523 46r' 547 1536 49 1585 100.00% 58.89% 60.30% 56.12% 58.46% 100.00% 59.75% IMPAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 14 107 126 107 354 3 357 12 184 160 132 488 10 498 0 3 4 1 8 0 8 26 294 290 240 850 13 863 46.15% 62.59% 55.17% 55.00% 57.41% 76.92% 57.71% b-^ALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 12 147 180 156 495 10 505 12 223 202 236 673 8 681 0 7 5 3 15 0 15 24 377 387 395 1183 18 1201 50.00% 59.15% 52.20% 59.75% 56.89% 44.44% 56.70% ^'MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 127 121 113 364 2 366 19 209 200 158 586 17 603 1 6 2 2 11 0 11 23 342 323 273 961 19 980 82.61% 61,11 5, 61.92% 57.88% 60.98% 89.47% 61.53% V-^ARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 119 117 106 342 0 342 0 158 140 134 432 11 443 0 4 10 5 19 0 19 0 281 267 245 793 11 804 0.00% 56.23% 52.43% 54.69% 54.48% 100.00% 55.10%SCHOOL/GRADE '-"'CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 2 61 75 80 218 1 190 180 155 526 0 1 2 2 5 3 252 257 237 749 33.33 o. 75.40% 70.04% 65.40% 70.23% 120 55 56 231 7 62 70 83 222 5 44 74 88 211 9 64 76 67 216 104 134 113 351 4 76 100 78 258 158 143 111 412 9 156 186 174 525 16 214 250 209 689 16 142 147 92 397 196 166 152 514 8 153 138 148 447 3 0 3 6 0 7 3 8 18 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 15 0 1 2 4 7 281 198 170 649 16 225 259 265 765 21 263 332 306 922 25 206 224 160 615 304 305 271 880 12 230 240 230 712 56.23% 72.22% 65.29% 63.48% 56.25% 69.33% 71.81% 65.66% 68.63% 0.00% 81.37% 75.30% 68.30% 74.73% 64.00% 68.93% 65.63% 57.50% 64.55% 64.47% 54,43% 56.09% 58.41% 0.00% 66.52% 57.50 "O 64.35% 62.78% ASCHOOL/GRADE SOUTHWEST UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 58 54 36 154 15 157 181 141 494 0 5 7 12 21 215 240 184 660 0.00 5, 73.02% 75.42% 76.63% 74.85 *0 2 6 4 8 10 11 5 46 11 57 3 10 10 8 11 14 4 60 7 67 13 14 11 6 14 13 71 19 90 3 16 25 35 39 17 21 156 9 165 4 50 38 47 46 41 44 270 32 302 49 42 38 37 30 30 226 37 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 6 1 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 22 29 43 49 28 26 202 20 222 7 60 48 56 61 55 49 336 40 376 63 57 51 43 44 43 301 57 358 60.00% 72.73% 86.21% 81.40% 79.59% 60.71% 80.77% 77.23% 45.00% 74.32% 57.14% 83.33% 79.17% 83.93% 75.41% 74.55% 89.80% 80.36% 80.00% 80.32% 77.78% 73.68% 74.51% 86.05 Q, '5 68.18% 69.77% 75.08% 64.91% 73.46%SCHOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BRADY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CARVER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CHICOT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 36 34 40 46 34 233 30 263 44 50 51 52 53 56 306 44 350 1 4 0 3 0 0 8 1 9 88 90 85 95 99 90 547 75 622 50.00 5, 55.56% 60.00% 54.74% 53.54% 62.22% 55.94% 58.67% 56.27% 2 20 17 17 16 19 5 96 21 117 31 40 43 45 38 44 241 23 264 10 31 25 20 21 22 20 149 27 176 3 52 41 47 56 51 45 295 37 332 38 44 49 54 54 53 292 34 326 8 66 46 43 46 42 48 299 50 349 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 73 59 65 73 70 51 396 58 454 70 86 92 100 93 99 540 58 598 18 98 71 63 67 65 68 450 77 527 60.00% 71.23 69.49% 72.31% 76.71% 72.86% 88.24% 74.49% 63.79% 73.13% 54.29% 51.16% 53.26 54.00% 58.06% 53.54% 54.07% 58.62% 54.52% 44.44% 67.35% 64.79% 68.25% 68.66 o, o 64.62% 70.59 66.44% 64.94% 66.22%SCHOOL/GRADE LOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL DODD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. FAIR PARK UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 13 13 26 19 12 14 97 10 107 3 22 17 16 11 28 18 115 19 134 14 9 8 8 6 6 51 10 61 29 23 31 20 19 22 144 33 177 35 45 34 46 52 41 253 29 282 4 20 28 28 28 25 40 173 19 192 56 41 40 37 42 32 248 29 277 19 26 39 35 33 30 182 26 208 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 5 48 58 60 65 65 55 351 40 391 7 43 45 44 39 54 59 291 38 329 71 50 48 45 48 38 300 39 339 49 49 71 55 52 54 330 60 390 72.92% 77.59 56.67% 70.77% 80.00% 74.55% 72.08% 72.50% 72.12% 57.14% 46.51% 62.22% 63.64% 71.79% 46.30% 67.80% 59.45% 50.00% 58.36% 78.87 Q. *0 82.00% 83.33% 82.22% 87.50% 84.21% 82.67% 74.36% 81.71% 38.78% 53.06% 54.93% 63.64% 63.46% 55.56% 55.15 43.33% 53.33%SCHOOL/GRADE FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL FULBRIGHT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL GARLAND UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 t^EYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 5 5 7 11 6 11 46 11 57 7 65 54 33 46 53 42 300 49 349 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 9 0 9 8 71 59 43 60 60 54 355 60 415 87.50% 91.55% 91.53% 76.74% 76.67% 88.33% 77.78% 84.51% 81.67% 84.10% 5 33 43 34 38 41 35 229 32 261 4 47 30 54 41 42 47 265 27 292 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 9 83 73 88 82 84 82 501 59 560 44.44% 56.63% 41.10% 61.36% 50.00% 50.00 Q, *6 57.32% 52.89% 45.76 52.14% 0 5 2 2 1 0 3 13 3 16 14 18 23 26 37 39 35 192 16 208 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 0 9 14 24 27 30 39 40 40 214 19 233 100.00% 75.00% 85.19 Q. *0 86.67% 94.87% 97.50% 87.50 89.72 84.21% 89.27% 7 7 8 14 4 7 47 13 60 16 16 14 22 36 16 120 27 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 22 36 40 23 167 40 207 69.57% 69.57% 63.64% 61.11% 90.00 o. 69.57% 71.86 67.50 a. o, 'o 71.01%SCHOOL/GRADE GIBBS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 17 16 29 24 20 126 15 141 26 26 25 34 27 23 161 25 186 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 0 6 47 44 44 64 51 43 293 40 333 55.32% 59.09% 56.82% 53.13% 52.94% 53.49% 54.95% 62.50% 55.86% 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 6 33 17 16 26 11 15 124 16 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 17 16 27 11 15 127 16 143 100.00% 94.29% 100.00% 100.00 96.30% 100.00% 100.00% 97.64 100.00% 97.90% 3 30 33 34 38 31 26 195 32 227 6 36 32 32 35 36 33 210 27 237 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 7 9 69 65 67 74 67 60 411 60 471 66.67% 52.17% 49.23% 47.76% 47.30% 53.73 5. 55.00% 51.09% 45.00% 50.32% 2 38 34 45 33 25 32 209 28 237 4 60 39 29 44 57 51 284 31 315 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 98 74 74 77 83 83 495 60 555 66.67% 61.22% 52.70% 39.19% 57.14% 68.67 61.45 Q, 'O 57.37% 51.67% 56.76%SCHOOL/GRADE MCDERMOTT UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 23 33 22 35 22 27 162 29 191 2 46 38 59 47 54 47 293 26 319 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 71 72 82 82 76 74 459 59 518 100.00% 64.79% 52.78% 71.95% 57.32% 71.05% 63.51% 63.83% 44.07 Q, 61.58% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 23 17 24 25 17 18 124 28 152 49 47 39 49 39 34 257 31 288 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 72 64 64 75 56 53 384 59 443 68.06% 73.44% 60.94% 65.33% 69.64% 64.15 66.93 3. o 52.54% 65.01% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 10 2 3 2 2 2 21 5 26 7 30 26 24 19 29 18 153 31 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 28 27 21 31 20 174 36 210 100.00% 75.00% 92.86% 88.89% 90.48 % 93.55% 90.00% 87.93% 86.11 87.62% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 26 26 26 20 26 28 152 24 176 22 23 24 31 26 24 150 32 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 49 50 51 52 52 302 56 358 45.83% 46.94% 48.00 60.78% 50.00% 46.15% 49.67% 57.14 50.84 5. ASCHOOL/GRADE PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 22 17 16 7 12 7 81 23 104 26 30 29 33 31 33 182 31 213 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 49 47 46 41 43 41 267 56 323 53.06% 63.83% 63.04% 80.49% 72.09% 80.49% 68.16% 55.36% 65.94% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 6 4 7 8 2 50 26 76 3 9 8 11 8 7 6 52 8 60 33 33 27 27 21 17 158 32 190 34 24 27 25 26 23 159 33 192 10 58 41 40 39 37 52 277 43 320 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 33 34 27 27 21 17 159 33 192 60 31 31 33 34 25 214 59 273 13 67 49 51 47 46 59 332 51 383 100.00% 97.06 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.37% 96.97% 98.96% 56.67% 77.42% 87.10% 75.76% 76.47% 92.00% 74.30% 55.93% 70.33% 76.92% 86.57% 83.67% 78.43% 82.98% 80.43 Q, 88.14% 83.43% 84.31% 83.55%SCHOOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 2 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 5 7 35 23 19 32 30 17 163 28 191 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 7 7 35 24 21 33 32 19 171 32 203 100.00% 100.00% 95.83% 90.48% 96.97% 93.75% 89.47 o. *5 95.32% 87.50% 94.09% TERRY UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 33 32 30 39 37 28 199 32 231 40 37 41 44 46 52 260 26 286 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 2 7 75 70 72 84 83 80 464 60 524 53.33% 52.86% 56.94% 52.38% 55.42% 65.00% 56.03% 43.33% 54.58% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 29 27 22 24 23 21 146 21 167 0 45 40 41 54 54 57 291 39 330 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 0 7 0 75 68 65 79 79 78 444 60 504 0.00% 60.00% 58.82% 63.08% 68.35% 68.35% 73.08% 65.54% 65.00% 65.48% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 2 47 45 58 38 44 43 277 39 316 7 115 65 57 52 51 34 381 51 432 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 3 11 9 164 112 115 91 95 80 666 93 759 77.78 70.12% 58.04% 49.57 57.14% 53.68% 42.50% 57.21% 54.84% 56.92%SCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOAL KIND. TOTAL \x15estern : UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 30 22 28 25 27 152 19 171 55 43 51 55 58 55 317 41 358 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 75 74 73 84 84 82 472 60 532 73.33% 58.11% 69.86% 65.48% 69.05% 67.07% 67.16% 68.33% 67.29 HILLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 14 19 22 14 105 17 122 29 32 31 31 31 38 192 19 211 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 48 49 46 50 53 53 299 37 336 60.42% 65.31% 67.39% 62.00% 58.49% 71.70% 64.21% 51.35% 62.80% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 32 31 41 30 26 190 26 216 38 37 38 49 45 39 246 33 279 2 0 1 2 0 2 7 0 7 70 69 70 92 75 67 443 59 502 54.29% 53.62% 54.29% 53.26 60.00 *6 58.21% 55.53% 55.93% 55.58% WILSON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 32 13 13 12 14 18 106 12 118 16 39 52 37 42 41 36 263 43 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 20 71 65 50 54 55 56 371 55 426 80.00% 54.93% 80.00% 74.00% 77.78% 74.55% 64.29 o. 70.89% 78.18% 71.83% ASCHOOL/GRADE Lx^bODRUFF UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 5 5 7 16 9 51 9 60 10 17 15 18 20 31 111 8 119 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 19 22 21 26 36 42 166 17 183 52.63 77.27 71.43 a. *0 Q. 6 69.23% 55.56 73.81% 66.87% 47.06 Q. O 65.03% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL 15 15 5 5 0 0 20 20 25.00% 25.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED TOTAL 26 26 13 13 0 0 39 39 33.33 33.33% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 7 7 8 8 0 0 15 15 53.33% 53.33%School Orig Lang Capacity May Doc 3-15-91 I jj memo B Enrollment 1st Quarter NB T Orig Lang % Black May 1st Doc Quarter Blk May Doc Enr Cap Psb % Blk Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Clov Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Pk Fulbright Gyr Sprgs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pul Heights Terry Wakefield Watson Westn Hills Wilson Woodruff 275 394 417 420 563 420 424 351 436 607 235 490 541 531 465 383 328 537 472 472 328 409 257 401 390 467 257 415 390 491 558 i 558 492 j 464 i 328
386 351 376 1 165 302 57 74 383 403 540 i 587 328 5 492 515 517 442 351 351 492 492 492 328 394 324 I 255 513 562 562 481 378 378 537 517 537 355 428 209 222 376 263 95 I 358 332 11221 454 1 349 I 178
527 I 282(109
391 192 277 53% 60% 62% 52% 57% 73% 69% 55% 52% 31% 60% 72% 74.32% 80.32% 73.46% 73.13% 66.22% 72.12% 137 329 I 62
339 165-7-257 = 64.20% 302-r 401 = 75.31% 263^390 = 67.44% 332-^467 = 71.09% 3494 558 = 62.54% 282-^492 = 57.32% 55% ' 52% 54%
51% 58.36% 81.71% 1924 328 = 58.54% 277-^-351 = 208 i182i 292 147 237 390 53% ! 48% 53.33% 208-376 = 55.32% I I 268 I 315 319 288 560 60 : 207 53% i 51% 55% i 67% 52.14% 71.01% 292 4 540 = 54.07% 1474 328 = 44.82% I I 1 234i 471 I 240: 555 i 199( 518 155 I 443 I 52% 47% 50.32% 2374 492 = 48.17% 53% 55% 56.76% 3154515-61.17% 182 176 213 110 I 286 238 330 358 211 306 119 174 174 125 120 64 358 323 524 504 532 336 426 183 55% 57% 53% I 57% I 53% I 50% 57% 54% 54% 59% 54% 57% I 42% 46% 68% 66% 54% 54% 59% 61.58% 65.01% 50.84% 65.94% 54.58% 65.48% 67.29% 62.80% 71.83% 65.03% 319-^517 = 61.70% 2884 442 = 65.16% 1824 351 = 51.85% 2134 351 = 60.68% 286 4 492 = 58.13% 330492 = 67.07% 358- 492 = 72.76% 2114 328 = 64.33% 306-^394 = 77.66% 119^324 = 36.73%02.13.-91 13:39 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @002.-004 KCR5CHCI, hj, FRiOAT, P.A O. 5 CLAftk POBEWT V. LICHT, P A WILLIAM H. CUJTTOM, P.A. aCQPQi E. PiKS. . JAMES SV. MQOflE evnoN M CISCMA jOe O. SELL. P A. M itHACL a. TMQMPSON. P.A. JOHN C. CCmOlS. P.A. JAMES A. OVTTRt. Pa HREQCR CK S. l'ASER''. P.A H T LARZELERE, P.A. FRIDAY, EXDHEOGE & CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0I710UALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATJONS ATTORNCYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL eUlUDING 400 WliST CAPITQC t-ITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-34,93 OAfiBV E COPL.N, B.J. RiCHAfta 3. TAV.OR, P. A JO9CP>1 O. HUBBT, TclcpmonC CtiZAaETh J. ROOBCN, P a. CHfciaroPrtEfl HE-uEft, P.A LAURA HClvSuer SMITH. P.A HOaeST . ShAFLK. b*. a WILLIAM M, GR|Rri4 111, P.A. THPMAS N. *6ae, P.A oacAft E c-AviS. . -AMgg C. CUAHK. R, >R . B. 301-376.OH MiCKACL s. OtANt
a. MACKCV AA,.TttM M. eSCL 1.1 HE VI * A. C BASS TmOmAS P. LtCOETT. P.A JOHN OtWEY WATSON, PA, LwiS MAT-)|S, P.A. Paul B BENHAM I.I, P.A. LAARTW aURKS.PA. A W*CKLlFr NtSeT. JK,, P.A .AMES COWARQ HaRR'S, *A - MIU-IP malCOm, P.A, JAMES M. SIM PSQN, P, A February 15, 1991 MCMCO Tirt CAri,E f-.A BY FAX WluLIAM A. WADOfcLL, JR., P.A. clyoc "tab Tunner C ALVI N , 5CQ-T W CBSV u I. lanCabtcr MALONC JAMES M CAXTQn.P. A J. SMSPUCRC RUSSELLI'i OOVAlO h BaCON. P.A. WILLIAM MOMAB BA.KTCR, P.A. WAUTCft A It, P A. Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Oaylc CORLCV AO&CNT B. BCAJH, 3. RA^OOLPPI LOQNCT J LEE BROWN jAMcs C. BArtee,LR. H. Oaci-iw5p.0, JH. HARRV A LICHT SCOTT TLCKCR JOHN CLAYTON RANOOlPM MARV l.WiSCmAN ojy Alton waoe HR ICC. C. OAPDnlH THSHAS F mElKS J. M ichal hi crcna Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 LRSD Renovation and Construction Projects Dear Counsel: The renova planned and commitments f seeking a st for the cons the continua- WILL Wil 1. COJASC. AM J. SMITH >AM A. CUCaCCipE, WILLIAM L. CPBV WlLLIAr L. PAT-QllJ, JR TC-SCOniin csQ.i c.ECOh cn lasii u u Hcr-r no 370^1506 i.on and construction projects described below pursuant to either th^ were ^^'ri-District Plan, the during the millage cam|5|b , or both. 1 will be ition concerning these s'cH^ls and court approval The construction projects at these schools, of the Central High School International Studies Program and the implementation of desegregation transfers at the elementary level within the Little Rock School District should be the only issues LRSD must seek to have resolved in advance of the submission of the modified settlement plan. "ion. The following is a summary of the proposed renovation and construction projects: Woodruff Eleinentary: The Tri-District Plan (p. 8) states: Approximately two hundred students will be added to Woodruff's enrollment, which will require additional classroom space. which will require Some of these classrooms will be used for an early childhood education program. The school program.02 13 91 16:00 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @003 004 will also offer and Extended Day Program to attract children whose parents work in State government offices. A percentage of Woodruff's seats will be reserved to meet desegregation requirements. LRSD proposes to continue the renovation and expansion of Woodruff. The work at Woodruff will consist of adding five classrooms and expanding capacity from 209 to 344 (not counting the space for the four year old program). This expansion will require a slight enlargement of the Woodruff attendance zone, which will allow more Woodruff area students, most of whom are black, to attend a closer school. The expansion will also create the space necessary to recruit students whose parents work in nearby state government offices, and to balance the grade structure at Woodruff at two classes per grade (Woodruff presently has one class each at K-4, and two c sses each at grades 5 and 6). Western Hills Elementary: The Tri-District Plan (p. 8) states
The capacity of Western Hills will be expanded by 1991-92 to two hundred students, and its portables, which currently serve one hundred children, eliminated. LRSD does not propose to enlarge Western Hills Elementary (present capacity is 355, proposed is 358) but only to replace portable buildings with permanent classroom space. require any adjustment to attendance zones. The racial composition of Western Hills Elementary is expected to remain approximately 63% bitch.. There is no satellite attendance zone for Western Hills. This project will not black. Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: Plan (p. 8) states
The Tri-District The capacity of each school wiT approximately one hundred students. e increased by The project at the Cloverdale campus involves building a new cafeteria between the schools and renovating former cafeteria space into classrooms. In addition, a new classroom wing will be built at the junior high school so that portable classrooms can be eliminated. The capacity of Cloverdale Junior Hiah School win High will remain at 750. The capacity of Cloverdale Elementary will be increased from 464 to 492. This will allow LRSD to replace the present uneven grade structure (2 classes each at grades K, 1 and 6
3 classes each at grades 2,3,4 and 5) with three classes per grade. The assignment zones for Cloverdale Junior High and Elementary will not change as a result of this project. ' There is no satellite zone for Cloverdale Elementary . The racial composition of the two schools (70% black at the junior high
72% black at the elementary) is not expected to change a result of this project. as 02.-15 91 16:01 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @004'004 Geyer Springs Elementary
____________ Except for Cloverdale Junior High and Western Hills, Geyer Springs has the highest concentration of portable buildings in the district. The renovation and expansion plan for Geyer springs calls for the replacement of portable classrooms with permanent construction, expansion of the kitchen, and the addition of sufficient classrooms so that the school can accommodate two classes each at grades K-6 and a new library. The capacity of Geyer Springs Elementary will be increased from 255 to 328. The racial composition of the school (71% black) is not expected to change as a result of this project, no satellite zones for Geyer Springs Elementary. There are The present imbalanced grade structure (2 classes each at grades K, 4 and 5
one each at grades 1,2,3 and 6) will be balanced at two classes per grade. Forest Heights Junior High: ________ The plan for Forest Heights Junior High School is to demolish most of the existing classrooms and to replace them with a new structure. by two architectural firms. This approach was recommend* Both fixrms reported that renovation the existing buildings would not be economical and would not sol the existing site problems such as drainage and supervision. new structure will house classrooms, The administrative area. The cafeteria, new library and a new gymnasium and vocational buildings (six classrooms) will remain intact but will undergo minor renovations. This project will replace thirty of the thirty-six existing classrooms and three portable classrooms with thirty-nine classrooms, for a net gain of six classrooms. These additional new classrooms are necessary to provide permanent classroom space to teachers who are now required to "float" a-nng classrooms which are empty during certain periods of the day day. ^nges in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior I School, the racial composition of those students (68% black/ and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction. a These projects should have no detrimental effect on the implementation of our desegregation plan. The funds for these projects were budgeted following the successful millage campaign. Please let me know your position with respect to these proposals as soon as possible. I will be happy to provide any additional information you may need to assess these proposals. Yours very truly'. Christoph^'' feller CJH/k cc: 1 Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation Monitoring JOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Date: February 26, 1991 To: Chris Heller From: Ann Brown Subject: Questions Regarding Proposals for LRSD Construction I've gone over the proposals for building in the LRSD very carefully. Attached are the questions that have occured to me as I've thought it through and researched some data. If you'd like to talk it all over, just give me a call.Questions about Proposed LRSD Construction Woodruff Elementary
1. First paragraph quotes approximately 200 students
the Tri-District Plan provision which would add 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. to 344, a difference of 135 seats. second paragraph says capacity will expand from 209 Which is the proposal, 200 or 135? If the proposal is for 135 new seats rather than 200, why this deviation from the Tri-District Plan provision (which was taken directly from LRSD's December 1, 1989 revised Preliminary Plan submission to the Metropolitan Supervisor?) Do we correctly understand that the proposed five new classrooms will house one each of K - 4th grade? If five classrooms are added, one each for K through 4, a maximum of only 123 students can be placed in these classes according to state standards, the other 12 seats for, early childhood? What are Are we to understand that the proposed early childhood education (ECE) program is for four-year-olds? How many ECE classes will there be? How many students in each? If capacity is expanded from 209 to 344 "not counting the space for the four year old program", what are the plans for ECE space? Do you propose to offer an Extended Day Program as provided in the Tri-District section quoted? If so, what will the proposed Extended Day Program entail (what and when for which students?) Are you also proposing to implement the quoted Tri-District provision which calls for a percentage of Woodruff's seats to be reserved to meet desegregation requirements? If so, what percentage, representing exactly how many seats, will be reserved? What will be the black/white percentage of these reserved seats? What is the plan and timeline for recruiting children whose parents work in state government offices? The recent FOCUS says that new students register February 26 - March 8, 1991. How will children of state government workers be assigned to Woodruff: M-to-M, Act 609, intradistrict desegregation transfer? LRSD represented to the Special Master that Woodruff could not be expanded because of state elementary building and playground standards. How is it now possible to expand the school without violating state regulations? Exactly how will the Woodruff attendance zone be enlarged and by how many students? How many students will have to change schools as a result of the zone change? attend!ng? How many of these students are black? What grade level are these students? -1- Which schools are they nowWestern Hills: 1. 2. How many portables are currently at the school and what classes/grades to they house? How long have portables been in use at the school, by year and by number of portable buildings? 3. How many Western Hills students reside in an attendance zone that is other than that of Western Hills? How many of these students are not in their zoned school because of controlled choice and subsequent grandfathering? How many of these students are at Western Hills because their zoned school is full (e.g., incentive school, etc.) an 4. How many students are eligible to leave Western Hills to return to an incentive school or area school? How many of these students are black? How and when wi11 you determine how many children will actually leave Western Hills to return to their zoned school? 5. If all the students who could leave Western Hills to return to their home zone school did so, what would the enrollment of Western Hills be? 6. What does demographic data indicate the enrollment of Western Hills will be when populated solely by children who live in the current attendance zonewithout redrawing linesa few years down the road when all grandfathered students are out of the school? Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: 1. The quoted Tri-District provision states that both schools will be expanded by about one hundred students each, a provision included in the Tri-District Plan from the December 1, 1989, LRSD revised Preliminary Plan
yet expansion of only the elementary school is proposed, proposed? Why is expansion of the junior high not 2. How many students who live in the Cloverdale Junior High attendance zone presently must attend another junior high because of grandfathering or inadequate seating at Cloverdale? 3. How many portables are currently at the school? What classes do they house? 4. Will increasing the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary by 28 seats, rather than the 100 in the Tri-Di strict Plan (and the LRSD Dec. 1, 1991, revised Preliminary Plan,) provide adequate seating for the proposed three new classes (one each at K, 1 and 6?) At maximum state class size at these grade levels, as many as 73 students could be enrolled in these three classes. 5. Figures recently provided this office by LRSD Student Assignment indicate that the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary was 422 in 1989-90 (with an enrollment of 419)
1990-91 capacity is 464 and enrollment 389. How was the capacity of the school enlarged by 42 seats between 89-90 snd 90-91? Why was the capacity enlarged when enrollment actually decreased by 30 students? -2-6. Where will the students for the new K and first grade classes come from? 7. How many Cloverdale Elementary students are grandfathered? assigned to the school because their home zone school is full? How many have been Geyer Springs Elementary: 1. How many portable buildings are presently at the school and what classes/grades do they house? 2. The Geyer Springs attendance zone does not appear to exhibit a growth pattern. As a matter of fact, capacity and enrollment figures indicate that the school has been underenrolled for some time. So why is the school slated for expansion? 3. The district proposes to expand capacity by 73 more seats and to add four more classes (which could contain as many as 103 students.) Are attendance zone changes proposed? classes come from? If not, where will the children who will populate these 4. Neither the Settlement nor Tri-District Plans (nor the preliminary desegregation plans submitted to CMS by LRSD) propose altering the capacity of Geyer Springs. Why is the district now proposing to expand Geyer Springs before addressing building which is provided for in the Settlement and Tri-District Plans? Fore^t^leights Junior High: 1. How will the total capacity of Forest Heights be changed by the proposed new additions? 2. Figures supplied this office by LRSD Student Assignment Office in January 1991, along with those taken from the Aerospace Magnet grant proposal, indicate that Forest Heights currently has a capacity of 780, with 754 students (69% black) enrol led. This means the school is at 97% capacity. (Figures more recently povided this office by James Jennings put enrollment at 772, 99% of capacity.) The aerospace grant proposal states, on page 121, that "space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected." Your current proposal states that "changes in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior High School, the racial composition of those students (68% black) and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction." But the aerospace grant proposes to attract White students from North Little Rock and Pulaski County schools. (page 25.) How many M-to-M students are anticipated to participate in the magnet program? How many intradistrict transfers will be accepted into the program? What will the total capacity of the school need to be in order to accommodate these new students? What is the total projected enrollment, the magnet program projected enrollment, and the projected black/white ratio (both school and magnet program) as a result of the magnet program? -3-General: 1. What is the projected total cost of the building proposals? What portion of these building costs does LRSD propose to underwrite with desegregation monies? 2. How will these building plans affect the burden of busing on black children? 3. What does the district intend to do with the portable buildings that are removed from Western Hills, Geyer Springs, etc.? 4. In an Attendance Zone Report submitted to OMS on April 2, 1990, James Jennings states a problem which is recognized in both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans: "The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity. The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity." Also, programs such as PAL and Both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans agree that building capacity in central and east Little Rock must be increased {as did the LRSD revised Preliminary Plans of December 1, 1989) and there is a timeline for doing so. There are provisions in the Settlement plan (page 30, LRSD Vol II) for 1990-91 to "relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue." Also, "to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock...in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue." Over the past several months, this office has received reports and proposals from the LRSD which deal with expanding seating in central and east Little Rock. However, the proposal currently before the parties does not address the pressing need to expand capacity in the downtown area. When will there be firm plans to address it? How can the district expect the Court to approve building in the western part of the city when the district has made no move to fulfill its obligation to build in central/east Little Rock area? 5. The building proposal provides for some adjustment of attendance zones. The LRSD April 2, 1990, Attendance Zone Report states "The elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. will Otherwise, any adjustments simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school." This same report states repeatedly that "the plans to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted." We agree that this a sensible approach. Why has the LRSD abandoned it? 6. The recent FOCUS (on page 7) states that "Tuition-free programs for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, will be offered at Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens, Washington and Woodruff." When will plans for expanding Rightsell in order to accommodate the four-year-old program be submitted? How will Mitchell physically accommodate the four-year-old program it was to have implemented two years ago? -4-7. There are numerous indications (including capacity and enrollment figures, statements by LRSD Board members at public meetings, and newspaper articles) that LRSD is short on junior high capacity. The LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol I), on page 174, states that: "The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. If upon review, it is determined that inadequate junior high capacity exists in the Di strict to meet programmatic need of the Di strict and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate site will be located and planning will begin for the construction of a new junior high school." When will the district review the capacities of junior high schools? When wi11 there be a plan to assure that junior high students will not have to wait for a seat? 8. The district seems to be predicating much of its proposed construction on the Tri-District Plan provision that all portable buildings will be eliminated. Can we therefore expect the district to move to modify the LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol II, page 5) provision that "every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level?" The provision of one plan to do away with portables contradicts the provision of another plan which justifies their use. -5-FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. B. S. CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ROBERT U. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H SUTTON. P. GEORGE E. PIKE. JR.. I JAMES W. MOORE attorneys at law p. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 6YHON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A JOE D. BELL. P.A. MICHAEL O. THOMPSON, P A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A, FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. AOO WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone SOi-376-2Oii LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAELS, MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY WALTER M, EBEL III, P.A. KEVI N A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P. P CLYDE "tab" ThRNER H. T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E, DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. THOMAS P. LEOOE''T. Fax No. 5OI-376-2IA7 p. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. LEWIS MATHIS. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A, WYCKLiFF NISBET, JR., P.A, JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A, J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. Simpson, p.a, MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON, P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. February 25, 1991 WAI ER A. PAULSON II, P A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR HARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TON lA P. JOKES DAVID O. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST. JR., ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P. > CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P. COUNSCL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P a WILLIAM L. TCPRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WRITCP'S OlPCCT NO. Mr. Sam Jones o'. Mr. Steve Jones 370-1506 WRIGHT, LINDSEY ii JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Construction Issues Dear Counsel: Since I wrote you last there has been a slight modification of our plans for Forest Heights Junior High School. We intend to leave standing and to renovate an additional five classrooms which will be used to educate no more than forty handicapped students. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this change or about our other construction proposals. As you know, the Philander Smith College Board rejected an LRSD proposal to locate a new interdistrict school on the campus. Since then, with John Walker's help, we have reached the point that Dr. Titus is willing to consider a modified proposal for an interdistrict school at Philander Smith. LRSD is also considering Westside as a possible interdistrict school site, but is not yetready to propose that to the parties. I would welcome any suggestions you may have concerning the possible location of the new Stephens and King schools within the area described in our desegregation plan. Yours very truly Christopher eller CJE/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation MonitoringOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW CONSTRUCTION March 4, 1991 Little Rock School District Woodruff Construction ongoingbeen there about a week- -ground work being done for foundations currently facility. no work being done inside the Western Hills Construction ongoingcurrently digging for foundationnothing currently inside facility Cloverdale Elem Construction ongoingground work being done for foundation of cafeteriacurrently no work being done inside the facility Cloverdale Jr. Construction ongoingground work being done for foundation of cafeteriacurrently no work being done inside the facility Geyer Springs - Construction ongoingground work being done for foundationsparking lot torn up- playground torn upsome work being done inside buildingin six of seven classroom no heat, no ceiling and lighting reduced. Forest Heights Junior High - Currently no construction startedsurveying and meeting with principal0 3 Z 0 6 z 1 9 9 1 1 1 ! 3 ? FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P .02 MEMORANDUM to
MR. JOHN W. WALKER FROM
MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER re
LRSD V. PCSSD - New Construction within the LRSD date
MARCH 5, 1991 On site visits to four elementary schools (Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Woodruff, and Western Hills) within the Little Rock District revealed substantial construction underway. Over 5.5 million dollars has been budgeted to effectuate changes in the present structures that were visited. Changes range from construction of additional classrooms, new playgrounds, parking lots. and cafeterias. Construction at all sites has been tentatively set for completion by the beginning of the new school year, August, 1991. Mr. Herman visited Woodruff and Western Hills. I visited Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Principal: Sadie Mitchell (black female) Current Student capacity: 400 students 75% black 25% white Current number of classrooms: 15 After construction the school will have "21" classrooms (3 sections each of K-6) The construction will consist of ng II additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurses station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final students student capacity (after construction): 492 I 1 I03/06Z1991 11!3S FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 I i I i I 1 PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. Cloverdale Jr. High has several portablej, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMSMTARY Principal: Eleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity: 200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms: 9 After construction, the school will have "2 3 classrooms. The construction will consist of 14" new classrooms, a new playground and a new parking lot. Final student capacity: 400 Anticipated capacity next school year
326 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. There is also classroom sharing at Geyer Springs. The budget for Geyer Springs construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY Principal
Margie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity: 336 students 63.7% black 35.3% white .5% other The construction will consist of "10" additional classrooms. II 03x06/1991 11:39 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 TO 3710100 P . 04 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Hills has been set at 1 million dollars. WOOPRPPg ELEMENTARY Principal
Pat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity: unknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of expansion of the cafeteria. 10' new classrooms and There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. Please let us know if additional information is needed. I 1 I I I 1 J I i iI - . 03/05/1991 10:12 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHEsGTON MARK Bt 'RNETTE WOLEy A. BRANTON, JR. 'Afcw a^niUffd to Prartwc in Gcongi. A tfin bbuk-t yC Cohmb-n. DELIVERED VIA FAX Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart TO 3710100 P. 02 John W. W/kLKER. P.A. ArroRNEl AT Law 1723 Broadway Litti.e Rock. Arkansas vzaje Telephone (501) -iTi-aT.ss FAX (501) 3744187 March 5, 1991 < Office of Desegregation Monitoring _201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart: Would ionformation you kindly advise me whether , _ regarding construction which xt.^xu capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? Mr. Chris Heller advises only normal maintenance - ---------is occurring. checking into this at once. LAZAR M. iALNTCK LAW FINANCE BLDG. SLTTE 1<X'2 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBLIRGH, PA 15219 (412) 2S8-9220 you have additional includes enlarging me that this is not happening and I would appreciate your into this matter and By copy of this letter to Mr, Heller, I am he look call me today if after he has received reply to this inquiry. I also asking that at all possible, With best regards, Z-----\ 1 I cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ukii At J^n W. Walker Walker M TOTAL P.02I I 03/05/1991 10:12 FROM JOHN Id. WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON- MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. * AWi> s'4a7niUed tc Practice in GcorgiA Oi*} Liislrit. 'jI Coh DELIVERED VIA FAX John w. Walker, P.a. Attornet At Law 1723 Broadway Lrrn.E RocK. Arkansa,s 7221)6 Tei,ephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 March 5, 1991 Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart
Would ionformation regaraing construction which includes capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? you kindly advise regarding me construction whether which LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW & FINANCE BLDG SUITE 1<X>2 429 FOURTH AVENUE Pm^BURGH. PA 15219 (412) 2SS-9220 you have additional enlarging Mr. Chris Heller advis only normal maintenance is checking into this at once. es me that this is occurring. not happening and I would appreciate your By copy of this letter to Mr. -----"* into this matter and after he has received he look Heller, I am call me today if reply to this inquiry. also asking that at all possible, cc: Mr. Chris Heller With best regards, W. Walker M03/06/1991 11:37 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.P. TO 3710100 P .02 MEMORANDUM I I I I ! I to
FROM: re: date
On site MR. JOHN W. WALKER MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER LRSD V. PCSSD - New Construction within the LRSD MARCS 5/ 1991 visits to four elementary schools (Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Woodruff, and Western Hills) within the Little Rock District revealed substantial construction underway. Over 5.5 million dollars has been budgeted to effectuate changes in the present structures that were visited. Changes range from construction of additional classrooms, new playgrounds, parking lots, and cafeterias. Construction at all sites has been tentatively set for completion by the beginning of the new school year. August, 1991. Mr. Herman visited Woodruff and Western Hills. Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: Principal: I visited Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Sadie Mitchell (black female) Current Student capacity: 400 students 75% black 25% white Current number of classrooms: 15 After construction the school will have "21 classrooms (3 sections each of K-6) The construction will consist of i5ir additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurses station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final students student capacity (after construction): 49203/'06zl991 11:33 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.O. TO 3710100 P . 03 PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. cloverdale Jr. High has several Cloverdale Jr, portable^, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELEHSMTARY Principal: Eleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity: 200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms: 9 After construction, the school will have 23" classrooms. The construction will consist of "14" new classrooms, new playground and a new parking lot. a Final student capacity: 400 Anticipated capacity next school year: 326 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. Geyer Springs. There is also classroom sharing at The budget for Geyer Springs' construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY Principal: IF Margie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity: 336 students 63.7% black 35.8% white ,5% other The construction will consist of "10" classrooms. additional03/0BZ1991 11:39 FROM JOHN UI.UflLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 04 PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Hills has been set at 1 million dollars. ffOOPRPPP ELEMEMTARY principal: Pat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity: unknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of 10 new classrooms and expansion of the cafeteria. There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. Please let us know if additional information is needed.John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rcxk, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AIm admitted to Practice in Georgia & the District of Columbia. March 5, 1991 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW & FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 DELIVERED VIA FAX Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart: Would ionformation you kindly advise me whether regarding construction which you have includes capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? additional enlarging Mr. Chris Heller advises only normal maintenance me that this is not happening and checking into this at once. is occurring. I would appreciate your he look By copy of this letter to Mr. Heller, I am into this matter and call me today if after he has received reply to this inquiry. also asking that at all possible. With best regards, J Ignn W. Walker cc: Mr. Chris HellerLRSD CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS As a backdrop to the current LRSD construction proposals, it will be helpful to keep in mind that the LRSD (and to a somewhat lesser extent, NLRSD and PCSSD) has repeatedly found itself in difficulties with desegregation efforts from the "domino effect" resulting from failure to thoroughly think through, evaluate, and learn from the following: 1. Cause and effect: All of the districts persist in tunnel vision and short sightedness, but LRSD is the worst of the lot. These "eye problems" frequently prevent the districts from recognizing that there may be several diverse factorsnot just one or twowhich work together to create a certain situation. They also have difficulty identifying the potential multiple effects that may ensue as a result of one course of action or another. They repeatedly fail to anticipate all sorts of things: the short and long tern consequences of decisions, changing scenarios, altered needs, etc. Neither do they seem to learn much from the history of their mistakes or their successes. 2. Broad scale and long term context and impact: The desegregation plans and programs are not something "over there", somehow separate from the normal, day to day business of delivering educational services to kids. Rather, desegregation is a part of the definition and means of how those services are delivered to all of the children. Anything done in a school district, either programmatically or operationally, invariably has an impact on desegregation because desegregation means the integration not just of bodies, but of ideas, programs, operations, and opportunities. This is the substance of true equity. 3. For every action there is a reaction: The desegregation plan must not be viewed as a disjointed, non-related series of stand-alone sections. What happens as one part of the plan is implemented {one program, one operation, one construction project) invariably impacts what's happening elsewhere in the district (and often in the other districts as well.) Each plan, program, and action must be seen in the context of the whole and as part of an action and time continuum, piece in place, changes. The puzzle (desegregation plan) is not complete without each Remove or distort just one puzzle part, and the whole picture 4. Responsibility: Each school district is ultimately responsible for the effective implementation of its desegregation plan. Placing blame or even giving credit to some external force obscures the fact that what happens in each district is the full responsibility of that district, make them do it! The devi1 did not 5. The LRSD does not seem to recognize the importance of good faith. The district has not been able to build trust with either the Court nor the community because of lies. mi stakes, broken promises. inconsistent and arbitrary actions, and frequent changes without any indication of the "why" of the changes. The old saw "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission" is not going to work, even in the cases where it might be appropriate, if there is no foundation of trust and a clear record of good faith action. What i s the LRSD doing to build a relationship with the Court and community which clearly demonstrates the district's good faith?Summary: A. Each decision must be considered in the context of the entire desegregation plan, keeping in mind the interrelatedness of the sections, the immediate and future impact of any action, and how one district's actions affects another. Think big picture and long term. B. Desegregation wholi Stic, involving and impacting all students. Desegregation plans are integral to how each district educates ALL its students. Education is describednot dichotomizedby a desegregation plan. C. Each district is responsible for the successful implementation of its desegregation plan. i s D. A record of consistently acting in good faith as well as in accordance with the provisions of desegregation plans is basic to eventually achieving unitary status.AS "^^Ut/J)" Questions about Proposed LRSD Construction Woodruff Elementary: 1. First paragraph, quotes the Tri-District Plan provision which would add approximately 200 students
second paragraph says capacity will expand from 209 to 344, a difference of 135 seats. Which is the proposal, 200 or 135? 2. If the proposal is for 135 new seats rather than 200, why this deviation from the Tri-District Plan provision (which was taken directly from LRSD's December 1, Supervisor?) 1989 revised Preliminary Plan submission to the Metropolitan 3.Do we correctly understand that the proposed five new classrooms will house one each of K 4th grade? 4.If five classrooms are added, one each for K through 4, 123 students can be placed in these classes according to What are the other 12 seats for, early childhood? a maximum of only state standards. 5. Are we to understand that the proposed early childhood education (ECE) program is for four-year-olds? 6. How many ECE classes will there be? How many students in each? 7.If capacity is expanded from 209 to 344 "not counting the space for the four year old program", what are the plans for ECE space? 8. Do you propose to offer an Extended Day Program as provided in the Tri- District section quoted? If so, what will the proposed Extended Day Program entail (what and when for which students?) 9.Are you also proposing to implement the quoted Tri-District provision which calls for percentage of Woodruf f's seats to be desegregation requirements? reserved to meet many seats. will be reserved? If so, what percentage, representing exactly how these reserved seats? What will be the black/white percentage of 10.What is the plan and timeline for recruiting children whose parents work in state government offices? February 26 March 8, 1991. The recent FOCUS says that new students register 11.How will children of state government workers be assigned to Woodruff: M- to-M, Act 609, intradistrict desegregation transfer? 12.LRSD represented to the Special Master that Woodruff could not be expanded because of state elementary building and playground standards. possible to expand the school without violating state regulations? How is it now 13.Exactly how will the Woodruff attendance zone be enlarged and by how many students? zone change? now attending? How many students will have to change schools as a result of the How many of these students are black? What grade level are these students? Which schools are they aWestern Hills: l.How many portables are currently at the school and what classes/grades to they house? 2. How long have portables been in use at the school, by year and by number of portable buildings? 3.How many Western Hills students reside in an attendance zone that is other than that of Western Hills? How many of these students are not in their zoned school because of controlled choice and subsequent grandfathering? How many of these students are at Western Hills because their zoned school is full (e.g., incentive school, etc.) an 4.How many students are eligible to leave Western Hills to return to an incentive school or area school? How many of these students are black? How and when will you determine how many children will actually leave Western Hills to return to their zoned school? 5. If all the students who could leave Western Hills to return to their home zone school did so, what would the enrollment of Western Hills be? 6.What does demographic data indicate the enrollment of Western Hills will be when populated solely by children who live in the current attendance zone-- without redrawing lines--a few years down the road when all grandfathered students are out of the school? Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: l.The quoted Tri-District provision states that both schools will be expanded by about one hundred students each, a provision included in the Tri-District Plan from the December 1, 1989, LRSD revised Preliminary Plan
yet expansion of only the elementary school is proposed, proposed? Why is expansion of the junior high not 2.How many students who live in the Cloverdale Junior High attendance zone presently must attend another junior high because of grandfathering or inadequate seating at Cloverdale? 3.How many portables are currently at the school? What classes do they house? 4.Will increasing the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary by 28 seats, rather than the 100 in the Tri-District Plan (and the LRSD Dec. 1, 1991, revised Preliminary Plan,) provide adequate seating for the proposed three new classes (one each at K, 1 and 6?) At maximum state class size at these grade levels. students could be enrolled in these three classes. as many as 73 5.Figures recently provided this office by LRSD Student Assignment indicate that the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary was 422 in 1989-90 (with an enrollment of 419)
1990-91 capacity is 464 and enrollment 389. school enlarged by 42 seats between 89-90 and 90-91? How was the capacity of the enlarged when enrollment actually decreased by 30 students? Why was the capacity 6.Where will the students for the new K and first grade classes come from? 7.How many Cloverdale Elementary students are grandfathered? assigned to the school because their home zone school is full? How many have been Gever Springs Elementary: l.How many portable buildings are presently at the school and what classes/grades do they house? 2.The Geyer Springs attendance zone does not appear to exhibit a growth pattern. As a matter of fact, capacity and enrollment figures indicate that the school has been underenrolled for some time. So why is the school slated for expansion? 3.The district proposes to expand capacity by 73 more seats and to add four more classes (which could contain as many as 103 students.) changes proposed? classes come from? Are attendance zone If not, where will the children who will populate these4.Neither the Settlement nor Tri-District Plans (nor the preliminary desegregation plans submitted to OMS by LRSD) propose altering the capacity of Geyer Springs. Why is the district now proposing to expand Geyer Springs before addressing building which is provided for in the Settlement and Tri-District Plans? Forest Heights Junior High: l.How will the total capacity of Forest Heights be changed by the proposed new additions? 2.Figures supplied this office by LRSD Student Assignment Office in January 1991, along with those taken from the Aerospace Magnet grant proposal, indicate that Forest Heights currently has a capacity of 780, with 754 students (69% black) enrolled. This means the school is at 97% capacity. (Figures more recently provided this office by James Jennings put enrollment at 772, 99% of capacity.) The aerospace grant proposal states, on page 121, that "space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected." Your current proposal states that "changes in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior High School, the racial composition of those students (68% black) and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction." But the aerospace grant proposes to "attract White students from North Little Rock and Pulaski County schools." (page 25.) magnet program? How many M-to-M students are anticipated to participate in the program? How many intradistrict transfers will be accepted into the What will the total capacity of the school need to be in order to accommodate these new students? What is the total projected enrollment, the magnet program projected enrollment, and the projected black/white ratio (both school and magnet program) as a result of the magnet program?General
1. What is the projected total cost of the building proposals? What portion of these building costs does LRSD propose to underwrite with desegregation monies? 2. How will these building plans affect the burden of busing on black children? 3.What does the district intend to do with the portable buildings that are removed from Western Hills, Geyer Springs, etc.? 4.In an Attendance Zone Report submitted to OMS on April 2, 1990, James Jennings states a problem which is recognized in both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans: "The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity. The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Also, Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity." programs such as PAL and Both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans agree that building capacity in central and east Little Rock must be increased (as did the LRSD revised Preliminary Plans of December 1, 1989) and there is a timeline for doing so. There are provisions in the Settlement plan (page 30, LRSD Vol II) for 1990-91 to "relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue." Also, "to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock...in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue." Over the past several months, this office has received reports and proposals from the LRSD which deal with expanding seating in central and east Little Rock. However, the proposal currently before the parties does not address the pressing need to expand capacity in the downtown area. When will there be firm plans to address it? How can the district expect the Court to approve building in the western part of the city when the district has made no move to fulfill its obligation to build in central/east Little Rock area? 5.The building proposal provides for some adjustment of attendance zones. The LRSD April 2, 1990, Attendance Zone Report states "The elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. Otherwise, any adjustments will simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school." This same report states repeatedly that "the plans to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted." agree that this a sensible approach. Why has the LRSD abandoned it? We 6.The recent FOCUS (on page 7) states that "Tuition-free programs for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, will be offered at Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Washington and Woodruff." Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens, accommodate the four-year-old program be submitted? When will plans for expanding Rightsell in order to How will Mitchell physically accommodate the four-year-old program it was to have implemented two years ago? 7.There are numerous indications (including capacity and enrollment figures, statements by LRSD Board members at public meetings, and newspaper articles) that LRSD is short on junior high capacity. The LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol I), on page 174, states that: "The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. If upon review. it is determined that inadequate junior high capacity exists in the District to meet programmatic need of the District and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate site will be located and planning will begin for the construction of a new junior high school." When will the district review the capacities of junior high schools? When will there be a plan to assure that junior high students will not have to wait for a seat? 8.The district seems to be predicating much of its proposed construction on the Tri-District Plan provision that all portable buildings will be eliminated. Can we therefore expect the district to move to modify the LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol II, page 5) provision that "every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular gradelevel?" The provision of one plan to do away with portables contradicts the provision of another plan which justifies their use.03/06/91 16:02 301 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0002/002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 6, 1991 TO: Chris Heller, Attorney FROM: (^jZChip Jones, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Facility Improvements The following summarizes renovations at the incentive schools during the last three years: Mitchell $115,000 Renovations including air conditioning, carpeting, and playground equipment Franklin 1,330,000 Classroom addition, cafeteria remodeling, and furniture Rockefeller 176,000 Re-roofing, minor renovation Ricfhtsell 178,000 Air conditioning, re-roofing, classroom conversion, painting Stephens 63,000 Air conditioning, painting, carpeting Ish 135,000 Renovation, re-roofing, playground equipment addition. for additional renovations at the inventive schools in the amount of $180,000. funds are currently budgeted cc: James JenningsTO: FROM: RE: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72207 March 6, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent ip Jones, Manager of Support Services Status of Construction Projects Cloverdale Elementary/junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Contract signed: Status: Sims, Grisham, Blair May 8, 1990 December 5, 1990 December 28, 1990 Carson & Associates January 3, 1991 100 mobilized, fencing, poured piers. Contract Price: some demolition and excavation, underslab plumbing, some foundation forms set. $2,677,000 Western Hills: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement Bid Opening General Contractor Contract signed: Status: Roark, Perkins, & Perry July 23, 1990 December 5, 1990 December 19, 1990 NLR Plumbing and General Contractors January 2, 1991 Site utilities in portable building, 50 place. relocated 30% excavation. site demolition. foundations formed and Contract price: pouring foundations in progress. $1,005,400 Woodruff: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Contract signed: Status: Contract price: Witsell, Evans, & Rasco July 10, 1990 January 6, 1991 January 24, 1991 Wilkins Construction Co. January 28, 1991 100% mobilized, demolition and excavation 50% complete, mechanical 2% complete. $749,711Building Status Report Page 2 Gever Springs: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Status: Dan Stowers July 25, 1990 January 13, 1991 January 30, 1991 Kulander Construction Mobilized, demolition has begun inside and outside, utilities Contract price: istration relocated. $1,760,000 relocated, admin- Professional Development Center and Southwest Junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Wittenberg, Deloney, and Davidson August 13, 1990 Finalizing programs and developing working drawings. Forest Heights Junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Polk, Stanley, & Associates November 27, 1990 Finalizing programs and developing working drawings. New Incentive/Interdistrict School: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Blass, Chilcote, Carter Informal Agreement Preparing drawings for prospective sites. buiIplan.wpdDate
March 5, 1991 To: Susan Webber Wright From: Ann Brown Subject: LRSD Proposals for School Construction Attached is a copy of a list of questions which I've sent to Chris Heller. Chris had asked me to review the LRSD proposals for new construction and let him know what questions or concerns I had. Here's a summary of my overall observations and concerns about the LRSD proposal. 1. Separate provisions from the Tri-District and Settlement Plans are being crossedor interwoven with entirely new provisionsinto what is essentially a hybrid, third plan. These building proposals seem to be something other than an attempt to find an "appropriate fit" between the two plans: some provisions represent an entirely new proposal
,Others constitute a retreat from the more stringent provisions of the Tri-District Plan without completely returning to the essentially more modest provisions of the Settlement Plan. This cut-and-paste approach is resulting in some strange mosaics. For example, in some instances, part of a sentence from one plan is being spliced to an entirely new concept that exists neither in the Tri-District nor Settlement Plans. do one half of the sentence but not the other. Another time, they want to proposals are in neither one of the plans and are, completely new. Some of the therefore, I'm not suggesting that every bit of the intermixing is yielding an undesirable or unreasonable proposal or concept, but it does leave us to wonder why the plans are being crossed when there's not an apparent reason for it
that is, there's nothing in the quoted Tri-District provisions that have actually been started because of court orders and therefore now need to be melded into the Settlement Plans so they can continue "in order to make a smooth transition" as the Circuit Court has provided. Did the Court intend for the districts to wind between the Settlement and Tri-District Plans, clipping and twisting and occasionally introducing an entirely new thread, thereby weaving the fiber of a new plan? I think not. My interpretation of their opinion is that the Court acknowledges the need to find a sensible, workable bridge between the two plans in those instances where differences between them require a mechanism to assure a "smooth transition" from one to the other. So, the Court has wisely provided for "the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted." Surely the word "details" is significant, especially in conjunction with the word "adjusted, " putting one in mind of attuning minor items or parts rather than rewriting for the purpose of altering a previous condition or requirement. If the parties are going to continue to pick and choose parts of the provisions of the two plans, occasionally tossing entirely strands onto the loom, the result may be a tangled Gordian knot rather than a smoothly interwoven transitional fabric.(By the way, in publications which are currently being distributed to parents, I also see this unraveling and reweaving happening in other areas of the two plans besides these construction proposals. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Education Magnet Program is a prime example.) Illustrations of the hybridization in the building proposals: (a) At Woodruff Elementary, the Settlement Plan calls for Woodruff to be closed. The Tri-District Plan calls for Woodruff to not only remain open but to add approximately two hundred students to the school's enrollment. however. The LRSD doesn't want to go quite that far, Their building proposal calls for adding 135 seats. Although current enrollment and capacity figures indicate that Woodruff is presently 23 students short of capacity, the 135 new seats added to the 23 that are presently vacant equals only 158 seats , District. still 42 seats short of the 200 proposed in the Tri( b) The Settlement Plan makes no special provisions for Western Hills Elementary but the Tri-District Plan calls for it to be expanded by 200 seats and for the portables which house 100 kids to be eliminated. sentence, but not the first part. The LRSD proposal is to do the last part of the (c) Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools are not slated for expansion in the Settlement Plan but are to be expanded by about 100 students each in the Tri-District Plan. The LRSD proposal will do part of the sentence: Junior High at all (amazing since the district is it won't expand Cloverdale so short on junior high space) but it will expand Cloverdale Elementary, but only by 28 seats. (d) Geyer Springs Elementary is not slated for expansion in either the Settlement Plan or Tri-District Plans but the LRSD wants to make it bigger by 73 seats. However, both plans do impact the school in that they call for the elimination of portable buildings and Geyer Springs has a bunch of those. (e) Neither of the plans call for building at Forest Heights. The school facility is very much in need of improvement and the district has the right as well as the responsibility to provide an environment conducive Heights, located at to learning. Evergreen and However, ] University redoing Forest in white neighborhood, certainly should not be a priority implemented before building the schools in the downtown (black) area that are mandated by both plans. 2. There is no excuse for Heller waiting until now. after construction contracts have been signedand construction begun on every one of these schools except Forest Heightsto seek approval of school construction. 6) states: "VII. The Interdistrict Settlement Plan (page Further School Construction: All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation." Maybe the context of this provision would indicate that it's really about the construction of new schools
but it does say "all" and not "new". In any event, even Chris Heller told me he thought these building proposals needed to come before the Court. Chris said he didn't know that the LRSD had a entered into building contracts, but I sure wonder why: attachedis a memo from Chip Jones to James Jennings which we received as part of Jennings' October 1990 report to his board. states construction is on the way. It clearly The newspapers also knew about it and covered it in at least two stories (attached.) John Walker had told him of the articles only recently. Chris said 3. LRSD is trying to slip expanding western school capacity past the Court in various guises, replacing portable buildings being the favorite. The LRSD knows better than to try the capacity ploys
they've been severely reprimanded by both the Court and Gene Reville for it. As a matter of fact, all of the districts know that portables are a real touchy subject
that's why PCSSD just sent a memo to us begging to be allowed one portable at an elementary school to house some staff. PCSSD doesn't want to risk the displeasure of the Court over the old portable issuesits hands have been smacked before. a new Court not knowing the old tricks. But it seems LRSD is counting on The LRSD capacity figures on any one school change faster than a chameleonand always to suit the need of the moment. LRSD has shamelessly expanded schools in white parts of town while doing little or nothing to add seating in the central and eastern part of the city, even though both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans specifically address the need to increase downtown capacity. This is why the burden of busing remains on black kids. What the words "build" and "replace" often really mean is increasing the size of schools, especially in white neighborhoods. 4. The next thing that may happen is LRSD may want to increase the capacity of the incentive schools by moving the portables to them (as Dr. Steele has said in a t.v. interview but not in writing.) This could result in many black children being transferred out of the white neighborhood schools and back to the central/east side. A lot of black kids in central and east Little Rock had to be reassigned out of their attendance zone to schools in the west. (These reassignments are because of the old controlled choice assignment plan, or because magnets displaced them, or the children didn't apply or didn't get accepted to a magnet. or because incentive schools were full.) But the grandfathering that is in the Settlement Plan (and, at LRSD's insistence, also in the Tri- District Plan) guarantees that those youngsters who have been reassigned out of their attendance zone have the right to remain in the school they were reassigned to. Moving kids back and forth between schools is, of course, traumatic for the children and so isn't usually in their best interest. 5. The Interdistrict Settlement Plan states on page 7: Quality
"Building An aim of the plan shall be to ensure for all students equal educational facilities. Schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in respective districts. n If portable buildings aren't good enough for schools in the western part of town, they aren't good enough for kids in the downtown area either. 6. It is important to note what the two plans have to say about portable buildings. itself. The Settlement Plan essentially contradicts One of its provisions (LRSD Plan, Vol II, Page 5) says that "every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular gradelevel" but it also says (on page 174 of the same document) "Any school which has portable buildings will have these portables replaced with new units or repaired such that they will be in a condition suitable to housing a class and provide a positive environment for learning." However, knowing how portables can be used to play the capacity game, the Tri-District plan has little patience with trailers and banishes them all within five years: (on page 8 of the Area Schools section) "All portable buildings will be eliminated over a five-year period beginning in 1990-91. n 7. other points about capacity: A. There are twice as many students as capacity in the schools in central and east Little Rock. of busing falls more heavily on black children. This is the main reason the burden B. Main causes of lower capacity in central/east Little Rock: older buildings are smaller so hold fewer kids
(1) (2) downtown magnets can displace as much as 80% of the neighborhood kids who would normally attend them
(3) a few schools in the downtown area have been closed, some of them for many years (Kramer, East Side, West Side, Lee, Gillam, King to name the ones that come to mind.) Not all of these schools were replaced with downtown buildings. 3. Grandfathering (found in the Settlement Plan and, much to Mr. Reville's chagrin, also the Tri-District Plan) has had a lot to do with the capacity issue. Under the old controlled choice assignment plan, downtown kids who couldn't get into a magnet because their number didn't come up or couldn't get into an incentive school because there wasn't room had to be bused to a westerly school. schools like Western Hills. This is when so many portables got added to Grandfathered students have the right to remain at their reassigned school but they're moving up a grade each year. So, within another few years, all the grandfathered elementary kids will have moved out of the primary grades. Now the schools expanded with portables to accommodate controlled choice reassignmentsand also more white kidsare asking to make those temporary portables permanent.FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P. A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. GEORGE E. PIKE. JR., P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. MICHAEL G. THOMPSON, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H. T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. LEWIS MATHIS, P.A. PAUL S. BENHAM HI, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 Fax No. SOi-376-2147 March 11, 199 RECeWED J. PHI JP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. HAND DELIVERED,,. Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Construction at LRSD Schools Dear Ann and Arma: LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WI JAM M. GRIFFIN HI, P.A. of 1 1 1991 THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY WALTER M. EBEL HI, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE "tab turner CALVI N J. HALL SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER. JR. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR. HARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TO N lA P. JONES fJEFFREY H. MOORE COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRtTERS DtRCCT NO. 370-1506 I am writing to provide you additional information about the construction projects at Woodruff, Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Cloverdale and Forest Heights. After sending to you and to counsel on February 15, 1991 a basic description of the proposed construction projects, I learned last week that construction is underway at Woodruff, Geyer Springs, Western Hills and Cloverdale. We intend to seek court approval of these projects as quickly as possible and have explored the impact of stopping the projects pending court approval. I have enclosed for each project the assessment of the project architect concerning the impact of suspension of construction work. The LRSD Desegregation Team has also reviewed the impact of the construction on our desegregation plan, and I have a good deal of information to share with you regarding that issue. I would like to meet with you as soon construction projects. as possible to discuss the I also intend to meet with the parties and to prepare a comprehensive motion for the court concerning these projects.I will be available to meet at your convenience, for your consideration. Thank you Yours very truly^''^ Christopher TIeller CJH/k cc: All Counsel - w/enc. Dr. Ruth SteeleWitsell. Evans iScRasco Architect I Planners March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Little Rock Public Schools 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: Proposed Suspension of Work Woodruff Elementary School Dear Doug: In response to the District's request, we submit the following issues to be dealt with concerning suspension of construction work on the Woodruff Elementary School alterations and addition. The primary issue is scheduling. This project is under an extremely tight time frame with anticipated completion to be August 9, 1991. This would allow approximately two weeks for the District to occupy the new addition and the remodeled areas of the existing facility prior to the beginning of the 1991-92 school year. It has been our position that this schedule was obtainable under reasonable circumstances, but for an additional emphasis, we included $500 per day liquidated damages for time spent beyond August 9th to pronounce the District's intent to the Contractor. Any delay caused by the Owner (LRSD) would effectively waive all rights to liquidated damages and allow the Contractor to create his own timetable. Secondly, we have estimated additional expenses that the District would incur should a suspension of work be required. These expenses are those of the Contractor, Subcontractors and their suppliers which would directly transfer to the Owner. Items would include, but are not limited to: 1) Extended field overhead for the period of shutdown and the possibility of start-up delays due to weather, coordination, etc. The Contractor has estimated a cost of $770 per day for an expected three week downtime. Total Cost: $16,170 2) Due to the location of this project, aU on site materials and equipment would need to be removed and stored in a secured area. An estimated cost to move these materials, store in a secured area, and then transfer these items back to the job site would be a lump sum. Total Cost: $1,800 3) The phase of construction that this project is in has left the site extremely vulnerable to the impacts of weather. Currently the final construction grading has been done leaving exposed undisturbed soil. Footings are being poured, and should be 90% Witscll, Evans Rasco, P.A. 101 Ea^t Capitol Avenue. Suite 410 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501) 374'5300Page 2 Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 complete by the 12th of this month. If we shut down at this point, without floor slabs in place, serious consequences would arise from any measurable rainfall. The dug footings would act as moats around the building line, trapping water and destroying the integrity of the undisturbed soil in our concrete slab areas. To rectify this probable situation, the soil within our building perimeter would need to be undercut and hauled off at a cost of $7 per yard and replaced with new compacted fill at a cost of $9 per yard. $9,770 Total Cost: 4) The work is at a stage where the temporary fence surrounding the project has been removed to allow perimeter grading and sidewalk demolition. A fence would be required around the site on the occurrence of a shut down. The Contractor would need to remove it once again when work resumes, therefore doubling his efforts. $2,106 Total Cost: Estimated Grand Total: $29,846 To avoid additional project delays and costs of Item 3, we suggest that a minimal compromise might be to allow the Contractor to complete his work on foundations and floor slabs. After this stage, the site could remain dormant for an indefinite period of time. Ironically, the time frame for completing this work will be approximately eleven days, nearly the full amount of time that you have requested to shut down. This issue is full of unusual circumstances. The items we have mentioned have some conjecture intertwined with some very real probabilities. Our architectural position concurs with your desire to keep this construction project on schedule. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. Cordially, Witsell, Evans and Rasco, P.A. Eldon W. Bock, AIA Project Architect EWB:lhWILKINS SIMS ARCHITECTS 1001 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501 375-3356 March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Addition and Modifications to Cloverdale Jr. High and Elementary Schools Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Kendall: As you reguested, I will attempt to address the affects of stopping the work on the above referenced project. It is difficult to be very accurate in our assessment of this action, since in our twenty-one years of experience, we have never stopped work on any project. The completion of the work on this project is so critical that we have scheduled certain portions of the work to occur within a certain time period. Some of this work is scheduled for the spring break If we and other portions for the summer months. stop the contractor, even for a short period, he will have a very good reason to miss these scheduled items. Possibly the most critical item is the remo- val of asbestos from the existing cafeteria, this is not done as scheduled, it impacts the If It is almost certain the school remaining work. will not be completed and available in time for the spring semester as anticipated. The contractor has advised us that there will be additional costs if the work is stopped. He has estimated his overhead costs, such as office expenses, salaries for key people, utilities, insurance, costs for rental equipment, etc. will be apprioxima- He estimates the costs for the tely $l,985/day. sub-contractors will add another $2,p00/day, for a total of almost $4,000/day. ARCHITECTUR&PLANNING/INTERIORS/GRAPHICSMr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 2 Most of the building materials have already been ordered, so someone will have to be on-site to receive them. Some materials can not be left on the site, so there could be costs for storage of these items. Liquidated damages are included in this contract in the amount of $300.00 per day. If the time of completion exceeds the contract time, I am sure the contractor will use this as an excuse for not completing the work. The loss of momentum could affect his schedule much longer than the actual period he is stopped. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours. WILKINS/SIMS/ARCHITECTS/P.A. Kenneth F. Sims KFS/ptg15 16 west third street little P rock, o . box 2 2 3 6 arkansas 72203 pho f a n e X 3 7 6 - 3 2 7 7 3 7 4 - 813 3 d a n f s + o w e r s a r c h I e c p. a. dan f. Stowers, a.i.a. March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Additions and Renovations to Geyer Springs Elementary School Project No. 90-1005 Dear Mr. Kendall: As per our conversation regarding suspension of work on the above captioned project, will attempt to answer the following questions. If a stop order is issued: 1. Determine Contractor. the amount of immediate hardship placed on the 2. Monetary value created by the stop order. 3. The detrimental impact that it would have on the construction process. first phase of the question, the Immediate impact on the General Contractor, is rather difficult to determine in as much as Kullander Construction has begun demolition work in most of the classrooms and corridors and all of the ceilings have been removed. Some of the roof and structural components have been removed where possible and all of the gravel from the existing roof has been removed. The asbestos contractor is scheduled to move into the building on April 1, 1991, to remove all sensitive materials. T-h-i-s will allow Kullander Construction to continue the demolition of the kitchen and April 1 office areas. If a stop order is issued, the asbestos contractor cannot be rescheduled until June 15, 1991. I Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 2 The Principals Office is now located in a metal classroom building with telephone, intercom and fire alarm having been connected to this newly established office. Partitions have been constructed and a restroom provided for use as a Teachers' Workroom. Soil has been delivered to the site and is being compacted in anticipation of pouring foundations on March 13, 1991. The playground equipment has been removed and is not usable by the students at this time. Therefore, if a stop order is Issued, I think it would be necessary for the School District to plead with the Court to allow Kullander Construction a minimum of a week to secure the building. In addition, materials such as conduit and plumbing pipe have been delivered to the job site in anticipation of placing these items in the existing building and the new sections. We are scheduled to receive on Monday, March 11, 1991, concrete reinforcing bars and footing foundations will be poured beginning Wednesday, March 13, 1991. Electrical panels and other electrical switch gear should be on the job site before April 1, 1991. Other materials which have purchase orders include overhead structural steel members, heating and air conditioning units, brick and Haydite block and kitchen equipment. All of these materials require approximately ninety to one hundred and twenty days lead time in order for the manufacturers to schedule and deliver the materials. Therefore, Kullander Construction has secured delivery dates of June 1, 1991, for these materials and equipment. Should a stop order be issued to Kullander Construction, the result would be devastating to the contract completion date. The reason being that all of these materials and equipment would have to be reordered and new delivery dates scheduled. The esprit de corps on the project is running very high. Contractors, as well as subcontractors, have great expectations of being able to complete their work in a minimum amount of time and the cooperation of each and every man on the job is focused on the needs of the students. I am almost certain that a stop order would interrupt the continuity that we presently have and would never be able to regain.Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 3 is Therefore Secondly, if the project is stopped, particularly by the Courts, there is no guarantee when or if the project will resume. Theiexute, I anticipate some of these contractors will seek other projects and we will lose the qualified people that we presently have on this construction project. To address the question regarding anticipation costs resulting from the stop order is probably the most difficult of the three propositions to actually determine at this time. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, paragraph 14.3, IS on Suspension By The Owner For Convenience, states: The Owner may, without cause. order the Contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time as the Owner may determine. This Section of the AIA document continues that an adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract. According to my understanding, the Contractor could be required to cancel orders for materials and each and every manufacturer would be entitled to a "restocking fee"
and the General Contractor, as well as the subcontractors, could be entitled to expenses and anticipated profit fees. Tn reviewing this proposition with Mr. Karl Kullander, if a stop order were issued, we have estimated that it could cost the Little Rock School District in excess of $175,000.00. Mr. Kendall, I hope that this information will be helpful and I pray that the Courts will be lenient in this matter. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Q Tn Dan F. Stowers DFS:met ROARK PERKINS PERRY ARCHITECTS ENGINEER 713 W. SECOND LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-2287 501 372-0272 March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Little Rock School District 3601 S. Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 Re: Western Hills Elementary Renovation Dear Doug: As per your request, we have asked the contractor for a letter identifying additional costs related to a two-week shut-down of this project. His letter (copy attached) identifies a minimum of $18,140. additional cost. They also would expect to have the liquidated damages clause of the contract eliminated. In addition, we would expect to have a minimum of 10 hours architectural time at $60.00/hour for our additional involvement with the shut-down and subsequent restarting of this project. We would strongly advise against the two-week shut-down, as the momentum of the project would be lost, and it will ije virtually impossible to have this project available for the start of school the last of August, 1991. Yours very truly, ROARK, PERKINS & PERRY H. Price Roark HPR/bp Enclosure H. PRICE ROARK AIA PE DAVID W. KENNEDY AIA CSI FRED M. PERKINS. JR. AIA DAVID W. PERRY AIA SALLY BOWEN CSI MARC H. HATFIELD AIA / North Little Rock Plumbing & General Contracting March 8,1991 Roark, Perking & Perry RE: Western Kills Elementary Project Shutdown Listed below are a few of the cost that we would acure upon a project shutdown of approximatly two weeks. We would like to make clear that this shutdown is not at all feasible 4 these are only a fev
of the foreseeable cost listed below has been scheduled for this project 4 will not have ar to go to. The equipment her project 1) One Padfoot Roller: $1,175.00 per week i? 2week3 q2,250,00 2) One Dozer: $650,00 per week 2 weeks= $1,300.00 plus $200.00 delivery= $1,500.00 3) One Backhoe: $800.00 per week 2weeks =$1,600.00 plus $200.00 delivery* $1,800.00 Total Rental Equipment: $5,550.00 1) Additional Overtime cost not figured in project which will be required to get project batk on schedule. 5 men s $65.00 including labor burden for 100 Hr3= $6,500.00 2) Plumber, Apprentice i Backhoe to rough-in slab that would have been ready within the next week & 4 half. Plumber i Appren, Backhoe & Operator Total Plumbing Cost AOHrs. X 30.00 = 40Hr5 X 43.00 = $1 ,200.00 $1,800.00 $3,000.00 3) Overhead cost on insurance, managment 4 Labor Burden that will not cease: $3,140.00 We would also have to have all liquidated damaged completely waived off this project. If this project is closed down indefinitly than we would expect ccmpldte payment on all Profit'&Overhead. Thank You, Vic Smith,Project Manager 18 North Dcpch Street P.O. Dox 127 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Office 501-374-2313 PAX 501-374-3215 I POLK STANLEY & ASSOCIATES March 8, 1991 ARCH I T C T S, LTD. Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 S. Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 Re: Additions and Renovations to FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Project No. 264 Dear Doug: In response to the question raised about the impact of halting all work on this project while the court reviews the improvements at Forest Heights for compliance with the comprehensive plan, I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Construction Schedule. If our work is halted for as much as one week, the construction schedule cannot be met for the completion of Phase I renovation work by the 1991-92 school year as requested by the Little Rock School District. This would leave us with two options: 1. Phase I work would be delayed to the summer of 1992 causing the final completion date to be extended to August of 1993. 2, Phase I work would run over into the 1991-92 school year with Band, Choral and either Business Education or Art being displaced temporarily until the construction in their area is complete. Phase II schedule could remain as is, with the understanding that we could end up with an overlapping of construction (two contractors on the same site at the same time) leading to added confusion. The impact of added cost to the District under Option One would include the possible duplication of work under a make-do situation until the actual renovation work could be done and maintenance costs that would have been unnecessary had the renovation been completed a year earlier. The impact of added cost to the District under Option Two would include the rental and installation of portable buildings to house the displaced classrooms. 700 S. Schiller ' Little Rock, Arkansas 501'378 0878 72201Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page Two The only additional fees required by us to begin our work after a period of holding would be if the scope of the work changed so greatly that we were required to redesign the project. We have completed work through twenty-two percent of our contract which translates to a fee earned of approximately $38,000 -of which approximately $26,000 has been paid to date. This leaves a balance earned at this point of approximately $12,000. Sincerely, Carolyn Lindsey cc: Vernon Smith, LRSD Chip Jones, LRSD FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Additions and Renovations March 1, 1991 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PHASE I - Renovations, New Music Classroom March 4 Mar. 25,1991 3 weeks March 25 - April 1, April May June 1 - May 21, 21 - June 10, 4 - June 11, 1991 1991 1991 1991 1 week 7 weeks 2 weeks 1 week June 7, 1991 June 8 June 22, 1991 2 weeks June 12, 1991 June 23, 1991 Aug. 6, 1991 6 weeks Aug. 7 - Aug. 18, 1991 12 days Aug. 14, 1991 9 weeks Aug. 14 - Aug. 18, 1991 5 days Aug. 19, 1991 Design Development Phase I & Phase II Review Construction Documents Bidding ' Bid Opening, Negotiations, Sign Contract Teachers' last day in school Asbestos Abatement of first building Begin Construction of new Music Classroom Begin Renovations of first building Complete Renovations, Asbestos Abatement Move in Renovated Buildings Complete new Music Classroom Move in new Music Classroom First day of classes PHASE II - New Classroom and Administration/Library Building, Sitework, Demolition of Existing Buildings May 15 July 30 Aug. 2 0 - July 29, 1991 - Aug. 19, 1991 - Sept. 2 1991 11 weeks 3 weeks 2 weeks Sept. 3 Aug. 10 '91 Aug. 9'92 Aug. 24, 1992 - Aug 23, 1992 11 months 2 weeks Construction Documents Bidding Bid Opening, Negotiations, Sign Contract Construction Move in First day of classesMAR 19 '91 17:17 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION For its motion, plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. schools: LRSD seeks approval of construction projects at eight Forest Heights Junior High School
Cloverdale Junior High School
Cloverdale Elementary School
Rightsell Incentive School, Mitchell Incentive School, Geyer Springs Elementary School
Woodruff Elementary School
and Western Hills Elementary School. Each construction project and its impact upon LRSD's desegregation plan will be described below. 2. With the exception of Woodruff Elementary School, the proposed elementary capacity figures presented in this motion are based upon twenty students per four year old class and the average number of students per class required by Arkansas Department of Education regulations for the elementary grades. Those averages are: Twenty students per kindergarten class
twenty-three students per class at grades 1 through 3
twenty-five students per Aflpfowi Seb "-nwMAR 19 '91 17:17 P.3 class at grades 4 through 6. Woodruff Elementary School's capacity is calculated at twenty-two students per class for grades 1 through 6 because most of the classrooms for the upper elementary grades are too small to accommodate more than twenty-two students per class. The junior high school capacities are calculated in accordance with a formula which takes into account the size and use of each classroom as well as class scheduling requirements. The proposed projects which are the subject of this motion follow construction and renovation projects at schools in east and central Little Rock which were then known as "major enhancement" schools. The largest of the "major enhancement" projects was at Washington school, with a 1987-88 capacity of three hundred five (305), which was completely demolished. A new Washington school was constructed on the same site at a cost of $4,932,377.00. The capacity at Washington was increased by five hundred sixty-one (561) students to eight hundred sixty-six (866) . 4. A new wing of ten classrooms was added to Franklin 3. Incentive School and Franklin's cafeteria was remodeled in 1989. The cost of the Franklin project was $1,330,000.00. 5. Rockefeller, Rightsell and Ish Incentive Schools were renovated. including reroofing. beginning in 1988. Mitchell Incentive School was also renovated at the same time. Stephens Incentive School received air conditioning, painting and carpeting. but was not renovated to the extent of the other buildings because of the plan to build a new Stephens school. The combined cost of the Rockefeller, Rightsell, Ish, Mitchell and Stephens projects was knhy\Mx> Ajipwrei SdiCc* 2MAR 19 '91 17:13 approximately Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars. P.4 Capital improvements have also been made recently at Garland Incentive School at a cost, since 1988, in excess of $400,000.00. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors voted on March 15, 1990 to seek to increase the LRSD millage rate by eight mils, five and one- half mils for maintenance and operation and two and one-half mils for debt service. The debt service mils were designated for capital improvement projects. LRSD committed to its patrons that capital improvement projects would be undertaken at Woodruff, Western Hills, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs and Forest Heights if the millage passed. The millage was approved by the voters on April 19, 1990. 7. During the 1988-89 school year, LRSD prepared desegregation plan which proposed that a new King school and a new Stephens school be constructed in the area of Interstate 63 0 between University Avenue and Interstate 30. That desegregation plan was agreed upon by all the parties but rejected by the district court. The parties were ordered to implement a different desegregation plan, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. 8. The Tri-District Plan called for the expansion of Woodruff Elementary School, the expansion of Western Hills Elementary School and the elimination of portable classrooms there, and the expansion of Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools. The parties appealed but did not seek to stay implementation of the Tri- District Plan. LRSD notified the associate metropolitan a supervisors on July 26, 1990 that the "building expansion projects lalhy\Mo Seta CoaK 3MfiR 19 '91 17:19 P.5 for Woodruff, Western Hills, and Cloverdale will continue". 9. Architects were hired during the summer of 1990 for the Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Woodruff and Western Hills projects. The architect for the Forest Heights project was hired in November, 1990. During December 1990 and January 1991, LRSD advertised for bids, opened bids and hired general contractors for the Cloverdale, Western Hills, Woodruff, and Geyer Springs projects. Work has begun on those projects. No contractor has been hired and no work has begun on the Forest Heights project. Architects have not yet been hired for the Rightsell and Mitchell projects. 10. The "Interdistrict Desegregation Plan", which was approved by the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990, says that "[a] 11 school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation". Interdistrict Plan, 8 J.D.R. 1723. The recruitment of students to non-magnet, non-incentive schools is a part of LRSD's desegregation plan. Interdistrict Plan, 8 J.D.R. 1721-22
LRSD Desegregation Plan, 10 J.D.R. 2198. The proposed projects at Woodruff, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Western Hills and Forest Heights will contribute to LRSD's ability to accomplish that goal. 11. The project at Woodruff would add six new classrooms to the school. Woodruff's capacity would be increased from two hundred nine (209) to three hundred twenty-four (324) . With the increased capacity. Woodruff could accommodate forty-four (44) students per grade for grades 1 through 6, forty (40) kindergarten students and twenty students in the four year old program. 4 kubyvMo SA.MAR 19 '91 17:56 P.l 12. There is no satellite attendance zone for Woodruff School. LRSD does not propose to change the Woodruff attendance zone. There are presently 174 students in grades K-6 who reside in the Woodruff attendance zone. Fifty-nine percent of those students are black. Assuming full participation in Woodruff's four year old program, the present Woodruff attendance zone would yield 194 students, or sixty percent of Woodruff's proposed capacity. Ths remainder of Woodruff's capacity will be filled by recruitment. Woodruff's Care Program (at which students can remain until 5:30 p.m.! and Woodruff's location (adjacent to Interstate 30 near downtown Little Rock) will be used by LRSD recruiters to market the school to parents who work in state government offices, Arkansas Children's Hospital and downtown Little Rock. 13. Woodruff presently has one class each at grades K-4 and two classes each at grades 5 and 6. The expansion of Woodruff will create the space necessary to balance the grade structure with two classes per grade. 14. The construction project at Western Hills consists of replacing nine classrooms in portable buildings with nine permanent classrooms. LRSD does not propose to enlarge Western Hills Elementary School. This project will not require any adjustment to attendance zones. 15. There is no satellite attendance zone for Western Hills. Two hundred ninety-one students in grades K-6 reside in the Western Hills attendance zone. That group, which is fifty-four percent (54%) black, would fill Western Hills to eighty-nine percent (89%) Ans will lACoat 503'20/91 09:37 301 376214" FRIDAY LAW FIR3I @002 of capacity. As a result of previous desegregation plans and the grandfathering provision in the current plan, one hundred eighty (180) students who reside within the Western Hills zone attend Western Hills, one hundred fifty-four (154) students who reside outside the Western Hills zone attend Western Hills and one hundred eleven (111) students who reside within the Western Hills attendance zone attend schools other than Western Hills. Grandfathering will be phased out according to LRSD's Desegregation Plan (10 J.D.R. 2198 & 2199) which allows students "presently assigned" to elementary schools ho remain in those schools but requires that kindergarten and new students will be assigned by attendance zones. 16. All but one of the portable buildings presently in use at Western Hills are approximately twenty years old. One portable building is only two years old. 17. The project at Geyer Springs Elementary School consists of building twelve classrooms by a combination of new construction and the conversion of some existing space to classroom use. Portable buildings which house eight classes will be removed, for a net increase at Geyer Springs of four classrooms. The additional classrooms will allow the school to provide two classes each at grades K-6. The construction project will also increase the size of the kitchen and create a new library at Geyer Springs. 18. The capacity of Geyer Springs Elementary School would increase from two hundred fifty-five (255) to three hundred twenty- eight (328) . The present enrollment at Geyer Springs is two 6 inhyVWo Afptw*! Sch CowSSraEBBBflSa 03/20 91 09:37 301 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM 003 hundred seven (207), although two hundred sixteen (216) students reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone. Eighty*-four students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone attend Geyer springs Eleinentary School. The remaining one hundred thirty-two (132) LRSD students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone attend various other LRSD schools. One hundred thirteen (113) students who reside outside the Geyer Springs attendance zone presently attend Geyer Springs Eleinentary School. 19. The present racial composition of Geyer Springs Elementary School is seventy-one percent (71%) black. The racial composition of the students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone is sixty-seven percent (67%) black. After grandfathering is phased out, the school will reflect the racial composition of the attendance zone. No change in the assignment of students to Geyer Springs, however, will result from the construction project. 20. The LRSD students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone would fill Geyer Springs to sixty-six percent (66%) of capacity, The remaining capacity will be filled by recruitment to the public schools of students who reside within the Geyer Springs zone and by the assignment of students who cannot be accommodated at neighboring Wakefield Elementary School which is presently operating at ninety-nine percent (99%) of capacity. See 10 J.D.R. 2198-99. 21. The project at Cloverdale Elementary school consists of the construction of new cafeteria, the addition of five a lathyVMo AppMnal Sds Cent 7MAR 19 '91 17=26 P.4
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.