J B PUBLIC SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! B Learn More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-57IS, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368 lUSeptember 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more Information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical in determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations: 2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment
3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization
and. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Severed recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an aimual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Facilities Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd FairPark-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jetfcrson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 n 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J.A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed arc marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes arc marked with an R School Allcudancc Zone Population: % While % Black Today Today % While Option M % Black Option M % Wliite Option T % Black Option T % Wliite Option C % Black Option C Elcm. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C JefTerson-C M.L. Kmg. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Milchell-C Otter Creek 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 69 31 80 20 82 18 Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 03 21 39 41 41 59 59 42 25 96 89 92 41 97 79 61 58 68 04 23 87 02 21 47 32 96 77 13 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 43 32 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION 1 6TH-STH enroll * capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 4 #2 k.9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. if 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-B Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210-1 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 i#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process
the capacity of each school building and its utilization
considerations of school size
and the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs
corridors
number of location of exits
fire protection
and general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features: Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)
ventilation system
temperature and ventilation efficiencies
mechanical room
and controls. Plumbing facilities
Toilet room adequacy and conditions
water facilities
drinking fountains
individual room installations
showers and special equipment. Electrical Services
Power installation and control
communication and _signal^ystem
_alanns-and^t.Jjghts
_genetai.and_special room installations
and electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures
quality and quantity of illumination
controls
and effect. Educational Features
administrative spaces. Instructional rooms
special rooms
general areas
and Operational Features: Suitability for educational program
flexibility
economy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)
general and instructional storage
pupil lockers
acoustical conditions
custodial facilities
energy systems
and accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development
drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3O/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement. marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day. and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or construction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Schoc) Size ! I I I I I I 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include
density of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.^ Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for classes of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools," shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses, each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate student's perception of size. A large school does not necessarily have to be a numbingly anonymous one. 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction. Ben E. Graves
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes cf schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the4)rojected-enrQllments....Table-d-rafJects-thexurrent grade -organizations (PK-6: 7-9
and 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK6
78
and 912), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5
6-8
and 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities. 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800. and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendatiori for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include: 1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 i 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500.students.. .Even at a.large,school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones" presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools, Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. Impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21, 1994 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 Page 1 December 19, 1995 Difference Central HS** Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS**_____ Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH** Forest Heights JH Henderson JH* * Mabelvale JH Mannjh* Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH______ Sub-Total w/o Magnets u m m 1020 o I 535, 620! 266 646
310 671 197 re o Ik 61 38: 13 5 o o <0 m 422 341. 37 3379 1649 145 1606
63.51% 892
69.51% 994, 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 52.75% 5173 65.32% e 5 1021 639' s I 530 222 o 0 'Tf 9 S o 2957 1308 108 4373 67.62% 5301 110 4641 204
573[ 186| 7 11 647 i 81.92% 654! 210i 27 411 452 426 4981 613! 260) 44 741 159, 15! 444, 364! 40 3458 1535 155 1598 870 917 915 848 u w ffi 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 5148 67.17% 3014 1171 115 4300 70.09% 1 3561 21 317! 1131 6 19 679 781 891 570 829 749 630' 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% 5421 4008 1648 120 5776 69.39% 3556 1292 99 4947! 71.88% 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 1576 181 22 16' 21 ' 5| 22 10 17 131 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 5671! 69.90% 3514 1199 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker" Brady Carver*______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs CIbbs*_______ Jefferson King-________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcllff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller Romine- Stephens* Terry vyakefield___ Washington - mtsojiyy Western Hills Wiiijam^ Wilsey Woodruff Special Schools 136' 2221 2361 48! 74 0 8 4 184! 73.91% 109 48221 72.87% 303, 235i 20i 254! 119
14! 313^ 268" UT 344 j 312! 189' 195' 122! 721 103i 8' 7 7 6 2051 2271 394' 244! 241 215' 158' 2151 287. 356! 247' 294 256 161 198' 224, 260 226 36 121 308 314 558 387 595 474 391 292 304 438 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 52.61% 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 2901 TiT 9, 27! 69' 129
2801 224, 133 226' 1151 61 191 198 A 123 69 7, 13 6 21 9 Zzl 1 i 4 8
15 31 231. 307 329 70 431' 208, 325 205 249 269 140 15 96 216 80. 84 21' 4421 89.14% 555! 43.96% 277
87.00% 291 300 501 532 73.86% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256' 1 498! 71.49% 490! 50.41% 410[ 71.71% 266 360 411 96.24% 44.72% 48.18% 3! 2311 96.97% 74! 3971 65.49% T61 Closed 30' 15^ 27 10, 8, 10, 8 0, 311! 72.87% 5681 40.67% 414' 79.47% 666
64.71% 431 j 75.41% 310! 66.13% 475 [ 52.42/? 358' 75.14% 232! 60.34% 36 41.67% Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 S020 670 24956 65.1S% 14354 6454 555 21363 67.19% 165 219' 289' 312' 262' 306' 250 137 209' 213' 25^ Wf 68 130' 28(r 252 123' 197' 91 5 188 207 4 126 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7' 15 7 16 11 25 6' 2' 8! 2^ 6! 83] 18| Closed 244! 265! 25I 370[ 35 23' 419 372! 2111 264 3061 159! 17! 199 38! 73' 104! 7^ 00 2^ 3, 19! 13, "8^ 0! 2201 80.00% 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 3181 76.42% 310| 53.23% 5061 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484' 403 257 333' 432 223 402 312 534 428 656 453 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 95.52% 63.18% 67.63% 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318, 66.35% 513- 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239
66.53% 46! 36.96% 9229 4456 488, 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651 7567
774 24992 66.63% 14666 5397 628 21191 69.21% Office of Student Assignment re 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75' -1 16' -2' 21 10 -3 28' 7' 4' 2' -44' 15' 12' -6' -24' 11 -11 -6 -15' 13| 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 2 LU -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34 -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 3 14 a JC -4 3 6 2 3 3 o re m -8 -22 -77 34 48 101 -25 71 -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 -10, 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 111-105 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 0 2 1 -51 2 8 5 -2 0 1 3 8 2 -125 36 33 ___9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52 -6 -7 9 -27 21 -8 5 1 Closed -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 -5 8 11 -34 14 -10 -21 22 -5 9 4 0 0 8 38 24 7 10 350 -267 83
166 297 -3271 56, 26 385 [-453! 104! 36 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14% 0.08% 4.12% 4.88% 5.60% 2.53% 0.56% 0.37% -2.06% -1.53% 3.72% 4.22% 1.04% " -3.58% 0.20% _ -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 1.45% 3121-5571 731-172 2.02% * u n o. n O 1891 954 1291 1199! lOOOl * o n Q. u -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 6335 -1187 5335
-1035 868 812 858 907 614 850 745 737' 6391 5541, 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374? 258! 469 487? 515 4921 836^ 492' 328 394 [ 324 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 ___[7 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 , -3263*5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe.... All people have equal, inherent worth. Every individual can learn. Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance. Attitude always influences behavior. All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community. Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable. The family is a primary influence on the development of a child. Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy. Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community. Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life. With every right comes a responsibility. Actions speak louder than words. Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities. Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests. No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters * No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation. No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission. School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan. We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual. We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan. We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum. We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and orgariizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning. We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decisionmaking processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)DRAFT/UNOFFICIAL k Little Rock School District 1996-97 Budget Planning Worksheet as of January 17, 1996 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE(7/1/96) $ 1,270,000 REVENUES: Local Sources County Sources State Sources-Settlement Funds States Sources-other Other Sources-Bond Transfer Fd Other Sources-other $71,860,000 $ $ 70,000 683,000 $50,609,000 $ 1,000,000 1,280,000 $125,502,000 EXPENSES: Salaries Benefit Plans Materials & Supplies- Other Purchased Services Bus Contract Capital Outlay-Ex Buses New Special Ed. Buses Other Objects Debt Service $73,710,000 $22,250,000 $20,734,000 $ $ $ $ s. 416,000 2,000,000 375,000 5,349,000 7,574,000 ($132,408,000) NET LOSS IS. 5,636,000) DEFICIT BEFORE ADDITIONAL ITEMS Potential Additional Revenue Sources: Re-appraisal (Dec) Millage Increase Deseg Loan Settlement Draw ($ 5,636,000) $ ??? ??? 3,500,000 Potential Additional Expenses: Payroll Step Increases Payroll Structure Increase 1996-97 Business Cases (NET) Desired Ending Fund Balance NET POSITIVE BALANCE/LOSS REDUCTION Options to Balance Budget: Educational Programs Reductions School Facilities Reconfiguration Non School Level Program/Personnel Reductions Optimize Student/Staff Ratios BALANCED BUDGET (State law requires LRSD to have a balanced budget.) OVER ($ ($ ($ $ 1 1,600,000) 0 200,000) 1,000,000) 4,936,000) ??? ??? ??? ??? 0Document format prepared by Van N. Light. Data taken from 1/17/96 financial documents given to Financial Advisory Committee members and to Dr. Williams and LRSD Board. The Best Guess Scenario figures are used in this document.BUILDING INFORMATION Little Rock School District - Facilities Master Plan Study School Name Mifekiel I Street Address RECBfVBO Surveyor Site Size Date acres AUG 2 1999 Permanent Buildings Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Firs l AddiTirm OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footagei Year Constructed Year Constructed Portable Buildings Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. L7I Condition Codes: c? dlOt.^^firooryi CouPcTer i Gross Squ^e Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage 4 - good. 3 - fair, 2 - poor, I - dead Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed 'o+clI 900 195 3 59 J 30 a Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms SB Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition ConditionI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I Facility Summary I I School Address Area Site Capacity Central High School 1500 South Park Street 266,823 SF 16.5 Acres 2256 Pupil Stations I f 1 Summary: Central High School was originally constructed in 1926, with the additions of: Quigley Stadium in 1937, the field house in 1950, dressing rooms in 1965, the library in 1969, and the choral room in 1973. Central High School is listed as a National Historic Landmark Building and is a uniquely imposing structure. The interior functioning plan, however, is complex and in places lacks the quality and finesse that the exterior holds. This building does not appear to have been well maintained, particularly in the mechanical areas. <f Due to the magnitude of the physical plant, surveyors approached the Central High School complex in four separate categories: Main Building, Library, Gymnasium, and Quigley Stadium. The evaluation of this facility placed Central High School fifth among the five high schools surveyed. 3 fl Main Building The most urgent needs and the greatest amount money are in the main instructional building. Surveyors found general deterioration of all plaster walls and ceilings, particularly on exterior walls where through-wall moisture seepage occurs. Renovation and repair work includes: removal and replacement of windows including reflashing and sealing, repair and replacement of plaster, new acoustical ceilings, replacement of hardware, repair and replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment, replace fire alarm system, provide temperature control system. Also, an extensive replacement of fan-coil units, air handling unit bearings and pulleys, new exhaust fans and duct work, and cleaning the existing ductwork system to alleviate air quality concerns are needed. fl fl fl Page 52 I 3 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I fl fl General refurbishment of all interior surfaces is required. In addition, life safety code requirements need addressing in corridors and stairwells as well as the addition of an elevator system for handicapped access to the various levels of this building. fl fl fl 0 fl fl fl Library Renovation work in this area includes repair of plaster, painting of interior surfaces, replacement of lighting fixtures, new toilet partitions and accessories, replacement of the fire alarm system, and the addition of exit lighting. The exterior of the building needs to be spray washed, and cleaning and pointing of brick work is required. Gymnasium Renovation of the gymnasium includes: repair/replacement of hardware, replacement of toilet partitions and accessories, resealing floor drains, replacement of showers, replacement of fire alarm system. Replacement of lights in locker room, new heating^ ventilating, and air conditioning throughout, as appropriate in this structure, and a general upgrade of interior finishes is needed. Quigley Stadium Renovations include: repair of plaster walls
new toilet partitions and accessories: fl replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment
replacement and refinishing of lockers
replace, reflash, and reseal windows
replacement of overhead doors
and general refurbishment if interior surfaces and materials in finished spaces as c appropriate, needed. Repainting brackets and replacing seat boards at stadium are also fl The exterior work associated with this building requires replacement of barbed wire fencing, replacement of running track along with new curb, and spray washing all exterior surfaces along with repairing concrete walls. Page 53 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I I I General Conditions Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the-art, faculty rooms are small and disbursed, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are not useable, and the wooden structure previously used as the Tiger Den needs to be removed. Boiler capacity, producing steam, is currently oversized to produce domestic hot water and should be reviewed for a more cost efficient method using hot water and point of source heaters. I I The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. Priority #5includes expensive retrofitting of this fine old structure with over a half-million dollars for technology updates. With the history of this building, its current outstanding academic reputation, and its landmark status, regardless of its rating, closure is not an option. For purposes of this report, a complete renovation continuing its current mission is recommended. f A unique alternate use, however, could well be the establishment of Little Rocks first community college. With this use, history would be preserved, and the building, which now requires extensive supervision could be renovated for a more mature student base and adult education programs. A second alternative would be a super magnet high school for accelerated programs and adult continuing education opportunities. I Based on these observations, renovation and improvements are recommended to update this facility to acceptable standards and architectural study is recommended to solve code and engineering problems. H II I Bitt i ran - t* < '<^91 Page 54I I I 1 I 1 I I a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I FauulLy improvements and deficiency corrections have been prioritized and are summarized in this volume under the tab Cost Factors as well as complete details in Priority summaries are as follows: Facility subsequent volumes under the school tab. Main Building Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $2,942,332 $922,092 $172,319 $ -0- $753,466 $4,790,209 Library Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $51,905 $10,158 $3,618 $ -0 - $135,580 $201,263 Gymnasium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $77,225 $172,597 $7,328 $33,467 $ -0- $290,617 Quigley Stadium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $153,017 $69,536 $162,128 $ -0- $96,948 $481,629 Total Central High School Property Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 $3,224,480 $1,174,383 $345,393 $33,467 $985,994 Total (without escalation) $5,763,718 Page 55 IOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501 >371-0100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently received the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study
How do you define "pupil stations" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term "current operational capacity mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 3710100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently recived 'the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study: How do you define "pupil stations" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term "current operational capacity" mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorMEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define "pupil stations" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term "current operational capacity" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa MEMORANDUM To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define "pupil stations" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term "current operational capacity" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKTINSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEJVE9 FEB 2 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregaiion Monttonnjjj-jjipgRvgjjoRs NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached "Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. II ( frlej I'n /i krar Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher Helled Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller k.i K j'! h '1' C .1 02^^ 20 lO
002 I I* < I i V I i! !i 'f' :! ri' DATE j TO
) 't 't . I FROM j REi : t 1. UJ- : i . fi t! i FA.X 'i:U: I >1
:jFelirjaMy M 4916 -' .j
blKiSWts .S?tip^Cos(taiitt^ . IVafibahu W.tZ^ l0|c|ttar, Pl^tibe ItHy Ctmv^ittae !i- H At the ^10 resthted^ oM chip^ * Emoa 4H tinuttjutho I J b 'I
g: I: il :l
io 'fl ylt 4:' facitilBW' 1 I Se*ac4>fti I i1ions Input tor Facilities Stu4\' Cowt^e r 4s- r Li4^:|Mf^ti*.^Wedi \ FetMiMwy 14. 1996, the cenwuittee 4ediM| t|e WsIb a to-|:feiar fttnnat, one chair from tl commulaty sn4 j : f rifloteri ah a cOChair representing the crwninurtty end EMka S*tt)) 4*9 ico-chpir: " |1 k^ottsil vemether *li 7).. s i :iton op P ?hruary 14th, a tacditatoT t* to be ideatiiikd aMd } UibeMeiupttig I omnuttee goais^ scope, decisitn dnwiin* and J d tpc^ons wt re compiled at this meeting "htey ant eddoswliflp 1 WWfross or cjonoctOns. These queationi wU be giwo to du I ip: I f ' ill , l#i .': .!i iI v- i j
i 1 4. *r Hi !ill". !}Si5 Hi, each P * i Kill .11 |o the assB^ance oi'a facilitator for a timiaed time ad aaa.
I-cootd nude )tV. ill , ., ill
" 111 hi- MDsm^i^ are .at ateelRHl^hy the a fiWfcodi WMs!Mj*kddatBJjf,J!rre^^rMnf0rs^T 1199^^ ihh. : ibid ^iOwdaP tirne, i sti4gi|it0w3 wbe re^wJM T^i^M ost 2 comnuiiee workshops uf up to (br howi* j of rhe week I contacted as aruay of ypu aa t j ivatKe of this memo Two suggeatHicfi have btm :ince we are asiur^ candidates to votontm llmhi|i bees fvth|a ly <*ll Ifue provide a short proHk One sU sug^estimBt haste [diB by loti er/phone/fax with nwnes and jjtroffles. Vou toil ice and/or express concern about a candidate li 'll cot Ttwnk "t^ fia!}
i^qr MjR'hot mgotlited: IritDtui.r.^.!- -a--a---d. aa iL . . :S . tor the tupi isBOfts but help us to formulate or > i w?e inenbera to make theHet isioiM " 3 t . 111 iiil ai o* *ip0rt
i
! I / 1 ft I' I I V : !: fl- I 1 i .ihi I I . r i . 1 t. i .1 i if ! I t i ir! i t ii:
!i it 11.: I I i
5 f f 1 : 1 ! S ! i I i '* I i
) ( i : ! i' 'i t -
i
I '5 J' I ) I 1 r 1 i It : Tt i 10 003 ] 1 I a: I'' I : J FACauimiESfCOMMlTTEE :j, Il tiM Diitritt {. t 15 CritSfialjOtiestioBs i! , (' J . Ui it 1 i i
I I. 2 3, ' 1. ' I I -, ' IWI lit 'acqatej^o^tb# nw il^isiung i^l to (amjhsee isei fbtth a planing framework for itself with goals Ii0 i' 1' ' > ! i' 1 1 I 4. 5 6 7. 8 SiJ^ici and members J |ll^ ^|lg tejweb ofltnt il*M a
bix)| district within committee. '5^ s0tt(^ autioommti 9 ! j . H
! 10 11 i 12 15. illf 14. 15 16 i nr : < :es'? ti|b<{!9t|n4itt|e.' eeanpoqttm] and ntembers- n^0to.! iQiiiun tfcoifaosiities study as a piece to begin decision inakisig? 3iiil iitwke a fesentaboii ') flidwidiejfc^^ a jwt iM'ihty stutfy within aonimatec. ^felsinw^-lQcliaii:' ^ntifijed schools within recoiTMTiBBdationB get i j(io mJ cototifcuiiictlrtt interoaty witbm the committee ajd with and Oli i? I Qi W?
H 11 i 1 ' f t j . i ! I! i !( J
U I t '1 I 1
V' 1 i- ii 1 goit^ t& aMhbMmica^e cirnimritee decisions Io tie gca} pst#^? '' ' i I'' i J'--
.-- 1{ I - '* I '! I ( ). 1 1 I I I J .L': I ,1 ! ! I !< i! 1 f 1 ill 1 i I J Il ri 'iiiT I'liirrii wiiiwii.-WJroirTtliiiM/' ' r<i.\<^l''' "> 1 ?. . uR^D RDMirL BULDING '"J..-. J^' Fax:1-501-32^-2052 Jan 12 06 16:42 i's* ' Little Rock School District Media Advisory P.02/02- . jlft 7, ^5 January 12,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 ^Members of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Facilities Study Committee will hold a community forum Saturday. Januan-13, 1995. The discussion will focus on the status of the LRSD facilities study and how the studys recommendations will impact local schools. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12th Street. ao' '3*1-.J ( 1 Media Note: Little Kock School Board members have been invited to this event. A special meeting situation exists if more than one Little R(x:k School Board member attends the same meeting. i7^ I- . i-' <> 4*-'' .'lO .RSUR.J>!n 810 West Markliain Street Little Rock.,Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000 UUBt. I3IQ (p a PUBLIC Office Ft- j J 1996 I Oesegfegation f^oiiiteimg SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! a Leam More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-5715, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Suellen Varm, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations
2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment: 3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization
and, 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial Information were gathered and included In the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community Identities, diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Faculties Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255School Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodniff-C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 69 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 31 80 20 82 18 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 25 96 89 92 41 68 04 23 87 32 96 77 13 41 41 59 59 03 21 39 97 79 61 02 21 47 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68 42 58LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 43 32 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J,A,FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL OPTION #1 6TH-BTH * PK enroll capety delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS P1 4 #2 k-8TH.12 enroll capcty delta 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTALVTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ^ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1& NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 &ta k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY "210 i 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 396 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 f 445 - 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 I 321 I 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 1S350 35 ' 42 : 116 I 132 102 I 70 , 151 I 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools| 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process
the capacity of each school building and its utilization
considerations of school size
and the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs
corridors
number of location of exits
fire protection
and general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features
Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)
ventilation system
temperature and ventilation efficiencies
mechanical room
and controls. Plumbing facilities: Toilet room adequacy and conditions
water facilities
drinking fountains
individual room installations
showers and special equipment. Electrical Services: Power installation and control
communication and _signal^ystem
_alarms-and-exit.Jights
_geneEaJ-and-special room installations
and electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures
quality and quantity of illumination
controls
and effect. Educational Features: administrative spaces. Instructional rooms
special rooms
general areas
and Operational Features: Suitability for educational program
flexibility
economy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)
general and instructional storage
pupil lockers
acoustical conditions
custodial facilities
energy systems
and accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development: drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a school's capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement, marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day, and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or constnjction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Schoci Size 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include
density of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent. Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for c/asses of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools, shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses," each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. student's perception of size. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate numbingly anonymous one. A large school does not necessarily have to be a 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction. 2 Ben E. Graves
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes of schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the-projected_enrQllments..- Table.d jBflects-tbe-current grade -organizations {PK-6
7-9
and 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK-6
7-8
and 9-12), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5
6-8
and 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities, 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800, and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendation for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include
1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 I 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500 students. .Even at a.large .school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools. Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21,1994 re m 3 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 December 19,1995 Difference Page 1 Central HS" Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS** Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH DunbarJH** Forest Heights JH Henderson jh* * Mabelvale JH MannJH* Pulaski Heights jh southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets 1Q2O[ 5351 620
266 6461 310' 671! 197 O "sT 6' 38' 13! a o re CD 422! 3411 37 3379! 1649 145 2957 1308 108 16061 63.51% 892 i 69.51% 9941 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 ! 52.75% Badgett Bale Baseline Booker* Brady carver* Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs Gibbs* Jefferson king- Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller* Romine ~ Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington - Watson Wes^rr^^is____ Williams* Wilson Woodruff_____ Special Schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 530 464 573 654 411 452 426 498 4008 3556 136 222 236 303 254' 313 344 312 189 195 205 394 244 241 215 I 1101 204 186' 210 152 356 317 7 11 22 27 7 21 6 HTa 19 1648 120 5173 4373 647 679 781 891 570 829 749 630 65.32% 67.62% 81.92% 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% o (B m 1021 639 613 741 444 3458 o I 530 222 260 159, 364 1535 0 6 47 9 a o 1292! 991 4947 5776! 69.39% i 44! 15 40 isT 30141 11711 115 158^ 215 287 48 78 74 235 119 2681 122 72 96 103' 227 36 290 9' 69' 129 280' 0 8 4 20 14 14 8 7 7 6 6 12 21 27 7 13 6 184 308 314 558 387 71.88% 73.91% 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 5951 52.61% 224! 21 3561 133: 2471 226i 294 256' 1^ 115! 6! 191! 198! 198 224! 226 4! 123 69, 231! 307 329! 70 9 474 391 292 304 438 442 555 277 291 300 501 532 498 490 410 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 89.14% 43.96% 87.00% 73.88% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 71.49% 50.41% 71.71% 4, 8 15 3: 16! Closed 30! 15 266! 96.24% 3601 44.72% 411 231 397 311 48.18% 96.97% 65.49% 72.67% 5421 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 3514 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 165 219 289 312 262 306 250 137 209 213 254 211 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 18 22 16 21 5 22 10 17 1598 870 917 915 848 5148 4300 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 (0 m 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 67.17% 70.09% 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 431! 208! 27 325. 205! 96! 97 249i 216 269! 140 15 80, 84, 21" 10! 8: 10 9 8
568! 40.67% 414! 79.47% 666! 64.71% 431 : 75.41% 3101 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 , 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 370 1576 131 1199 109 5671 69.90% 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 670 24956 1 65.1% 14354 6454 I 555,21363 67.19% 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256 1 68 130 280 252 123 197 91 5 188 207 4 126 83 265 35 199 73 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7 15 7 16 11 25 6 2 8 16 6 22 18 4822 220 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 318 310 506 72.87% 80.00% 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 76.42% 53.23% 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484 403 257 333 432 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 223 i 95.52% 402I 63.18% 312! 67.63% X o re =& 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75 -1 16 -2 21 10 -3 28 7 4 2 -44 15 12 -6 -24 11 -11 -6 -15 o A -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34 -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 J 14 e -4 3 6 2 3 10 a o o n m -8 -22 -77 34 48 -25 7\ -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 11 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 ~0 2 1 -5 2 8 5 -2 0 T 3 8 2 -10 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 -105 -125 36 33 9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52, -6' -9 -27 21 -8 5 1 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14% 0.08% 4.12% 4.88% 5.60% 2.53% 0.56% 0.37% -2.06% -1.53% 3.72% 4.22% 1.04% -3.58% 0.20% -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% o <0 a o . 18911 954' 1291 ' 1199' 1000' * o n Q. (0 _S2. -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 63351 -1187 53351 -1035 868 812 858 w Tu 850 745, 737 6391 5541 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 Closed -51 -34 8 14 Closed 251 231 38! 8: 419' '37^ 2111 31 264, 230i 19
3061 159! 17 104! 63! 721 2^ 13 8' 0 534 428 656 453 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318: 66.35% 513 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239! 66.53% 46! 36.96% 13 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 11 -2 -5 9 4 0 0 -10 22 8 38 24 7 10 9229 4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651,7567
774 24992 66.63% 14666 ! 5897 628 21191 ! 69.21% 350!-267 83! 166 297!-327! 56! 26 385[-453!104! 36 312!-557 ! 731-172 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 3.45% 2.02% 515 492 836 492 328 517 394 324 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 -3263 Office of Student Assignment5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe.... All people have equal, inherent worth. Every individual can learn. Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance. Attitude always influences behavior. All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community. Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable. The family is a primary influence on the development of a child. Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy. Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community. Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life. With every right comes a responsibility. Actions speak louder than words. Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities. Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests. No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation. No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission. School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan. We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual. We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan. We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum. We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support We will build strong partnerships with other commuruty agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning. We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision- making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)11/07/95 13:32 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 I k i 1 i Little Rock School District News Release SPECIAL BOARD MEETING I I November 1,1995 11
45 a.m. For more information
Dina Teague, 324-2020 Li t I LE ROCK ~ The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special board meeting this evening at 5:30 p.m. to review the facilities study recently prepared by 3/D International. Currently there are no other items on tonight's agenda. t The meeting will be held in the board room of the administration building at 810 W. Markham. I I I t I 1 ### I 1 ! i tRECEIVED SEP 7 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey. i Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:- Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (HAND DELIVERED) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Helle: 2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date
September 11, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Brown Subject: LRSD Facilities Study In both written and oral representations to the Court, the LRSD Facilities Study was scheduled for completion by August 31, 1995. Please forward a copy of the completed study to me. If the study is not yet finished, please let me know the firm completion date. Thank you very much.- -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:28 P. 02/04 W September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District New* Release For more Information
Suellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD PaciUtles Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation of recommendations
2. Assessment of demographic changes in populations and enrollment
3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization: and. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study flrm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/asslgnment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkanena 73301 (501)334-3000- LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.03/04 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. 3. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage increase. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, aU of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modlflcatlons. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more). . LRSD ADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.04/04 LRSD Facilities Stuify Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday. September 28. 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jul 24 95 9:48 P.02/02 ECEHB Little Rock School District News Release July 24, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Consultants for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are completing work on a comprehensive long-range facilities study. The firm, 3/D International, has been working for six months on the study which is designed to provide recommendations for school buildings and building locations. This fall 3/D International will present Its results to the LRSD Board of Directors. Prior to finalizing the study. 3/D International will meet with community residents on Monday, July 31, 1995. at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. This meeting wUl allow for additional community Input regarding school building needs for the district. The community is invited to attend the meeting which will be broadcast live on the LRSD cable channel 4. ### Note: School Board membere have been invited to attend the July 31 meeting. A special meeting situation exists when two or more school board members attend the same event.'WMtes Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEfW^ July 21. 1995 1995 Office of Dasegrsgabon Mo.m^ f J Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is studying its current facilities and planning its facility needs for the future. This comprehensive facilities study is critical to the future of the school district. 1 invite you to attend a community meeting on Monday, July 31, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. to leam more about this study and to provide you an opportunity to participate in this process. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Your input is vital as we finalize this comprehensive study and prepare recommendations regarding our facilities needs. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 received JUL 1 8 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Moniionngi Date: July 14, 1995 To: Interested Parties From: Henry P, , Superintendent Re: Draft Policy - Naming Facilities At the suggestion of Board Member Judy Magness, I am forwarding a copy of a policy that will be considered for first reading at the meeting of the Board on Thursday, July 20, 1995. If you would like to make any suggestions for revision of this policy, please feel free to contact me or Mrs. Magness. Thank you for your time and interest.Code: NAMING FACILITIES The Board of Education shall approve the official names of all school buildings. In selecting names for new buildings, recommendations will be considered from the superintendent of schools, interested citizens, students, or staff. Proposed names may be submitted by the superintendent to the school staff, students, and interested citizen groups for reaction. The final recommendation shall be forwarded by the superintendent to the Board of Education for approval. The following guidelines shall govern the naming of facilities: 1. 2. 3. Schools shall be named for persons identified with public education or who have rendered some other distinguished public service locally, nationally or internationally. When possible, the group making the nomination should agree to provide appropriate recognition for that school in the form of a plague, portrait, marker or in some other way. The nomination shall be presented in a brief three paragraph statement which shall contain: a. b. c. Appropriate biographical data about the person The significant contribution made by the person A statement of why the school should be named after the person The attached form shall be used by persons nominating names for facilities. Also, the Board at its discretion may name portions of a building, such as the library or auditorium. Guidelines listed above shall apply in such cases. In all cases, care should be taken to avoid similarities with the names of existing schools. Once a person's name has been proposed, written authorization shall be secured by the superintendent from the closest relative to the third degree of the descendant before any official action is taken by the Board.Following the adoption of the official naming (or renaming) of a new school building or program housed within the building, the administrative officers of the Board will be authorized to give public notice of such action and to modify existing records and other legal documents as may be necessary. Bie official names of all schools will be approved or altered only by motion of the Board. Request for renaming facilities will follow the format listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State the proposed name Identify the facility location or building location Provide biographical or historical data supporting request Describe significant
contribution of individual for which considered Offer a rationale for naming or renaming school naming is RENAMING FACILITIES 'P deemed unusual or appropriate, the Board may take steps to rename school fact ities, or portions thereof. Schools named for a person will retain that persons name as long as the facility is used for instructional purposes by the District. Exceptions to this may be made by the Board. In renaming the facility, or portions thereof, the provisions set forth above shall be followed. Recommendations for new names or name changes shall be received anytime during the year, and shall be referred to the administration for obtaining comments and input from the school community involved. The Board shall review all such proposals and input at Its May work session and shall vote on any recommendations to the full Board at its first June Board meeting. Proposed changes must be submitted prior to April 1 to be included in that year"s consideration process. A school building name, other than the name of a person, may be considered in naming new school buildings. Names may be recommended using the following guidelines: 1. 2. A school name may be recommended considering its geographical location. A school name may be recommended considering its function. A distinction may be made between the building name and the official name of the program(s) housed in the building. Buildings will retain the names they were given at the time of the dedication by the Board of Education, such as, hypothetically, Instructional Resource Center at Lee School". The superintendent shall use the same procedure as outlined for naming schools after persons in securing reactions to other suggested names.PUBLIC DEDICATION New school buildings and major additions to these facilities shall be dedicated in a public and formal ceremony. There shall be a program or open house to which the Board, citizens, parents, and students are invited. All plans for the public or formal opening of any school shall be made in cooperation with the schools principal. Detailed procedures for dedication ceremonies shall be furnished by the principal to the Superintendent.NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the (Designation of building and/or location) (Address) be named for I. Biographical Data: IL HL The Nominee's significant contribution is: I believe the facility should be named for this person because: (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the Board of Education prior to July 15, for consideration during the period between July 15 through August 1.CM. April 17, 1995 Little Rock School District il APR 2 0 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Otfise of Oesegregisiiuii ,-.-y Little Rock, AR 72201 R / Dear Melissa: Pursuant to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Facilities Study which I completed in March of 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to call. Sa^ncerely yours. al C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg Encl. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72301 (501)834-2000TO: ac. COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas March 31, 1995 receive /^PR 5 1995 Memorandum OHice of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Parents FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Facilities Study Survey The Little Rock School District is studying the condition of all of the school buildings in the district. This study wiU help us determine which buildings require maintenance and which schools should be replaced with new facilities. As part of this study, we are doing a survey to get your input on the condition of the school your child attends. If you have children in more than one Little Rock public school, please fill out a survey for each school. The survey is on the back of this letter. Please fill out the survey and return it to your child's school by Friday, April 7, 1995. Thank you for helping us as we plan future improvements to our schools. cc: Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Sadie Mitchell Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Dennis Snider Leon ModesteLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SURVEY The school I will address with my responses is: Select one only (related to school listed above): Parent of child at this school ____ Employee at this school live near this school, but no children attending this school 1. This school is an asset to the community. Yes No 2. The overall appearance of this school is: Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement 3. This school needs improvement in the following areas: (Check all that apply) Site: Handicapped accessibility Playground Bus loading zone (at school) Parking Security (outside building) Drainage Traffic flow Location 4. 5. Maintenance: Building exterior Building interior Grounds Special Areas: Handicapped facilities Cafetorium Restrooms lutsnoi: ______ Floors Ceilings ______ Carpet ______ Walls Lighting Paint Equipment Telephone Equipment Furniture Security (inside building) In general, classroom/building conditions at this school are: Excellent Good Fair Poor Additional Comments: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.'t Jt. LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 5 95 7:53 P. ,02/02 f. - I' a 1 4 '2 li h'- . <'<'00 1 -'7 '2V 'ft'.. LrntE Rock School District ' -.a: News Release April 4,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 *4 ' . The bitle Rock School District (IRSD) is evaluating school buildings through a i }.< ? r a 5=1 iff 1^:'^ B
.1. s>i comprehensive fadlltles study. The study wlU cover a 10 year period and U1 assist school officials in making decisions regarding school closings, repair of existing schools, new construction, and consolidation of existing facilities. Doug Eaton. IKSD Director of Plant Services, said, "Any prudent school district does a facilities study to project its long range needs. This study will tell us whether the district is meeting the educational needs of the city based on the way the city is expandtas." Eaton added. "The study will look at the demographics of our dlsmcl, ihe and eondidon of our schools, desegregation plan obligations, snideot populations, age II city planning and zoning factors, and costs to implement recommendations.' 3/D International of San Antonio. Texas has been hired to develop the facilities study. 3/D is coordinating its efforts with an architectural and engineering firm, a demographics corapanj
and educational specialists to develop a set of recommendations. The study should be
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.