Facilities Implementation Planning Committee

Little Rock School District r*" November 8, 1995 NOV 15 1995 Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Office of Oea
Dear Ms, Brown: 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has reqpiested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., November 9, 1995, in the office of Student Assignments. I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will be forwarded to you. Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours, Djpugllps C. Eaton DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invite 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000Little Rock School District J k- f NOV I 51995 Office of Desegregdiion vudy November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ms. Guildin: The second meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. At this meeting we will be continuing our general discussion of the Facility Study and will be trying to define the scope and purpose of the committee and the general plan areas, most respectfully requested. Your attendance is A sincerely yours, D^glas'C. Eaton DI^CTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000MINUTES: IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their first meeting on November 9, 1995. attached hereto. In attendance were the individuals as listed The meeting began with a general discussion of what the charge was of the committee. We considered and discussed the following areas: Committee Membership - Recommendations were solicited for additional committee members that may be able to serve and provide guidance and research in developing an Implementation Plan. 2. We discussed the draft, scope and purpose of the Committee and decided that this would be an item to be reviewed and finalized at our second meeting. There was a brief overview by Mr. Eaton of the Facility Study which prompted many questions and discussion. We discussed the Implementation Plan outline and began looking at responsibilities. We discussed the considerations. draft Implementation Plan 1. 3 . 4 . 5 . a Dr. Russ Mayo gave the group a brief overview of the Facility Study as it affects Student Assignments. He also answered many questions dealing with the general perceptions of the Study and explained to the members present how student assignment policies generally work and how children are assigned throughout the District. Our next meeting will be Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. DCE/apl/minutesDCE/apl/ic Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Facility Services, LRSD 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 570-4020 72204 Ms. Sue Strickland 19 Pear Tree Place Little Rock, AR 374-0123 Work 455-1843 Home 72209 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Skip Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Fred Smith Manager of Support Services, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2003 72201 Mr. Xanier Heard Alltel Information Services 4001 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 220-5370 72205 Mr. Sammy Mills 7 Conifer Place Little Rock, AR 568-4727 72209 Ms. Diane Vibhakar 3917 South Lookout Little Rock, AR 661-8030 72205 Ms. Suellen Vann Director of -Communications, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2020 72201Ms. Sadie Mitchell Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2007 72201 Dr. Vic Anderson Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2005 72201 Mr. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3907 American Manor Little Rock, AR 565-5715 72209 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonte Drive Maumelle, AR 372-3519 72113 Ms. Linda Young New Futures, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2112 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2006 72201 Mr. Leon Modeste Special Assistant to Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2011 72201 Dr. Russ Mayo Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2271 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Rochelle 401 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201c s Si Little Rock School District November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin O^ce HU'I 0^ - '\ l l Oese9'eaa^'" VlO'!^-^' ..4 ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: The third meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, Street. 810 West Markham Your attendance is most respectfully requested. Siijicerely yours. l^bgras C. Eaton ELECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000a '0 MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1995 NOV ^7 /995 OlficQ of ^ssegreg. luui t^oiwomig The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their meeting on November 17, 1995. as listed attached hereto. second In attendance were the individuals The meeting began with a general discussion of the scope and purpose as outlined in our first meeting. There were essentially no comments with regard to the scope and purpose. meantime, until is formally approved by the committee, we will work For the under the charge of the draft, scope and purposes outlined in our first meeting. The second Considerations. item discussed was Implementation Planning A significant addition will be made to the Implementation Planning Considerations to include the securing of public support or any aspect of the recommendations made by the committee. Other discussions centered around the following items: A discussion that we outline committee objectives so that everyone has a clear understanding of what is to be A. accomplished. That a Neighborhood Association list be compiled by committee members so as to insure that we are including the associations in our public meetings at our schools. B. C. Discussions ensued regarding how we structure the committee, how we divide into sub committee's in order to analyze our charge. D. How do we develop a program that clearly emphasizes and supports the strategic plan as adopted by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors? E. Suggestions were made to form a sub committee on how to market the Facility Study to the general public, addition, a list was requested identifying where various copies of the Facility Study are located. In F. Fred Smith gave a briefing and commented on the planning and budget time lines which are Dr. Mayo and Mr. presently being pursued by the District and how the recommendations of this Committee tie in with the budget procedures.Page Two Continued Copies of the District Facility Plan are located at the following locations: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. Office of Student Assignments (Full Copy) Director of Communications (Full Copy) Manager of Support Services (Full Copy) Office of the Superintendent (Full Copy) Director of Facility Services (Full Copy) Copies of Volume I, Executive Summary, and Volume II, Demographic Analysis are located in the following offices: Office of Human Resources Office of the Federal Court Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attorney for Knight Intervenors Attorney for Joshua Intervenors North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Office of the Assistant Superintendents Office of Neighborhood and Planning, City of Little 1. ( 2. ( 3. ( 4. . 5. . 6. 1 7. 8. ( 9. I Rock 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Office of Judge Susan Weber Wright Department of Education, State of Arkansas Office of Procurement Each Board Member, Little Rock School District Board of Directors Our next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 1995, Board Room. in the DCE/apl/ininutes2Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I I 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT I 4 GOALS I I 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I 6 BUDGETING I 7 LZ I I I I I I I I MONITORING A REPORTING I I I I I I I I I I I 0 REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS A ORGANIZA IION 5 Little Rock School District 1RECEIV an y SCHEDULE OF NOV 1 7 1995 PARENT MEETINGS FOR FACILITIES STUDY^**'' ^sresaticn Mon AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THOSE SCHOOLS 1. November 29, 1995 3. December 14, 1995 Pulaski Heights Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Judy Magness) Jefferson Elementary 6:30 p.m. (Judy Magness) 2. December 12, 1995 4. January 9, 1996 Mabelvale Jr. High 6:00 p.m. Woodruff Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Sue Strickland) (Michael Daugherty)/ JUL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning and Budgeting Time Line NOV 1 I 1995 "J -nicR of Daseyreyaiiori Moruoimy AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG PROGRAM INVENTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION I I NEEDS ASSESSMENT I GOALS I I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I BUDGETING I I I I I I I I I I I I MONITORING & REPORTING I I I I I I REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS * ORGANIZATION I I I 3 I LHUe Rock School District I RiCEIV^n OK 2 7 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregajiofl Monitonrig December 21, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The sixth meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996 in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 1996, 810 West Markham Street. Your attendance is most respectfully requested and should you not be able to attend, it is requested that you contact the undersigned prior to the meeting. you not I wish to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to teview the scope of work and the charge of this committee. tendency to be side tracked the last two meetings Oxx j-ooxxca that parallel our charge, but which we are allowing to overshadow our real intent. We have on issues The scope and charge of the Implementation Planning Committee is to analyze the Options in the Little Rock School District Long Range Facility Study to determine whether or not they can be implemented, and if so what other steps to take for implementation. It is not our charge to determine whether or not we agree or disagree with the Options, but rather to use our knowledge to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of the various Options are so as to be prepared to make a recommendation to the Superintendent and Board Education on an Option and what other steps to take for implementing the Option. an Option steps Long Range Beginning with our January meeting, we must focus more on the Option which was determined to be studied by the committee which is Option M Modified Junior High School and determine the steps of implementing that Option. various See you at our next meeting... Sincerely yours. Dd g s C. Eaton DCE/apl/ipcmeet DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000MINUTES RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1995 - IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Office Of DesefliegtUion MoiWerii'U DECEMBER 20, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their fifth meeting on December 20, 1995. The meeting began with comments in regard to the December 13th Minutes. A typographical error was noted and references to Option M in those minutes should reflect that Option M deals with the Junior High Schools and not the High Schools. 1. Special Report Hightower and Ms. Van Light. Public Meetings, Mr. Robert A special report was given by Mr. Hightower and Ms. Light regarding the District's public meetings at Mitchell Elementary, Wakefield Elementary and Jefferson Elementary, with regard to specific comments: Mitchell Elementary comments centered around concerns of intercity schools being closed and that facilities would be allowed to decay. This was the concern around the community that this could be the circumstance with regard to Mitchell. Indications were that the Little Rock School District does not have a good tract record disposing of its intercity schools. All other concerns and statements during the Mitchell meeting were of the same general nature. With regard to Wakefield Elementary, Wakefield, as was Mitchell and Jefferson, was well attended. Members of the City Board (Ms. Adcock, Ms. Joyce and Ms. Wyrick) were present. The concerns at Wakefield centered around the recognition that Wakefield very much considers itself to be a neighborhood school that should not be touched because it was successful in attracting students from its own neighborhood and that the District needed to be more positive in managing its assets as opposed to preparing for restructuring. In addition, concerns were expressed with the possibility of expanding the school and its utilization to support community initiatives by increasing the building and possibly bringing outside entities into our school to operate and that they should be a consideration when schools are looked for possible downsizing. Jefferson Elementary School comments centered around the general building concerns and the future plans for the school in the area. There was many positive comments with regard to the retention of our Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams. There was also demographic concerns via questions asked as to where children may be reassigned. Concerns raised over the criteria used to establish schools would be considered for restructuring during downsizing and what positive steps the community and the District might take to reserve the trend of decreasing enrollment. meetings are being accepted, primarily on The public a very localized basis
although, the intent is to inform thegeneral public of the overall condition of the District and its direction with regard to student enrollment and demographics. must continue to be stressed. The localized situation in each school 2. Special Report Dr. Middle Schools, Dr. Vic. Anderson. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, gave the committee a briefing on the Middle School Concept. His talk centered around the educational development throughout the nation which thrives on the concept of Middle Schools by stressing community involvement and an active learning in grade grouping as trends for academic achievement. He indicated that the committee, which has worked over a year on the Middle School Concept, appears to be gathering support from the general populace for different grade configuration within the Little Rock Schools. A definite date for implementation or recommendation to the Board has not been made. within this school year. The recommendation is expected to be made We briefly discussed the committee composition and a list of permanent committee members was distributed to all that were present. These are committee members who were requested to serve on the committee or were nominated to serve. Committee membership covers the wide breadth of experience and concerns and should give the committee a broad base on which to conduct its business. A draft Implementation Planning Sub Committee recommendation was presented so that the committee could discuss how it could subdivide to ensure that the multitude of areas necessary to be considered in studying Option M would be achieved. Committee members were asked to volunteer for the various sub committees. It is hopeful that the sub committees will be finalized by our next meeting. A draft recommendation to the Superintendent based on the desires of the committee from previous meetings was presented. In essence, the recommendation stated that the pursuit of Option M Junior High Schools for possible implementation during this school year was not possible. committee members. This draft recommendation brought much discussion from Discussions centered around public involvement in the process and whether or not the committee could solidify the support necessary for these recommendations. We voted three (3) times on whether or not we would make a recommendation to the Superintendent and ended up dead locked in that no majority could be determined as to whether or not to recommend the pursuit of Option M. Our next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 3, 1996 in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. DCE/apl/minutes5eouNnrju I T I W,. .< ^Utu IhM el School CompoMon Auguo(21.1M u9U3f 23. 1995 I I I August 21, 1996 I T Central HS FairHS HallHS McClellan HS Parkview HS Magnet Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann jH Magnet Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Carland Ceyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson______ King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Heights Pightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson woodruff Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total vtio Magnets u 5 899 591 565 663 411 3129 3 508 214 243 167 361 o O 41 9 32 11 40 a .0 1448 814 840 841 812 27181 1132 14931 1331 4735 93I 3943 501 433 484 603 306 439 431 381 61 268 152 154 107 362 315 73 9 18 11 14 13 23 9 13 35781 14921 1101 571 719 647 771 426 824 755 467 5180 u m 62.09% 7260% 67.26% 78.83% 50.62% 6530% 68.93% 87.74% 6022% 74.81% 78.21% 71.83% 53.28% 57.09% 81.58% 69.07% u n 978! 508 554 654 453 3 595 116 191 111 351 e O 45 11 25 15 34 a o 1618 635 770 780 838 u a m 60.44% 80.00% 71.95% 83.85% 54.06% o (8 o o a a a O 31391 11301 87| 43561 7206% 1531 233 236 313 243 319 338 365 187 208 40| 75 64 243 110 281 89 59 91 1 20 7 24 24 18 6 7 7 53i 10 1841 214) 12| 365 247 219 216 165 209 287 282 151 121 253l 121 2 191 68 122' 131 281 Ot 2181 141 1^ 31 1941 328 307 580 xn 618 433 431 285 271 410 392 512 240 289 300 497 519 412 78.87% 71.04% 76.87% 53.97% 64.46% 51.62% 78.06% 84.69% 65.61% 76.75% 44.88% 93.11% 48.24% 9125% 74.74% 55.00% 4205% 5530% 68.45% 2511 2131 201 305 229 132 176 190 229 218 228 94! 51 183! 01 01 71 191! 171 5i 1071 3! 17! 3541 65! 121 2771 261 411 21! 4231 2071 32! 3291 206 253' 290 154' 741 1041 7! 3! 2231 16l 74 771 91 ir 4841 51.86% 3991 76.44%, 234 322 384 198 353 295 531 416 662 410 313 492 373 239 97.86% 40.99% 45.83% 95.96% 64.87% 73.90% 42.94% 85.10% ' 63.90% 80.24% ' 65.81% ' 51.42% 77.75% ' 64.44% ' 87361 4345! 4191135001 64.71% 76861 34761 3481 115101 66.78% 154431 73301 6621 234351 65.90%, 135431 57381 5281 198091 68.37%i 31471 13641 130 26941 10131 96 46411 67.81% 38031 70.84% 4761 411 420 550 315 460 438 353 44 271 121 100 114 355 304 68 21 33 9 16 6 20 8 12 541 715 550 666 435 835 750 433 87.99% 57.48% 7656% 8258% 72.41% 55.09% 58.40% 81.52% 1891! -273 9541 -319 1291 -521 1199^ -419 10001 -162 6335! -1694 5335 -1532 868, -327 812: -97 858! -308 907! -241 614! -179 850! 745 -15 5 34231 1377| 125| 4925 | 6950% 29631 10221 1051 4090! 72.44%| 163 246 226 304 225 293 361 406 148! 1781 36 82 48 239 91 264 119 49 84 451 2081 226! 3981 21 1 19 7 26 43 20 27 10 4 7 5 9 200 347 281 569 359 577 507 465 236 81.50% 70.89% 80.43% 53.43% 6267% 50.78% 7120% 8751% 6271% 737 -304 6391 -1466 5541 -1451 257 401 390 656 -57 -54 -109 -87 467 -108 2301 77.39% 2451 230 11 234i 3 641 16 5 1571 122| 10 201 '317? 2831 282 241 9 19 96! 10 439 428 486 253 284 289 492 577 47.38% 9299% 50.41% 92.49% 75.70% 54.33% 40.85% 54.94% 265i 193! 19 263! 2231 77! 7 128i 165i oj 1 71 2331 197! 19 aef 224? 205| 4! 4 127! 22 76! 17 217! 2611 23 3651 29| 17 414| 2301 47 3571 207! 79 91 2571 221 269! 183! 52 761 11 2 22 13 8 3891 72.75% 4771 55.56% 347! 75.79% 230 i 96.96% 300! 42.67% 4491 51.89% 224 ! 96.43% 3731 60.05% 2981 68.79% 501! 43.31% 4111 88.81% 691! 59.91% 447! 79.87% 300 ! 69.00% 5001 51.40% 334! 80.54% 267! 68.54% 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 -36 -51 -27 -92 -121 40 -6 -54 45 -44 -64 ____0 -151 -126 -40 -118 -68 -51 75 -34 -96 -189 -14 -81 836. -145 492! 328! 5171 394i 324! -45 -28 -17 60 ' -S7 88341 42261 4971 13557! 65,16% 7823! 33801 4191 116221 67.31% 15717:-2160 13578 -1956 _____________________________________________ 15404! 69671 752| 231231 66.62%! 28443! -5320 134801 54151 6201 195151 fiS.OSy.l 244541 -4939 Offlca of OtMQrvgattonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Delbra Caradine P. O. Box 164229 Little Rock, AR 72216 B. J. McCoy 2417 S. Marshall Little Rock, AR 72206 Rohn Muse 822 Lewis Little Rock, AR 72204-2016 Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 w. 22nd * Little Rock, AR 72204 Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Kris Baber 2519 N. Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Joa Humphrey 5022 W. 56th St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 Gregg Stutts * 13005 Lemoncrest Lane Little Rock, AR 72209 John Walker 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Joy Springer 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Betty Mitchell CTA Office Frank Martin CTA Office * Skip Marshall, Monitor ODM - 201 E. Markham Brady Gadberry * LRSD Administration Heritage West Bldg-Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 * indicates newly nominated members of the committee(7. Z - Bloc 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0232 0240 0301 0412 0413 0420 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 8/27/96 K-3 17 26 7 26 21 60 15 25 9 48 55 3 17 4 6 2 15 24 28 19 10 7 16 31 35 48 16 7 22 17 8 13 8 54 38 31 7 22 18 12 32 35 20 G3 -6 6 14 5 13 17 30 10 19 4 29 34 1 14 2 3 2 8 11 10 16 8 5 20 19 14 23 9 7 12 16 7 4 2 36 20 24 7 18 10 10 14 24 17 G7-9 7 16 5 15 23 25 12 15 6 43 50 8 14 4 1 0 9 19 11 12 3 9 23 18 17 29 21 11 14 13 8 7 7 25 20 30 10 14 8 17 26 18 22 GlO-12 6 9 7 13 15 19 11 26 7 23 49 0 6 4 2 0 13 15 9 13 7 12 23 12 12 25 16 9 16 9 6 4 6 29 17 14 6 12 9 8 17 23 26 Litlie Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 36 65 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 143 188 12 51 14 12 4 45 69 58 60 28 33 82 80 78 125 62 34 64 55 29 28 23 144 95 99 30 66 45 47 89 100 85 Black 35 63 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 138 173 11 51 14 11 3 22 66 52 59 27 17 82 79 73 124 52 34 61 53 29 28 23 142 91 98 29 66 44 47 68 70 85 Page 1 of 8 6' hit Non-Black 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 1 1 23 3 6 1 1 16 0 1 5 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 21 30 0 B Pin 1 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0Z - Bloc 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0511 0512 0513 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0586 0537 0538 0539 8/27/96 K-3 16 35 27 25 37 22 21 7 18 28 9 29 26 21 20 29 15 65 46 55 10 24 4 2 34 26 40 39 41 0 __n 241 3 0 41 25 15 23 20 43 41 20 4 G3 -6 7 10 20 12 26 13 18 7 12 20 4 22 7 13 15 15 10 27 12 34 10 10 7 5 36 12 26 23 31 0 _____7 11 2 0 26 20 13 12 19 29 24 7 4 G7-9 12 12 16 21 21 13 20 7 18 15 5 37 16 9 16 9 11 23 11 30 10 18 4 6 32 24 ___ ___ ___ 1 7 15 1 0 24 24 13 7 12 19 26 13 4 GlO-12 13 20 10 13 11 10 15 12 16 27 10 17 13 5 7 16 14 21 19 14 6 15 3 5 33 ____ ____n 26 34 0 9 8 2 1 16 23 12 8 18 24 32 16 6 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 48 77 73 71 95 58 74 33 64 90 28 105 62 48 58 69 50 136 88 133 36 67 18 18 135 90 135 121 132 1 ___ 58 ____8 1 107 92 53 50 69 115 123 56 18 Black 48 74 69 62 91 57 73 33 64 88 28 100 61 48 57 69 50 131 84 132 36 67 13 16 129 70 121 120 126 1 ___ 56 8 1 91 85 51 41 61 105 116 55 18 Page 2 of 8 Non-Black 0 3 4 9 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 2 6 20 14 1 6 0 1 0 0 16 7 9 8 10 7 1 0 B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 0 ____2 2 0 0 4 ____3 ____2 ____2 2 4 5 ____2 1 WPins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 _____0 _____0 0 _____1 _____0 _____0 _____0 _____0 ____0 ____0 ____0 0Z - Bloc 0540 0552 0553 0554 0556 0561 0562 0563 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0591 0592 0610 0620 0630 0640 0641 0650 0651 0660 0662 0670 0710 0811 0821 0910 0920 1010 1020 1110 nil 1120 1121 8/27/96 K-3 5 40 49 31 24 31 29 32 34 19 24 34 7 28 37 32 40 42 15 18 34 5 14 25 4 23 14 9 37 55 13 59 28 18 44 37 29 8 20 24 54 6 6 G3 -6 1 20 45 17 11 26 18 19 25 17 15 15 8 18 22 15 34 25 16 13 14 1 18 16 7 3 8 3 33 40 12 49 12 18 22 33 17 4 15 14 11 3 2 G7-9 5 27 37 14 24 26 30 18 29 21 21 18 10 16 20 21 35 31 9 16 20 2 20 20 6 6 7 2 28 54 18 36 27 16 25 42 27 5 ___17 7 23 5 6 GlO-12 4 25 27 21 16 33 20 25 31 14 15 16 12 17 25 24 36 27 8 17 18 1 13 21 6 4 0 10 26 41 13 28 13 15 24 34 25 4 ____ n ____ 6 2 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 15 112 158 83 75 116 97 94 119 71 75 83 37 79 104 92 145 125 48 64 86 9 65 82 23 36 29 24 124 190 56 172 80 67 115 146 98 21 68 62 113 20 16 Black 8 105 152 80 74 116 96 93 113 71 74 83 36 76 103 92 141 102 48 62 81 5 0 10 1 3 0 13 3 148 51 90 16 0 2 12 15 10 20 0 41 4 1 Page 3 of 8 Non-Black 7 7 6 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 23 0 2 5 4 65 72 22 33 29 11 121 42 5 82 64 67 113 134 83 11 48 62 72 16 15 B Pin 0 4 6 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 0 0 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 5 2 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 0 2 2 3 1 1Z - Bloc 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 1310 1311 1312 1331 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 8/27/96 K-3 16 8 28 18 122 37 20 11 23 4 13 74 18 16 105 21 27 68 20 50 19 10 17 17 15 37 12 9 __ 8 __ 9 92 40 39 44 29 27 17 44 16 23 50 G3 -6 9 4 26 14 92 17 11 2 17 5 12 43 23 20 59 13 13 46 15 41 5 2 3 12 12 20 10 3 22 6 26 2 50 21 23 33 18 29 14 ____30j ____B ____11 29 G7-9 13 7 33 22 96 11 18 2 15 2 8 47 17 23 65 8 22 36 10 40 6 6 6 11 12 17 7 6 22 9 30 9 ___ ___ ___ 44 31 31 20 26 10 14 20 GlO-12 22 7 31 22 61 14 18 7 18 7 18 74 26 25 48 18 15 25 11 40 10 2 8 8 10 23 5 6 17 6 38 5 60 37 20 43 ___ 18 22 29 14 21 28 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 60 26 118 76 371 79 67 22 73 18 51 238 84 84 277 60 77 175 56 171 40 20 34 48 49 97 34 24 91 29 122 25 248 127 100 164 121 105 73 129 53 69 127 Black 8 0 4 1 10 41 63 0 10 0 9 32 10 10 109 7 14 49 14 11 8 12 6 28 13 18 3 5 ___ 7 110 15 239 123 80 160 108 71 71 111 50 46 118 Page 4 of 8 Non-Black 52 26 114 75 361 38 4 22 63 18 42 206 74 74 168 53 63 126 42 160 32 8 28 20 36 79 31 19 68 22 12 10 9 4 20 4 13 34 2 18 3 23 9 B Pin 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ____0 1 ____0 4 1 10 5 3 6 4 3 3 4 ____2 2 5 WPins 2 1 5 3 14 2 0 1 3 1 2 8 3 3 7 2 3 5 2 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 _____0 _____1 _____0 1 0Z - Bloc 1728 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 3201 3250 3251 3253 3301 3312 3316 3330 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 8/27/96 K-3 31 33 12 36 33 47 48 85 39 11 20 28 30 47 7 22 32 17 72 48 1 32 15 14 34 30 23 21 49 43 52 13 19 14 18 6 14 11 36 24 8 14 15 G3 -6 14 19 10 30 24 25 32 50 21 9 15 19 14 32 6 16 36 15 51 35 2 29 13 13 40 22 11 19 30 26 35 12 18 8 7 7 12 10 20 21 12 14 10 G7-9 16 12 15 19 38 26 30 66 31 10 17 18 15 38 5 12 32 15 49 36 0 24 11 9 22 13 10 18 30 28 33 8 17 2 12 4 12 8 15 23 10 10 10 GlO-12 28 15 16 44 50 30 35 59 22 14 20 19 16 40 9 17 27 16 47 23 2 24 17 14 34 16 16 16 18 34 26 6 14 5 7 3 12 5 7 11 7 9 4 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 89 79 53 129 145 128 145 260 113 44 72 84 75 157 27 67 127 63 219 142 5 109 56 50 130 81 60 74 127 131 146 39 68 29 44 20 50 34 78 79 37 47 39 Black 82 68 53 112 121 109 126 198 76 41 48 36 31 123 12 26 56 29 109 86 5 63 31 44 37 19 10 13 93 110 135 20 64 22 38 7 26 25 33 59 24 38 21 Page 5 of 8 Non-Black 11 0 17 24 19 19 62 37 3 24 48 44 34 15 41 71 34 110 56 0 46 25 6 93 62 50 61 34 21 11 19 4 7 6 13 24 9 45 20 13 9 18 B Pin 3 3 2 4 5 4 5 8 3 2 2 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 3 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 W Pins 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1Z - Bloc 3625 3630 3635 3640 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 8/27/96 K-3 15 0 39 12 25 13 26 34 18 46 12 7 40 8 13 30 5 15 7 6 11 14 6 0 37 22 14 12 __n 24 17 4 __14 ___9 6 9 __ 6 ___ ___4 15 3 13 G3 -6 13 1 37 4 19 7 9 15 12 20 11 7 23 9 4 21 6 7 14 7 15 19 9 2 29 10 9 5 13 13 7 2 13 8 6 5 19 5 11 1 13 2 5 G7-9 10 0 30 8 16 17 8 15 10 11 9 7 24 11 4 32 7 6 13 6 16 22 6 1 23 15 ___16 ____7 14 20 10 3 ___ ____8 8 10 ___ 6 2 1 21 0 7 GlO-12 18 0 24 7 9 14 12 7 8 15 5 3 12 6 7 57 4 4 22 8 17 11 7 2 26 19 8 6 11 17 7 1 3 9 2 8 18 3 6 2 10 2 8 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 56 1 130 31 69 51 55 71 48 92 37 24 99 34 28 140 22 32 56 27 59 66 28 5 115 66 47 30 69 74 41 10 40 34 22 32 86 20 28 8 ____ 7 33 Black 28 1 113 30 61 47 47 57 32 85 33 18 81 19 3 118 12 3 53 2 19 44 4 0 106 54 32 13 59 61 28 0 2 14 2 18 73 5 0 2 4 0 9 Page 6 of 8 Non-Black 0 17 1 8 4 8 14 16 4 6 18 15 25 22 10 29 3 25 40 22 24 5 9 12 15 17 10 13 13 10 38 20 20 14 13 15 28 6 55 7 24 BPin 1 0 5 1 2 2 1. 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Pins i 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 _____1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1Z - Bloc 5467 5470 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 8/27/96 K-3 2 4 30 29 19 23 19 58 30 1 12 9 13 26 59 15 11 18 37 17 54 34 14 22 17 7 15 40 5 7 38 19 5 15 45 6 40 25 67 4 28 22 98 G3 -6 0 0 22 18 18 8 10 28 16 0 6 6 10 23 45 13 5 23 19 10 40 22 19 17 6 9 13 30 6 6 26 8 5 10 25 7 20 15 27 4 20 8 48 G7-9 2 1 18 18 23 9 9 13 10 0 19 4 12 14 34 10 7 17 22 9 18 22 22 20 16 6 14 26 18 5 30 9 9 17 42 6 20 8 6 8 29 ___10 37 GlO-12 0 2 12 28 23 5 7 24 24 0 11 5 6 16 39 9 3 18 18 19 12 16 10 12 15 8 7 35 8 8 22 10 3 5 23 7 39 15 7 8 29 18 29 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 4 7 82 93 83 45 45 123 80 1 48 24 41 79 177 47 26 76 96 55 124 94 65 71 54 30 49 131 37 26 116 46 22 47 135 _______ 119 _______ 107 24 106 58 212 Black 0 3 11 31 13 4 10 12 23 0 8 3 5 17 146 36 15 57 83 45 106 79 47 35 46 19 33 115 22 24 93 46 16 36 114 ________ 108 51 102 22 86 54 199 Page 7 of 8 Non-Black 4 4 71 62 70 41 35 111 57 1 40 21 36 62 31 11 11 19 13 10 18 15 18 36 8 11 16 16 15 2 23 0 6 11 21 4 11 12 5 2 20 4 13 B Pin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 ________ 1 ____4 2 4 1 3 2 8 W Pins 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Z - Bloc 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7415 7420 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 7490 7495 Totals K-3 14 17 64 15 28 29 7 12 5 25 11 9 11 19 27 18 1 5 3 10 7718 G3 -6 9 25 24 11 25 26 13 16 9 13 10 7 4 22 21 4 0 9 4 9 5086 G7-9 14 21 28 17 26 24 17 23 13 18 2 16 12 11 18 17 1 9 4 11 5384 GlO-12 13 19 27 16 27 25 16 18 7 18 10 14 15 17 27 20 0 6 0 14 5188 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23.1996 Total 50 82 143 59 106 104 53 69 34 74 33 46 42 69 93 59 2 29 11 44 23376 Black 48 77 80 52 88 82 46 53 32 50 31 36 38 55 80 53 1 20 4 34 16331 69.86% Non-Black 2 5 63 7 18 22 7 16 2 24 2 10 4 14 13 6 1 9 7 10 7045 30.14% B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 653 WPins 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 282 8/27/96 Page 8 of 8Arkansas Democrat T3'(0azcllc FRIDAY. MAY 10, 1996 LR panel on closing schools is reborn < BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer 'AyLittle Rock School District committee created to make recommendations about renovating and possibly closing schools to cut costs is back in business with new faces. -The Little Rock School Board voted, unanimously at its agenda-setting meeting Thursday to recreate the Facilities Study Committee, dis- Ijanded in February. 'The panel will consist of two res- idents from each school board zone
twO representatives of the Joshua intervenors, who represent the black children in the district
and twb people from the Knight intervenors, representing the teachers. The old panels composition had drawn complaints from board member Sue Strickland, who helped disband tlie committee. She will be the new committee's chairman. Strickland said the old committee included district administrators but not residents who would actually be affected by school closings. She also said that she disagreed with what she believed was the committee's sole intent closing Mabelvale Junior High School in Southwest Little Rock. School district officials calls for closing some schools with low enrollments have continued during the conuiiittee's absence. The old committee began meeting in November after a consulting firm from San .Antonio issued a 13- volume study of district demographics and tire condition of school buildings. The study said the schools need S77 million in repairs, renovations and modernization. The consultants recommended closing as many as 11 schools because of poor physical condition and declining student population. The distncfs 50 school buildings have as many as 5,000 vacant seats. Bob Morgan, a member of the district's financial advisory committee. has said the districts student-to- employee ratio is below average when compared with districts of similar size. Maintaining schools not filled to capacity contributes to the low ratio and extra costs, Morgan said. The board also voted Thursday to allow, but not require, individual schools to determine the dress code for students, including the use of uniforms. Board member Judy Magness said Watson and Forest Park ele- i inentaries plan to use unifoi^ next I school year. Those schools join sev- | eral other elementary schools in the district that have a voluntary or mandatory' uniform policy./ 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7300 100LRSD plant SERyiCES TEL:501-570-4027 Nov 08,95 12:05 No.003 P.02 5?-* I I Little Rock School District I November 8, 1995 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Dear Ms. Brown: I I The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Pleuining Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. I I I I Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.m., November 9, 1995, in _ I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will ba forwarded to you. I i I Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours. ^ugl^s C. Eaton DIRECTOR :rector FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invxte I I ) iAGENDA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 NOV. 1995 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. Committee Membership Discussion received 3. Scope & Purpose of Committee NOV 9 199S Ql 4. Facility Study Overview (Optional) Discussion 5. Implementation Plan Outline, Responsibilities 6. Implementation Plan Considerations 1. Ne?d MeetingRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Policy Protected Escrow Annual Incremental Funding 9 9 9 Separate from Maintenance Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program 9 9 9 9 Five Year Building Program Preferable Strategic Plan for Capital Program Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries 9 On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System Include Magnet Information Include Record of Private School Attendees Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status e 9 Continuing Quality of Education Complete Capital Program Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget Reduce Burden of Bussing Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for Ali Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use 9 9 9 Establish New Attendance Zones Closure of Seven Elementary Schools Closure of One Jr. High School One to Four Elementaries out of Service Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Enhanced School Experience for Children Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation Development of Community Identities Diminished Burden of Bussing Comparable Cost to the District Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities More Student Value for the DollarRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Reviev\/ of Options Representative Review Team for Options Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses Include the Court Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force Support of Educational Programs & Achievements Support of Capita! Programs and Bond Offering Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core Board Initiative Community Representation Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area Include Industry and Commerce Leadership Commuter Assignments Encourage Board Service (subject to election)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Recommendation No 7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership CoreBia an OPTION C JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Closed School Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Pulaski Heights Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson OPTION M JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Forest Heights Henderson Dunbar SouthwestEBfiH OPTION C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Closed Schools Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost 1. Fair Park Brady $0 Franklin $1,300,596 Forest Park $2,086,500 2. Garland RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 New School $4,190,120 3. Ish N/A 4. Stephens New School $4,190,120 5. Jefferson Badgett $938,925 RightseU $1,996,085 ML King $0 Brady $0 Mcdermott Bale $271,245 Cloverdale $549,445 Dodd $681,590 Romine $1,432,730 Western HiUs $1,571,830 6. Mitchell RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 7. Wakefield Geyer Springs $2,566,395 8. Woodruff Forest Park $2,086,500 SUBTOTAL: $16,896,916 $3,092,193Closed Schools 1. Fair Park 2. Garland 3.1sh 4. Stephens OPTION M ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost__ New School $3,778,170 New School $3,625,160 N/A Terry $1,008,475 McDermott $375,570 Bale $159,968 Cloverdale $111,280 Otter Creek $452,075 Watson $111,280 5. Jefferson New School $3,778170 Western Hills $326,885 Rockefeller $0 Rightsell $389,480 Washington $0 ML King $0 6. Mitchell New School $3,625,160 7. Wakefield Baseline $1,189,305 Geyer Springs $1,057,160 8. Woodruff Forest Park $236,470 SUBTOTAL: $11,659,790 $1,161,488 SB anBsan IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Cost (Renovation, New construction. Relocation, Equipment, Supphes, Organization) 2. Funding Considerations (Operational Budget, Multiple yr. Funding, MiUages, Bond Issues, Program impact) 3. Personnel (Reductions, Reassignments, New personnel. Organizational Changes) 4. Student Assignment Changes (Policies , Start dates, Academic Program Changes) 5. Desegregation Plan Changes (Racial balance definition. Student Assignment pohcy Changes, Multiple Areas) 6. Grade Structure Change (Middle school concept) I. Support Function Changes (Transportation, Procurement, Facihty Services) BganPURPOSE AND SCOPE FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE This document outlines the purpose and scope of the Little Rock School District Implementation Committee which is being staffed to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study completed in 1995 by 3D International Corporation. The Committee will consist of persons from the Little Rock School District staff and local community who will be charged by the Superintendent to make recommendations to him and the Little Rock School District Board of Education on the various aspects of the Facility Study. Their charge may also be extended to put together implementation plans and time lines once recommendations have been approved by the Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Committee is to devise an implementation plan and schedule based upon approved recommendations by the Little Rock School District Board of Education. The Committee will work within the frame work of the study analyzing the study recommendations for possible adaptations by the Little Rock School District. Those recommendations will comprise the final reports submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education on which aspects of the Long Range Facility Study should be implemented by the School District along with recommendations as to an implementation schedule, time line and staffing of other areas of consideration. The Committee derives its authority from the Superintendent and is to work within the confines of the purposes and scope of the Facility Study as outlined in the contractual agreement between the Little Rock School District and 3D International Corporation. SCOPE
The scope of this Committee is to put together recommendations for the Superintendent and Little Rock School District Board of Education based on the nine (9) recommendations as made in the Long Range Facility Study. The Committee has the authority to consider and recommend or not recommend any and all aspects of the Facility Study for implementation. The scope of this Committee will be centered around the various aspects that run parallel to the basic recommendations in the Study by drawing them together as points of consideration and present recommendations to the Superintendent and Board. The Committee has the authority to deal directly with other staff members in making requests of them for information and cooperation should sub committees be formed under this general committee. It is intended that those recommendations whether they specifically impact the financial programming of the District would be made in such a way and at such a time that implementation can possibly BBaO'Page Two Bsan Continued occur during the next budget cycle. Recommendations dealing with closures and expansions, both cost saving and cost expanding, items in the study will be included in the recommendations. The Committee will work closely with the office of Program Review and Evaluations to ensure that its time lines accurately in project and budget documents. are reflected DCE/apl/lrfsBESaO COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: LONG RANGE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Implementation Committee that is being drawn together to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study will consist of the following individuals by job title and general subject area. 1. Associate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment
will oversee the aspects of student assignment policies and compliance with the Desegregation Plan. 2. Director of Facilities Services: will oversee cost analysis and facility related matters dealing with expansions and closing of facilities. 3. Director of Communications: to oversee the public affairs efforts and public notifications dealing with meetings and the general public. 4. Special Assistant to the Superintendent: responsible for coordinating meetings in conjunction with the Director of Communications. 5. Manager Resources and School Support: to oversee financial planning and provide financial and fiscal guidance with regard to recommendations. 6. Assist ant Superintendent: to provide information regarding academic implementation and program changes with regard to the recommendations. 7. Human Resources Representative: to provide information regarding general knowledge of the District history and human relation aspects of the recommendations. 8. Board Members: to provide input and guidance from the Little Rock School District Board of Education. 9. Strategic Planning Committee Members: to provide input, analysis and guidance with regard to the tie in of the Long Range Facility Study to the Strategic Planning Process. 10. Representatives of the Intervenors, Knight). Desegregation parties (Joshua 11. Representatives from the office of Desegregation Monitoring. DCE/apl/crlrfsBsao FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Facility Study Review 2. Superintendents Guidance. 3. Implementation Committee Assignments, Purpose and Scope 4. Implementation Planning - Plan of Action - Analysis of Facility Study - Recommendations, Submittal - Approvals - Implementation Plan, Schedule, Time lines - Oversight Responsibility'2 '* . .. -hzt^-
SchoolV- BADGETT S 2 124 BALE 1 221 II w MO W' ItalilaS ! 2 5 1 i 3 BASELINE 220 1 17 ! o fiH ii" 26^ 3 BOOKER 10 15 19 ' 12 14 20 BRADY 11 i 199 CARVER 15 8 b'i I 3 5 CHICOT 5 CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK 2 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP . GIBBS 2 JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL . MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL
OTTER CR PUL HT E 2 KIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 13 ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN 5 WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 15 18 I 9 4 . 302
13 3 18 j 1 2 i!8 30 ! 318 7 3 1 10 4 11 3 3 5 8 3 6 4 5 8 2 1 7 1 2 9 6 1 I 2 6 5 7 2 12 2 15 J I 2 6 2 2 11 2 14 7 10 10 1 i 3 ziz: 2 1 i 2 2 1 2 i 13 11 4 2 8 6 2 8 3 4 4 7 2 I 2 J------- 8 I 11 ! 2 5 2 I I 1 3 23 { 20 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 34 ' i 8 2 16 6 4 14 1 I 4 2 8 1 f 1 tS *"1...14 12 12 38 I 11 8 6 j 3 1 1 LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 Bi ip
i 180 1 6 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 28 7 4 2 6 9 8 ffi o 1 5 1 9 4 1 165 4 9 1 2 4 6 3 9 11 } 8 3 9 11 5 286 11 7 5 1 1 7 6 5 2 6 2 3 2 15 5 52 2 2 4 249 8 I 4 1 8 1 9 0 6 I 2 - r....... 7 1 6 1 5 1 2 2 10 30 15 6 1 6 0 4 2 10 1 4 ...i....... 3 6 ! 14 10 17 6 I 160 I 413 I 357 I 380 j 557 | 506 1 306 | 320 | 412 [ 464 ifi LsiOllaiij o U Isii 2 5 2 1 3 5 11 1 12 17 i 19 2 5 2 6 4 385 3 1 9 6 10 21 2 3 1 5 15 18 16 S 12 13 6 605 4 2 2 1 3 2 8 24 164 3 2 7 7 1 2 IS 6 2 1 4 8 5 4 1 6 1 2 6 303 3 8 7 1 4 203 9 2 3 9 4 3 4 9 9 4 3 2 310 HJ 10 19 8 41 1 1 3 17 2 6 1 5 352 6 1 4 9 25 2 3 16 1 5 3 6 551 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 2 1 1 B
18 14 2 4 4 1 s 1 5 1 1 42 2 1 2 5 2 6 7 2 4 9 7 3 11 18 1 11 11 15 5 102 ? 210 59.05% 2 4 4 11 5 6 3 i 347 327 144 9 6 3 2 13 18 26 11 1 24 3 63.69% 67.28% ! 26 1(f Ti6~ 23 5 6 5 604 1 5 14 7 29 6 1 10 2 5 10 9 6 3 2 7 14 221 4 1 4 5 6 13 14 3 2 2 4 9 1 9 1 11 418 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 329 4 5 3 7 1 4 12 19 1 5 4 482 14 4 2 IS 1 8 6 10 2 318 2 S 4 4 3 5 4 11 11 2 14 6 519 4 2 5 2 6 4 6 7 10 12 2 2 3 173 2 11 ..b" 2 2 3 2 8 1 4 4 9 323 105 186 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 1 4 9 5 2 1 4 2 5 8 1 13 2 1 11 3 27 2 5 3 8 3 1 4 5 5 5 45 2 35 3 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 15 3 8 8 IS 3 4 3 7 1 12 34 14 2 7 5 17 8 10 1 5 6 5 24 1 394 629 50.51% 22 19 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 3 4 3 7 4 452 453 294 270 46 67 18 5 5 1 4 8 15 62 1 3 354 6 9 4 5 140 6 25 4 2 39 2 139 2 774 7 6 2 1 6 10 3 9 161 2 1 4 15 2 3 6 1 317 1 2 3 2 4 3 \20 2 15 4 1 5 2 285 2 1 8 2 2 4 190 26 8 10 24 19 394 2 5 1 13 6 3 1 7 6 2 1 6 2 12 5 188 4 5 3 8 13 23 2 19 3 3 6 4 392 16 18 2 6 614 2 4 1 8 2 2 2 4 1 1 340 14 5 2 495 14 11 3 6 16 13 3 2 17 2 2 295 5 2 7 9 618 2 2 17 4 6 2 1 5 1 12 16 349 12 4 3 528 5 4 1 2 9 3 2 2 2 4 17 66.81% 70.20% 61.22% 61.11% 2 8 2 2 435 431 518 255 310 307 501 531 i 460 2 487 400 257 339 11 8 406 219 406 65.75% 57.77% 74.32% 64.31% 65.48% 70.26% 41.62% 71.52% 65.30% 68.50% 67.32% 79.06% 59.11% 73.52% 41.87% 3 7 213 8 15 2 296 16 3 21 20 20 226 476 2 2 1 302 536 429 j 656 114 444 315 508 384 62.91% 73.13% 79.25% 44.97% 78.60% 67.62% 58.85% 254 ' 44.88% 162 I 14O7o"T OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENTCLOVR JR 494 DUNBAR 38 FORST HT 23 HENDERSN 21 MABEL JR 73 MANN M/S 90 PUL HT J 21 SOUTHWST 17 JR TOTAL 777 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 62 3 4 23 1 6 1 15 609 81.12% 443 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 53 732 60.52% 45 36 50 57 21 23 737 483 50 20 72 7 59 759 63.64% 34 4 54 36 18 696 588 4 114 48 20 8 892 f 3 1 7 11 1 19 11 71 792 74.24% 333 66 15 25 508 7 3 17 491 67.82% 109 2 1 123 67 570 4 767 220 8 271 67 59 504 847 781 612 845 15623 72.98% 82.35% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENTLU ILfc HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1 Q X BZEHBi Little Rock School District receivst^ (3 JAN 1 6 1996 Office of Desegregacon fviontojn,^ January 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The Implementation Committee recently held their Enclosed please find a copy of those minutes. sixth meeting. Our next meeting has not been scheduled due to scheduling conflicts
however, I hope to contact you this month to request your selection on which subcommittee that you would like to serve. Once our next meeting has been scheduled, you will be notified. Sincerely yours, V D^ DIR] I [TOR C. Eaton FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/ipcmeet 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-20004 A 5 JAH J 6 ^9% MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 3, 1996 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their sixth meeting on January 3, 1996. At that meeting, a revised scope was presented to the Committee for consideration so as to realign the direction of the Committee. A recommended change was made by committee members in reference to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as opposed to Board of Education
however, the scope was not voted upon and the committee is still not clear on what the general scope of their authority is. A Draft Implementation Planning Sub-Committee list was also prepared which initially divided LRSD employees and some members who have volunteered for specific committees to assist in drafting the various phases of an implementation plan assessment of the Facility Study. and because of The sub-committees have still not been firmed up, this the specific charge. obligations requirements of those sub-committees has not been defined. and An agenda item of a plan time line was not discussed due to lack of time. A special report was made by Ms. Lowe, who is working on the subcommittee dealing with public affairs. They have began holding sub-committee meetings and have taken a first step of holding their own public meeting on January 10, 1996. We had a long, involved discussion regarding what the aspects are of our committee and how we are to develop an implementation plan. Of many items discussed. highlights centered around how the configuration of the middle schools would be impacted or would impact the Facility Study
how do we secure public reaction to the various aspects of the downsizing
and how do we involve public acceptance? We have yet to develop any kind of a firm guideline or plan as to how we should approach the public. At the direction of the Superintendent, informal meetings have begun in various communities simply to inform Little Rock School District patrons and the general public on what the study encompasses and to assure them that a group of LRSD employees and the general public are looking at how the various options in the Facility Study could be implemented if necessary, but that no decisions have been made. It is becoming obvious that specific sub-committees will have to be formed out of the realm of the general committee by securing volunteers and that specific areas of implementation will have to be examined.Page Two Continued covers. At the present time, the only thing that we are comfortable going to the public with is the general parameters of the study and what it Detailed questions regarding whether or not the District is going to implement the Study, and how it will affect the children and the education system have yet to be determined. This leaves many unanswered questions at many of these public meetings. DCE/apl/minutes6! Arkansas Demi locrat I SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996------- <*< Ulto Committee on LR school closings sets forum A Little Rock School District committee charged with developing a plan that could lead to some schools being closed will hold a community forum at 10 a.m today at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401W. 12th St The Facilities Committee, made up of district administrators and commimity members, has been studying the recommendations of a Texas consoling firm that evaluat- No decisions have been made by ii J.i 1 1- ujg committee although members have indicated they dont believe ed all district schools. The consultants recommended closii^ at least eight schools and redrawing attendance zones as a way to oSset a projected loss of more any schools should be closed in the 19^97 school year. than 3,000 students by the year 2005. f The facilities conunittee has been meeting with parents at each of the schools that the consultants named as candidates for closure.RECEIVED JUN 1996' FACILITIES COMMITTEE NOMINEES Zone 1 Mitchell Dr. Delbra Caradine B. J. McCoy of O' OOi! :i: i"cni
crinc,^ Zone 2 Daugherty Rohn Muse Zone 3 Magness Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72207 661-8030 Kris Baber 2519 N Fllmore Little Rock, AR 72207 663-5443/682-2479 Zone 4 Riggs Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 221-9632 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-8155/569-8868 Zone 5 Pondexter Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-0876/570-4100 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9498/982-9436 Zone 6 Gee Joa Huphrey 5022 W. 56th Little Rock, AR 72209 565-4110 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 225-9035/225-5534 Zone 7 Strickland Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-4754 Phil Wyrick 11001 Alexander Rd. Alexander, AR 72103 455-4073 JOSHUA INTERVENORS: John Walker 1723 Boadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 Joy Springer KNIGHT INTERVENORS: Betty Mitchell Frank MartinVAN N. LIGHT 15 Sunset Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 663-9287 aa: c/ - mar 7 4- 1996 March 5, 1996 of Oeje
ar
n. Ms. Sue Strickland Member, Little Rock School Board 19 Pear Tree Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: February' 22, 1996 School Board Meeting
Facility Study Committee Dear Sue: Thank you for having lunch with me yesterday to discuss my concern regarding your failure to advise members of the Facility Study Committee of your intention to call for the suspension of the Committees work at the February 22, 1996 school board meeting. As I indicated at lunch, in my view, the community members who had volunteered so much of their time to this committees work deser'/ed prior notice of your intention out of courtesy and respect for their efforts. While you and I disagreed on whether the Committee should have been informed of your intentions prior to the meeting, I did appreciate your apology. I think your apology has the potential for healing some of the frustration felt by the community members of the Committee and plan to share it with the Committee by copy of this letter. There remains one open issue relating to the actions taken at the February 22, 1996 LRSD Board meeting with regard to the Committee having to do with a reason you expressed for wanting to suspend the Committees work. I reviewed the tape of the board meeting last week and believe you misstated the present status of the Committee when you stated: Excuse me. I am on that committee. The only thing that we are challenged to address is closing Mabelvale Junior High. As you know, the foregoing statement is simply not true. I advised you by phone on Monday, February 19 and by fax (copy enclosed) the next day that the committee leadership had been restructured and that the Committee was searching for a facilitator to assist the Committee in coming to an agreement regarding its scope, purpose, composition, subcommittee structure, decision timeline and decision framework. The information conveyed to you before the February 22nd Board Meeting clearly indicated that the Committee was no where near making a recommendation of any sort-much less a recommendation to close Mabelvale Junior High. Had you been at the February 14th Committee meeting (minutes enclosed) you would have witnessed the expression of dissatisfaction with the course of the Committee and appreciated the strong desire of theMs. Sue Strickland March 5, 1996 Page 2 community members of the Committee to set the Committee on an agreed upon course. Unfortunately, this information was not relayed to the Board and it was forced to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Of course, if I or a member of the Committee had been informed of your intention to seek suspension of the Committee at the February 22nd meeting the Board could have been informed of the current status of the Committee. The failure to portray accurately the status of the Committee is particularly puzzling in light of the concern you expressed at the February 22nd meeting about recruitment of students and families to the Little Rock School District. How can the Board expect to instill trust and involvement in the District when the efforts of people, like the volunteer members of the Committee, are summarily dismissed based on inaccurate information? Volunteers who take time away from other priorities to serve the public school system deserve more. The very least you owe the Committee members is to set the record straight regarding the work of the Facility Study Committee. The Board and the public should know that the committee members were determined to set the Committee on a correct course, had taken steps to do so and did not have the single issue agenda of closing Mabelvale Junior High. I would hope that you would make this information available to the Board. If you wont correct the record, then I will at the next available opportunity address the Board. I care very deeply about the future of the Little Rock School District and have been actively involved since my children began attending public schools. I also care about getting other parents involved in the District. I hope you will help insure that the efforts of those who do get involved will not be taken for granted or misinterpreted by accurately conveying the work of the Facility Study Committe to the Board. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. Sincerely, inht Van N. Light Co-Chair Facility Study Committee cc: Facility Study Committee MembersDELIVERED BY FAX 9 V DATE: February 20, 1996 TO. Facilities Study Committee Members OJSce ^4i-' 7 FROM: RE: Van Light, 663-9287 Co-chair, Facilities Study Committee Facilitator Selection/Critical Questions Input for Facilities Study Committee At the Facilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1996, the committee decided to restructure the committee leadership with a co-chair format, one chair from the community and one chair from the LRSD staff. I was elected as a co-chair representing the community and Doug Eaton will continue as the LRSD staff co-chair. In addition, pursuant to Committee action on February 14th, a facilitator is to be identified and selected to assist our committee in developing committee goals, scope, decision timeline and framework. Several other critical questions were compiled at this meeting. They are enclosed for your review. Please call me with additions or corrections. These questions will be given to the facilitator. Selection of Facilitator The Committee agreed to seek the assistance of a facilitator for a limited time and as a volunteer. Suggested work parameters are at most 2 committee workshops of up to four hours each. Please submit your suggestions by the end of the week. I contacted as many of you as I could by phone on Monday, February 19th in advance of this memo. Two suggestions have been made so far: Judith Foust and Max Snowden. Since we are asking candidates to volunteer his/her time, several suggestions are required. Thanks very much. If you do suggest someone, please provide a short profile. Once all suggestions have been made, then I will contact you again by letter/phone/fax with names and profiles. You will have the opportunity to rank preference and/or express concern about a candidate. Remember the facilitator will not make decisions but help us to formulate our own committee structure and framework for the committee members to make the decisions. Thank you for your time and support.DRAFT Facility Study Implementation Planning Minutes, February 14, 1996 Committee Members Present Doug Eaton, chair Nancy Acre Brady Gadberry Melissa Guildin Charles Johnson Van Light Nancy Lowe Leon Modeste Rohn Muse Fred Smith Diane Vibhakar Connie Whitfield Linda Young Members Not Present Sadie Mitchell Sue Strickland Sammy Mills Vic Anderson Russ Mayo Betty Mitchell Xavier Heard Margaret Gremillion Suellen Vann John Walker Donna Creer Robert Hightower Kathy Wells Skip Marshall Frank Martin Richard Roachell 1 ** ~ " y, MAR 7- 'i5?3 D Mr. Doug Eaton, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Mr. Eaton asked for a report from the Outreach Subcommittee. This report was defered to the next meeting because certain members necessary to make the full report were not present at the meeting. Nancy Lowe did state that she had presented the overview of the Facility Study to the Area School Advisory Committee on Monday, February 12, 1996 and circulated the "Public Schools at the Crossroads" document (attached) compiled by the Outreach Subcommittee. Rohn Muse, who is on a Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce committee, stated that the Chamber's Executive Committee had requested through him that the Outreach Subcommittee brief the Executive Committee. After discussion the Facility committee agreed that future requests for Facility Study briefings should be requested through the Communications Office under the direction of Suellen Vann. Since the Chamber briefing had already been scheduled for the next day, February 15, the committee agreed that only the "Public Schools at the Crossroads" document be circulated and that any questions or requests for more information concerning the Facility Study should be directed through the Communications Office.DRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Eaton announced that the Bi-Racial Committee had been given a Facility Study Briefing on February 6, 1996. Additional briefings are scheduled for Wilson Elementary on March 8, 1996
Fair Park Elementary on March 11, 1996
and, Garland Elementary on March 25, 1996. Mr. Eaton circulated to members the Special Report
Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee Memo and School Closing Timeline (attached) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. Van Light noted that Number 2 of the memo should read "Option M" instead of "Option C." Further discussion occured concerning these documents. Van Light made a motion that written Facility Committee progress reports to the LRSD board should be reviewed, if time permitted, by all committee members prior to submission to the LRSD Board of Directors. The motion was discussed and passed. It was agreed on occasions when LRSD Boardmembers and/or the Superintendent requested information from Mr. Eaton as the Plant Services Director and required immediate response then the commmittee would be apprised after the fact. Linda Young requested that Rohn Muse's name be added on the committee membership list. Mr. Eaton agreed to do so. As Mr. Eaton was circulating a draft Revised Scope for this committee to discuss, the members discussed and agreed that the Agenda Item dealing with Committee Structure should be addressed first. Van Light then circulated a letter (attached) signed by Charles Johnson and herself requesting two agenda items for the February 14th meeting. The first item addressed committee leadership. The letter attached explains the committee situation. The community members recommended that a facilitator should be asked to run the meetings. After discussion and specifically Fred Smith noting that there was no budget to hire a facilitator, a compromise approach was reached. It was agreed that the committee should have co-chairs, one from the community who would run the meetings, and a LRSD staff member as the other co-chair. In addition, a facilitor would be asked to come on a voluntary basis for a limited time to help the committee develop an agreed uponDRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 3 scope, purpose, committee structure, composition, and other organizational needs. The members agreed that a facilitator would be more likely to help if it was a short term commitment. Fred Smith nominated Van Light to be the community co-chair. It was seconded. She was elected to the position. The members then listed serveral critical questions (attached) that are to be given to the facilitator once identified. It was noted that a committee member, instead of the chairperson, should become the official secretary for future meetings. Mr. Eaton had been taking the minutes of all the meetings previously. The second agenda item requested by the community members in the above referenced letter concerned requesting 3D1 to make a formal presentation to the committee. This would allow all questions that committee members had to be anwered and understood fully. No specific action was recommended because it was deferred for the next meeting when the facilitator would be present. The revised scope statement and subcommittee composition agenda items were tabled until the next meeting when the facilitator will be present. Mr. Eaton did state that he had asked three LRSD staff to begin forming subcommittees in order to get issues surfaced that would assist the general committee in its thought process with regard to studying the options. Mr. Eaton passed out, as general information, a document entitled "School Closing Information Paper" (attached) to assist committee members in trying to understand the multiple steps necessary in deciding school closings. The meeting adjourned about 6:15 pm. The next meeting would be determined once a facilitator had been identified and an agreed upon date set. Minutes prepared by Van Light with assistance from Mr. Eatons Memorandum for Record, Implementation Planning Committee Meeting - 2/14/96, dated March 1, 1996 and Nancy Lowe's recording the list of critical questions.TO: TKR! q-[jc -r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF FACILITY SERVICES 3601 S. BRYANT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 January 25, 1996 Vittle Rock School District Boar FROM : a Sat on, Director of Special Sucerintendent T ommr tie Rock School District Faci Ccmmi tee xS charged Wltl" he various restru uring options as presenter The committee administration membership consists staff, Desegregaticr community individuals. d of Directors y Sezn-ices V o do 1 y stU
arty ers ccmmlttee has casi t this point has made the following pre iminary det ns an ions
committee focus Fa will only be on -mendati rents. ty restr'ucturing to meet projected stu^ 7 T 2 . Tha ths specifi e Wi' lT 7 be Optz.cn C.as it ertains to J nior i--ab schools. 3 . a school closin reccmmen
:s .b-e his budget year cue to the estimated time of F 4 . Tha a primary focus will be :ubli and rmation sessions to secure public t and sun 5 . That additional subcommittees will be ether aspects o school restructuring and they ecome to analyte identified. There are no set timelines to implement a school closing, but rather a backward planning process starting with the desired closing date and student assignment effective date and then prorating your time over the identified steps and procedures necessary. The following is a list of significant events and suggested dates
1. Prior to January: - Completed all data collection and analysis - Comprise list of facilities to be considered - Conduct public information meetings 2. January: - Finalize recommended action to board(Business case) - Secure board decision on closure - Begin support planning - Tentative assignment notification to students Begin support) definitized planning(personnel, students, 3 . Febr-uary: - Request court date - Conduct pre-registration 4. March: - Complete support planning (support staff) - Complete student plans - Complete public hearings - Complete personnel plans - Court hearing 5. June: - Close school - Final notification to students on assignments 6. August: - Reassign students This is a very condensed list and does not include he multitude of specific staff considerations with regard to this type action. CLCB2HPTFebiuaiy 12, 1996 Delivered in Person by Charles Johnson and Van Liuhl Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Plant Services LRSD 3601 S Bryant Little Rock .AR 72201 RE. Aaenda Items for 2'14/96 Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee (FSIPC) Meeting Dear Doug Persuant to your most recent letter in which you offered to receive agenda item suggestions from committee members, we respectfully submit the following agenda items A) B) Committee Leadership Structure Request for Facility Study Presentation by 3D! Last Friday '9/96, five FSIPC members from the community, Charles Johnson. Van Light. Kathy Wells. Nancy Lowe. Rohn Muse, met for 1 1. hours to discuss the FSIPC and its fiiture direction. The group agreed to recommend the above agenda items We also want to recommend that Rohen S Rules of Order be followed in future meetings. A. Committee Leadership Structure Problem Statement. In its present leadership structure the committee has not been able to progress as it should due to members and committee leadership not agreeing on committee purpose and scope. Symptoms of Problem. These symptoms suggest that a change is needed. a) 2 V2 - 3 hour meetings conducted with little or.no progress made or action taken, b) Committee Chairperson forming subcommittees outside the committee structure. c) Poor attendance at last two meetings. d) Expression of frustration by all membersdeadersiiip on lack of committee progress. Discussion This group discussed several strategies to address this problem. In the discussion of all strategies it was aareed that a neutral person was needed to run the meetings. The strategies discussed were. 1. Co-chairs, one community member
one LRSD staff member. The community member tunning the meeting, , 2. One chairperson - a community member 3. One chairperson - an experienced facilitator. This group by consensus agreed to recommend Strategy ^3, to find an experienced facilitator as soon as possible who might donate his/her time.Rationale for Selection of Strategy #3 Due to the obvious public interest and sensitivity/volativity with issues concerning facility changes, it is imperative that the public perception and, indeed, the reality be that this committee be one in which a) the leadership of the committee is neutral, b) the committee membership representation is city-wide, c) the evaluation process is fair and logical and is agreed upon by the committee, and, d) decisions are based on a shared vision by the committee using the Strategic Plans beliefs, mission and objectives as a guide. Due to the various perspectives of the committee members and the complexitv of issues relating to facilitv changes, having an experienced facilitator would be a needed asset. t. B) Facilitator Recommendations. The group did brainstorm on possible facilitators. Of course, other names can and should be considered. Those mentioned were. Ken Hubbell Earl Moore Joyce Springer Williams Mary F Dillard Dr David Sink Judith Foust Cliarlev Crawford Request for Faciiit> Study Presentation by 3DI Problem Statement. The inability of the members to understand the reasons and iustificaiii recommendations that per to facility changes. Reasons for Inability to Understand. 1) Contradictory messages: :ueen sections of studc 2) Insufficient narrative to support and.'or explain recommendations. Discussion. The group agreed that it w before decisions impacting on for the s essential that the integrity and validity of the study had to be upheld 'acilities by the committee could be made. This group agreed it could not and did not want to move fonvard until that point was reached. Therefore, it is recommended that a one-on- one session with the consultant be arranged. Specific information requests from consultant can be determined at the Wednesday meeting. This group recognizes the seriousness of the agenda items recomm.ended in this letter. We are earnest in our desire to make informed decisions We are committed in being supportive of the LRSD and its staff as we work together to recommend changes concerning the Districts facilities We pledge our good faith efforts to make decisions based on the overall good of the District. We await your comments and would be glad to discuss further any issue With regards, Charles Johnson 565-5715 \ Van N. Light 663-9287'" y cc: Mr. Fred Smith FSIPC Members (at W'ednesdays meeting) FACILITIES COMMITTEE Little Rock School District Critical Questions 1. 2 3. 4. 5. What is the scope of the committee? Do we need to revisit establishing goals? How can committee set forth a planning framework for itself with goals and timelines and benchmarks? Determine committee composition and numbers. Determine best tune to meet. 6. Vanong levels of trust w ith school district within committee. 7. 8. 9. Wdiat are the specific subcommittees? Determine subcommittee composition and numbers. Wdiat are the subcommittees tasks? 10. 11. 12. 13. Are we satisfied wdth the facilities study as a piece to begin decision making"? Do we need to have 3 DI make a presentation? Varying levels of understanding about facility study wtliin committee. How did decision to close identified schools within recommendations get done? 14. 15. How do we communicate internally within the committee and with and between subcommittees? How are we going to communicate committee decisions to the general public? 16. Others? SCHOOL CLOSING PROCEDURES INFORMATION DOCUMENT 1) INTRODUCTION: 2) RSCEJVED MAR 7 199$- Office cf Desegrajefien Monitoring School closings are generally examined using the same criteria established by planners for the location and construction of new schools. Such general areas as student populations, demographic trends, economic analysis are the same general areas of consideration to be used when the predetermined goal is consideration of closing a school. Because there are no defined guidelines for decision-makers, nor definitive brackets of cost and population against which an objective analysis can be made to lose a school, we WP can establish research data but not clearly define will fully support a closing, will be heavily subjective. WXiCil that Therefore, our final decision We must understand that School Districts must operate financially by maximizing costs on a per capita basis. Only through maximum economies of scale, by going to maximum class size and facility capability. while meeting students' individual needs for achievement can we hope to operate in an economically efficient manner. In examining a particular school as a candidate for closing. we must certainly examine the entire school system. or at least a cluster of schools which would be immediately impacted by the closing. Basic economic decisions considered in facilities planning include decisions to incrementally add to schools as student numbers go up, and the fact that we design and build for future use, and not just current needs. This leads us to consider projected student populations and current and expected costs as the two (2) main considerations in school closings. WHEN DO WE CONSIDER A SCHOOL FOR CLOSING: I've identified five (5) areas of consideration that would support a decision to examine whether or not a specific facility should be closed: A) Consideration should be given to closing a acility when the repair costs can not be amortized economically. Examples would be when emergency repair costs exceed the value of the school, such as damage due to f 1 fire, 1earthquake, etc., or when the deferred maintenance costs on any major component would exceed a certain value of the overall costs of the facility. This deferred maintenance must include replacement to include costs to upgrade to current standards of such major components of the school as the heating/ventilation system, structural repairs, roof, and grounds. B) We should consider closing the facility when the operational maintenance costs of the facility begins to exceed the norm of all other similar facilities or when it can be shown that the operational maintenance cos C) D) would far exceed the life cycle costing of a new f as compared to the remaining life of the original. This can be done through a life cycle cost analysis of a new facility of equitable size. One must consider here that a replacement facility of larger size can better capitalize on economies of scale and will tend to show a lower operational cost on a per capita basis than the ole facility. This is used as the strength of an argument for normal facility replacement simply due to age and operational costs. We should consider closing a facility when the student population decreases to the point that consolidation or redistribution of students must occur,- or when student projections show a steady decline over a determined period of time. The determined period of time should exceed the number of years of one (1) cycle of the school
for example, if the school encompasses K - Sth Grade, we should look, at least, at one (1) full cycle, or seven years, as the projected length and time to fully determine whether or not student projections are rising or falling. This should allow a slight increment in any given year due to a rise in birth rates but not skew the final data. We should consider closing a facility when general demographic trends of the entire area surface indicate a movement or shift in population, away from an existing 2E) 3) school. As population centers shift within the School District, it can be expected that as student populations decline in older areas. that per capita cost increase, that the closing of schools must be considered to meet the demands of the moving population. Many times, this will result in the Board of Education examining older schools. areas in more established areas, yet these established predominantly house older populations which do not tend to move with demographic trends within the city. We should consider closing a facility when the cost analysis of the school shows a disproportionate spending on a per capita basis for all other items not including operations and maintenance. We must closely examine this area. If operational costs on a per caoita basis are increasing due to decreasing student e rising operational costs of the program, be examined in support of school closing, must be cautioned that operational programs, newer technology. then nis However, osts for ust W6 new to achieve higher academic standards are not to be considered in this analysis per capita costs. RESEARCH AREAS: of The research area list is not all-inclusive, but meant to identify those key areas of consideration that will produce objective data. and those answers that will produce subjective answers. The following are areas which can be clearly defined objectively: A) A current operational cost analysis will proouce hard figures showing the operational costs on B) C) either a per school. or per capita basis. against the norm. We should consider both maintenance costs and academic costs. One time costs to bring the facility in line with current academic demands and current physical requirements such as bringing the building in line with current city codes. Examining student projections will clearly show a rise or fall in the anticipated enrollment over a 3given number of years. D) The costs associated with the transfer of students and the costs associated to adapt surrounding schools school. to incorporate students from the closed The following areas of examination will produce subjective answers: A) Trying to determine the impact on student's education if we move the student from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. a B) Examining whether or not the closing of a school is not in contravention to t Laws. Fe C) Whether or not the closing of a facility is in line with the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan, or intent thereof. A subjective analysis will raise further questions such as: A) When do we physically close the school and move children? the B) How long will it take the children to go to, or be acclimated. in their new school? C) What would be the racial balance of the schools to which the children are redistributed? 4) WHEN DO YOU CLOSE A FACILITY: As Stated before, there are no hard, fast guidelines which would produce checklists that say. if you meet four (4) or five (5) criteria, the school will be closed". It is more a subiective evaluation based on II It subjective objective data, and as such, will allow the decision-maker the ability to determine the nrioritv of the to determine priority listing considerations, and the specific criteria which will determine that the facility will be closed. In general, if a 45) combination of any of the following factors are present, a s A) B) ) D) then chool should be considered for closing: when the operational specified amount
costs exceeds the norm by a when the costs to upgrade the facility to current educational and code standards is cost-prohibitive against either new construction or the facility
the expected life of when you are considering realigning attendance zones just support student populations, or have to transport simply to maximize the facility. to children into an area or to spend funds to support educational attract students, all of which are intended to offsec L co rograms 11 c W student population and decreasing trends
and, if schools are examined on a regional cluster. total combined facility space and exceeds the current projected needs and redistribution economic sense, or social considerations. consideration. PLANNING FACTORS: procedure which is does not and violate then closing is The following planning steps formulate a intended to be used as a guide vzhen school closing is contemplated. The procedure is set forth in a logical manner
however, uniformly as local conditions require. its sections may be used separately or uniformly as locai i
uuuii,j.uuo It is primarily intended to identify the various kinds of information as well that should be considered before as the particular activities It is intended that this procedure will be closing a school. the _______________to provide an organized structure for decision-makers when a school closing is being contemplated. followed so as A) acili.tx Evaluations t Facility evaluations are undertaken only when it is apparent that physical condition school. will influence the decision to close the This evaluation should properly identify the 5general condition of the facility and detail any special problems relating to age, structure or utility systems. The evaluations should include an estimate of useful life be made if the facility is continued in service. expectancy and, in particular, an accounting of repairs to Some schools will need to be closed regardless of age and condition. B) Capacity of Facility: Useful capacity should be C) calculated in terms of the numbers of students the facility can accommodate using criteria as established by * . Each either the Local or State Board of Education. administration must establish its own formula capacity calculations. Suggested methods include: Capacity as ietermined J* Itiplying pupil.'t ratio times the number of classrooms Capacity as determined by dividing square footage in an instructional area by the per pupil square a footage recommended for the purpose for which the area is being used Capacity determined by physical determination cr each academic space as compared to the Board of Education standard capacity may not exceed the class any case, non cue cj-obo size limits as established by the State Board of Education. In Student Enrollments: Present and projected student enrollments should be a necessary part of any decision uO close a school. To decrease the margin of'error, {7) years should minimum period of time of at least seven be established upon which to base population projections. This should be done for the school system as a whole, all schools included. One should be aware of two (2) factors * * a in projecting populations: a) The relationship between increases or decreases in the general population and school enrollment
and. 6D) E) b) The need to project enrollment in a given attendance area where it is anticipated that a school may close. would be appropriate to establish an enrollment figure such that if the school falls below this number, that the school will be closed after due process, and all pupils It and school personnel reassigned. A proposal to close Organization of the School SYStemu should consider the organizational needs of the a school including reorganization of particular school system, schools which otherwise might have been closed. examole, be subtracting grades at an elementary level For consideration might facility could be continued in service. add such that o..e Within this context, one examines the long-range programmatic ntc-s of the school system before deciding to close a s>_hool. In doing so, it may be appropriate to close a school for some temporary purpose, which, in the final analysis will seirve the permanent goals of the school system. Cost of operationL To be explicit in one's assessment to close a school, we must calculate the financial costs of operating the facility, and more especially, the funds to These costs m.ay be be saved by closing the facility. compared to per capita costs of operating other similar schools in the school system. or just simply on the basis that a given amount of money will no longer be spent if the facility is closed. These financial assessments normally include, but are not restricted to the areas of: a) Personnel reassign or eliminated
b) Utilities for a period of time such as a year
c) Maintenance and repair costs for a period of t ime
d) Custodial costs
7e) Transportation costs,- and, f) Miscellaneous costs. such as insurance. If the facility is to be closed, and not replaced, then obviously a substantial capital outlay may be avoided. If the facility is to be replaced, then a comparison must be made to the expected operational costs which will be determined from a cost analysis of the new facility. Obviously, if the per capita costs decrease. or the same general operational costs remain approximately the for a larger number of students in a more modern facility, then closing would be advantageous to the District. then F) Transportation: It is not 1 T. ays possr 1 o o.a G) H) savings in transportation by closing a school since ass .sporta' ignment of students sometimes increases transportation However, one may well reduce costs in responsibilities. this area by school closing, and it is incun-ibent upon us to assess this accurately. Specifically, rerouting should be buses, plus its effect upon time and distance, A corollary is the need for additional or examined. fewer buses. distance, issue. The relationship among routing, t ime, number of buses, and concomitant costs is the Racial Balance: racial balance enrollment. which so school The administration must recognize that IS a sensitive factor in No administration should take an school action seriously affects pupil assignment as closing a without being completely aware of its ramifications on racial balance. The probability is that racial balance alone will not likely determine whether or not a school is closed. However, it is a sensitive matter that may not be overlooked, this factor carefully. We must calculate Alternative Uses: Alternative uses of the facility must be examined during the analysis process to insure that the facility may not be compatible with the education process in an alternative use. Instructional programs, as well as auxiliary services, should be in an alternative use. as 8considered. Possible alternatives include: a) Special education
b) Special purpose schools,- c) Social and community purposes
d) Maintenance and repair services
e) Storage
and, f) Office space. irrrent expense to provide the aroremer and capital outlay costs should be me 1 jded 'Vices 1 any assessment of alternative uses. i) Program Considerations.:. In considering a school closing, the administration should determine where students will be reassigned, and what effect closing will have on j) k) program opportunities which result from staff reassignments and the relocation of resources. Tentative Decision: studies school After the administration carefully the facility evaluations. facility capacity. projections. school organizations, cost operation, effect on transportation, alternative uses the facility, effect on racial balance. of for and effect on local governmental planning, the administration should make a tentative decision. If the tentative decision is to close the school, then informal meetings and hearings should be scheduled. Informal MeetinQSu The administration. in conjunction with the Board of Education, should hold public hearings prior to the closing of the school. The administration should, in order to cement good public relations. hold certain informational meetings with their various publics prior to closing. These activities are strictly for the purpose of providing information. answering questions. and most important of all. establishing in the' minds of those affected. that their reactions and opinions are 96) 1) m) being evaluated, public support. School closings are much easier with These meetings should involve, should not necessarily be restricted to: a) b) c) d) but Parents
School-related groups
Local government officials
and, Other local interest groups. Additionally, the administration should keep a displaced faculty-as well informed as can be. Personnel reass ignm.ent plans should prepared and given to soon as possible. Closing Decisions: d c After all essential info: ion has been obtained and evaluated by the administration, and after all essential activities have been carried out, then the administration should approach the Board of Education, in an official session, regarding closing the school. If a school closing is voted upon. then it should be as specific as to termination date, and should be accomplished in conjunction with applicable general statutes regarding property disposal. Disposition of Surplus Property.:. If the closing of the school results in the property being surplus o the District's needs, then applicable laws should be followed regarding this disposition. Final disposition is. of course, at the determination of the Board, and may include the options of demolition, sell, or leasing. SUMMARY: The following checklist summarizes the school closing procedure. EVALUATION OF FACILITY * * Report on physical condition State useful life expectancy Identify specific maintenance or code problems 10CAPACITY OF FACILITY Determine formula useful, pupil capacity by approved STUDENT ENROLLMENT * Project enrollment five {5} years as a minimum Identify minimum enrollment for automatic closing Project enrollment for specific attendance area ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEM if if if Needs of total school system Reorganization required by closing Cost of operation Current expense in capital outlay of closing S S' r.crs ?er capita costs in compari to Oti TRANSPORTATION if if Rerouting needs including additional i Cost savings, if any RACIAL BALANCE ALTERNATIVE USES * Total school system, program needs Auxiliary uses PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS TENTATIVE DECISION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS if Parents, local government officials, local interest groups School related groups, others DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Other school system needs Sell Lease 11
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.