School Enrollment Summary Year Black White Total %Blk Mitchell 1989-90 220 19 239 92 1990-91 183 24 207 88 1991-92 285 27 312 91 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95 14% increase in total enrollment 37% decrease in white enrollment 18% increase in black enrollment 1992-93 232 32 264 88 1993-94 215 15 230 93 1994-95 260 12 272 96 Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95 18% increase in total enrollment 20% decrease in white enrollment 21 % increase in black enrollment Rightsell 1989-90 194 17 211 92 1990-91 191 2 193 99 Rockefeller Stephens Total 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 282 239 184 225 215 195 282 250 240 248 225 190 235 202 141 1,643 1,455 1,962 1,690 1,261 1,372 7 10 5 4 35 76 121 111 100 122 1 12 10 7 4 180 215 273 247 193 224 289 249 189 229 250 271 403 361 340 370 226 202 245 209 145 1,823 1,670 2,235 1,937 1,454 1,596 98 96 97 98 86 72 70 69 71 67 99 94 96 97 97 90 87 88 87 87 86 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95 9% increase in total enrollment 76% decrease in white student enrollment 16% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95 21 % increase in total enrollment 20% decrease in white enrollment 22% increase in black enrollment Six Year Comparison
1989-90 to 1994-95 48% increase in total enrollment 249% increase in white enrollment 15% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95 9% increase in total enrollment 22% increase in white enrollment 3% increase in black enrollment Note: LRSD closed Stephens Incentive School after the 1993-94 school year. Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95* 12% decrease in total enrollment 24% increase in white enrollment 16% decrease in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95* 10% increase in total enrollment 16% increase in white enrollment 9% increase in black enrollment Note
The 1993-94 totals do not include Ish School, which closed after 1992-93, and the 1994-95 totals do not include Stephens School, which closed after 1993-94 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. Page 2B0BSSPE1.XLS Four Year Old 94-95 Unit 17 18 19 22 23 25 26 28 31 34 35 36 37 39 40 42 44 45 46 52 Unit Name Bale__________ Brady_________ Badgett Baseline_______ Fair Park______ Franklin_______ Garland_______ Chicot________ Cloverdale Elem Mitchell_______ M.L. King______ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Rightsell_______ Romine_______ Washington Wilson________ Woodruff______ Mablevale Elem Watson Sum of Budget 89606.43 57360.21 102110.61 99862.73 62893.73 155681.3 57293.21 59221.35 160067.69 41192.09 174301.09 295636.85 104416.85 45360.01 90299.61 151496.77 50190.04 96522.58 48403.04 102784.66 $2,044,700.85 k Page 1LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) 1995-96 Ajea School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 IXL 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 m 5.8% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $2,602.66 (X) 8% (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 IXL 1,750 {=) $7,990,605.00 1454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $24,151,934.95 8,994 $2,685.34 Page 58 *$2,685.34 ' > $2,685.34 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,572.80 IXL 1,454 $6,648,851.20 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 $1^3.28 4(^'3, 3%>7n.aft 6[KV1 Expenditures and Budgets Used for Double Funding Calculations School Name Actual 93-94 Utilities Actual 93-94 Less Utilities Per Pupil Budget 94-95 Utilities Budget 94-95 Less Utilities Enrollment Octi 1993 Per Pupil Bale Brady Badgett Baseline Fair Park Chicot Western Hills Cloverdale Dodd Meadov^liff Geyer Springs Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Wakefield Watson $1,165,211.25 $1,121,638.48 $686,853,56 $1,046,959.92 $910,017.61 $1,619,203.18 $909,702.70 $1,036,001.67 $852,795.10 $989,665.59 $834,274.19 $1,209,887.38 $745,465.03 $1,225,013.15 $1,141,353,36 $1,230,108.91 $16,724,151,08 $33,346.45 $44,615.10 $27,966.77 $57,504.03 $47,536.23 $63,894.53 $48,623.98 $36,545.84 $42,876.89 $37,882.58 $38,985.56 $48,834.66 $31,985.17 $49,333.45 $38,500.04 $57,731.80 $706,163.08 $1,131,864.80 $1,077,023.38 $658,886.79 $989,455.89 $862,481.38 $1,555,308.65 $861,078,72 $999,455.83 $809,918,21 $951,783.01 $795,288.63 $1,161,052.72 $713,479.86 $1,175,679.70 $1,102,853.32 $1,172,377.11 $16,017,988.00 $3,735.53 $2,712.91 $3,486.17 $2,884.71 $3,279.40 $3,055.62 $2,593.61 $2,589,26 $2,773.69 $2,193.05 $2,761.42 $3,279.81 $3,023.22 $2,409.18 $2,467.23 $2,652.44 $2,808.70 $1,056,119.49 $1,082,673.15 $711,871.49 $954,238.93 $904,418.87 $1,665,024.95 $895,302.85 $1,062,880.57 $792,569,26 $1,030,111.70 $889,186.41 $1,143,942,77 $812,668.36 $1,333,783.30 $1,096,024,44 $1,264,399.71 $16,695,216.25 $35,610.00 $41,500,00 $28,900,00 $57,100.00 $71,000.00 $69,900.00 $41,400.00 $65,000.00 $38,050.00 $35,400.00 $36,500.00 $46,900,00 $34,700,00 $60,100.00 $37,000.00 $55,400.00 $754,460.00 $1,020,509.49 $1,041,173.15 $682,971.49 $897,138.93 $833,418.87 $1,595,124.95 $853,902.85 $997,880.57 $754,519.26 $994,711.70 $852,686.41 $1,097,042.77 $777,968.36 $1,273,683.30 $1,059,024.44 $1,208,999.71 $15,940,756.25 303 397 189 343 263 509 332 386 292 434 288 354 236 488 447 442 5703 $3,368.02 $2,622.60 $3,613.61 $2,615.57 $3,168.89 $3,133.84 $2,572.00 $2,585.18 $2,583.97 $2,291.96 $2,960.72 $3,098.99 $3,296.48 $2,610.01 $2,369.18 $2,735.29 $2,795.15 Forest Park Otter Creek Terry Pulaski Heights McDermott Jefferson Fullbright $1,081,979.30 $877,709.48 $1,327,023.54 $1,051,634.65 $1,367,742,56 $1,386,166.54 $1,400,551.11 $8,264,285,31 $46,347.16 $53,082.86 $53,402.20 $42,695.45 $54,475.66 $47,023.44 $62,419.36 $359,446.13 $1,035,632.14 $824,626.62 $1,273,621.34 $1,008,939.20 $1,313,266.90 $1,339,143.10 $1,338,131.75 $8,133,361.05 $2,261.21 $2,418.26 $2,270,27 $2,535.02 $2,580.09 $2,657,03 $2,573.33 $2,471.40 $1,061,390.39 $906,899.29 $1,359,572.17 $1,046,741.59 $1,323,527,09 $1,400,384,59 $1,482,113,58 $8,580,628,70 $43,500.00 $52,700.00 $47,900.00 $50,250.00 $62,100.00 $54,000.00 $59,000.00 $369,450.00 $1,017,890.39 $854,199.29 $1,311,672.17 $996,491.59 $1,261,427,09 $1,346,384.59 $1,423,113.58 $8,211,178.70 458 341 561 398 509 504 520 3291 $2,222,47 $2,504.98 $2,338.10 $2,503.75 $2,478.25 $2,671.40 $2,736.76 $2,495.04 M.L. King Romine Washington $1,902,991,37 $1,273,786,59 $2,182,962,72 $5,359,740.68 $87,371.46 $52,418.95 $79,736.42 $219,526.83 $1,815,619.91 $1,221,367.64 $2,103,226.30 $5,140,213.85 $3,283.22 $3,656.79 $2,917.10 $3,196.65 $1,780,160,90 $1,294,178.25 $2,288,685.19 $5,363,024.34 $70,845.00 $58,500.00 $73,700.00 $203,045.00 $1,709,315,90 $1,235,678.25 $2,214,985.19 $5,159,979.34 553 334 721 1608 $3,090.99 $3,699.64 $3,072.10 $3,208.94 Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller $1,607,057.54 $1,489,885.73 $0.00 $1,333,678.59 $1,242,640.87 $1,182,801.44 $2,113,811.34 $8,969,875.51 $60,278.63 $31,198,45 $0.00 $54,797.53 $35,595,51 $40,955,33 $104,803,25 $327,628,70 $1,546,778.91 $1,458,687.28 $0.00 $1,278,881.06 $1,207,045.36 $1,141,846.11 $2,009,008.09 $8,642,246.81 $4,483.42 $7,115.55 $5,560.35 $1,532,787.86 $1,198,522.28 $0.00 $1,157,109.41 $8,324.45$ 3.00 $6,041.51 $5,908.85 $5,943.77 $1,149,130.10 $1,915,554,83 $6,953,104.48 $58,500.00 $34,600.00 $0.00 $56,300.00 $0.00 $41,100.00 $97,700.00 $288,200.00 $1,474,287.86 $1,163,922.28 $0.00 $1,100,809.41 $0.00 $1,108,030.10 $1,817,854.83 $6,664,904.48 345 205 0 230 145 189 340 1454 $4,273.30 $5,677.67 $0.00 $4,786.13 $p.oo $5,862.59 $5,346.63 $4,583.84 ALLELEM.XLSSheetl Area Scool Per Pupil Double FUnd $ $ $ 2,698.87 1,887.46 4,586.33 1416 $6,494,243.28 $6,069,741.02 $ 424,502.26 Page 1fflAPK^P 353 H I <^1 r /7 3 y 1'^ /^ I I n l\0ci6fLFeuC(C I IQ-T- /(^ O o 73*6 152^ __ s ! 51^ ^'3 /S Ci /y/c. IWG 'The under-enrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead
but at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75 percent of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100 percent of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each school up to the maximum permissible class size, there would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Secondly, although the incentive schools have offered a host of special programs and services, the district has made little effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these features with an eye to refining, enhancing, eliminating, or otherwise making needed changes in the schools' offerings. To allot resources to programs that yield a high return on the investmentespecially when measured in terms of success for childrenis defensible, even laudable
but to spend high dollars without constantly monitoring and evaluating the extent of "the bang for the buck" is inconsistent with solid management principles as well as with the intent of the desegregation agreements. Thirdly, the district has also missed opportunities to effect significant efficiencies in the incentive schools. For example, it is possible to combine two very small classes into one which still meets the guidelines for pupil-to-teacher ratios. The district could also evaluate the educational merit and relative cost of enlarging classes somewhat and adding more classroom aides, rather than maintaining very small classes that are staffed with additional teachers. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. The district did not fill the schools to capacity, neglected to evaluate programs and adjust them accordingly, and failed to exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs. Consequently, during a time of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest. When the LRSD overspends in the incentive schools, less monies are then available for other schools, buildings which serve the majority of LRSD black students, the class for whom the desegregation settlements were to specifically benefit. In sum, the district has not positioned itself to try to achieve appropriate economies in the incentive schools while still providing the promised level of financial support and concomitant outcomes for students. RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations
the district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 107Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected PerPupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 Over or Under (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 ____________ $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1X1 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1j937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1X1 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,586.33 1X1 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. > Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure 1994-95 (Budgeted! $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (->) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888 17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233 75 ___________1,259 $4,895,206.03 Over or Under $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249,24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372.354.44 ___________2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9.242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,646.28 IXL 2,235 (") $10,384,435.80 ____________1J37 $8.999,844.36 $9.418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (<) $1,887 46 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 () $7,990,605 00 ___________1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 () $4,586.33 (X) 1,454 $6,668,523.82 _______V596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Page 78FTE 94-95 projection 25 26 34 36 39 41 49 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rockefeller Rightsell Stephens Ish 62 50 50 72 44 46 Projected Enrollment 343 202 219 380 189 324 1333 1454 Budget 1993-1994 1,567,895.13 1,408,766.60 1,311,925.15 1,764,565.20 1,264,255.01 1,271,662.69 42,611.25 8,631,681.03 Actual 1993-1994 1,546,778.91 1,458,687.28 1,278,881.06 2,009,008.09 1,141,846.11 1,207,045.36 Budget 1994-95 1,470,801.12 1,155,781.08 1,067,628.08 1,772,486.00 1,094,589.52 Per Student Cost 4,288.05 5,721.69 4,875.01 4,664.44 5,791.48 Utilities have been removed from these budget & actuals______|_________ Budget dated 7/26/94 is the source I Budget 93-94 8,642,246.81 5943.77 Obligation 5918.55 8605571.70 36,675.11 8605580.93 6,561,285.80 $6,648,851.20 (87,565.40) Page 1 4,922.19 4572.80Elementary School 1994-95 Budget Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Dodd Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Total Area Sch Budget Area Sch Per Pupil Expenditure Total Utilities $ 1,056,119.49 $ 1,082,673.15 $ 711,871.49 $ 1,323,527.09 $ $ 954,238.93 904,418.87 $ 1,061,390.39 $ 1,665,024.95 $ 895,302.85 $ 1,400,384.59 $ 1,062,880.57 $ 792,569.26 $ 1,030,111.70 $ 889,186.41 $ 1,046,741.59 $ 1,143,942.77 $ 812,668.36 $ 1,333,783.30 $ 1,359,572.17 $ 1,482,113.58 $ 906,899.29 $ 1,096,024.44 $ 1,264,399.71 $ 25,275,844.95 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 69,900.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 $ 35,400.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $ 1,069,910.00 Elementary Area Schoo 1993-94 Enrollment Budget 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Enrollment 4-Year-Old Program $ $ Total 4-Yr-Old Total Utilities 4-Year-Old Program Total 4-Yr-Old 89,606.43 57,360.21 $ 102,110.61 $ $ $ 303 397 189 509 18 17 16 99,862.73 62,893.73 59,221.35 $ 160,067.69 $ 104,416.85 $ $ $ 343 263 458 509 332 504 386 292 434 288 398 31 15 18 40 18 50,190.04 96,522.58 48,403.04 $ 102,784.66 $ 1,033,439.92 23,172,495.03 354 236 488 561 520 341 447 442 8994 2,576.44 17 15 0 16 221 $ 1,083,387.59 $ 1,149,455.90 $ 705,780.58 $ 1,324,461.87 $ $ 974,549.40 925,563.40 $ 1,132,508.11 $ 1,619,962.49 $ 927,759.48 $ 1,440,461.57 $ 1,108,921.38 $ 918,043.56 $ 1,146,039.01 $ 824,349.76 $ 1,005,827.72 $ 1,161,523.47 $ 736,629.81 $ 1,346,067.80 $ 1,366,303.23 $ 1,546,659.74 $ 940,017.05 $ 1,180,715.44 $ 1,204,877.93 $ 25,769,866.29 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 34,950.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 35,400.00 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $1,034,960.00 $ 108,257.56 309 35 $ $ $ $ $ 60,127.84 93,566.33 99,836.65 51,435.59 59,275.80 $ 146,846.13 $ 105,151.88 $ $ $ $ 51,031.96 88,158.77 49,432.29 97,699.79 $1,010,820.59 23,724,085.70 408 177 494 326 282 432 503 317 502 392 298 411 300 420 345 243 474 559 542 359 413 427 8933 2,655.78 17 25 36 36 18 47 37 18 36 18 36 359I INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support appears in both the Interdistrict Plan and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan. The explanation of incentive school double funding belowfirst appeared in the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report. We have added current year findings. REQUIREMENTS Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdistrict. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990, counsel for the LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the district's commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district's average per-pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding. Since that time, the district's basic per-pupil expenditure has risen substantially because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. To control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the "base year" of 1989- 90. The LRSD computed the base year average per-pupil expenditure by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This calculation yielded a base year per-pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each subsequent year, the district multiplies the previous year's actual per-pupil expenditure by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per-pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students who have been recorded as the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-old's at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This year, the four-year- Page 75 olds were excluded from the obligation calculation. The rational for excluding them is that they are not included in any other allocation of funds, such as MFPA. There is no state funding for the four- year-old program, it is paid for by the district on the basis of actual expense and not enrollment. This section of the monitoring report was prepared prior to the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year, so we calculated the districts 1994-95 double funding obligation by using budgeted figures. In past years, the actual expenditures have exceeded the budgeted amounts. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1994- 95, excluding the four-year-olds, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budqeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 T259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 {+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2J35 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $4,586.33 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,416 $6,494,243.28 Budgeted Am1: $6,069,741.02 ($424,502.26) 1X1 * Excluding four-year-olds: Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far eartier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. FINDINGS The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan are in place. This year, the per-pupil budgeted amount is $4,286.54, an amount that is 6.5% below the double funding obligation. Because actual expenditures usually exceed the amount budgeted, the LRSD will probably meet the double funding obligation. Page 76Despite the closing of Stephens, according to the October 1 official enrollment report, the remaining incentive schools had 35 more children in the four-year-old program and 107 more enrolled in K-6 than in 1993-94. Enrollment increased at each one of the incentive schools. As pointed out in last years report, under enrollment results in increased costs for educating each child because of the fixed costs. The efforts of the district to increase the enrollment while holding the line on expenditures resulted in cost contaitunent and better use of the dollars spent. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. This year, although the chart shows they are not double funding the incentive schools, they are closer to meeting their double funding obligation. As stated in the finding, because the time we monitored the incentive schools was much earlier than last year, actual expenditures could not be obtained. Therefore, we used budgeted figures, which usually are smaller than actual expenditures. If actual expenditures are larger than the budgeted amount, the district may or may not meet its double funding obligation. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the programs and services in the incentive schools is necessary to get the greatest return on the programs that are determined to be effective in improving the success of children. RECOMMENDATION ODM makes no new recommendations
the district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 77Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budoeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1,259- $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (- 11 (=) $4,646.28 (=) $4,566.06 'sA ) (=) $4,586.33 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235- $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (X) 2,235 1X1 1,750 1,454 (=) $10,384,435.80 223^ (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Jf - S'! .^1'^ There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous yearn. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. I 1^*^ _ I J. , o Page 7829 that may be raised by the Court. And I would think that if it's raised by ODM, then it would be -- and not resolved by the parties, then it would somethinc appropriate for the Court. 't THE COURT: Well, let me tell you my side. have a substantial concern. I really do. I de And even if Joshua and all the other parties agree to amend these racial balance guidelines, I don't want you to believe that if the Court approves the amendment, that the Court is in any way absolving the district of its obligation to continue to recruit students of both races to meet it's racial balance goals as set forth in the plan. And I think that if the Court should agree to the guidelines that are set forth in the student assignment handbook, that at least sends the message tc the community and to the district, particularly, that the Court is no longer concerned with the recruitment obligations that the district undertook to recruit. again, students of both races to meet those guidelines in the schools in the district. I realize the argument that the district has is sometimes that these goals as set forth in the plan are really unattainable in given situations. And I realize that's true, because the numbers -- the students just are not there in the right proportions. plan. But if you ask the Court to amend the I want you to re-enforce to the Court your continuing commitment to reach those goals that are set CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779eg 30 forth in the plan. Othezrwise, I don't believe, in gooc faith, I could approve the amendment. And does the 0D^' understand that. I have not discussed this with her ir this direct term, but you understand what I'm saying? MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am, I believe I do. THE COURT: So, when you talk to the parties, keep in mind that if the Court goes along with the amended racial balance guidelines, I don't want to absolve the district in any way of its obligation to continue tc recruit students of both races to desegregate these schools. because that's that is what you have committed to. Another thing that I brought up, last hearing, was modification of your interdistrict school assignment policy, which allows you to place only about 9 percent Bl- of your own interdistrict interdistrict schools. white students in What have you decided to de with respect to this, Mr. Heller? Or do you have a witness on this. Does anyone -- is Dr. Mayo here? MR. HELLER: Honor. that. Dr. Mayo is out of the state, your And there has been no official action yet to de That's been discussed among the counsel members. but there has not yet been a proposal presented to the Board. THE COURT: Let me say this: In discussing -- Dr. Williams, did you want to say something about this? CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-6779DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. 31 I just wanted to say that we agreed that we would allow more students tc attend. THE COURT: You would allow more you've set another ceiling on the number of interdistrict white students? DR. WILLIAMS: We're working on it. THE COURT: You are. You plan to set a ceiling, though. DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: I want to emphasize. I know that you have stated, on the record, that you are reluctant just to open the doors to white students in your owr district and these interdistrict schools, really for a couple of reasons. One is the plan requires you tc recruit whites from the county. And the other, is you do get the M to M transfer money. One thing I have not done, and I mentioned this to the monitors, I have not really sat down with the monitors to assess the financial impact of your receiving or not receiving N to M money in these interdistrict schools. Keep ir mind that you're obligated to continue to desegregate these schools no matter whether the students come fron Pulaski County, which is where you want them to come from, or Little Rock. I am interested in seeing these interdistrict Little Rock Schools desegregated. I realize that the plan calls. first, for them to be CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779 T 32 recruited from the whites to be recruited from the county. If that is not fully successful, it would satisfy the Court to see them recruited from those schools in the western reaches, northwest Little Rock, that are predominately white. s And I'm very interested in seeing this modification. And furthermore, I would like the monitors to take look at what is the a financial impact. It might not be as much as yon think. It really might not be. Because you have tc pool your M to M money now in any event with the county. And when you don't educate one of yours and send one of yours off, I know you get money. But yon also get extra money for keeping -- I mean for bringinc them in from the county. So, I just really don't know what the -- have you ever done an analysis of that on a per-pupil basis, Mr. Heller, to your knowledge? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, the only analysis we did was back when we first proposed the incentives or the interdistrict schools to the special master. And we did an analysis which showed that at the ideal composition by districts, those schools would generate enough M to M transfer money to fund them --to nearly fund them. But we haven't done an individual impact of the difference between having a Little Rock student enrolled or having a Pulaski County student enrolled recently. THE COURT: But you don't get minimum foundation CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677933 money from students you send. The receiving district gets that. Yet you do get M to M money for the students you send
is that not correct? MR. HELLER: Well, the receiving district is supposed to receive the full cost of educating the student. The sending district gets one-half of its table rate. THE COURT: But no MFPA money? MR. HELLER: Well, I guess that is it. The table rate they would otherwise get for a student remaininc in the district. they get half of that. When the students I THE COURT: Oh. So, it is just half and not -- knew that you got something for sending a student. But in any event, I know that the district has said that this is its reason that -- I want to emphasize that, tc me. it's more important that you desegregate these schools than it is that you get the M to M money. Which, of course, is very much to your advantage. Anc there are a lot of empty seats in these in. say, King, right now. Ml MR. HELLER: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. HELLER: Our concern has also been. your Honor, the impact on the sending schools. But I think that's something that might be a more appropriate limitation than just an overall percentage limitation. CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677934 THE COURT: Well, I certainly agree that we want to watch the impact on descending schools. But I de believe that the figures that the monitors supplied last time will show that some of these schools car benefit by sending whites to central Little Rock, if we can persuade them that it would be to their benefit tc attend. And by setting the 9 percent ceiling, there were parents who, reportedly, were upset by that. And I don't like to upset parents. I know - I recognize that there are some faces in the audience who I believe } are the faces of parents. Because I haven't seen you here before. And I assume that that's why you're here. Mr. Walker, I'm sorry -- I won't I haven't let me ask -- I'll ask you this, first, and then I'll ask about Clinton about the not the President, the school. You indicted that you would provide the Court with a proposed Order on the Stephens matter. Are you still intending to do that, or do you want the Court tc prepare the Order? Keep in mind, I know whose duty it is to prepare it. It's mine. MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. I do intend to de so. And you'll have one before the end of the day. THE COURT: All right. Fine. Well, that will give us something to work on. In a case like this, I almost never sign off on the draft counsel prepares. It's very unusual for counsel to prepare a draft. I know it is usual or customary in state court for this CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-677935 sort of thing to be done. But we do have we are blessed with somewhat greater resources, and I have an excellent staff. So, I will look forward to getting it. What is the status on recruitment of black students for the Clinton, the William J. Clinter Interdistrict School, that the county is building? MR. BOWLES: Your Honor, we, at this time, have about 98 students registered for Clinton from the Little Rock School District. There is some informatior that's going to be going out to the students' residence jointly with Little Rock. We are making preparations to recruit those students who will be at Stephens if. in fact, Stephens is closed. And we have some other recruitment tools that we're using jointly with the Little Rock School District to increase that number tc as close to the 200 as possible. THE COURT: How many of the 98 are from Stephens, or do you know? MR. BOWLES: At this point, I don't know, your Honor. That information can be obtained, but we've not cycled it by schools at this point. They may have that in the Little Rock School District. THE COURT: Well, I believe you can count on Stephens being closed. That's what these everyone had asked the Court to do. and I said. "Fine." stopped short of signing off on the stipulation. I CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date: April 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo \ aU From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: . 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition. Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads, 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 kindergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration..." Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in tlie Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.Attachment 3 LRSD Enrollment v. Attendance Zone Attendance Zone Summary May 2, 1995 Attachment 3 April 27, 1995 Central HS" FairHS Hall HS McClellan HS Sub-Total Cloverdale JH" Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total u n CD 842 493 422 648 2405 415 384 349 478 267 265 341 2499 u n CD Z 3 o c 01 I o 366 176 165 161 868 tT 69 131 124 103 269 110 877 1208 669 587 809 3273 486 453 480 602 370 534 451 3376 c lU W5 869 945 857 4246 643 679 789 860 574 733 624 4902 N < _c 5! c December 2, 1994 76.70% 76.99% 62.12% 94.40% 77.08% 75.58% 66.72% 60.84% 70.00% 64.46% 72.85% 72.28% 68.87% JO u ra m 864 489 428 661 2442 440 409 335 496 281 301 363 2625 o n CD Z 387 182 176 157 902 81 79 156 176 107 308 112 1019 c 2 o 1251 671 604 818 3344 521 488 491 672 388 609 475 3644 <u E o c lU 1646 915 917 943 4422 613 736 720 917 527 830 570 4913 N < c 0) u c V o IC 5 April 27,1995 76.00% 73.33% 65.87% 86.74% 75.64% 84.99% 66.30% 68.19% 73.28% 73.62% 73.37% 83.33% 74.17% -0.7% -3.7% 3.8% -7.7% -1.4% 9.4% -0.4% 7.4% 3.3% 9.2% 0.5% 11.1% 5.3% <u u c 0) c Q ot 43 2 17 9 71 35 35 11 70 18 75 24 268 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodnjff Sub-Total Grand Total 70 112 141 104 171 212 83 105 61 241 138 141 135 75 200 102 173 163 69 50 166 113 105 230 246 96 142 52 2405 ^09 46 53 52 85 91 37 78 55 191 9 242 15 37 245 113 189 109 3 194 180 0 13 277 66 75 90 68 36 2649 4394 116 165 193 189 262 249 161 160 252 250 380 156 172 320 313 291 282 166 263 230 166 126 382 296 321 186 210 88 634? 12994 180 300 309 377 454 382 286 283 422 445 546 269 285 483 486 478 414 256 356 407 225 388 551 391 422 304 347 230 10276 19424 64.44% 55.00% 62.46% 50.13% 57.71% 65.18% 56.29% 56.54% 59.72% 56.18% 69.60% 57.99% 60.35% 66.25% 64.40% 60.88% 68.12% 64.84% 73.88% 56.51% 73.78% 32.47% 69.33% 75.70% 76.07% 61.18% 60.52% 38.26% 61.75% 66.90% 70 132 154 103 189 262 86 99 63 227 157 146 140 86 202 130 172 162 74 55 153 113 101 258 265 111 158 44 3912 8979 32 52 52 93 76 33 62 49 210 8 263 17 37 277 102 203 90 2 186 189 5 15 299 52 61 88 76 40 2669 4590 102 184 206 196 265 295 148 148 273 235 420 163 177 363 304 333 262 164 260 244 158 128 400 310 326 199 234 84 6581 13^ 163 316 305 368 439 415 275 256 441 428 565 267 274 505 434 493 392 256 351 441 220 420 550 391 426 286 353 220 10250 "lO^ 62.58% 58.23% 67.54% 53.26% 60.36% 71.08% 53.82% 57.81% 61.90% 54.91% 74.34% 61.05% 64.60% 71.88% 70.05% 67.55% 66.84% 64.06% 74.07% 55.33% 71.82% 30.48% 72.73% 79.28% 76.53% 69.58% 66.29% 38.18% 64.20% 69.29% -1.9% 3.2% 5.1% 3.1% 2.7% 5.9% -2.5% 1.3% 2.2% -1.3% 4.7% 3.1% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% 6.7% -1.3% -0.8% 0.2% -1.2% -2.0% To^ 3.4% 3.6% 0.5% 8.4% 5.8% -0.1% 2.5% 2.4% -14 19 13 7 3 46 -13 -12 21 -15 40 7 5 43 -9 42 -20 -2 -3 14 -8 2 18 14 5 13 24 -4 236 575 Secondary numbers are based on May 2, 1995 data. Elementary numbers are based on December 2, 1994 94_95AZ.XLS Office of Desegregation 5/3/95Attachment 2 1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1, 1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST BOOKER # VAC. 80 29 18 47 12 11 23 34 34 26 24 26 33 32 25 10 10 10 12 12 12 11 69 84 52 81 70 65 84 52 81 70 65 CARVER 60 21 14 35 50 54 GIBBS WILLIAMS 15 32 10 21 14 14 40 12 17 11 60 15 15 13 12 14 21 14 16 11 23 35 80 82 20 68 52 54 29 48 58 40 65 67 74 38 63 69 36 57 40 55 89 82 23 69 13 12 11 54 53 76 80 65 47 41 65 66 37 59 61 40 65 69 74 92 116 145 116 122 87 96 little Roch School DmItkI K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 B 4 4 4 6 5 4 3 8 2 6 3 3 2 4 0 7 8 6 6 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 W T B W T B 0 6 6 6 6 7 5 2 8 2 5 3 3 9 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 6 5 2 5 3 6 6 4 9 7 (19 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 5 4 6 6 4 0 2 4 2 3 5 2 2 5 5 4 5 9 0 T 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 . 1 8 3 0 0 2 01995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST PARKVIEW SCIENCE # VAC. B W T B T B T 10 100 30 29 59 0 0 0 115 47 162 11 18 4 4 8 4 4 8 149 0 150 12* 24 5 6 11 5 6 11 104 0 105 PARKVIEW ARTS Band 10 46 14 13 27 41 42 11 13 63 63 12 15 56 56 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 4 3 7 0 2 5 7 2 - 5 7 0 Dance 10 39 13 10 23 35 41 11 14 57 57 12 16 40 40 0 0 0 6 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 2 6 8 2 6 8 0 Speech/ Drama 10 56 17 18 35 76 25 101 11 11 114 119 12 66 69 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 0 5 0 6 2 1 3 2 0 3 0 Orchestra 10 14 4 4 8 0 1 1 5 0 5 11 4 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Visual Arts 10 39 12 11 23 53 27 80 11 94 103 12 43 43 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vocal Music 10 37 11 11 22 0 0 0 38 11 49 11 10 2 2 4 2 4 68 0 68 12 11 T 3 5 2 3 5 41 0 41 Students should have completed Chemistry and Algebra II iittlr Roell School District1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST MANN ARTS # VAC. 200 58 58 116 229 33 262 251 38 289 285 31 326 B w T B W T B W T 7 8 6 1 1 2 9 6 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 MANN SCIENCE 7 8 9 100 29 29 58 187 47 234 10 202 232 37 26 239 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 2 3 little R<xk School OitIrkI/} Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM {995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent kUtjiT fviOfittcrin^ Date: May 3, 1995 Subject: Registration Information Requested 4-18-95 In response to your memo dated 4-18-95 requesting information regarding registration, I have enclosed several documents that will explain the questions you have. 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. Response: Attachment 1 This is a current counts reports that will show the actual number of all students registered for the 1995-96 school year. This includes new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers. intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. It also includes all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. Response: Attachment 1 This report indicates the number of students registered by race and gender by school and grade level. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. Response: Attachment 2 This is a magnet seat summary for the original six stipulation magnets as of 5-1-95 for the 1995- 96 school year. Please note that this is only information from LRSD. This information also includes information on the number of students on Waiting Lists, which might be useful. Information on other districts has not been made available to us. I am uncertain on whether or not they have completed their registration process.Ann Brown Response May 3, 1995 2 4, The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. Response: Attachment 1 The counts reports show the total number of students assigned and the total capacity per grade level. The vacant seats may be determined by simply subtracting the number assigned from the capacity. Waiting lists are currently being worked to fill vacancies for the 1995-96 school year. At Booker Arts Magnet (55.3%) black students are being placed when they can be matched with white students. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. Response: Currently we have no way of determining the exact number of students living in each attendance zone of the Little Rock School District. Therefore, we cannot determine the number of students who have not registered for the 1995-96 school year in their attendance zone. We are open to your suggestions. 6. The extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96) Response: Attachment 3 The Enrollment v. Attendance Zone chart represents the number of students registered for their attendance zone schools in 1994-1995 and projected for 1995-96 by race. This chart also indicates the percentage and the change (+ or -) for the 1995-96 school year. Concerning your comments on the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update, your conclusion is accurate. The table below represents the data you requested on the four-year-old program registration: Four-Year-Old Applicants Date 3-14-94 2-21-95 Black "6^ 586 White 173 139 Total "837 725 % Black 79% 81% C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentDate: May 8. 1995 To: Melissa and Bob From: Subject: LRSD registration information Russ Mayo has finally sent me the registration information I requested last month. Polly has a copy of the letter I sent Russ and the data we received. Id like the two of you to collaborate on reviewing the information. Please let me know by next week (after the Abacus Report is into the team editing stage): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Whether the information is complete, i.e., are my questions all answered? Both the good and bad news embedded in the data. Be specific. Where the district is compared to last year, especially as far as racial balance and filling the schools goes. Anything the district needs to clarify, expand, or revise. Your suggestions for any follow up communication you think I need to initiate. Anything else I should know or think about. Tlianks very much. ( 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 / Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: From
Date: Russ Mayo, Assd May 8,1995 hs. Superintendent date Superintendent Subject
Desegregation Update May. The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of05/69/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting May 25,1995 LRSD Btracial Committee The Bi-racial committee began monitoring on May 2,1995. The monitoring visits to all Incentive Schools will be completed by May 31,1995. LRSD Tool/Board Action Required ACTION Board review of tentative budget Conduct Board Work Session tentative budget on SCHEDULED START 5-25-95 5-29-95 SCHEDULED FINISH 5-25-95 5-31-95 LRSD Pre-Registration Counts by School SCHOOL Central 'Hall Parkview Fair McClellan Mann Punbar________ Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest______ Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Booker Bale ~ Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin________ Garland Gibbs Chicot__________ Western Hills BLACK 1057 632 404 665 735 444 495 513 484 444 624 507 392 298 228 228 127 251 318 228 184 199 385 232 164 318 192 205 as of May f WHITE ~ 548 261 364 243 190 388 226 191 346 107 180 94 131 221 79 121 35 232 278 71 64 238 26 9 127 105 91 T 299 r ,1995 OTHER 47 28 33 _______7 14 21 14 22 7 20 26 8 3 19 10 18 0 19 17 5 7 8 14 27 14 6 ~~..... 7 total 1652 921 801 915 939 853 735 726 837 571 830 609 _526 538 317 367 162 502 613 304 255 445 425 268 305 429 290 511 % BLACK 64.0% 68.6% 50.4% 72.7% 78.3% 52,1% 67.3% 70.7% 57.8% 77.8% 7S.2% 83.3% 74.5% 55.4% 71.9% 62.1% 78.4% 50,0% 51,9% 75.0% 72.2% 44.7% 90.6% 86.6% 53.0% 74.1% 66.2% 40.1%05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 04 i Des^ngation Update Board of Directors Meeting 2 SCHOOL Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell King___________ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Pulagkt Heights Rightaell_______ Romine Waahington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright______ Otter Creek Wakefield Watson TOTAL BLACK 343 174 283 243 306 260 203 213 207 218 451 251 259 135 306 217 254 153 328 335 16,096 WHITE 65 89 100 8 229 142 69 215 8 75 213 226 87 77 119 311 299 191 50 79 7,917 OTHER 8 7 0 3 16 18 3 15 4 14 26 14 8 11 11 30 16 7 14 8 661 TOTAL 416 270 383 254 553 420 275 443 219 307 690 491 354 223 438 558 569 351 392 422 24,674 % BLACK 82.5% 64.4% 73.9% 95.7% 55.7% 61.9% 73.8% 48.1% 94.5% 71.0% 65.4% 51.1% 73.2% 60.5% 70.3% 38.9% 44.6% 43.6% 83.7% 79.4% 65.2% LRSD Desegregation Transfers Attached you will find the information requested regarding the Secondary Desegregation Transfers.J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 05 Rationale for Junior High Desegregation Transfers 19HM Ttie Student assignment office received (208) desegregation transfer applications for Junior high schools. 46% of the applications were granted for a total of 96 students. 78 seventh grade students, 40 seventh grade students were granted transfers to PHJH, 29 to FHJH, 3 to MJH, 5 to hjh and 1 to SWJH. 10 eighth grade students, 4 to fhjh, 4 to phjh and 2 to HJH. 8 ninth grade students were granted transfers, 1 to FHJH, 6 to PHJH and 1 to hjh. Black students from the Cloverdate and southwest attendance zones received the majority of Junior high transfers because the transfers benefited the sending and receiving schools where racial balance Is a concern. Pulaski Heights JR High could have received more black students because of their racial balance, but capacity is limited. Transfers were granted to all students except, where racial balance would not remain constant or Improve. Therefore, 16 eighth grade applicants and 5 ninth grade applicants were denied. Racial balance before and after transfers were as follows
SCHOOL Cloverdile Forett Heightt Hentlerson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest^^ $ 83.3% 71.3% 737% 74.4% 55.5% 76 3% I 1 832% 71.3% 75.0% 74.5% 58.0% 77.6%J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 DESEGREGATION TRANSFER APPLICATION SUMMARY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7TH GRADE: 8TH GRADE
STH GRADE: TOTAL APPUCATIONS RECEI\KD: Total 169 26 18 208 Black 12S 23 10 1S8 MTl/ta 44 3 3 50 %Blk 74% 88% 77% 76% II# OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL OF REQUEST FROM SCHOoH GRADE 8th TOTAL BLACK 0 0 2 1 0 5 2 10 WHITE 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 TOTAL 0 0 4 1 0 6 2 13 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST BLACK 1 2 4 1 0 0 2 10 WHITE Q 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 TOTAL "l 2 4 3 0 0 3 13 GRADE BTH TOTAL SLACK 1 0 6 4 0 8 4 23 WHITE 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 TOTAL 1 0 6 4 0 11 4 26 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST SLACK 2 4 3 3 4 0 1 23 WHITE 0 1 0 2 0 0 . 0 3 TOTAL 2 5 3 5 4 0 7 26 GRADE 7TH TOTAL SLACK 12 0 26 5 8 66 6 125 W1ITE 1 0 13 4 7 18 1 44 TOTAL 13 0 41 9 15 84 7 169 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST ALACK 24 12 9 16 21 0 43 125 WHITE 4 4 6 18 2 0 10 44 TOTAL 28 16 15 34 23 0 S3 169 95-W DC5BG JH TRANSFERS Pige 1t M/'as/nsa 15.58 3815242281 LR5B STUBCNT ^55151-114 PA5C 8? 199S-S6 SmraOR HIGH PBSEgRKGATION TRAWSPBRS TOTAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 176 21 4 APPLICATIONS GRAOTED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 119 21 4 percentage of total applications granted 71.6* APPLICATIONS DENIED: 10TH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 57 0 0 RATIONALE All 11th and 12th grade applications were granted because space was available and the number of applicants was so small as to not impact the racial balance at any of the four schools. Racial balance inhibited the movement of 57 10th grade The racial percentages of each school's 10th grade class before applicants. were as follows: Central Hall Fair McClellan considering desegregation transfers 59.4% 73.8% 73.6% 83.1% Therefore, any black students who requested a transfer out of Central to Hall, to Fair, or to McClellan were denied. Likewise, any white students who requested a transfer out of McClellan were denied. Two black students, one at Hall and one at Fair, who requested transfers to McClellan, also were denied.05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 10TH GRADE DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS IjO OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL 1| II# OF REQUEST FROM SCHOOL^ GRADE 10th TOTAL BLACK 2Q 54 51 7 138 WHITE 13 11 14 0 38 TOTAL 39 65 65 7 176 SCHOOL Cwrtnl Fair Hall MeCMIan BLACK WHITE YofAL 52 13 16 57 I 138 22 2 11 3 38 7A 15 27 60 176Sheets Chart 4 LRSD Elementary Enrollment Years Page 1
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.