"Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas," Stanton Leggett and Associates, West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts

w \ Long-Range Plan for School Facilities Little Rock, Arkansas 1988 Stanton Leggett and Associates West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Mass. 0257S Educatknal Consultants September 1968 I.Board of Directors Little Rock School District Joyce Kelly-Lewis Director W.D. Hamilton James L. Rutherford Robin Armstrong H.M. Faulkner Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli Superintendent of Schools Dr. George Cannon RECEIVED JUN 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Ivici I i i IH Table of Contents Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments: A Report to the Little Rock School District Introduction _______________________ Recent Trends in School Enrollment__ Factors Influencing Future Enrollments The Enrollment Projections _________ 1 5 12 19 Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of the Seven Racially Identifiable Schools Racially Identifiable Schools ____________________________________ Renovations of Buildings and Improvements to the Settings for Learning Program Enhancements for Racially Identifiable Schools That Will Require Special Rooms------------------------------------------------------ Recommendations--------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact on Capacity of Proposed Changes__________________________ Implementation Plan___________________________________________ 1 1 4 10 12 18 Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock II II II BB Use of Plannmg Committees ____________________________________________ An Extended Overview: Further Comments Fiscal Capacity for Capital Improvement Programs Summary of Recommended Priorities ____________________________________ Summary Evaluations of Little Rock School Buildings Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings High Schools___________________________________________________ Junior High Schools _____________________________________________ Elementary Schools _____________________________________________ Enrollments /Capacities and Photographs 3 5 8 12 14 17 24 32 68 k fl Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments - A Report to the Little Rock School Districtn The Grier Partnership 6532 EAST HALBERT ROAD BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817 (301) 229-4454 fl fl fl fl DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND FUTURE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS fl A Report to the Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas fl fl fl Eunice and George Grier The Grier Partnership in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates June 1988 I . INTRODUCTION * * Objectives of the Demographic Study The demographic study of the Little Rock. School District is part of an overall examination of the District's existing physical facilities undertaken by Stanton Leggett and Associates. In order to help determine what types and sizes of facilities will be needed over the next decade or so, it is necessary to know how the school system's pupils are likely to change in numbers, characteristics, and location of residence. As a first step in the demographic study we reviewed recent trends in enrollments and evaluated the accuracy of some past enrollment projections. We then examined some of the external factors which could influence enrollments, such as birth rates and migration patterns, overall population growth, and the economy of the Little Rock area. Because the Little Rock School District recently enlarged its boundaries, acquiring several schools and about 7,000 additional pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, we also assessed the likely Impact of this change on future enrollments. Some Special Considerations in the Little Rock Situation Racial Factors For several years the Little Rock School District has been under federal court order to maintain racial balance within its schools. While the racial composition of the schools has shifted slowly in the past several years, there has been a gradual increase both in the number of black pupils attending Little Rock schools and in their proportion of total enrollment. In 1980-81 black enrollment totalled about 13,000 or 63.6 percent of the total enrollment of 20,500. By the 1986-87 school year the number of black pupils had J grown to almost 13,800 out of a total of 19,300
they were 71.3 percent. (See Table 1.)* TABLE 1 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1987-88 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Year Black Nonblack Total % Black 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13,769 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 63.6% 65.9% 68.6% 70.0% 71.2% 71.3% 71.3% 1987-88 16,101 10,479 26,580 60.6% Source: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollments. In both 1980-81 and 1986-87 the proportion of black pupils was highest in the early grades and lowest in the high school years. However, racial change at all grade levels has been slow. Both total enrollment and white* enroll- ment reached their lowest points in 1984-85 and began climbing again thereafter. In order to meet the conditions of racial balance set down in the latest federal court order. Little Rock pupils are assigned to schools based on par- ents' expressed preferences and desegregation guidelines set by the court. *There will sometimes be small differences between enrollment numbers cited in this report for the same year. The differences occur because they have been taken from different source materials furnished by the school system and were assembled at different points in the school year. **Although there are a handful of nonblack nonwhite children in the Little Rock School District, for all practical purposes the terms "white tt and u, non- ti black' are synonymous and are used interchangeably in this report. -2- I I I I I I I I I I V1 Since the racial balance requirements are likely to remain in force for some HI years, the projection methodology must consider not only the size of the pupil population by race, but also its projected location within the district. Expanded Boundaries Until Fall 1987, the Little Rock School District took in only about two- I thirds of the land area and child population included in the city of Little Rock. The remainder of Little Rock, together with other parts of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River, was served by the Pulaski Special School HI District. By order of the federal court, the boundaries of both districts were changed effective in school year 1987-88. This change brought about 7,000 more pupils into the Little Rock District, and made its boundaries virtually contiguous with those of the city. It also reduced the percentage of blacks in the district's population to 60.6 percentthree percentage points below their proportion in 1980. As in the earlier years, the black proportion was highest in the early grades (65.1 111 percent) and lowest at the high school level (50.1 percent). We could obtain almost no historical data to help judge what changes in school enrollments are likely to occur in the annexed territory. Metroplan 111 estimates for 1986 indicate that much of the total population growth in the city of Little Rock took place in the annexed school territory, and Metroplan projects further growth in the years ahead. A comparison of 1980 census data n n with 1987 school data suggests that both black and nonblack pupils have increased in some parts of the annexed territory since 1980. Since we have no data for intervening years, however, there is no way of telling whether the increases occurred in the early years of the decade but have now halted for one or both racial groups, or whether they have occurred more recently, or have taken place at a constant pace throughout the period. Nor can we obtain census data on the child population by race for census -3- B J tracts in which the total black, population numbered fewer than 400 persons in 1980, even though they may have grown since then. Several of these tracts are in the annexed school territory. I I I I I I I I I I I -4- II IB II. Recent Trends In School Enrollment II Trends in the System as a Whole (Old boundaries) Overall, the Little Rock School District's enrollment declined somewhat during the early years of the 1980s decade, as Table 1 indicated. From almost 20,500 in 1980-81, it dropped to about 18,900 in 1984-84a decrease of about 1,600 pupils or 7.5 percent. In recent years, however, the trend has been reversed. Small gains were registered in 1985 and again in 1986, making up for some of the losses in the early 1980s. By 1986-87 enrollment was up to 19,300, 5.6 percent below 1980. In 1987 the enrollment again Increased. This la H n time, however, the reason was an expansion in the District's boundaries which added about 7,000 pupils from the Pulaski Special District. H Some grade levels reached their lowest points earlier than others. The first to bottom out were the junior high grades (7-9), which had their lowest enrollment in the 1982-83 school year. Kindergarten was next in 1983-84, followed by the primary grades (1-3) and high school (10-12) in 1984-85. The intermediate grades (4-6) were the last to reach bottom in 1985-86. All but II kindergarten and the junior high years increased their enrollments in the last year before the District was enlarged. (See Table 2 and Figure 1.) II Racial Differences in Enrollments (old boundaries) Except for Grades 1 to 3, all grade levels from kindergarten to high schools had larger black enrollments in 1986-87 than in 1980-81, although the change from year to year was rarely very large. Overall, the number of black pupils increased by less than 800 in the six-year period, or by 5.8 percent. The number of white pupils, on the other hand, was smaller in 1986 than in 1980 at every level except kindergarten. The changes were also greater as -5- H n n nTABLE 2 TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1986-87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BLACK PUPILS GRADES K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 1,120 3,800 2,879 2,712 2,498 81-82 1,072 3,842 2,987 2,679 2,424 82-83 1,141 3,815 3,136 2,735 2,411 83-84 1,059 3,768 3,264 2,871 2,393 84-85 1,142 3,754 3,243 2,960 2,367 85-86 1,211 3,728 3,237 3,099 2,369 86-87 1,160 3,729 3,267 3,086 2,527 I I TOTAL 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13,769 NONBLACK PUPILS GRADE K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 434 1,636 1,645 1,627 2,104 81-82 459 1,276 1,430 1,650 1,928 82-83 420 1,114 1,191 1,574 1,765 83-84 413 1,069 1,083 1,540 1,617 84-85 393 1,077 971 1,450 1,559 85-86 429 1,104 915 1,363 1,668 86-87 475 1,159 926 1,257 1,719 I TOTAL 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 TOTAL ENROLLMENT I GRADE K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 1,554 5,436 4,524 4,339 4,602 81-82 1,531 5,118 4,417 4,329 4,352 82-83 1,561 4,929 4,327 4,309 4,176 83-84 1,472 4,837 4,347 4,411 4,010 84-85 1,535 4,831 4,214 4,410 3,926 85-86 1,640 4,832 4,152 4,462 4,037 86-87 1,635 4,888 4,193 4,343 4,246 I I TOTAL 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 SOURCE
I Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollment. I I I4 6600-| 6200- S800- CL 3 5400- Q_ O La
5000- EO 22 4600-^ 4200- Figure 1 TRENDS IN TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 / ! I ! 'i I i I I 3800 T 1 80-81 T 81-82 T 82-83 T 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 well, although still quite gradual. By Fall 1986 there were about 1,900 fewer white pupils enrolled in the Little Rock. School District than in Fall 1980, for a drop of 25.7 percent or roughly 4.5 percent per year. However, all grade levels except 7-9 had begun to see their white pupil enrollments grow again by the 1986-87 school year. White students in the primary grades (1-3) reached their low point in 1983-84, and began to climb thereafter. Kindergarten and high school both saw their white pupil populations begin to grow again the following fall. White enrollment in the latter continued to grow in I 1986-87, as it did in the primary grades. Whites in grades 4-6 dropped conti- nuously through 1985-86, then gained slightly in 1986-87. (See Figures 2 and 3.) Hence the white decline appears to have leveled off, and may even have been reversed, before the court decision added pupils from the Pulaski Special District. I Locational Differences (old boundaries) I Historical data by geocode area of residence within the District were furnished by the school system for each individual grade. These were combined for our analysis in two ways. The first was by grade levelskindergarten. primary (grades 1-3), intermediate (4-6), junior high (7-9), and high school (10-12). Second, in order to make the analysis more manageable, the Individ- ual geocodes were combined into subgroupse.g. all geocodes beginning with 01 were combined under Group 01, all beginning with 02 under Group 02, and so on. We then chose Primary grades 1-3 and High School grades 10-12 for further I examination and compared the changes in enrollees at these two grade levels from Fall 1979 to Fall 1987. The data for these levels have been mapped, and I the results are shown in Figures 4 through 9. I Within the old district boundaries, total enrollments in both grade levels declined substantially (more than 100 pupils) In some neighborhoods close to -6-f |g g Q m B B B fl fl fl fl Figure 2 TRENDS IN BLACK ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 4600-1 4200- 3800 (I) 3400- Q_ O S 3000- E O Z 2600- 2200- 1800 80-81 T 81-82 T 82-83 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 T 86-87 '^-QQ School Ysons 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-123400-1 2600- 0) o. 2200- o S 1800- E O Z 3000- 1400- Figure 3 TRENDS IN WHITE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 I 1000- 600 T 1 80-81 81-82 T 82-83 T 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 T 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 61 14 15 16 33 40 54 12 13 11 10 17 18 19 20 21 36 08 09 J 05 44 73 74 OT' 1 06 72 34 04 Figure 4 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Total: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 02 01 36 32 34 Numerical Change 50 @ +51-100 @ +101 or more -51 to 100 -101 or more J61 12 14 13 08 0' Figure 5 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 15 33 1 11 10^ 09 - 1 17 40 54 18 19 20 44 21 36 73 74 05 72 34 04 02 01 36 32 34 Numerical Change +50 @ + 51-100 @ + 101 or more - 51 to 100 - lOlor more N H the city's center. (See Figures 4 and 5.) These correspond to geocodes 1, 2, II 3, and 4. There were also drops in enrollment in the upper northwest section of the citysubstantial for the primary years and less so for the high school n grades. Total enrollments changed relatively little, on the other hand, in II neighborhoods west of University Avenue (Geocodes 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and in the areas east of University but north of West Markham (geocodes 7, 8, and 9) although here there were occasional spots of decline. H II There were no geocode groups where total enrollments increased by more than 50 pupils in the primary grades, and only two in which they increased this much in grades 10 to 12. One such area is south of 1630 and east of Uni- H versity (geocode 05). The other is also south of 1630 but west of Barrow to 1430
its southern boundary is West 36th Street (geocode 17). II Some of the geocode areas which remained stable did so because Increases H among black pupils offset white losses. (See Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9.) This was true of areas below 1630 and west of University for both grade levels H II II (geocodes 17, 18, and 19). There were also small losses among whites in some neighborhoods east of University, but blacks did not always gain sufficiently to offset these losses. Losses among black students, on the other hand, were substantial in some downtown neighborhoods for both the primary and high school grades. White enrollments in these areas, which were small to begin II with, changed little between 1979 and 1987. II II As the maps indicate, there has been a clear movement of black pupils toward the western part of the city, but not to the higher-priced northwest. Whites have moved out of the areas where black enrollees have increased (or white graduates have not been replaced by younger whites). However, whites have contributed little to public school enrollments in the northwest despite substantial new construction. Since much of the recent construction has been of apartment units, new occupants may include relatively few school-age chil -7- 61 12 14 1 08 0 15 13 1 Figure 6 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 33 17 40 54 18 11 09 J - 06 19 05 04 02 01 s 36 32 20 44 34 21 , 36 73 74 72 34 Numerical Change 25 +26-75 @ +76 or more -26 to 75 -76 or more -r B I' 1 w 61 12. 14 08 15 -r 33 17 40 54 13 18 0' 'Yl Figure 7 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 11 09 06 19 20 44 05 04 02 01 21 72 36 34 74 0/ 36 34 32 Numerical Change +25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more -26 to 75 -76 or more I 61 12 14 08 15 33 40 54 17 13 11 iQ(d 09 J 18 19 20 44 21 36 74 05 07 YD 06 72 34 04 Figure 8 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 02 01 a 36 32 34 Numerical Change +50 @ +26-75 @ + 76 or more -26-75 - 76 or more 61 12. 33 14 08 15 16(g) 17 40 54 13 18 S. 0' Figure 9 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 11 09 06 19 05 @ 04 02 01 aS 36 32 20 44 34 21 72 36 34 74 Numerical Change 25 +26 to 75 +76 or more -26 to 75 -76 or more 5 Ji dren. These areas also Include some of the city's higher-income neighborhoods, where between 30 and 50 percent of school-aged children were reported to be attending private schools at the 1980 census. Private school attendance probably remains high in these areas. Locational Changes (Expanded Boundaries) As already indicated, we were able to obtain no reliable historical data on school enrollments which could be used to make a precise assessment of recent trends in the territory added to the Little Rock District in Fall 1987. Metroplan's 1986 population estimates indicate substantial new residential construction in much of the annexed territory, and considerable increase in population as well. In fact, it is in the new territory that much of the city's new residential construction and population gain has taken place. according to Metroplan. (See Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 10.) It is likely. therefore, that school enrollments have also increased, offsetting some of the decline in neighborhoods closer to the city's center. Much of the new construction has been in multi-family units, however, and thls may have tended to hold enrollments down. At the time of the 1980 cen- sus, apartments in Little Rock yielded an average of 1.9 persons, compared with 2.41 persons for single family homes. Furthermore, about 40 percent of the city's total population growth occurred in one far northwest census tract (42.03) where about a third of all children of elementary and junior high age were in private schools in 1980. More than half the units built since 1980 in this tract, according to Metroplan officials, have been apartments. In adjoining tracts (22.01, 22.03, 22.04, 22.05 and 24.01) the ratio of apart- ments was even higher. In the tracts in the southwest part of the city (24.02, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, and 42.04) single family units have I -8- I42.04 42.03 @ 22.04 22.05 @ 24.01 @ 22.01 @ 22.03 24.02 41.03 23 21.01 21.02 16 17g: 18 19 20.01 15 14 13 I 12 20.02 10 11 3 $ 42.04 @ 41.05 41.06 41.08 40.03 41.04 @ Figure 10 Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-86 1 $ 2 5 I 40.01 40.01 Percentage Chainge + 1% + 2-5% + 6% or more - 2-5% - 6% or moreTABLE 3 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 1986 I Census Tract 1980 1986 Change 80-86 No. Pct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 11,100 7,378 2,705 3,813 1,154 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 7,512 2,615 1,090 4,430 2,890 1,490 4,940 3,880 2,920 760 790 4,340 4,750 2,630 5,170 3,420 9,270 5,350 850 6,350 5,280 5,900 5,480 8,740 4,050 5,710 5,510 8,830 9,570 12,170 7,530 2,860 3,800 1,490 6,480 6,930 3,990 6,250 13,970 3,460 230 (61) 164 (18) 36 (76) (49) (13) (16) (51) (81) (45) (92) 3 1,095 92 (17) (56) 251 152 (88) 272 (45) 514 575 892 2,630 1,070 152 155 (13) 336 269 270 (68) (111) 6,458 845 26.7% -1.4% 6.0% -1.2% 0.7% -1.9% -1.7% -1.7% -2.0% -1.2% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% 0.1% 13.4% 1.7% -2.0% -0.9% 5.0% 2.6% -1.6% 3.2% -1.1% 9.9% 11.7% 11.2% 37.9% 9.6% 2.1% 5.7% -0.3% 29.1% 4.3% 4.1% -1.7% -1.7% 86.0% 32.3% I I I I I I Total 177,759 193,320 15,561 8,8Z I *Some census tracts extend into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. Only the population of these tracts living within the city of Little Rock are included in the numbers given for both 1980 and 1987. I R SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population, updated by Metroplan to include territory annexed by Little Rock after 1980. 1987 estimates from Metroplan, January 1988. I predominated in new construction, but except for the extreme southwest, the number of new homes has been relatively modest. M Table 4 Housing Permits Issued for New Housing Units, 1980-86 in Census Tracts with 100 or More New Homes Little Rock, Arkansas H H n M H Census Tract 1 3 15 16 19 20.01 21.01 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.06 42.03 42.04 Multi-Family 152 130 727 60 204 154 243 271 372 464 1,386 439 2 122 64 2,073 no Single-Family 0 2 31 45 6 6 18 80 29 133 227 259 135 5 137 1,462 324 Total 152 132 758 105 210 160 261 351 401 597 1,613 698 137 127 201 3,535 434 Source: Metroplan, March 1987 It is possible to obtain some Indication of enrollment change in the annexed areas by comparing data on school-age children from the 1980 Census by census tract with data for the same tracts from 1987-88 school data. While H school data are recorded for geocodes and not for census tracts, about 83 per- cent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. Among many of the remainder which cross tract lines, it is apparent from an examination H of maps that the majority of residents live within one of the tracts. In these cases we assigned all of the children to that tract. While this procedure may result in some errors, they are probably small, and the results can be considered illustrative, if not definitive. -9- iiiThe census data are for 5-year age groups rather than by grades as are the school data. In the analysis, therefore, we used children aged 5 to 9 years in 1980 as a proxy for kindergarten to grade 4, making an adjustment to take out those attending private schools. We have data on the total population without regard to race for all census tracts. However, no 1980 racial data are available for those tracts in which the black population as a whole num- bered fewer than 400 persons in that year. Several tracts within the annexed territory fell into this category, although 1987 school data now show sizeable black school populations. We also do not have separate data on private school attendance for blacks and nonblacks. The analysis of the 1980 and 1987-88 data can give us only a rough indication of changes in enrollment patterns and the direction of change in the ter- ritory recently added to the Little Rock School District. (The annexed terri- tory includes all or part of census tracts 20.01, 20.02, 24.02, 40.01, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, 41.07, 41.08, 42.03, and 42.04.) Nevertheless, they do indicate a clear increase in enrollments in the lower grades in much of the annexed area since 1980, primarily south of 130 and east of Heinke Road (tracts 41.05, 41.06, and 41.08). The comparison shows little change west of I Heinke (tracts 41.03 and 41.04) and In the far northwest part of the school district (tract 42.03), although Metroplan reports a considerable amount of I new construction of both multi-family and single-family dwellings. In one tract (42.04) there was a sizeable decline in enrollment.* (See Figure 11.) Since most census tracts in the annexed territory had relatively small black populations in 1980, it is difficult to tell much about racial change within the new area. At least a few tracts, however, appeared to have drawn R increases in both black and nonblack enrollments between 1980 and 1987-88. I (See Figures 12 and 13.) I -10-jjjjjT jjjj iju jjjj JU ^Eb 42.03 22.01 42.04 42.04 22.04 22.03 22.05 24.01 24.02 41.03 41.05 41.04 21.01 21.02' 17 16 18 19 20.01 41.06 @ 15 . __ I 13 I [ 10 12 11 20.02 41.07^ 41.08 40.03 Figure 11 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1 SI J 7 3 6 4, 2 5 40.01 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87 @ @ + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more22.01 42.03 22.04 16 22.03 Figure 12 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Black
K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 22.05 24.01 42.04 24.02 41.03 42.04 41.05 41.04 21.01 17 18 19 20.01 7 41.06 15 r 14, 13 12 20.02 41.07 41.08 (2 9 10 11 40.03 2) 7. '6 5 40.01 3, 4 / 2 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87 + 25 + 26-75 + 76 or more - 26-75 - 76 or more 122.01 42.03 23 22.04 22.03 42.04 42.04 16 Figure 13 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts White: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 22.05 24.01 24.02 41.03 41.05 15 41.04 21.01 21.02 17 18 - 19 20.01 41.06 112 13 10 9 1 7^ 12 11 J 20.02 41.07 41.08 40.03 4, 2 5 40.01 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87 + 25 + 26-75 + IQ or more - 26-75 - 76 or moreV Overall, it appears that there have been few if any radical and rapid shifts in the pupil population of the Little Rock School District over the past several years. Total enrollments have declined steadily from year to year (except for the recent increase due to the annexation), but the drop has been gradual. Black enrollments have grown somewhat while white enrollments have decreased, but the pace has been quite slow in both directions. In general, change in the schools appear to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a wholepopulation losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. While much of the city's total growth has gone into the northwest and southwest, however, some of these areas have gained rela- lively few public school pupils, at least in the lower grades.* Black population and black school children have tended to move out of the older areas to the east and in the center and toward the west and southwest. In some of I these areas they are clearly replaced white pupils. In other areas white enrollments appear relatively stable. I I *Metroplan staff expressed surprise at the drop in the K-4 enrollment in this tract (42.04) where their figures show a 1980-86 total population increase of Prisons and the addition of 432 dwellings, threefourths of which were reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. single-family units. -11- I IH II H III. FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS II Expectations for Growth II There are several sources of population projections for Pulaski County, two of which were consulted for this studythose made by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which produces the official projections for all counties in the State of Arkansas, and those made by Metroplan. UALR's pro- jectlons are for the total population of Pulaski County by race, sex, and five-year age groups. The projections are given for intervals of five years to the year 2000. There are no separate figures for subareas of the county. Metroplan projects the total population of Pulaski County, along with the three other counties (Saline, Faulkner, and Lonoke) that make up the Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area, and also distributes the projection among census tracts in the urbanized areas. The census tract projections are only for the year 2010 with no figures for Intervening years. II UALR projects the population of Pulaski County to reach more than 441,000 persons by the year 2000, an increase of more than 100,500 or 29.6 percent H H II over the 1980 population of 340,600. (This represents approximately one-fifth I II of the total increase projected for the entire State of Arkansas in the 20-year period.) About one-fourth of the Increase is estimated to have II n occurred between 1980 and 1985, with about an equal increase expected every five years thereafter to the turn of the century. Metroplan has a somewhat higher projection, expecting the county to reach more than 474,000 persons by 2000 (an increase of 39.3 percent over 1980), and 530,000 by the year 2010, a gain of over 189,000 persons or 55.6 percent in hl just 30 years. II -12-Only UALR projects the county's population for whites and blacks separately. Because of their higher rate of in-migrationduring the 1970s the nonwhite rate was 19.6 percent compared to only 2.7 percent for whites nonwhites are projected to number about 148,800 in the year 2000. They will then constitute one-third (33.7 percent) of the Pulaski County population. compared with 25.2 percent at the 1980 census. Our informant at UALR expects this in-migration to continue for the foreseeable future. Since Little Rock now has a substantial black community, he believes it will continue to be attractive to blacks now living elsewhere in Arkansas. Where the Growth Will Go Only a limited amount of the growth projected for Pulaski County in the next 20-30 years is likely to go inside the current boundaries of the city of Little Rock. Much of the central area has been losing population in recent years, and much of the rest of the city is already well developed. In 1980 the city contained almost half of the county's total population, and since then several tracts of land on the west and northwest sides of the city have begun to fill up. Described by one informant as II the place to live in Little Rock", the area of greatest growth in Pulaski County during the 1980s has been the northwest section of the city. To a lesser degree, the area to the southwest has also been attractive. H This latter area was described by the same informant as popular for "entry level" housing for first-time homebuyers of more modest means. Almost everyone consulted for this study agrees that growth will continue on the city's western borders. There are still several large tracts of undeveloped land now prime for development. A number of major residential, commercial or institutional construction projects are in the planning stages or * beyond. Census tract 42.03 in the northwest alone is projected by Metroplan -13-to increase its population by almost five times between 1980 and 2010. Tract 42.04 extending directly westward from the city will grow by almost three and a half times. Other tracts in the same general area will also grow, though more modestly. (See Table 5 and Figure 14.) Altogether, Metroplan has projected that the census tracts on the city's west side will gain almost 50,000 new residents by the year 2010. Only part of that growth will occur within the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District, however. While part of the growth area lies within the recently-annexed territory of the school system, most of the census tracts where growth is projected also extend well out beyond current city limits into the remainder of Pulaski Countyand hence, beyond the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District. While the city of Little Rock may eventually annex some of the newly developed area, it is not axiomatic that the children living there will also be annexed by the Little Rock School District. At the same time, it is unlikely that a large segment of Little Rocks black community will participate in the westward movement to the citys borders and II beyond. These areas contain some of the highest priced housing in the city. and blacks in Little Rock still have a considerably lower median Incomes than II do whites. Instead, the movement of blacks has tended to be on the near west II side of the city and toward the southwest below 1630 where housing Is more affordable. It is likely that this movement will continue unless steps are II taken to re-direct it or to open up other options. n Other Population Change in Little Rock n As already noted, like almost all American cities. Little Rock has been losing population at its core. Between 1980 and 1986 Metroplan estimated that H there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the -14-TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 Census Tract 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 23 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 920 11,100 7,378 5,539 3,813 1,354 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 8,260 6,614 1,600 4,000 3,200 1,000 5,200 4,000 3,200 800 800 4,600 4,600 2,200 4,800 3,800 10,000 5,100 850 5,900 4,500 5,700 5,600 8,000 6,000 5,600 5,300 8,800 9,500 950 16,800 13,800 4,500 5,500 6,800 12,200 8,400 4,900 7,200 38,900 22,000 740 (491) 474 (508) 296 44 231 27 (6) 209 (231) (475) (462) 383 1,825 (158) (17) (506) (529) (48) 32 (468) 1,905 404 365 862 2,560 30 5,700 6,422 (1,039) 1,687 5,446 5,989 1,740 842 839 30,640 15,386 86.0% -10.9% 17.4% -33.7% 6.0% 1.1% 7.8% 3.5% -0.7% 4.8% -4.8% -17.8% -8.8% 11.2% 22.3% -3.0% -2.0% -7.9% -10.5% -0.8% 0.6% -5.5% 46.5% 7.8% 7.4% 10.9% 36.9% 3.3% 51.4% 87.0% -18.8% 44.2% 402.2% 96.4% 26.1% 20.7% 13.2% 370.9% 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases. I the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, Pulaski Area Transportation Study, May 1987.42.04 42.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 42.04 22.01 22.03 24.02 41.03 41.05 23 16 Figure 14 Projected Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-2010 41.04 21.01 21.02 15 17 18 13 10 1 7 19 12 11 20.01 20.02 41O7@ 41.06 41.08 40.03 '6 5 40.01 ^ 4 2 40.01 Percentage Change + 5% + 6-25% + 26% or more - 6-25% - 26% or morecity, in the tracts close to downtown, and In those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. Several of these tracts are projected by Metroplan to continue their population decline through the year 2010 while others, including some close to the city's center, will gain slightly. Some of the 1980-86 gainers west of University or south of 20th Street are projected to turn into losers or to stabi- llze by 2010. Since "declining" neighborhoods are usually "aging" neighbor- hoods as well, these areas will probably lose school-age as well as total population. However, some losers in the southeast are projected by Metroplan to become gainers by the year 2010. One close-in prospect for population gain Is the neighborhood just to the east of the old downtown where there has been recent rehabilitation of old Victorian homes by young middle-class couples and families (Census Tract 6). However, the size of the area available for such gentrification is severely restricted not only by the number of dwellings but also by physical barriers to its extension. To date, whatever physical changes have taken place in the area's housing has had little effect on the pupil population living within the area. Future Growth of the Child Population Children are usually the most difficult group in the population to project. Unlike adults whose births are already a matter of record and whose survival from one age group to another can usually be tracked based on past experience with mortality and migration, how many children there will be in the future is subject to many more uncertainties. How will the birthrate shift? Will there be a trend toward larger families? or having babies at earlier ages? or later ages? If migration patterns for an older group changes, how will this affect the migration of children? -15- n n The number of children born to Pulaski County residents (we have no sepaII rate data for Little Rock) has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years. Except for a dip in 1978 (considered by several sources as an obvious II error in the data), the number of births did not vary by more than a few II hundred between 1977 and 1986. remained almost constant
Births to both blacks and whites have also the difference between the highest and lowest num- bers in any one year has been little more than 300 for each race. (See Figure 15). Despite the constancy in births, the child population of Pulaski County, like the total population, is projected by UALR to gain by the year 2000. How- ever, like child populations nationally and in most communities across the country, their growth rate will be substantially below that of the total popu- lation. Accordlng to UALR's projections, children below age 20 will increase by only 16.7 percent between 1980 and 2000, an increase of fewer than 19,000 in the 20-year period. Furthermore, the largest number will be ages 15 to 19, with smaller numbers at each descending 5-year age group. The smallest number li will be children below five years of age. Thus, unless there is a substantial in-migration of young children it is likely that the seeds are present for II even more slender growth of the countys child population in the future. II Still, children will total almost 130,000 in Pulaski County in 2000. will be almost 30 percent of the county's total population. And they (See Table 6.) n n H II i I All of the gain in children and then some will be among black children who are projected to grow from under 37,200 in 1980 to almost 57,800 in 2000. n They will be almost evenly distributed among the four age subgroups. White n children, on the other hand, will decline slightly in numberfrom about 74,200 in 1980 to about 72,100 in 2000. There will be more than 2,000 more white children ages 15 to 19 than under five years. -16- hn II II II II II H Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools K H M M II A A A A A Ap II II II TABLE 6 II PROJECTIONS OF THE CHILD POPULATION BY RACE - PULASKI COUNTY TOTAL CHILDREN II 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 II H Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 28,291 28,117 25,870 29,047 32,599 28,074 28,358 26,423 32,649 32,385 28,404 29,042 31,923 32,496 32,804 29,142 31,370 31,848 32,981 33,682 TOTAL 111,325 115,454 122,480 126,365 129,881 H WHITE CHILDREN H 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 II Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 17,903 18,350 17,662 20,252 20,201 17,267 17,975 17,766 19,504 19,488 16,915 18,084 18,132 18,818 19,092 17,016 16,966 17,496 18,437 19,212 H TOTAL 74,167 73,209 73,991 73,058 72,111 II NONWHITE CHILDREN H 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 H Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 10,388 9,767 8,208 8,795 12,398 10,807 10,383 8,657 13,145 12,897 11,489 10,958 13,791 13,678 13,712 12,126 14,404 14,352 14,544 14,470 II TOTAL 37,158 42,245 48,489 53,307 57,770 n SOURCE: Research and Public Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock. 0 I If there has been no rise in the number of births among Pulaski County residents, then why is the number of children in the county expected to growF? According to our informant at UALR the explanation lies in the migration patterns to the Little Rock area which have recently shown an Increase in the in-migration of blacks from elsewhere in Arkansas. Blacks who might formerly have gone to Chicago, Detroit or Memphis, he states, are now drawn to Little Rock because of the size of its black community. As long as there continues to be a sizeable black population remaining in rural or small-town Arkansas, he expects that the migration to Little Rock will continue. We have found no projections below the county level for children so it is difficult to say what proportion of them are likely to end up in the Little Rock School District. Some are probably members of young families whose best prospects for starter housing may lie outside the city limits. Still, while less than half of Pulaski County's total population lived in Little Rock in 1980, almost 63 percent of its black population resided there. If this ratlo- -or close to itcontinues into the future, a substantial proportion of the county's additional child population could go to Little Rock schools. We note that the UALR projection calls for an increase of somewhat over 1,000 black children per year in Pulaski County between 1980 and 2000. Over 600 of this Increase, by the figure just cited, will occur in Little Rock. Enrollment figures so far in the 1980s, however, have shown a fairly consistent Increase in black pupils averaging only about 127 per year. We have no explanation for this difference. However, we note that our projections. which will be discussed in the next chapter, indicate not a gain but a gradual decrease in overall black enrollments in future years. Because of the possibility that enrollment trends may be in the process of shifting, we recommend that they be monitored closely for the next several years and that revised projections be developed if necessary. -17- I I I I I I II II Influence of the Little Rock Economy II A major shifteither up, down or dramatically differentin Little Rock's economic picture could affect migration patterns, and hence its school enroll- H ments. This is unlikely to occur. One informant, a businessman with several decades of experience in living and working in Little Rock, described its H economy as extremely stable"Good times, bad times, we grow about 2 percent a II year. This isn't going to change". Centers of government are often fairly recession-resistent, and Little H Rock is probably no exception. When times are good, most people share in the prosperity. If times turn bad, government often steps in with new programs or H expands old ones. In addition to being the State Capital, Little Rock is also B a trading and distribution center for the upper south central region. also a major education and hospital center. It is It has a campus of the University B of Arkansas as well as several regional medical centers. Its economy, in addition to growing steadily, has been moving in concert B with the national economy. Manufacturing employment is down but not out. II white collar and service industries are up. In 1985 the largest number of I jobs (53,700) in the four-county Little Rock-North Little Rock metropolitan II area were in wholesale and retail trade, according to the Arkansas Employment Security Division. The second largest number were service jobs (47,200). A II substantial majority of these were in professional and related services. such II as hospitals, other health services, and education. 28 percent in the five years since 1980. Service jobs had grown by In third place were government jobs M (44,400). While manufacturing was in fourth place (33,800), the number of manufacturing jobs had declined by 10 percent since 1980. The drop, however. M was more than overset by gains in other sectors so that the overall number of H jobs was greater in 1985 than in 1980, by more than 9 percent. Fl -18- k IV. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Record of Prior Projections According to informants in the school system, its earlier enrollment pro- jections have come remarkably close to the mark. In one recent year, for example, the actual enrollment was off by just a single pupil. Projections made in 1981 in an earlier study by Stanton Leggett and Associates also came I close. When based on earlier enrollment trends, the Leggett figures fell just 136 pupils short of actual enrollment in fall 1985, or 0.7 percent. When I based on the geographic distribution of the student population, the shortfall I was only 79, or 0.4 percent. Most pupil enrollment projections are made by some variation of the I "cohort survival" method. Basically, the method begins with data on the cur- rent school population by grade. It then It ages" that population, moving it up one grade for each succeeding year. At the same time, it II survives II the popu lation, employing ratios developed out of school system experience which indi- cate what proportion of the children in one grade can usually be expected to show up in the next. The II survival ratio 11 is often a decimal fraction smaller I than one
however, it can be greater than one if youngsters migrating into the area from outside are added to the population in later grades. For children who are not yet old enough to be in school, the number of births in the appro- priate year is used to develop the ratio. When the projection goes beyond I the children already born, assumptions are made about the future fertility rate of the population. I The comparative accuracy of past projections in the Little Rock School I District is a tribute not just to the skill of the projectors, but also to the steadiness of past enrollment trends. In the present situation, however, one -19-II factor makes the projections particularly risky. This is the 1987 addition of II a large number of pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, about whose It survival tl almost nothing is known. Thus, we cannot develop survival ratios for almost a third of the current Little Rock pupil population based on their own trends and behavior. II Projections for System-wide Planning Several sets of projections were developed and evaluated. All but one involved some variation of the "cohort survival" method, although they were also compared with independent data sources such as those furnished by Metro- plan and UALR to determine if they were consistent both with current demoII graphic and economic trends and future projections. Table 7 presents the final projections for each grade level which we recommend for current planII ning. We suggest strongly, however, that these be reviewed and updated annu- ally as more data become available on the pupil population in the annexed ter- II ritory. For the projections of black enrollment we used a three-year average of II survival ratios for the old district. Past data were first projected to 1986 H M H H H II for the old district and compared to the actual 1986 enrollment. When the two compared quite closely, the three-year ratio was applied to the actual enroll- II ments in the expanded district in fall 1987 and projections made to future years. II White enrollments received somewhat different treatment. They had defl dined during the first years of the 1980s, but then began to turn up again. Some grade levels among whites began the reversal earlier than others, and the fl junior high years from 7th to 9th grade never did change directions. Since we could not determine whether the reversal was merely a temporary blip or pre- fl saged a change in trends, we used only one year's survival ratiosthat of -20- JI TABLE 7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL AND RACE 1987-88 TO 1997-1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Current 1987-88 1990-91 Projected 1995-96 1997-98 Total Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 1,846 6,449 5,820 6,064 6,401 1,834 6,059 5,494 5,966 5,952 1,797 6,072 5,180 5,297 5,605 1,797 6,072 5,158 5,269 5,389 Total 26,580 25,305 23,951 23,685 I Black. Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 1,184 4,196 3,819 3,695 3,207 1,156 3,797 3,593 3,712 3,219 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,167 3,128 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,115 2,913 I Total 16,101 15,477 14,490 14,223 Nonblack Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 662 2,253 2,001 2,369 3,194 678 2,264 1,900 2,253 2,732 662 2,262 1,930 2,131 2,477 662 2,262 1,908 2,154 2,477 I I Total 10,479 9,827 9,462 9,463 I *Ratios have been calculated on basis of enrollments within the boundaries which existed prior to the 1987-88 school year, but projections are based on enrollments in the expanded district in that year. I I I I II II 1986for the white projections. These trends especially will require careful tl monitoring to determine their staying power. Total enrollments were arrived at by combining the black and white projections. M In addition, as already noted, all of the projections assume that pupils in the annexed territory will behave in exactly the same way as those in the n old territory This is a risky assumption at best that should also be evalu- II ated as reliable data on the new territory becomes available. Since data on births are available only for children who will be entering M kindergarten through 1992, for later years we assumed that there would be the same number of both black and white births in the years thereafter as in 1986. H As already noted, except for a temporary decline in 1978 (which many people H attribute to an error in the figures and for which an adjustment was made). the number of births has remained remarkably stable for the past ten years in II Pulaski County. Overall, the projections indicate that total enrollment will continue to II decline moderately through the 1997-98 school year. The drop will be largest at the junior and senior high school level. Both black and white enrollments II II II wlll decline. Black junior and senior high school students will grow slightly by 1990, then drop off, while the number in grades 1 to 3 will be somewhat larger in 1995 and 1997 than in 1990. The number of white pupils at every grade level above 3rd grade will decline from its current level. Kindergarten and grades 1-3, on the other II hand, will experience almost no change. M Small-Area Projections II Projections have also been made of the K-4 enrollments for individual cen- SUS tracts throughout the expanded school district. They are shown in Figures M 16 through 18. -21-42.03 22.04 22.03 42.04 42.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 41.03 41.05 41.04 22.01 21.01 17 16 18 19 20.01 41.06 15 14, 13 12 20.02 41.07 41.08 10 11 40.03 Figure 16 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1990-91 1 8 ) 7, 6 M | 5 40.01 2 40.01 Numerical Change + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more 42.03 22.04 22.05 42.04 42.04 22.01 22.03 z^ 24.01 24.02 41.03 41.04 23 21.01 21.02 16 17 18 19 20.01 41.05 I @ 41.06 @ 15 I 13 I \ 12 20.02 41.O7@ 41.08 @ A 10 11 40.03 8, Figure 17 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1995-96 1 7^6 3, J. 5 40.01 4 2 40.01 Numerical Change @ @ + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more42.03 22.04 22.05 42.04 42.04 22.01 24.01 23 22.03 21.01 21.02 17 24.02 41.03 41.05 41.04 16 ^ 13 I I 10 19 20.01 41.06 12 11 20.02 41.O7@ 41.08 Figure 18 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1997-98 I 'r-M | I 40.03 % 40.01 3 T 2 40.01 Numerical Change + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more II II II H n H Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools N H H H II n n H H H km m n Stanton Leggett and Associates Educational Consultants West Tisbury, Mass. 02575 n n II REPORT
MEETING THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES NEEDS OF SEVEN RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas June 1988 n H RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS H A school with 76% or more Black enrollment is designated as racially identifiable. These schools will have major enhancements to their programs including the following
H H Tutoring programs Reduced teacher/pupil ratio- a ratio of 18 children to one teacher will be used. Extended day care will be provided with costs based on a sliding scale. Home Instruction will be supported for preschoolers Individual school programs will be Implemented with areas of emphasis. Renovations of buildings are proposed to put these buildings in top physical condition. H RENOVATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SETTINGS FOR LEARNING n n In order to create In the seven racially identifiable schools the appropriate environment for learning, a series of major enhancements to these buildings have been proposed. These enhancements are detailed in the Appendix and are summarized in Table 1. To the seven racially identifiable schools has been added the Franklin School. This building Is in the general area of the seven schools and can be involved In the effort to provide Improved facilities for the seven schools. M Table 1 shows estimated costs of enhancements. Those at Franklin are considered minor enhancements. Table 2, following, shows enrollments in the fall of the 1987-88 school year at the various schools. A map follows showing the relative locations of the schools and the major arteries. H n I-2- pl I Table 1 Racially Identifiable Schools and One Borderline School, with Estimated Costs of Physical Enhancement School Cost Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 22,350 396,890 124,770 1,197,815 106,470 53,350 964,720 742.730 3,609,095 Table 2 Enrollment by Grade for Selected Schools, 1987-88 School K 1 R 4 2 3 5 6 Spec Ed Total Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 55 34 18 32 32 50 14 31 56 48 39 44 43 48 49 42 62 46 33 53 47 42 36 24 66 47 23 32 29 32 24 24 51 41 32 32 37 33 30 37 64 45 31 41 39 42 32 26 49 45 30 35 21 42 33 30 23 8 8 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 R R R 2192 R R R Ifl fl fl fl ^5o < / / J. T 0 00 3 0 3 A, G iEsB S S,AgAto o RoCi t^KMTSl^U- /\4lTCl-tjLi- o rA ^cc>^EV&:}~ iS^ti I U>l I lnj4,S+41 f4?iroM 15M- pAl MAP S-AoW/MiS R^ZATOE LoCATlOhJS ecAcoE BUILb//^GS ir>l f^f=e)f^ ^^JL/AiLf eia4\^OLQ-4- I Calculation of Capacity: Racially Identifiable Schools The capacity of a school Is a variable depending upon policy decisions as to class size and the provision of specialized staff that serve the student body as children are drawn out of the regular classes for this purpose. The provision of special education self-contained classes and resource rooms also affects capacity as these are withdrawn from the regular classroom supply. In this analysis kindergartens have been treated as classrooms since the program is a full-day operation. V In the analysis of major enhancements of schools that are racially identifiable, the matter of providing adequate working conditions for the specialized staff assigned to the school becomes Important. One measure of the school system's concerns in this area is given by the specialized (other than kindergarten and classroom) facilities provided for new schools. Table 3, following, shows the spaces provided in the three most recently constructed schools of the school system. Analysis of these data suggests that in terms of staff and programs added to the schools, the following number of rooms should be set aside for the uses indicated. These rooms do not contribute to capacity of a school as students use these in addition to the regular classroom to which they are assigned, except for self-contained special education rooms. There should be at least one self-contained special education room in each school. This number is the average required by the system, including those in its five-year plan for special education. The rooms may be assigned differently from year to year, depending upon incidence of handicapped students among those assigned and the desire to provide primary and Intermediate levels In program. The special education program provides a resource room In each school as well. Children attend programs for help In such a room, leaving the regular classroom for this purpose. In addition there are needs for reading and math laboratories for the ALP program, a computer laboratory and a music space which can be either a specially designed room that will control the sound or the use of the stage, suitably separated from the dining area. In consequence, for each school, six rooms must be deducted from the classroom inventory. Further, some of the major enhancements offered in the schools require rooms outside the capacity of the school. For example, the introduction of a Wrlte-to-Read program requires a computer laboratory outfitted with IBM computer in order to function. Such a room uses a classroom that cannot be counted as capacity. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS FOR RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS THAT WILL REgUIRE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ROOMS if Garland
Mass media specialty does not require special space. ISH: A science laboratory is required to support environmental education program. King: A program for four-year olds will require space. A greenhouse laboratory is called for. Full-time art. music and foreign language, as well as environmental education specialists, will require science, foreign language and art spaces. With so many specialists the likelihood is that a departmentalized program will be used to schedule students to special classes. It has been assumed that the addition of a science laboratory and a room for four-year-olds will be required. Mitchell: Artists In residence for drama, writing, speech, and mime will be utilized. One space should be provided. RII -6- II II Capacity Is calculated by deducting from the number of classrooms that are ayallable in a building the number of rooms that will be required to be used for special purposes, including special education, ALP programs, music, and special offerings related to the program of enhancement. II II n The number of regular classrooms is multiplied by eighteen, the maximum class size in racially identifiable schools. Kindergarten Is treated like a regular grade since the program is a fuU-day program. Smee a common standard of provision of special rooms has been used for the seven racially identifiable schools equal to the best that the school system has used in its most recent schools, and since additional special rooms are allocated based upon the program enhancement of the schools, the capacities of the schools are substantially lowered. The capacity of each of the schools is shown in the following table. H Desirable School Size H The schools under consideration are generally small schools built at a time when only classrooms were proylded in the building. When the specialized rooms required for today's educational program are deducted, the schools become yery small. The capacities of the schools under consideration are grouped by size below. H Less than 200 Student Capacity: II King Washington Stephens 136 student capacity 172 student capacity 190 student capacity 200-300 Student Capacity II Mitchell Garland Ish 208 student capacity 226 student capacity 226 student capacity II 300 Student Capacity and Up H n H 352 student capacity 370 student capacity Franklin Rockefeller It is Important to note that the capacities of the eight schools under consideration total 1880 students, when an adequate number of rooms for specialized use are deducted from the total ayallable number of classrooms. This compares to the enrollment tn the fall of 1987-88 of 2192 students. Any enhancement program based upon fixing up the existing buildings will not haye dealt with the matter of proylding adequately the serylces to be offered children in the schools, including the program enhancements required by the programs. To continue the buildings without change in spaces proylded will cause these buildings either to be sharply oyercrowded or to fall behind the system in proylding sendees commonly proylded across all schools, as well as program enhancements to make these schools educationally attractlye. H size and School Organization II n In looking at school size, it is important to see the numbers with respect to the classroom organization that students pass through. The schools are organized as kindergarten to six grade units. That Is, In order to haye one section to a grade It Is necessary to haye about seven times 18 students, or 126 students, as total enrollment. To have two sections to a grade requires about 14 times 18 students per class, or 252 students. While children do not come In neat packages of 18 to a grade, it takes a somewhat larger school to accommodate such changes and still maintain the grade organization.TABLE 4 Calculation of Capacity
Seven Racially Identifiable Schools and Franklin Elementary School School No. of CR's* Assign 6 CR's to Spec. Use CR's Required- Spec. Use by Enhancement Function (1) (2) (3) Total Special Use CR's (4) Rooms Not Assigned to Spec. Use (1H4) (5) Capacity Remaining CR's X 18 (G) Capacity One Self- Contained I Spec. Ed. @ 10 Students [Incl In (2)] (7) Total Capacity Fall 1987-88 Enrollment (8) Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 25 18 19 15 16 20 17 16 6 6 6 6 4" O'" 6 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 6 7 8 5 0 7 7 19 12 12 7 11 20 10 9 342 216 216 126 198 360 180 162 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 352 226 226 136 208 370 190 172 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 1800 1880 2192 'Includes kindergarten rooms. " Building has additional rooms suitable for ALP program. Therefore four set aside for special programs. "'Building has many specialized rooms in addition to classrooms and kindergarten space available to meet needs for special use rooms. *II -8- II II When a school has a capacity well under 252 students and with more than 126 students representing one class to a grade, it is necessary for the school to organize classes so that more than one grade is in a classroom. Most parents find this approach to be less desirable. It is possible to organize differently than by the chronological grade, using what is called an ungraded organization. In such a situation the children are divided among the classrooms by some measure of maturity, or skill at reading, or some combination of devices. n It can probably be said that with all the problems that the school system Is faced with, forcing a reorganization to some different kind of grade organization by maintaining small schools Is unwise. It will no doubt be resisted by parents, concerned about their children, who do not see the need for such a change. n Currently the schools avoid the issue by not having the special rooms that in this study are assigned to the schools in order to keep them at the level of provision of school facilities now found in the best school facilities of the system. H A desirable size school that relates to the school organization ranges from 500 to 600 students with the equivalent of four sets of kindergarten to six units, or 28 rooms with 18 students each, for a total of at least 504 students. H While children do not come to school in neat enrollment packages, in a moderate size school it is possible to accommodate, for the most part, differences in enrollment from grade to grade without resorting to the placement of two grades In one classroom. H Size and Staffing II H One should weigh the prudence of spending large sums of money to conserve buildings with limited enrollment and less adequate facilities as against providing larger schools with superior facilities that can be staffed so that there is room to work and the extensive specialized staff will be fully utilized. H Any consideration of proposals for Improvements in the seven racially identifiable schools must necessarily involve specific choices among a number of possible alternatives. H II For example, a decision must be reached on the question of school size. Should Little Rock continue to maintain and operate very small school units, however outdated and costly to elTlclently maintain and operate they may be. because such little school units can also provide pupils a higher degree of personal attention with smaller class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios? Moreover, do not such smaller older schools often provide a sense of neighborhood Identity and intergeneratlonal stability which can give individuals a sense of "roots" and belonging and continuity in a constantly changing larger community? H H By contrast, is it not also true that because of these very same smaller enrollments, such smaller schools often cannot provide many full-time services of such specialists as nurses, art and music teachers, counselors, and physical education Instructors, and cannot provide separate full-time specialized rooms for art. science, music, remedial reading, computer Instruction, and similar costly services and facilities? How should a community choose between these competing alternatives? H bl For example. In many small schools an art teacher may be assigned for only nine weeks per year, and for the rest of the year pupils are without this teacher's instructional services. While at the school such a teacher may do his/her work, based upon a stage, in a teachers lounge or workroom, or may even cany needed supplies and work tools in the trunk of his/her car. These teachers may work with pupils, not In an art room but In a comer of the lunch room, or in an area of a regular classroom, and in some cases even In a stage or storage area or in a recessed part of a hallway. Moreover. If there is a reasonably useful space available, such teachers will-9- have to compete i with the needs of other part-time specialists who also wdl be seeking space as a i base of operations. We note with approbation that the established enhancement plan for staffing proceeds for the assignment of many such specialists on a fud-tlme basis and the consultants have therefore Included necessary facditles for such specialists in their calculation of budding capacities and recommended new facilities. i also contrasting advantages which come with having larger units. With a combine their skids at any given grade level. Frequently there are larffe enough Dupilbase, three or four teachers can------------------ - and pupds benefit. Thus one teacher may delight in teaching reading vdidepother may have ___ ___ Viovp tHpH bj^pkcxrnund in one and enthusiasm for teaching arithmetic. One may have a rich background one soecial skills arithmetic, une nave ncu ox area and another have hobby interests and competencies of a different kind. The larger school, with its larger staff, can offer many such benefits. Thus, too, because of the larger numbe pupils, the cost per pupil for specialized full-time instructors in subjects such as art mu^c Erafts, health, coniputer science, and other diversified curricular offerings, becorne economically feasible. In addition, the costs of administration and overhead ser^ces can be reduced. One set of overhead costs in a larger building can be far less than the combined costs for similar services in two or three smaller units. I R R Hence the decision as to what constitutes a desirable optimum size of a school Involves an analysis of many factors. The consultants believe that an optimum size elementary school unit - having about four sections per grade level and preferably 5CX)-600 pupds. Such a _ _ ... ________________3 incfnipfinnal I would be one graae levei ana preierauiy selection could provide an efficient base for personalized and specialized Instructional services and at the same time provide an economical overhead and administrative cost basis also. Based upon the foregoing considerations, we believe that the enhanced instructional programs estaWlshed by the policies of the Little Rock Board of Education, In confon^ty Mth the over JI Court directives and decisions which have been previously established, can be well served by the recommendations herein presented. R I The Condition of the Building as a Criterion for Enhancement Some buddings are of a basic condition or have reached a point of wear where the erffiancement of the building will not cover up the major problems that exist in the structure or the mechanical systems of the building. When schools were bullt as econo^caUy as Posslbksuch buddings do not last forever, even with major repairs. The condition of the core of the budding should be weighed in assigning children to these schools over long periods of time. R the Garland School. This budding has masonry bearing walls and a wood frame multistoried budding. A building of this type would not meet todays budding An example is Inside. It is a ouiiaing oi ims rypc wuuiu uui mcvu luua, codes and could not be budt now. It is unwise to spend money on a budding where the rare Is not that which should be m use today. In the case of Washington School, for exjmpl^t mechanical systems are worn out. The windows are rusting and should be replaceci The s^tOT of ventilating the rooms through the corridors by use of corridcir fans represents the pos of spreadmg flames in the event of fire. Washington School is not of sufficient quality to warrant substantial expenditures to patch it up. R The proposed budding program dealing with the seven racially identifiable schools atterripts to appty current standards of quality to the buildings rather^ than accepting the J^sterje of some buildings that, were the school district able to do so, would have been retired long ago. It Is not wise to enhance a basically unsatisfactory structure. R R R RII -10- II RECOMMENDATIONS n n II The cost of remodeling and rehabilitation of the schools, either as major or minor enhancements, has been estimated at $3,600,000. Such enhancement did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been provided by the school system In Its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools. A series of alternative proposals have been suggested to combine four of the schools into two buildings each of about 600 student capacity. These are to add to Franklin Elementary School to bring its capacity to 600 students, requiring fourteen classrooms. The other move would be to combine Stephens and Garland Schools in one new building at the Stephens site, with a capacity of about 600 students. H H H n II Add to Franklin Elementary School to Accommodate King Elementary School The estimated cost of adding to Franklin to bring the capacity to 600 students Is based on the cost of 14 additional classrooms. These rooms, at 780 square feet each, the size of rooms under construction at the new Carver Magnet School, would require about 10,900 net square feet of space. Adding the necessary circulation, toilets, mechanical space to the net area would result in about 16,000 square feet'of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, using the basis for Carver Magnet School, the addition would cost $800,000. To this should be added the costs for upgrading Franklin School, first through the minor enhancements called for in the amount of $22,350 and. secondly, the probable need for further improvements necessary to upgrade Franklin School. These costs can be determined more accurately when architectural studies are started on the project. The amount of $100,000 has been tentatively allocated for the project. The total cost is estimated to be $922,350. n n Major enhancement of King Elementary School was estimated to cost $1,187,815. With a capacity of 136 students, unchanged by the enhancement, the cost would be $8,700 per student. The new Carver Magnet School will have a cost for new construction, equipment, grounds, fees, and the like, of about $4,000 per student. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School H II Hi H The new Carver School has a capacity, depending upon the use of rooms and using the same measures of capacity as the other schools in this analysis, of about 568 students. Adding two classrooms by using the stage as a music room and reducing the storage for specialized spaces would result in a capacity of approximately 600 students. Using the cost of the Carver School as a measure, the new school would cost about $2,500,000. The combined budgets for enhancement of Garland of $396,890 and for Stephens of $964,720 is $1,361,600. This does not take Into account that the Garland School is constructed with brick bearing walls and wood frame. It is suggested that a new school of 600 capacity be-constructed to replace Garland and Stephens Schools. The two schools are located only about seven blocks apart in an area with small block size. By using the Stephens site expanded, as the site of the new school, the new school could be expedited. There Is much vacant land and many abandoned houses that could be secured to expand the site. H a-n- Add to Ish Elementary School and Distribute the Students Now Attending Washington Elementary School Between Rockefeller and Ish Schools V Washington Elementary School is a building that requires substantial rehabilitation. When completed, the result will not be a building that will be as effective as either Rockefeller School, which represents the best of the elementary schools in the area, or Ish, which is a more recently constructed building, fully air conditioned and with the capability of becoming one of the finer school buildings of the system. Both Ish and Washington have 214 student enrollments as of the fall of 1987-88. The service area of Washington School Ues in part across Roosevelt Road from the school. It Is proposed that studenrs living north of Roosevelt Road attend Rockefeller School. If the capacity at Rockefeller of 370 students will not accommodate Its present load of 289 students plus the students from Washington living north of Roosevelt Road, new classroom construction suggested here for Ish could be transferred to Roosevelt, until an appropriate balance has been reached. Assuming that the 80 student excess capacity at Rockefeller Is used, there would be a total of 134 students now assigned to Washington who could be assigned to Ish Elementary School. The Ish School has a total of twenty classrooms, and an enrollment of 214 students. The total enrollment. Including Ish and part of Washington, would be 344 students. From the number of classrooms should be deducted stx specialized rooms assigned tn all schools and two additional specialized rooms related to the specialty of the school. Ish as an environmental education focus needs a science room and Washington would require a Wnte-to-Read laboratory. A total of eight specialized rooms would be needed. V With twenty classrooms, reducing the count by the specialized rooms would result in twelve rooms. A series of changes are proposed. One is to move the cafeteria from the center of the Ish building and replace this outside the walls so that the noise is moved from the building. The space should be converted to a library and its supporting services. The present kitchen can be converted to a science room, the present library can be a computer laboratory. The new construction of an all-purpose room can Include a stage that can be designed for music use. Thus three of the eight special rooms required can be provided. The additional five specialized rooms are deducted from the twenty classrooms available. The fifteen rooms available as regular kindergartens and classrooms at eighteen students a room would have a capacity of 270 students. V V with an anticipated student load of 344 students and an existing capacity of 270 students, there is a need for four classrooms, bringing the capacity to 342 students plus ten in a special education self-contained classroom, for a total of 352 students. The new rooms could be constructed at either Rockefeller or Ish, as was noted above. They are calculated under Ish capacity at this time. V New construction would involve a new all-purpose room and kitchen described as 1,000 square feet of space for kitchen and auxiliary space, 1,600 square feet for the main floor, and 1,000 square feet for a stage usable for music along with storage. Four classrooms at 780 square feet, the size tn the Carver Magnet School, would require a net area of 3120 square feet. The total net area required would be 6,720 square feet or an estimated 10,000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, the estimated cost is $500,000. R H To the cost of new construction should be added $125,000 for enhancements to the original structure and for repair to damage at the mechanical room and the nearby exterior wall. The total cost of the project Is estimated to be $625,000. The estimated cost of enhancement of Washington Elementary School Is $742,730 and of Ish Is $204,311 for a total of $951,041. R Ril -12- H il Mitchell Elementary School I M The needs of the school, as suggested In the original program for major enhancement in the amount of $106,470, should be expended as planned. The needs for the combination of Mitchell Elementary School and Rlghtsell should be approached in the light of overall needs of this area of the city. These needs should be analyzed In connection with other schools In the area. H IMPACT ON CAPACITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES II The resulting capacities of the seven racially identifiable schools and Franklin are as follows. H King-Franklin Garland-Stephens Ish-Washlngton Rockefeller-Washington Mitchell 600 students 600 students 342 students 370 students 208 students II Total 2120 students II H The fall of 1987-88 enrollment In the schools was 2192. The Mitchell School should be modified and recommendation will be made for this school in relation to other schools In the area. This will provide opportunity to change capacity further. Mitchell shows an enrollment of 256 students and a capacity of 208 students. Much of the apparent deficit is caused by the difference at Mitchell. H Summary
New Construction and Enhancements of Schools as Planned or for the Period of Time Necessary to Complete Major Changes H Washington Elementary School Provide enhancements for period of time necessary to make permanent changes $75,400 II Rockefeller Elementary School Make planned enhancements $53,350 II Mitchell Elementary School Make planned major enhancements. $106,470 M Garland Elementary School Make enhancements to buUdlng for use until new Garland- Stephens is completed $86,300 fl Stephens Elementary School Demolition and site work New Stephens-Garland School $50,000 $2,500,000 fl fl King School Make enhancement to the school anticipating combining the school with Franklin $80,000I -13- "TmpSS-s j? .c,ud>g m>.r ehace,e.s construction, fourteen-classroom addition New $122,350 $800,000 p Ish enhancements and correction of fault in Make i----------------- mechanical room and exterior wall New construction of cafeteria and four classrooms with stage also usable as music room Total cost rounded to $125,CXX) $500,000 $4,498,870 $4,500,000 costs that would be involvedw resulting from additions would be related to good basic o,,rtrtpctinn would be that the new scnoois resuuuig uwu ___ suggestion buildings and that the new school TOtoSlth?uaht?lleS^^^ and to so doing acceptt^a S? eStlonal environment for children to these schools for years to come. proposed could be controlled in quality of educational Involved encapsulation of building cores that do riot - lesser standard ior The significant factor in the difference in cost between the original estimates of cost of about capacity between the original proposal and the J3.6O.OOO caused by ,,, ,33^ SS'of Srlglnal proposal and the 2120 cecity ot hSenTo'apJ^ wo5S SatoEt'So.00aorclose to $ 1 .IWO.OOO. ellmlnallng the Itoanclal advantage of the onglnal the 240 student capacity Involved would proposal. p p p I p p p R I I-T ^?iC> 1^: to (1> O RC'id) F CoMWJtr MtU 5E4flOt o CoMBiWl ?? KIhiCr IKl s. K1|A<> Do Wcoessaet kUUJG UMTIL j^Ub'TT -IO peAMfcUM cokpleth^^^^^ 6_-re^k^lS AliG^^J-VrL gidBs Q^M<CA{L coABlAe. CAPiAAJb <srsptlM3 g.AI^/-A>j23 n \jc^ curler Mew IS eoWSIRU^iEb / o MAwe. a. SN/AAXjI wwacs M.AJofL AKTO/teLU -------- o i^ic.nis{^LL. oe SENI> 3tu' IP I * K c^ ih 5" *<^,74 iSA TO 15U '^ TC RzxUCeFEilufe f* - ' vn nn- 4ot) b4FET
Az4 TO /SH T DO MHCES-jA&Y X. '^OIS4<. WO/^E. HA-ITlIJf 'T^Z^bE. I A2,TC AT I \' to AM P<2 O v'/ RJ 6 HlYS/ tLIHE^S MAP LoCAnohl OF ecAcoL. BU/Lb/RJGS 1/^ RGFO/^.n FZ\jLIALLf /I>t'MnF/ABLE S(U\C)OLQ-15- p Conformity with Previously Established Major Enhancements Proposals and Time Schedules p pi It should be noted that these proposals are sufficient to house all present and contemplated 1989- 90 enrollments, and do not require a declining enrollment to be feasible. Whether the Central City school-age population actually remains stable, declines, or Increases, it remains true that in the final analysis the number of children attending these schools will be determined by assignment and will not be determined by local residential status. However, the consultants believe that the recommended school size range from 500 to 600 pupils is desirable for both educational and economic reasons and has therefore been the basis of these proposals. p p If there be completely adverse reaction to the concept of not conforming completely with he original Court-accepted plans and time schedule, the consultants suggest that every effort be made to conform with the major elements of such plans as previously approved, and that consideration be given to securing approval of certain modifications by consideration of the following. p p 1. We believe that the work could and should proceed Immediately as previously planned at Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Ish. All such enhancements will be of continuing use and value to the pupils and staff therein. p 2. We believe that such work previously planned at Garland, which will be of primary benefit and usefulness to the pupils in their final year of occupancy of this school, should go forward as planned. p Work which is long-term preventative and primarily structural and mechanical in nature should be deferred and re-evaluated. It is recommended that this building become the much needed improved housing for the Instructional Resource Center, which is now located in former Lee Elementary School. The Garland School cafeteria facility should continue to function as a community center until such time as the newly constructed school achieves recognition of Its own community center status. p It is. of course, true that plumbing, site, heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical requirements for thirty to forty adult occupants are far less than those needed for hundreds of pupils. We earnestly suggest that public funds Invested In the recommended new school would be of substantially greater benefit to pupils and taxpayers than would be the case If pumped Into an elghty-year-old building. Moreover, by utilizing Garland for the Instructional Resource Center and disposing of Lee (which requires much work), the resource staff and program can function more effectively. Garland's facilities can be retained as a community center for as long as required, and substantial repair costs can be saved at both Garland and Lee. p 3. We recommend that proposed work previously planned at King, and intended primarily for pupil safety, comfort, and instructional effectiveness, be started immediately. The same considerations suggested for Garland should apply to King for the final year of pupil occupancy at this building. All savings from work that can be deferred and transferred to the King-Franklin addition should be seriously considered. A possible future use of the present King facility as an administrative unit for housing assistant superintendents and thetr staff could be considered, and such use would not require the major mechanical, site or structural renovations previously planned for effective occupancy by hundreds of pupils. p p p Because the future use of King Involves substantial consideration of possible future administrative reorganization policies and patterns, we believe that It would be Judicious to keep current Investment in this plant at a minimum consistent with short-term p pq -16- q q utilization by present pupils, until final decisions are made to determine the final use of this facility. q 4. To provide an effective new school to replace Garland and Stephens, the simplest procedure would be temporarily to spread Stephens' projected fall enrollment into not more than three or four nearby schools, which have the excess capacity to enroll them, and which can and will offer adequate facilities for their education. The present Stephens structure could then be demolished, and the site graded and prepared and a totally new school erected as recommended. q II n There Is much available vacant, boarded-up and low-cost property adjacent to the existing Stephens site. However, site acquisition takes substantial blocks of time, as well as funds. Other alternatives might include retaining some of the existing Stephens plant and building a part of the new school adjacent thereto, and then proceeding with final demolition and completion of the entire new plant. Still another choice could involve retaining some portions of the existing facility and building an addition thereto. In the consultants' view, this latter course could be as costly and more time consuming in the long run than the erection of an entirely new school. M n H 5. In the case of Washington, it is recommended that the same consideration be given as previously recommended for Garland and King. Work should proceed Immediately for items necessary for pupil safety and effective educational utilization for the coming school year. Those other items beneficial to long-term plant and site use should be deferred while the addition at Ish is constructed. The community could continue to use the cafeteria facilities for as long as desired, while future use of the old building is determined. One suggestion might be to lease It for a nominal sum and required maintenance and operational expenses to the Annie Casey Foundation for their use as an administrative headquarters. Ultimate use or sale could await future developments. A simple chart illustrating the above concepts follows. II II II While ultimate costs of this group of alternative proposals will be largely determined by how much is demanded and/or required to be done at the buildings to be given up after only one year of further pupU use, we believe that by careful selection, the entire program of new construction can be provided close to the the cost parameters previously suggested. If this is done, more than a thousand pupils, and perhaps as many as 1500, could benefit by these new and Improved facilities. We further believe that these proposals for new construction can be completed within a time frame actually and realistically required for the previously proposed projects. We therefore recommend that they be given serious consideration, if our original recommendations are not acceptable. n Time Frame for Facilities Improvement II n The consultants, based upon their combined experience of almost one hundred years of responsible leadership involving literally billions of dollars In school plant planning, construction and operational development In widely scattered geographic areas, believe that any proposed development of new or significantly Improved school facilities must involve substantial amounts of time. H School districts are typically enshrouded in massive amounts of regulatory procedures or "red tape," which cannot be legally Ignored. Boards of education and their staffs take many mandated, specifically stipulated legal actions to employ qualified engineers and architects, to procure financing, to hold public hearings, to advertise for bids, to approve architectural plans.-17- p and to seek approval from various state, local and federal authorities having responsibilities for conformance with such things as fire, electrical, health, safety, zoning, and sanitary codes, labor laws, anti-discrimination regulations, and minimal education standards, etc. When finally approved, specifications and bids must be advertised for stipulated minimum periods of time, and contracts must be legally awarded within the parameters of literally thousands of Court decisions concerning such awards. Many of these statutes and regulations require time periods which are beyond the immediate control of the local board. Fortunately for Little Rock, Federal Court intervention may Indeed expedite or "short circuit" some such procedures. Nevertheless, It is always also true that such things as shortages, procurement of critical building materials, approval of alternate components, preparation of shop drawings, selection of subcontractors, clarification of specification requirements, possible labor difficulties, delayed inspections and approval by regulatory bodies for code compliance, inclement weather, necessary change orders as work progresses, and many similar or unforeseen obstacles may delay progress of the work. In our experience, many of these delays occur, whether the total project be large or small. In general, it is our experience that such contrasting projects as a small elementary school addition or a massive new high school take a minimum of thirteen months for completed construction. In practice, larger contractors employ larger work forces and seem to have more "clout" In expediting necessary non-constructlon aspects of the projects. Consideration of all the required legal processes, adequate planning time, proper supervision and Inspection of the work in progress, and final acceptance of the work typically require a year to a year and a half of elapsed time. We see no reason to believe that the time frame for Little Rock's construction procedures would be slgnlflcantly different from those tn other areas. WhUe it is true that by utilizing overtime shifts, double-time labor, and paying premium prices for various components, and by using and paying for completion penalty and liquidated damages clauses in contracts, work progress can sometimes be significantly accelerated, we believe the proposed financing levels for Little Rock's school modification and construction projects leave little room for any such practices. pl pi pi PI pi p p p p p Addendum The following material shows the original planned major enhancements for the seven racially identifiable schools. The suggested action for buildings that may be replaced or combined are shown In this compilation as alternative moves. The ^tematlve suggestions are Included in the summary of costs that appeared above. p p p R R Rn -18- H IMPLEMENTATION PLAN II H II H H M H H H II II H II II II d Washington Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect: develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owners acceptance Projects to be accomplished Washington Elementary School Interior Toilet partitions Painting Floor tile, cafeteria Carpeting, classroom Exterior Partial re-roof Window replacement Clean and waterproof exterior Plumbing Piping and fixture replacement Heating and Ventilating All new system, HV only Air condition cafeteria Electrical All new system Other Equipment New furnishing and equipment storage in classrooms, sinks in classrooms, modify chalkboard heights Subtotal Special conditions (10%), miscellaneous (5%), contingency (5%), professional services (10%) Total building upgrade Site Development Paving and curbs Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Security Miscellaneous Deadline Current 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89 Alternative 6-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89 Bstiniated Cost Original 10,500 9,450 2,500 40,000 10,000 25,800 12,000 40,000 167,300 10,000 154,400 18,230 500,180 150,000 650,230 30,000 5,050 32,650 8,850 4,050 4,500 3,000 Alternative 9,450 2,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 54,950 12,000 66,950 4,050Washington El. School (cont'd.) Subtotal - Site Contingency Total Grand Total Rockefeller Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished. Rockefeller Elementary School Waterproof outside wall, early childhood area Roof repairs Repair HVAC units Repair carpeting Subtotal - Building Site development Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Miscellaneous Subtotal - Site Total -19- 88,100 4,400 4,400 92,500 742,730 75,400 Deadline Current 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 Alternative 5-15-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 Estimated Cost Original 2,000 12,000 8,000 2,000 24,000 2,330 10,320 8,950 5,850 2000 29,350 53,350 Alternative 2,000 12,000 8,000 2,000 24,000 2,330 10,320 8,950 5,850 2.000 29,350 53,350 p Pi p p Pl Pl p p p i p * RII -20- II il DeadBne Current Alternative ' Garland Elementary School Implementation Schedule I i Ifl 4 Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 9-30-88 Ifl Projects to be accomplished. Garland Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative Ifl Ifl Interior Portable stage for cafeteria Stage storage Replace toilet floor tiles Repartition all toilet rooms Replace tack strips and bulletin boards Replace carpeting Paint interior 7,800 6,500 8,000 10,500 1,500 40,000 13,500 7,800 2,000 1,500 10,000 13,500 Ifl Plumbing Replace all flush valves Replace sinks with vanities 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 II Electro-Mechanical Additional electrical service A/C with window units 2,000 32,700 2,000 II Exterior Re-roof Clean and waterproof exterior masonry 60,000 12,000 II II II Site Development Build flammable storage Paving/curbs Play areas Grassed area Planting Outdoor equipment Security Retaining wall construction 2,500 18,250 5,500 10,300 8,950 14,500 15,700 30,500 30,000 II Subtotal 305,300 Miscellaneous, fees, contingency 91,590 15,000 II Total 396,890 86,300 II 4 I-21- : Stephens Elementary School i Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owners acceptance *The consultants view the elapsed time suggested there as Insufficient. The project involves construction of a gym, total replacement of electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, replacing ceilings, replacing windows, and the like. In our judgment the project wUl take thirteen months at least to complete. Project to be accomplished, Stephens Elementary School Plumbing Replace plumbing fixtures, pipes, fountains, 1950 unit Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Replace window operators Paint all trim Reroof, partial Interior Carpet all classrooms and replace asphalt tile Replace suspended ceilings, 1950 unit Install Insulation, 1950 unit Refinlsh Interior, doors, walls, paint, etc. Install new toilet partitions Electro-Mechanical All new electrical system All new HVAC system Subtotal for Building Mlsc. fees, special conditions, contingency @ 30% Total for building New Construction Multipurpose gym Fees, contingency, equipment, 20% Total new construction Deadline Current 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 1-1-89* 2-1-89* Alternative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-1 to 12-1-89 10-1-89 to 1-1-90 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 40,000 24,000 1,460 1,430 58,650 51,600 10,100 4,900 23,100 13,650 107,250 179.Q0Q 515,150 154,550 669,700 191,750 38,350 230,100 I I R H R R R RII -22- n Stephens El. School (conf d.) 4 Site Development Develop plan Paving play area, walks 2,950 5,500 II t| Grass area Planting trees and shrubs Fencing Equipment Lighting 19,000 9,750 11,200 4200 3.060 II Subtotal Mise, fees, contingency, 15% 56.450 8,470 II Total, site work 64,900 Grand total 964,700 II The alternative is to build a new school replacing Stephens and Garland n Demolition New construction 50,000 2,500,000* n *The approximate cost for the Carver Magnet School, recently bld and under construction, was this amount. II M H H II M A A Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance The consultants view the current time schedule as optimistic. In the judgment of the consultants this project will take a minimum of nine months to complete. Projects to be accomplished, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Safety Enclose fire stairs (south) Provide fire stairs (north end and from auditorium) Replace wood transoms with fire-rated enclosure Sanitary Replace all piping and plumbing fixtures Deadline Current 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89* 3-1-89* Alternative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 4-15-89 5-15-89 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 2,990 9,800 4,700 2,990 87,500Martin Luther King (cont'd.) -23- p p p Structural Underpin and repair wall and floor slab, remove north stairs and enclose area 3,900 p Roof Re-roof 1949 and 1953 sections 12,300 12,300 p Exterior Repair masonry and repair wood windows and sills 2,240 2,240 p Interior Install new tile ceilings, 1939 and 1949 units with Insulation Install doors, toilet partitions Replace flooring, all classrooms, cafeteria and auditorium 14,750 2,830 45,000 2,830 p Electro-Mechanical Remove present electrical service over roof, install proper equipment in new switch gear location. Including distribution Rewire for increased fixtures, outlets and unit ventilators, 1937 and 1949 units Install new fixtures throughout Install new heating system 40,950 75,000 48,750 227,500 Subtotal, building 579,310 20,360 Mlsc., special conditions, fees, contingency 30% 173,790 Total, building 753,100 29,620 p PI p p Site Work Pavlng/curblng, Including driveway and parking for 30 cars Curbs Walks Steps Play area basketball court Retaining walls at drive Retaining walls at west play field All grassed areas Planting and shrubbery Equipment Playground Baseball backstops Soccer goals Security lighting poles Security fencing Tree removal and clear stumps 8,970 7,350 5,460 3350 5,000 24,700 37,400 25,700 4,940 8,450 2375 975 6,100 10,300 5.800 Subtotal, site work 156,670 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 20% 31330 8,970 7350 5,000 8,450 2375 975 5.800 38,820 7,760 p p p p Rn -24- II Martin Luther King (cont'd.) H Total, site work 188,000 46,580 q 11 Additional Upgrading Air conditioning Replace windows with aluminum Double-hung, double-glazed sash Equipment Painting and finishing BuUd greenhouse Build outside flammable storage building 63,375 62,400 40,000 19,200 10,000 2,500 2,500 n Subtotal, additional 197,475 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 30% 59,240 II Total, additional upgrading 256,715 2,500 q Grand total 1,197,815 78,700 rounded to 80,000 q q Mitchell Elementary School Implementation Schedule Deadline II q Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Current 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 1-1-89 2-1-89 Alternative 5-15-88 6-7-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 11-1-88 12-1-88 q Projects to be accomplished, Mitchell Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative II II Air condition, window units Additional electric service Clean and waterproof exterior Paint Interior Build outside flammable storage Replace or repair bulletin boards and tack strips Site work 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 q Subtotal 81,900 81,900 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 30% 24,570 24,570 q Grand total 106,470 106,470 q-25- p p Ish Elementary School Implementation Schedule p This schedule is for implementation of items on current schedule and does not include schedule for new construction. The site work planned for Ish should be scheduled after new construction is completed. DeadUne Current Alternative p Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance 4-1-88 5-1-88 5-21-88 6-7-88 8-1-88 8-21-88 5-12-88 6-7-88 6-21-88 7-1-88 8-15-88 8-28-88 p p p Projects to be accomplished, Ish Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative Exterior Exterior walls, clean and waterproof Additional electrical and wiring Roof repairs Replace flush valves 12,000 15,000 1,500 3,500 12,000 15,000 1,500 3,500 p p p Interior Install glass partitions to sound-isolate cafeteria Install acoustic material on wall panels Carpet classrooms Replace louvered door with wall tn ALP room 3,640 1,500 25,500 2.500 3,640 1,500 25,500 2.500 p Subtotal, building 65,440 65,440 Mise., fees, contingency, 20% 13,100 13,100 Total, building 78,540 78,540 Site work, Incl. fees, contingency 47230 47.230 Grand total 124,770 124,770 p p p R I In fl fl fl fl fl fl Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock H fl 11 II II II II II M Mq q q The School Buildings of Little Rock q q It has been said that "What the wisest and best Informed parent would want for the education of his or her child, the Board of Education should seek to provide for the education of all the children of all parents." q In conformity with this challenging axiom, the Board of Education of Little Rock and Its chief administrators have sought objective information to assist them In arriving at decisions and establishing policies that will provide maximal educational opportunities for the youth of the community. I q One of the Important Ingredients of an effective educational system to provide such optimal educational opportunities for all citizens Is the school plant, which works as a tool to assist the Instructional staff. Students learn best when school facilities provide an effective learning environment. q q q Eight years ago, the Little Rock School District sought the services of the present consultants to evaluate the buildings and sites, to judge how they were maintained and operated, to consider how they were used by the public they served, and to determine how their physical settings support the process of education of children attending the public schools of the district. The findings of that 1980-81 study were published In a two-part report that provided specific information as the basis for specific recommendations and specific cost estimates for implementing the changes so recommended. q Because the passage of time and events have validated much of the proposals and cost estimates then made, the consultants were asked to again study the physical facilities, to review the Impact of national and local demographic changes and trends, and to update their recommendations on physical facility needs and priorities and the cost estimates related thereto. q q Early and particular emphasis and attention was to be given to the facility needs of seven racially Identifiable schools, as well as to an objective evaluation of how those needs were related to the totality of facility needs within the expanded boundaries of the enlarged Little Rock School District. q In response to this multifaceted assignment, the consultants have provided preliminary and updated versions of their findings on the racially Identifiable schools, have completed the demographic studies and projects, and are herewith submitting this third aspect of thelr report, suggesting the prioritized needs and current cost estimates of physical Improvements tn each of the school buildings within the system. q q q Each school was given expert and careful examination of buildings and site conditions. Comments, suggestions and concerns of administrators and staff In each building were carefully noted. Comparative evaluations of the Impact of observed conditions upon both building operational efficiency and integrity and educational effectiveness were established. Based upon these evaluations, preliminary task lists and cost estimates were established. In conferences with the Director of Plant Services and Maintenance and his two top assistants, these preliminary lists were then updated and prioritized as the most pressing needs for each facility. q As each school facility was visited, the consultants checked the recommendations made in the 1980-81 study and determined which poor conditions had been corrected, which recommended-2- Improvements had been carried out. and which poor conditions still existed or had been exacerbated by almost eight years of additional continued wear and deterioration. 1 ( I p In a very real sense, the perspective given by this two-fold exposure over an extended time period gave the consultants added effectiveness in forming their judgments on priorities and projected costs. The consulting cost expert, who had compiled the initial cost estimates of the 1980-81 study, then took the task lists and updated costs of the former tasks yet remaining, and the reported new condition and proposed projects that were observed and listed at visits to the various buildings in April and May. p As a further step In the process, the consultants discussed the educational Impact of perceived plant needs with various administrative Instructional personnel and also considered the goals sought by the desegregation and assignment programs, which are the primary determinants of actual enrollments in each Individual Little Rock school. p p After this Information had been collected and the demographic study reports had been compiled and submitted, the final parameters of the study were more clearly defined by several board policy decisions and actions related to the facilities situation. p The Board acted with dispatch in authorizing work related to the major and minor enhancement programs as recommended to and accepted by the court. The Board agreed that the Washington and King Schools should be closed. It approved the recommendation for an addition to Franklin and directed that architects be assigned for designing a replacement school for Washington. It further stated that Stephens School should be replaced, but preferably not on the existing Stephens site. p In addition, the work on the major and minor enhancement schools was to proceed, even though the responsibility for. and ultimate sharing of. costs for such work are yet to be determined by the courts. Under such authorization, this work has proceeded effectively and with dispatch. p The Board has further authorized funding for certain major roofing projects of approximate costs of $1.5 million, plus approximately $3 million for air conditioning all the classrooms in those schools that do not now have such an Important environmental Improvement, as well as an additional sum of approximately $500,000 for Exxon energy grants. As a most significant and far-reaching step, the Board, supported by effective volunteer community executive, professional, and tndustrial leaders, has courageously decided to submit a referendum request for approvEil of an 8 mil tax Increase. This additional levy is to apply 2.5 mils to physical plant Improvement, with a minimum annual Income to support an approximately $20 million program. In working with the Director of Facilities and Maintenance and his two assistants, the consultants sought final reviews of proposed work, work to be accomplished or already completed under the major and minor enhancement, air conditioning and roofing program, and ongoing maintenance. The evaluated project lists were adjusted to reflect latest costs and prioritized. Following all these steps, an adjusted program of about $18.5 million is recommended herewith. R It should be noted that many prior requests for voter approval of tax Increases have not been successful. However, there Is a growing nationwide understanding of the Importance of an effective education for all citizens for the survival of our democratic way of Ufe. Industry has come to realize the need for an effectively educated labor force to compete successfully In the marketplace, and business understands that it is the educated consumer who provides the market for all the new and varied products and services that their enlightened customers demand. R R At both the state and local levels, volunteer groups of distinguished citizens from all walks of life have stepped forward and given freely of their time and talents to create an informed public Ifl -3- fl fl fl fl awareness of the Importance of education and of the needed fiscal support to provide such an effective education. Their objective reviews of ongoing programs and their educational goals and results, and actual physical and fiscal realities of the local educational process can be an important motivator for significant change and Improvement in the city schools. We believe that as a result of this awakened Interest, the leaders of the Little Rock community can not long Ignore the accelerating effects of continuous neglect of school facilities. Their Informed and understanding support, plus the responsible and courageous leadership of the Board of Education and Its chief administrator, can literally work wonders in producing a changed climate of public support for better education of the children who are the principal ingredient of the future of Little Rock. fl fl As a concomitant aspect of this report, we wish to point out that any program for the improvement of school facilities cannot overlook the fact that it is human beings who must operate, use, maintain, repair, preserve and protect the tremendous public Investment In those facilities. As consultants, with broad knowledge of comparative educational operations elsewhere, we believe that custodial care and operation of Little Rock schools can be substantially improved. fl fl fl We believe the recommendations we made in 1980-81 for the better organization, more adequate staffing, and Improved and Increased supervision and training of the school custodial, maintenance and operations staff are now more important than they were eight years ago. We decry the almost impossible work load placed upon the Director of Facilities and Maintenance, and we reiterate our recommendations with respect to the importance of increasing and reorganlzating staff support for the supervision of this costly public service. The Little Rock School District has Increased the district's school facilities by fourteen school buildings, increasing by roughly one-third the floor area to its maintenance operations and custodial work loads. It has not added any supervisory or administrative staffing in maintenance or operations to affect either the prior Inadequacies or the added load of the additional facilities. We believe that continuance of such a situation Is "penny wise and pound foolish." fl 11 11 These comments and recommendations for additional staff assistance are in no way intended to imply that the Director and his present limited staff are falling to produce. In fact, the work accomplished in the past semester and short summer season on the magnet schools, and in getting work done In the major enhancement and minor enhancement schools, while at the same time carrying on urgent and necessary repairs In all other buildings, is a magnificent accomplishment. The Board of Education can indeed be proud of the fact that so much has been accomplished. In so short a time and by so very few. However, It is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that such a pace can continue for very long. II il To emphasize our concern, we also strongly recommend that if the millage for plant and facilities improvement is enacted, the district should immediately provide an assistant to the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. We further recommend that engineering and architectural services should be provided and district-wide specifications and blds be used In such a manner as to "cluster." or to bring together many similar type projects in the various buildings (such as roofing, air conditioning, new Intercom systems, rewiring, relighting, etc.). By contractual services, such design people can help ensure district-wide fixed responsibility and the authority and opportunity to make on-the-job decisions to foster prompt continuance of the work. n Use of Planning Committees II The best planning for adequate educational facilities should Involve the Input of those who, by experience. Judgment, knowledge and technical skills, can contribute to the successful design of superior and effective teaching tools. Administration can foster such Input by the creation of organized procedures for gathering these Insights or inputs and transmitting them to the persons entrusted with the design of such facilities. Planners can be helped in such diverse-4- fields as Instruction, administration, community and personnel use, maintenance, operations, and civic pride and citizenship education, as they go about their work. Who best can tell what is necessary or desirable for effective teaching in various subject areas? Who can ensure that architects design a facility that will facilitate learning by pupils? Who can tell what faculties help an administrator to best operate a school program in harmony with student, community and staff needs? Who can teU how best to design a kitchen or lunch room layout, or to assist in designing facilities for proper custodial care and operation? The answer, seasoned by use In countless communities, Ues In creating planning committees of administrators and staff experts who pool their knowledge to create educational specifications, as well as material specifications, thereby advising architects and engineers on desirable design elements, and who can screen out obvious design "bloopers" before they are transformed into enduring concrete and steel that forever plague their users during the life of a facility. pi pi The consultants have strongly recommended, and are pleased to observe, that such planning committees are being created to assist and strengthen the designing of future projects. In commenting upon the form of this report, we state that because we are aware of the existence and use of copies of our voluminous prior reports in various administrative offices, we have not Included a reiteration of those reports here. Copies of significant aspects of such reports can be readily produced in administrative offices whenever their use is of Interest. As a final comment, we wish to thank the Board, its administrative staff, and the host of its employees for the absolute cooperation, patient assistance, and supportive actions of all personnel, which have assisted in the production of this report. We trust that It will contain much useful Information for the Improvement of educational opportunities for the youth of Little Rock. if i i Respectfully submitted. II Stanton Leggett Frederick HUI Stanton Leggett and Associates H V B B :m -5- m n An Extended Overview: Further Comments n II II Priorities and Costs in the Preceding Listings. We have indicated those projects that the consultants believe will be most slgnJlcant to Improving the service life and educational utility of the present school buildings. We have Intentionally leveled the total cost of these priority needs to a sum less than the proposed $20 million "celling" envisioned by an eight mil increase. There Is no accurate way to determine the time frame that will pass, nor to determine the economic climate that will prevail, before specific projects are undertaken, nor can we guess what unexpected breakdown or emergencies may occur in the intermittent time period. We have consulted with top staff in establishing the estimated cost and priority of the Included items, but the final responsibility of this listing rests with us alone. n It is our Intent that the difference between our listing and the amounts made available by an increased millage shall serve as a cushion to absorb any changes In cost, to cover emergency items, and to provide some leeway to permit the Inclusion of some additional items that may be strategically or politically desirable. M H Administrative Facilities. We have not Included any projects for the betterment of administrative facilities. Without question, much money could be spent to provide more adequate housing for those administrative and instructional services now housed at Lee and the administrative annex. M II M Maintenance and Operations needs additional and more effective space and equipment. The main administration building and Board service areas could be Improved. The food service function and equipment storage are poorly housed. There is need for housing an extended personnel function. The purchasing department requests more space and double decking some of Its present space, etc. We have evaluated all such needs to presently be of lower priority than the needs of the Individual school buildings. Moreover, If and when the new school facilities are constructed, administrative use of old facilities then released may be carefully considered. Ultimately, also, such administrative needs may be again reconsidered each time a subsequent bond or current improvement program is established. Failure to Include any such Item In our present listing may be viewed unhappily by those with genuine needs
nevertheless, it is the consultants' recommendation that they not be Included at this time. II M The Specter of Asbestos. The Board of Education and its staff have sought and received careful engineering evaluation of all locations of asbestos within the Little Rock schools. They have complied with all Inspection and rectification and removal procedures related thereto. In those few remaining locations where It exists, it Is safety encapsulated and in non-frlable condition. Nevertheless, the environmental agency regulators continue to grind out increasingly tough and almost bizarre regulations. M n II In some Instances, observing all their rules can cause a $300 celling or floor tile repair to cost thousands of dollars. Then sometimes what starts out as replacement of a leaky pipe, obsolete lighting fixture, or broken floor tile can become a nightmare of unbudgeted (and many believe unwarranted) expenditures of scarce public funds for asbestos removal. It is not unrealistic to estimate that perhaps as much as $3 or $3.5 million could be required as an auxiliary hidden cost of some of the electrical-mechanical corrections and improvements that may become necessary In the future. Air Conditioning Program. The Board of Education has wisely provided for the air conditioning of all classrooms that do not have It now. However, there are many cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums, offices, and work rooms and conference areas that could also be so-6- equipped. This will undoubtedly be requested for future consideration, and additional funding would then be required. Portable Replacement. In June of this year, the Little Rock School District used 64 portable buildings, of which seventeen were judged to be "below standard," or In poor condition. Their many problems, such as leaky roofs, deteriorated floors and stmctural elements, damaged siding, vandalized utilities, unsightly appearance, etc., make it neither economically feasible nor desirable to repair them. It makes good sense to use portables to house temporary peaks in a growing school population. When capital funds for new constmctlon are hard to come by, portables provide a way out. i However, in areas of declining population or in those cases where a school's enrollment is determined not by residence but by assignment, the need for portables can be anticipated and controlled. In the case of Little Rock, where all such factors are prevalent, it is likely that portables will be needed in the foreseeable future. We believe a ten-year program of replacing about six portables per year, if all portables are to be eventually replaced, or a three-year program Involving the 17 worst present ones, is called for. Replacement of these would be desirable. Staff has estimated that local costs for either program would be approximately $100,000 per year. p p Window Replacement. There are many inefficient and obsolete windows in various Little Rock school buildings. Windows can be a source of both light and delight to the occupants of school classrooms. We believe most teachers and most pupils prefer the airy and spacious feeling of larger, old-fashioned windows in hlgh-celllnged rooms, rather than the claustrophobic atmosphere that prevails in some modem school rooms with low ceilings, non-opening windows, and single-slit windows with constant need for operational, artificial means of Illumination and ventilation. There Is a clearly existing modem reconsideration of the many functions of windows, as well as genuine concern that the closed recirculation of air In some modem ventilation and air conditioned systems Is contributing greatly to a higher Incidence of respiratory Illnesses and Infections. p p p Nevertheless, despite the controversies that may be Involved, it Is a fact of life that spiraling energy costs have spawned the need for forced replacement of many leaky and rotten old windows and window casings in many buildings, and we believe that many of such replacements, at a cost of approximately $350 per window opening, may be anticipated. p p Needed New High Schools. As population changes now are Indicated, the major growth of school population could possibly occur in the areas east of the airport complex where the Badgett and new Carver schools are serving. There is more opportunity for entry-level rental and purchase of homes In this area than In other sectors of the city. At some future date, these residents could demand secondary school facilities. p p In the area west of 430 and north of 300. there is indicated growth of expensive apartments, condominiums, and more expensive single-family dwellings. Should economic conditions change enough to decrease such construction, less expensive housing units with families likely to have older children of high school age might be erected and at some point local high school facilities could be demanded. p Likewise. In the area west of Chicot and south of Baseline, the availability of land for middle- Income. single-family dwellings, which would likely be purchased by older family groups having few elementary but some secondary age children, could require new high school facilities In this area. Moreover, the gradual deterioration of older existing high schools could make the replacement with new buildings economically desirable. At such time the new buildings could be relocated and could be the result of abandoning and/or consolidating older high schools. Rd -7- d d d d other Nee
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.