Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary

PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT March 9, 1993 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 07? TO JTia a = '( -OT a*. D MAR 1 0 1953 !3 c: Dcssgragalion ^j*i. 'i fZivijnO^'no Dear Dr. Bernd: As you know, the Site Selection Committee formed to evaluate sites for construction of the new Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School has voted to recommend the old Stephen's site. When this was discussed as one of the options, PCSSD went on record at that hearing as having serious reservations concerning that site, particularly regarding student access and PCSSD's ability to recruit the necessary number of white students for a new school at that location. Unfortunately, nothing has occurred since that hearing which modifies our concerns. We trust our concerns will be expressed to your Board when they review the Site Selection Committee's recommendation. I recommend you seek Federal Court approval for Stephens and King elementary schools to be listed as interdistrict magnets. In my opinion, this would be excellent for recruitment purposes. Thank you very much. Sincerely Billy J. Bowles Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch c Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. Sam Jones Mrs. Ann Brown Ms. Marie ParkerGreater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 6640334 EXHIBIT I 9 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection CommitteeI i I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE f I ( I Introduction........................................................... Building Community Capacity.......................- The GLRCDC..................................................... Management Structure...................................... Staffing ................................................................... Financial Resources............................................ Geographical Area Served................................ Housing ................................................................... Initial Target Area............................................... Community Obstacles to Overcome............. Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................... Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary.............................................................. I APPENDIX Census Tract Map................................ Midtown Service Area Map .............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile................ 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I i. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I! BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY I ) 1 I Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of Inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our Inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. ! i The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected irxMviduei.or organization to Inform and organize organizations and irxiividuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and Interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. I A general frannework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk 1 I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. "Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2I I 1 * identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is willing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no or>e organization could possibly afford except through network'participation. I I For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that Impact their lives. I I Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. I i The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3i ) THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I i I i The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was Incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following
To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. i To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. I To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. I I To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals In the development of the service area. f- To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. I To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 41 BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY I I I 1 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our Inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. ! i The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept, .The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. I A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: I * Get the prospective network members to talk I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. "Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 21 To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. I 1 To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. i I Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is In place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three <3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined and controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation.-The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience In the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 I I Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5I Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. I Staffing The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be cgntracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I (Ouring the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. I In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 1 5% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE .fl . The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). The primary goal of the neighborhood and its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. I The quality of life, including social aspects. Is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. I Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. I f Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I 1 I ) There are three pockets of substandard housing
two are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should be identified as priorities for any home improvement programs that are initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA ! i
I I I The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are: gang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8I I I I i COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME Recognizing the need for "bottom up planning" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy
Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems): Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection
Organization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9I Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience I ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES 1 I Organization Actions I A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. i I Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. I I Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I I 1 I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities: Community Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) r Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) - - New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the projects financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities
Provide safe recreational activities and social services for youth
11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens
I Increase code enforcement
Develop safe, decent and affordable housing. I Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) fSyyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #2 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 #3 #4 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods & Planning 1993-1994 1993-1994 #5 GLRCDC 1993-1995 12I ( I 1 I Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods & Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power & Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company I Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and vyork to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, - downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the "Oak Street Posse". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. ( Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. ! f The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. Educational activities will focus on providing literature and referrals for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: Name, address, and phone number of the organization. * Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone numbers. Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I ( i' The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14I Objective il: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities I I i During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. L Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports- in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged'youth in the service area will be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. ! I i Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective Hi: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities I The explosive growth in the older population deserves oor special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. I I I Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Housing.and Code Enforcement I Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. ( i { I I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or Its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16I Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing ) A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I L The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is Inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The^program will also provide pre-quallfication services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. I Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to have the city to include the block in its Model Block Program. Press releases will be created to bring attention to the Model Block Program, and upon completion a tour of the area will be conducted. 17I I The GLRCDC will assist neighborhoods in participating in the Community Block Development Grant process. I An architect and urban planner will be employed, in the Spring of 1993, as consultants to develop a Master Plan for the network's physical environment activities. The Master Plan will include recommended capital Improvements for streets, curbs, gutters, and drainage systems in the area. The network and area residents will request that the city appropriate Capital Improvement Funds in the 1994 fiscal year budget. i I i Once substantial rehabilitation takes place, some type of on-going program will be implemented to ensure that the housing stock remains up to standard. Due to the age of the housing found In the neighborhood, continued decline in housing conditions is likely. An on going program of home maintenance will do much to discourage future neighborhood deterioration. A routine maintenance program will be initiated and staffed by the neighborhood's residents through the GLRCDC. SUMMARY ( i I-- In an effort to help rebuild Inner city communities' social and economic fabric and reestablish community pride, the Community Cooperative Network Concept is a tool which can be used to revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods through a variety of existing services. The concept was developed by former President Jimmy Carter in a 1991 campaign called The Atlanta Project, which was designed to combat the social problems associated with urban poverty. To date there are no published statistics that could measure how well the program Is working. At the heart of all community projects are the benefits to neighborhoods. Communities institute programs that improve security and residents feel safer, operate clean-up campaigns to improve their neighborhoods' appearance and establish specific programs to address code violations, zoning violations and negligent absentee landlords. The collective actions of community cooperative networks enhance city governments' response to their problems and provide a source of neighborhood pride and empowerment. The overall effect of community organizations is to create a places where people want to live and do business. 18The city of Little Rock benefits because neighborhoods stabilize and property values increase, thereby improving the city's tax base. Residents don't flee the city and problems of segregation and negative race relations are reduced. The banks are given an opportunity to address their Community Reinvestment Act commitments to finance affordable housing opportunities for the low and moderate Income community. Through bank CDCs, utility companies, insurance companies, and developers, community based organizations will receive financial assistance in building and renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services In older neighborhoods. J. ! L The low-income housing tax credits have become an essential tool available to the private sector for helping low-income housing projects qualify to obtain financing. Finally, the private sector has become increasingly aware that it can, with relatively little risk, obtain considerable public relations benefits while making an acceptable rate of return on its CDC Investments. I 191 I I I APPENDIX I I I I I rI i PAGE A CENSUS TRACTS I I L N I i. i i I PAGE I! I C JO ) t s I i EI I i I M I I I i I / I rwilh e*e*c*w> iweilth IcMileenth hlleevilh 9KleC>4l* II I 'JM >x*: kL** ww i<ecHh eiglileentf nineleisnih Iwcniielti twenty - Iwst IB 3ass5 ^M'.'.'Zi a iMMMM l ---------- 1. i^D RBiBDi KI ix^-woe BilE IHLK* mmma ua a ]t ormEt __ I LU Dcli ZZJLZ) uu c 11 BBffi BDfflHBirmmiii ^iuu Barurr mmriiillill mCOlIlLDLCLljffl Iwentytecoxl tweedy - thifd '"lESfaUBlK Ivvenly towlh
0B[ffl>Tnw nmiTOLOiyw. twenty-hllh 7 twenty.sixth ___ 1wenly-se*cnt tooseveH ^vUfll cfefl $ I!II SINGLE EAMILY [Dq mmg DODCBH I'tou m ffl Id 1 c- MIXED USE jowirmt -2*^1- 0 NOtflll I LOW DENSITY ME MF (MED. TO HIGH) Off! COMMERCIAL MIDTOWN AREA LIGHT IND./WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL RARKS/OREN SPACE I i PAGE D I I I GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. Board Profile Foster Strong is the organization's Board President. He was a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank Advisory Council and was an ACORN organizer. He is also an active Boy Scout Troop Leader. ) Felix Thompson is Vice President of the GLRCDC. He is employed as a Right of Way Appraiser for the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. He also serves on the Housing and Urban Development Appraisal Fee Panel. I . i Pam Abrams is the Secretary of the GLRCDC. -She is employed as a Program Coordinator at the John L. McClellan Veterans Administration Hospital. She is a member of the National Association Of Black Social Workers, NAACP, and Black Community Developers. She is also a volunteer with Big Brothers/BIg Sisters Of Pulaski County. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. is the Treasurer of the GLRCDC. He is employed as a Real Property Manager for a Little Rock area bank. He also serves in various capacities with several community organizations. I' I r Elissa Gross is employed as a manager of a nonprofit credit counseling organization. She has successfully completed a fund raising training program and is a member of the American Society for Training and Development. Merle Smith holds a Bachelors and Masters degree in urban planning. She also holds a law degree and serves as Executive Director of Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect. She also is a member of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives. Frank Baugh retired at the ripe young age of forty-six and is able to work full time toward the goals of the CDC. He is a graduate of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with a degree in Journalism. He was employed as a manager at a local manufacturing concern. He is also a Boy Scout Troop Leader and a member of ACORN.Rev. Robert Aycock is assistant minister of a Little Rock area church. He is a volunteer substance abuse counselor and works vigorously to establish alcohol and other drug abuse activities. He also works closely with the Boy Scouts. i James E. Lawson is a supervisor of Emergency Room Admissions at the University of Arkansas Medical Center. He is a member of the local Selective Service Board and serves as Deputy Registrar for Voter Registration. I I1 I I I I PCSSD March 9.1993 - EXHIBIT i I---- I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: As you know, the Site Selection Committee formed to evaluate sites for construction of the new Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School has voted to recommend the old Stephen's site. When this was discussed as one of the options, PCSSD went on record at that hearing as having serious reservations concerning that site, particularly regarding student access and PCSSD's ability to recruit the necessary number of white students for a new school at that location. ( Unfortunately, nothing has occurred since that hearing which modifies our concerns. We trust our concerns will be expressed to your Board when they review the Site Selection Committee's recommendation. I recommend you seek Federal Court approval for Stephens and King elementary schools to be listed as interdistrict magnets. In my opinion, this would be excellent for recruitment purposes. Thank you very much. Sincerely Billy J. Bowles Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch c Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. Sam Jones Mrs. Ann Brown Ms. Marie Parker * city of Little Rot Jim Dalley Mayor city Hall, Room 203 500 W. Markham Lima Rock, AR 72201-1427 (601)371-4516 FAX (501) 371-4488 1 EXHIBIT February 24, 1993 s 11 I I Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Li^e Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: Cu. CONSTRICTION ADMIN. SEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School that will open in 1994-95. We applaud the efforts of the LRSD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exciting alternative to not only the Stephens School neignborhood students, but also to othe , . neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important. I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the Stephens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its fiiture realm. Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures In the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines its Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad tracks and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streets (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately 53,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine Exhibit "B IIA map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is attached. I Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stock. We have actively been involved in fostering neighborhood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have several programs, each designed to meet the special ne^s in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) Rental Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes
to assist low and moderate income families in i ' * purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,CXX). Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking ^d business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and communitybased organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pool in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDCs capacity through administrative support grants
provide project funding
and working with others to establish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projects. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loan Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and moderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrang^ent an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loan. This is a city-wide program. Neighborhood Alert Center - 3924 W, 12th and Cedar The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Ijttle Rock. The system/center serves as a collaborative and coni^trated effort Mtween residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood ami civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stephens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and proposed programs in this area. This centCT currently has integrated (3) city departments along delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neisf ... , . J with their servici neighborhood. E^partment of Ndghborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, ^andoned cars and weed lots. noting Back Initiative - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drua abu^ to abatement and alternatives. to alcohol and other drug abuse Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a neighbors for overall safety u...: ______ (Currently has 3 font iMtml offioers.) ' ' and crime cectuv-dun. hyri t-rr-.iip,,) atouvenO33 ana jucocn Of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3) Intensified/Systematic Inspection Program ITus is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement omcer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds. Utter, and vacant weed lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure correction of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures. Drug House Elimination Program On F^ru^ 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all available resources, including the citizens in this neighborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paint Your Heart Out 93 Stephens School neighborhood was selected for this year's program. On forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. event on April 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being plai involves all citi. ......................... . Preening this . ,,-----------------------being planned. This effort citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsten, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rubble, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining the school on the current site and we are in fiiU support of the Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Committees recommendatinn to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sim Dailey Mayor DIRECTOR JD/TP:sc Attachment FAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. RowlftS. Accict S:iiparinton<lant for I>oaCTcaUvn Doug Ffltnn, Little Hoek School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAINTENANCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ ADMIN. SEC. 4rr I f $ s I I s a n i 1 I . 1-630 ninth tenth JBOB DQ emm ~ nieiciyr tan | eleventh tweiith IBBBBDE E Ihirieenth J lee sent ISurlMnih liiteenin ]m w Sixteenth I seventeenth eohieenTn im nineteenth ED twentieth fiE]D twenty lint
Iwentyi 1 Iwentythira J Iwenty-tourth
iweniylilih - twanty-mth iweniyeeveniJl 'ooscvelt 1 J jDBBBBcj'mH "I ! I r"n'^ I 1*^ .-. . 4 I J Sty<01 ft hoot / Hn A M DEDD gmnnnnr ]nnH mi J I =^iaitiitinnniihnil/ UJ II rosetawn cemettfq I I 400 STREETS NORTH DRAINAGE "miihi STEPHENS SCHOOL YEAR 1-16 * EXHIBIT s --------- SITE APPRAISAL STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE 1 . SITE LOCATION: (Address) 2. ADJACENT STREETS: (North) (South ) (East) (West) 4. CURRENT USE: (1 ) Vacant, (2 ) Commerc i a1, (3 ) Res i den t i a1, (4) Public Note: If 2, 3 or What is presently on property? 5. MAIN ACCESS TO SITE FROM INTERSTATE OR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE: Thoroughfare: Directions to site: 6. SURROUNDI^NG_PROPERTY (Within 5 blocks each direction) (North )Type: Condi tion: (South )Type: Cond i t i on: (East )Type: Condi tion: 1(West)Type: Condition: GENERAL CRITERIA ELEMENT RATING/P0INT5 1. Will the school have to be multistory? YES (O!NC (1) E. Are utilities readily available? YES (1) NO (0) 3. Are there zoning restrictions? YES (0) NO (1) A. Are there architectural considerations? YES (0) NO (1) 5. Is the site serviced by public transportation? YES <1) NO (0) 6. Is the site readily available? YES (1) NO (0) 7. Will additional property have to be purchased? YES (0) NO (1) 8. Will the site allow for future expansion? YES (1) NO (0) 9. Will extensive relocation be necessary? YES (0) NO (1 ) 10. Is the site attractive? YESJl) NO (0) IQIAL_POiNTS^(10 Points Max) COMMENTS
2(Note
Criteria are 1 . 2. 3. it. 5. 6. SITE EVALUATION in priority sequence) SITE CRITERIA SUPPORT PROGRAM (SUFFICIENT SIZE) (Consider if the site is large enough RATING/POINTS POOR >>>>>>>>>>GOOD 1 2 3 5 to support the educational program to include sufficient space for recreational have to be purchased? ) activities and parking or will SITE CONDITIONS 1 (Consider the physical aspects of the site, f1atness, vegetation, soil cond i tions) additional land 2 3 4 5 drainage, CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS (Cons i der if any significant construction 1 2 3 4 5 have to be met in order to build on the site.ie
drainage features, access routes ) sound barriers, SITE ACCESSIBILITYXTRAFFICIBILITY requirements will retaining walls. spec i a 1 fences, 1 2 3 it 5 (Can the site be accessed easily and by bus/auto) SITE SAFETY (Consider the area around the school present to children and participants, schoo1 and areas accessibility by vech icles ) . RECRUITMENT safely both walking and 1 2 3 it 5 and the dangers i t may look at routes to the and buildings along these routes, evaluate police, fire department and other emergency 1 2 3 it 5 (Consider the impact of the site on recruitment and attendance, zone (s ) ) 1 e, accessibility from outside attendance 37 . EDUCATIONAL PR05RAN 1 2 3 5 (Consider if the program ) Site will determine the educationa1 B, RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 1 c
3 4 5 9. (Consider libraries, proximity to education support facilities community centers and SITE ENVIRONMENT 1 e: organ 1za11ons, par ks) 1 2 3 4 5 (Consider the school and how it will surrounding neighborhood) complement the 10. ZONING 1 2 3 5 (Consider the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood, conducive to learning environment will enhance the school site) its development 11 . COMMUNITY SHARING 1 2 3 5 (Consider if the site lends beyond educational) itself to community activities 12.-ENHANCE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1 2 5 (Consider if the school will foster community involvement by virtue of its being there) TOTAL POINTS:(60 Points Max) 7. GENERAL COMMENTS ON SITE
Signature (Evaluator) (Date)EXHIBIT SPECIAL REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT STEPHENS elementary SCHOOL SITE SELECTION s r 9 u c 1. PURPOSE
ni P Special Report is to serve as a decision Superintendent of the Little Rock the sit inn recommendation concerning as rlonirld Interdistrict Elementary School as required by the Little Rock School District * Xcin Desegregation 2. INTRODUCTION
^552, the Stephens Elementary School Strategi Plan was submitted to the Court. -- . coordinated effort would be made Rock School District to build ] grade elementary school in the implementation of the Desegregation went on to describe the The Plan indicated that on the part of the Little pre-kindergarten through sixth ( 1-630 corridor to facilitate Plan. The Plan further schedule to be followed. processes to be used, and a time - committee was formulated consisting Administration Little Rock School District * County Special School District parents, local Josb" Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, and It was the responsibility of of Pulaski City Planning Officials, Rock School District School technical experts, if necessary. _ ___ _ this Committee to assess proposed sites for*^ the"stephens Elementary School, and formulate presented to the Superintendent. a recommendation to be c a The process used by the Committee a search criteria, conducting site visits, and formulating a written recommendation. was one of establishing a establishing a search criteria 3. PROPOSED SITES
The Site Selection Committee was able to identify five (5) proposed sites in the 1-630 corridor for possible locations for the new Stephens Elementary School. Sites are
a) 1000 block of East Roosevelt (South of Horace Junior High School). Mann b) 3805 West 12th (Lee Elementary School Site). c) 3700 W. d) 4800 W. 18th (Stephens Elementary School Site). 27th (Oakhurst/King Elementary School4. e) Site). West 10 th Street property). INDIVIDUAL SITE EVALUATIONS
East of University (vacant Each site was visited by members of the Site Selection Co^lttee during the period of late December through early Februa^. Each Committee Member was requested to formulate an evaluation using the criteria attached to this paper. Evaluation criteria consisted of two (2) parts
General Criteria, which was essentially objective in nature
and, consisted of ten (10) questions which answered with a "yes" or "no" answer, was weighted with one (1) point. 7 referred to as "The Site Evaluation", in nature. two (2) parts
this nature
could readily be Each preferred answer The second criteria was -It was more subjective consists of twelve (12) questions, and each evaluator was to rate each of the twelve areas from one, being poor, to five, beinu aood. The evaluations were then being good, compiled, averaged, and total were an overall score was given each school, prepared with each school and scores given in each area, and Conunents were then are summarized below. SITE #1 - 1000 BLOCK OF EAST ROOSEVELT
unoccupied piece of flat property in an area zoned "light Industrial". It is Immediately south of Horace - In the general criteria, this site Yk ...Overall". its strong points were the fact readily available, public transportation is available, there is room for future expansion, and there would Relocations. The Committee, however, felt that the site was extremely unattractive, and that serious concern must be given architectural considerations due to its location In relation to the flood plain, evaluation criteria. Mann Junior High School. tl Best Overall". The site ranked 4th In the site The Committee generally felt that the site was large enough to support the academic ----- oxuc enougn program, that recruitment to this area would be relatively easy compared to other sites, the site itself left wide enough latitude not to constrain the educational so as readily accessible by traffic. program, and that it was The Committee generally felt that the site conditions were poor, that additional effort would have to be taken in constructing the school, that construction requirements may be significant in order to build on the site, and that there would be a lack of community sharing if the school were located on this site due to the distance from the homes of the children that would attend. school. a summary, the site is close to the interstate which would In I mean There easy access for buses. It is not generally attractive. is light industry all around, and the possibility of noise from the area. It is future industry developing in 2additionally close to the airport, and has poor drainage. TL., site Is not in the school support zones
subsequently, all children would have to be bussed ^o this school. The cost of this site has not yet been determined, but all property would have to be purchased by the School District or condemned, order to proceed with this project. 2_ 1_ _ construction costs at this site might be sllghtly^higher compared to other sites due to the need to offset special drainage requirements and construction within the flood zone. There was general feeling among the committee that recruitment- to this site might be easier as compared to the The The cost of In It is anticipated that as a that others due to the fact that Horace Mann as a Magnet School is tremendously successful
and, that the Stephens School . 7 ana, tnat tne a might be able to capitalize on that success. - ------------ However, one must remember that the attendance zone for the Stephens School has been tentatively identified as being those zones presently the existing Stephens School and which presently support Franklin Elementary School. zones gITE #2 - 3805 WEST 12TH (LEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
This property ranked fifth of the five (5) properties in the general criteria. it was felt that should the school be here, it would have to be a multi-story school which would require major purchases of property, and would also seriously restrict any future expansion. The Committee generally felt that the property would serve us well by public transportation and utilities, that there would be no zoning restrictions, and that we would have a relatively wide latitude, except two (2)-story construction, in the building n Q cr- site evaluation criteria, this site The Committee felt that the physical attributes were sufficient to construct the school of the school. The Committee this site ranked third. site wcxc DULiiuient to construct the school once additional land had been purchased
that site accessibility and traffic ability was good in that the school could be easily accessed, both by walking, and by bus or auto
and, that recruitment might be a little easier here as opposed to other sites, except Roosevelt, which ranked first in this and by bus or auto
and, except Roosevelt, which ranked first in this It was noted, however, that a strong program would be necessary to ensure student recruitment from outside the attendance zones. In summary, the site is quite small, and is outside the attendance zone. Presently located on this property is Lee Elementary School which would have to be completely demolished prior to construction. In addition, the property owned by the Little Rock School District only consists of one city block of less than 1.8 acres. Additional area. property to the extent of as much as an additional 1 1/2 city blocks would have to be purchased in order to meet the requirements of this school. closurels. This would necessitate street In this area of town, the north/south streets are predominantly one-way, and immediately adjacent to the site provide the most direct access to Interstate 630. Closing 3these streets would be tnese streets would be extremely difficult for the City to therefore, be intended that the proplrt? would be south, and a request would be made to close This would cause extensive relocations of families living on that block, cost to the School Distrirt thimwfc'i u" cost to the School District through land purchases, and possibly condemnation. proximity to the 12th Street corridor in Little Rock adds to the value of the land, and the access to the school. This site SITE f3 - 3700 WEST 18TH (STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE)
This site tied for third In general criteria, felt that the site The Committee readily accessed by utilities and ortation
that there would be few architectural restrictions
and, that the site could well accommodate school program. Concern was raised over the fact that the school may have to be multi-story because of the Slope of the property, but yet the site allowed for future additional property is immediately available which could possibly be leased from the City, site evaluation, this site ranked first. lie in the physical aspectrof^he that'4 L! conditions and suitability for construction
hnmo= - completely surrounded by residential which would^Virrt isolated commercial businesses deielonment nf th the learning environment and oeveiopment of the school site
and, '' because of its proximity to the 9^test community Involvement could be school at this site. that it was in would an In the overall The Committee felt that of all sites picked, attendance zones, that the raised to support the A primary consideration is that the school would foster community Involvement being there and the by virtue of its adnu-c Opportunities that may be presented to adults of the community. " the site evaluation, f (2), Number Five (5) "Recruitment". - Of all twelve (12) rated areas in Stephens ranked highest In all but two - V-) "Site Safety", and Number Six (6) The Committee assessed the Stephens school - r, . ------------------------ laucpiiens SUIIUOX being one that may easily be accessed by both walking and by bus or auto, and the Committee felt that the surrounding area was a very safe environment for children. So, safety of the children walking to and from the school not a its location within the inner-city, i __ regard to narrow streets accessing the property, may present problems for police or fire department emergency vehicles. However, City streets are required to be of certain width as to lend themselves re&dily to emergency vehicles. concerns in this area should be set aside as being covered by surrounding streets meeting City construction criteria. With regard to recruitment, Stephens did not rank as high as the site on the 1000 block of East Roosevelt. This was of concern to the Committee and will be addressed further in this report. The Committee felt that the weakest areas with regard to the site evaluation were the construction requirements in that the concern. . was with so So, With 4school may have to be two-story due to the fact that the present site is on the top of a hill, and the area of safety which has been previously addressed. In summary this site, although not large enough to meet the best of all standards (approximate size four {4} acres), it Is more than sufficient to meet the academic needs of the new interdistrict school. The immediately surrounding the school is Of particular Interest is the tremendous effort that has been put forth by the City of Little developing this area. it Is more than sufficient property residential. Rock in on. This point will be summarized further SITE #4 - 4800 WEST 27TH fOAKHURST/KING SCHOOL SITE)
This site ranked second in general criteria, felt the site was well supported by utilities, very attractive and would lend Itself readily to an elementary school. It would, however, have to be a two-story building, and demolition of the present facility might be necessazry. Presently on the site is the Oakhurst/Martln Luther King Elementary School. This site presently houses COPE'S HEADSTART PROGRAM, and is leased to that agency by the Little With regard to site evaluation, this ranks second. The Committee felt its strongpoints were Its general suitability as a school site due to the fact that it was attractive and well-drained. The Committee The site is school. Rock School District. The Committee felt its strongpoints lent Itself educational, development. It was felt that the site readily community activities beyond and that it could foster possible community Consideration must be made that the Oakhurst/ to King site is not within the attendance zones of the Stephens School
and, that all Stephens School children would have to be bussed to this area. In summary, the Oakhurst/King site is There is land available immediately to the west belonging to the City of Little Rock and private ownership which might be either purchased or leased for the expansion of the school. The building Itself is relatively sound
it would be extremely costly to have it renovated to meet educational standards of a new elementary school. a very attractive site. however, to the standards a In addition, the property is presently leased to COPE'S HEADSTART PROGRAM, a -program that supports many of the pre-kindergarten children in the immediate area. This would require that the program would have to relocate from an area that it is presently supporting. The site itself is extremely difficult to access. There are no main streets within four (4) blocks which lend themselves readily to bus All side streets leading to the site are extremely narrow, and in many cases, dead-end before you reach the present school site. Although the site is large enough for the building itself, additional land would have to be transportation. purchased to complete the program of including sufficient play and recreation area, and on-site parking. This would necessitate the closing of a City street, and the acquisition 55. of property west of the present school site. the site consists of homes that are in relatively good ho this site and general accessing by were the two (2) lowest areas in the site evaluation. e Committe felt that because of the inaccessibility difficulty to find that this site would be extremely difficult to recruit to, even with a strong, academic program. The area around condition. SITE 5 VACANT PROPERTY fWEST lOTH STREETS : This site tied for third in and ---- general site criteria. Committee felt that although it was readily accessible and architZri-^y Public transportation that serious i considerations would have to be made because of suJrouiSJn, th. this site ranked fifth. The of the In Part Two (2), , .J "Site Evaluation", the el a. , . ------------------- Committee felt, generally, that aSd the educational programming requirements snH 5"^^ construction requirements to build the school
at recruiting would be much easier as compared to other schools because of the visibility 1, However, of utmost concern to the Committee site conditions. from Interstate 1-630. --------- was the general han <==,-1 ,1 1 property is only 3 1/2 acres, but it has serious limitations in that ' thoroughfare, loth Street, 630, and on the west bv Dosslbl^^' '^^^^^' "o expansion in^thosedirectlons'ls SithinJ%ho ^^ ^ possible, however, not without the major purchase of both commercial and residential felt that the site, because it is not within zone, would not foster community Involvement, it borders a main east/west is restricted on the north by I- rather large, major drainage a possible. property. the attendance M coiwunlty activities of all children attending the school, the site may appear to have It would additionally involve the bussing In summary, although a stronger draw in as far as recruiting is concerned, its pnysica seriously hamper the construction of the school to support a good educational program. Its attachment to the commercial entitles surrounding the site do not readily foster a good educayonal environment, and the lack..of residential homes with families supporting the school would not allow for as much community involvement as may be received at other locations. The fact that all children attending the school ^^ Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts would have to be bussed was of great concern to the Committee. is its physical limitations will RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee that the new Stephens Interdistrict School be constructed at the 3700 block of West 18th, the present 6Stephens School site. The present Stephens School site, although it did not receive individually the highest scores in each of the twenty-two (22) areas, its overall totals far surpassed the other four (4) sites. .... The following areas are offered up in support of the Committee's recommendation
a) COST ANALYSIS
_ Although a detailed cost analysis has not been made of all sites, it is relatively safe to say that construction on property already owned by the Little Rock School District would Initially cost less than the acquisition of property. Four (4) of the five (5) sites visited would require the purchase of additional property. Stephens School site borders on land presently owned by the City of Little Rock, and It is possible that a Lease Agreement could be made to develop this area in conjunction with the school as a City Park or recreation area for our children. Three (3) of the sites require demolition. new This is a cost that would have to be borne if these sites were selected. It is not reasonable to assume that any portions of the three (3) existing school buildings could be adapted to meet the. Intent of the Desegregation Plan. It Is anticipated that construction costs on the three properties owned by the Little Rock School District would be slightly less than the other two (2) properties due to the physical limitations on the property on West 10th, and the drainage problems on the property on East Roosevelt. Although cost was not an area that the Committee was asked to address, it must be addressed here to show that consideration has been given this most important element. b) EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
Without having the programs specified. the Committee was asked in its site evaluation to view the site as if the site Itself would determine the educational program. The Stephens School site ranked high in this category because location of the existing school. of the It was felt that no matter what educational program we would elect to put into this school, and its subsequent effect on the design of the building, that the site could readily handle this need. There is sufficient land in the four (4) acres, plus that which could be leased from the City to house any conceivable educational program which would be administered at the K 6 grade levels, in addition to having a 7C) sufficient recreation area and parking space. PERCEPTIONS
Two (2) perceptions regarding this site prevailed in our discussions. SaX^^Yi. There is a general perception by the public that the Stephens School site safe. In comparison to the a ___ may not be In comparison to the surrounding communities, there have been no incidences imnedlately adjacent to the school site. Although have been Isolated, reportable crimes throughout this general area, we cannot with certainty say that this area's crime rate is any higher than other parts of the inner-city. It was generally felt by the Committee that because the streets were wide, well-lit, and lined with residential homes that the community would be perceived as being generally a safe area for an elementary school. it was noted that although graffiti and damage had occurred on abandoned homes surrounding the school, that this damage was not prevalent at t*-- - - - have no Although It was would be School. the existing Stephens Elementary Recruitment: __ The second perception difficulty of recruitment. was one of - ------ The present Stephens Site is readily accessible by major thoroughfares from Interstate 1-630 to the school. It does not require winding and twisting through many city streets, but allows a most direct route to the site which is easily identifiable. If visibility from the interstate is considered a recruitment then this site does not qualify, but yet Its location bordered by residential homes and religious facilities should offset the It does not d) "boon", homes . . - ----- ------ .J perceived detriment of not bordering an interstate. The success of recruitment to this school will hinge on the educational program and the effort put forth by the City and surrounding community to make this a viable, integrated school. if we must rely on interstate visibility in the location of our schools, we will be extremely limited in all future If we must rely location The on construction of our facilities. EFFECT ON THE DESEGREGATION EFFORT
One of the Committee's most serious concerns was the effect of selecting the present Stephens School site on the Little Rock School District desegregation effort. School The new Stephens School is 8to be an Interdistrict school. It is to be comprised of approximately sixty percent (60%) enrollment from the Little Rock School District, and forty percent (40%) enrollment from Pulaski County Special School District. The school will strive to achieve a racial balance conunensurate with the aforementioned District assignments. is perceived that most of the children attending the new school from the Little Rock School District It will be black, and that the majority of the white students attending the school will come from Pulaski County School District. will ___ This, of course, requires a major recruitment effort on the part of Pulaski County School District. The Conunittee felt that the location of the school must be offset by a strong academic program and faculty, and that with selective recruiting to major work areas close by, such as the University of Arkansas Medical School, and State property across Interstate 1-630, that there was a chance for success in achieving the racial balance directed by the Plan. We are taking a tremendous gamble in building this school at any site within the city. That concern, along with the concern of having to bus all of the children from the present attendance zones, to sites other than the current Stephens site, led partially towards this decision. e) We are taking 1 the Committee An Interdistrict school built out of the attendance zones that should not become successful in achieving racial balance would not be able to foster the community support so necessary in today's educational system. An interdistrict school constructed at the current Stephens site that did not achieve the desired racial balance would at least be a school that met the needs of the majority of the children in attendance. the majority of the children Although we are selecting our site with our eye on success, we must consider the cost of if we are unsuccessful in desegregating the new Stephens School to the desired levels, we must at least protect ourselves by having a school which is readily accessible and in support of the central city attendance zones so that in the event future decisions have to be made failure. unsuccessful to with regard to the closing of schools and the realignment of students, we do not. in increase the bussing burden of our children. fact. WHAT WILL MAKE THIS SITE A SUCCESS? Needless to say, a strong, Innovative educational program is necessary to make the new Stephens School attractive to more children. What would 9This report really make this site effort uhirh --C successful is the tremendous extort which has been displayed by both community and the City of Little of the school's final location, banded together to become one of the stronger block ScSLfu?^n--------------------Rock. iSSs i^e^ successful in raising funds for enhance its living areas. it holds meetings to foster and drive the common goals. r Rock has targeted this Involvement in renovations, lighting Improvements, u-l construction on vacant lots the Rock. Regardless the community has Rock. living areas. Federal Grants to community _ Inhabitants toward In conjunction, the City of Little area for major city Street improvements, paint programs, and new and are all in both short Deen funded. We have the opportunitv here tn inin Citv^^Go strong supportive conJiunlty and\he '
^n"ent to build a school which will s9rgation. it is an ODOortunttv tha^- , - It is an opportunity that 4- , --Other sites, tunity, in conjunction with Qf ..1.. does not arise This oppor- the other Stephens site the success. As such, recommendation. cost analysis, and all considerations, make the present one with the greatest chance of / the Committee submits make this was compiled by Douglas C. Eaton, 25 February 1993. DCE/rlh/bernd 10SPECIAL REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT : exhibit g f 9 S r STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE SELECTION 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Special Report is to provide supporting information to the Special Report submitted by Doug Eaton regarding the Stephens site selection. 2. INTRODUCTION
In September of 1992, the Stephens Elementary School 3. Strategic Plan was submitted to the Court. According to that Plan, a committee would be formulated consisting of representatives Administration, Administration, from the Little Rock School Pulaski County Special School City Planning Officials, District District parents, local community experts, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, and technical experts. if necessary. It was the responsibility of this committee to assess proposed sites for the Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School, and to formulate a recommendation to present to the Superintendent. The process used by the Committee was one of establishing a timeline. establishing search criteria. community forums, conducting site visits, and formulating written recommendations. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
attending a Billy Bowles, Pulaski County Special School District Estelle Matthis, Little Rock School District Janet McGehee, North Little Rock School District Janet Bernard, Little Rock School District Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Ethel Nauden, Little Rock School District Loretta Montgomery, LRSD Parent Melinda Hamilton, LRSD CTA Larry Robertson, Little Rock School District Tim Polk, Department of Neighborhood and Planning Sammy Mills, ACORN Kenyon Lowe, LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee Dianne Woodruff, LRSD Arma Hart, Little Rock School District Joy Springer, Joshua IntervenorsSpecial Report Page -2 4. MEETING DATES/ATTENDANCE OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Wednesday, November 11, 1992 4:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. Purpose
To review the purpose of the Site Selection Committee To plan future community meetings Members Present: Billy Bowles Arma Hart Estelle Matthis Lou Ethel Nauden Larry Robertson Doug Eaton Kenyon Lowe Sammy L. Hills Marie A. Parker Dianne Woodruff Malinda Martin- Hamilton Loretta Montgomery Tim Polk Monday, December 14, 1992 3:30 P.M. 4:30 P.M. Purpose
To finalize plans for community meetings To review site appraisal form Members Present: Billy Bowles Arma Hart Kenyon Lowe Tim Polk Doug Eaton Larry Robertson Sammy L. Mills Dianne Woodruff Malinda Martin- Hamilton Marie A. Parker Tuesday, February 23, 1993 1:30 P.M. 9:00 A.M. Purpose: Bus tour of five proposed sites Site recommendation following tour Members Present: Billy Bowles Janet McGehee Lou Ethel Nauden Larry Robertson Doug Eaton Sammy L. Mills Marie A. Parker Jeanette wagner Malinda Martin- Hamilton Tim PolkSpecial Report Page 3 Friday, March 5, 1993 10:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. Purpose: To recommend Stephens Site to Dr. Bernd To share additional comments from community members Members Present Billy Bowles Marie A. Parker Doug Eaton Tim Polk Sammy L. Mills Larry Robertson Community Members Present: Willie Bell Foster Strong 5. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: A. Little Rock School District: The community involvement in the LRSD included neighborhood meetings at the current Stephens site and the First Baptist Church, Highland Park. Included with this report members, 2) are: 1) comments from the community a letter and a Special report. Cooperative Community Revitalization Plan, from Foster Strong, President of the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation, 3) tatives signatures collected by represenfrom Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), 4) dates of the meeting with a list of the patrons present, (see number 11 below) B. Pulaski County Special School District: The community for the PCSSD were set for January 14, Robinson Elementary, January 26, Pine Forest Elemenary and February 26, 1993, Sylvan Hills Elementary. The community meetings were staffed with central office administrators only, with the exception of Pine Forest, there were two parents. M-to-M transfers to the LRSD are not allowed to black students under the current student assignment plan. 6. SUPPORT LETTER FROM JIM DAILEY. LITTLE ROCK MAYOR: The letter from Mr. Jim Dailey is available upon request.Special Report Page 4 7. LETTER FROM PUIASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
The letter from the PCSSD is available upon request. 8. STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STRATEGIC PLAN. SUBMITTED TO THE COURT
The Plan submitted to the Court available upon request. in September 1992 is 9. SPECIAL REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT
The Special Report submitted to the Superintendent is by Doug Eaton is accompanies this report. 10. STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INTEREST SURVEY
The compiled information from the surveys from both LRSD and PCSSD is available upon request. 11. DATES AND LIST OF COMMUNITY PATRONS PRESENT
November 18, 1992 Ewonda Baker Frank Baugh Willie Bell Gloria Carroll Arthur Cross Gwen Edwards Mary & Mercy Edwards Sarah L. Facen Melissa Guildin Lawrence Gupton Debra Wilbert Greater LRCDC Antimoore Jackson Charles Johnson Kenyon Lowe Sammy Mills Tim Polk Johnnie Pugh Foster Strong Mattie M. Souder Betty Thornton Willis Walker, Jr. Dianne G. Woodruff DECEMBER 15, 1992 Lonnie Dean Mary Edwards Dollie Sanders Annie M. Williams Sara L. Facen Essie Kindle Gloria Carroll Mercy Edwards Mackey Nunnley Gwen Edwards Lucille Jones Foster StrongSpecial Report Page 5 Sammy Hiller Dave Dedrick Ollie M. Bradford Willie Bell R.W. Gupton Celus Handley Ethel Dunbar Mabrin E. Jones Charles Johnson Willis W. Walker Antimoore Jackson Melinda Martin/Hamilton Doug Eaton Lou Ethel Nauden Kenyon Lowe Betty Thornton Tina Cohns Jarvis Sampson Bruce Washington Halloicene Handley Ewonda Baker Pat marks Dianne Woodruff Terrence Cain Reta Johnson Tim Polk Jeanette Wagner Cynthia Howell Ewonda Baker Frank Baugh Willie Bell Gloria Carroll Arthur Cross Gwen Edward Mary & Mercy Edwards Sarah L. Facen Melissa Guildin Lawrence Gupton Antimoore Jackson Charles Johnson Kenyon Lowe, Sr. Sammy Mills Tim Polk Johnnie Pugh Foster Strong Mattie M. Souder Betty Thornton Willis Walker, Jr. This information was compiled by Marie A. Parker on March 18, 1993.: exhibit s 9 STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE SELECTION ABSTRACT The Stephens Elementary School Strategic Plan was submitted to the Court in September 1992. A committee was formed to establish a timeline, search criteria, conduct and attend community forums, participate in site visits, and to develop written recommenda-tions. In accordance with the Strategic Plan, Site Selection Committee participants included: representatives from Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts including the LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee
parents and community experts
Joshua and Knight Intervenors
CTA representatives
and technical experts from the City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. This committee conducted three (3) meetings for organization and formation of recommendations
five (5) community meetings
an interest survey for Pulaski County School District and LRSD
and a bus tour to review the five (5) sites. A total of sixty-one (61) individuals participated in community involvement phase of this process. Community based groups such as ACORN and The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation played an integral part to the decision making process. Both groups were represented in the attendance at the Community meeting, with an ACORN representative serving on the Site Selection Committee. Both groups submitted written documents which were utilized during our consultation. A Special Report, written by Douglas Eaton, was submitted to Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd on February 25, 1993, with recommendations from the Site Selection Committee. The findings, after accumulating all data, evaluating concerns of patrons and experts, and review of site observations was that the present site, 3700 W. 18th, be proposed as the final site for Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. Several major concerns exist as to the success of the proposed site: (1) the perception that inner city is not safe, (2) filling of Pulaski County seats to maintain critical desegregation balance
and (3) present lack of a program focus. It is believed that these factors can be eliminated through a vigorous recruitment effort for white students
and because this site has historical significance within the African American community. The representatives of the community based groups have previously voiced their approval of this site and should be called on to help the District in its search for success of this venture. In addition, the City of Little Rock, in a letter dated February 24, from Mayor Jim Dailey, has pledged its support in as much as the neighborhood is a part of the City's current Block Grant renovation program. Slip Sheet for Regular Board Meeting on October 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECESVED OCT 2 3 1991 October 24, 1991 Office of Desegregaficn f.onitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools DESEGREGATION RELATED ISSUES At present, building a Stephens). staff members are putting together a proposal for second interdistrict school (the replacement for Details of this proposal are being worked out in time for action at the November meeting. I recommend that you table action on this item until November.1* exhibit I i50 i I I STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMUNITY MEETING CAFETORIUM - STEPHENS SCHOOL NOVEMBER isf 1992 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I WELCOME PURPOSE OF THE MEETING INTRODUCTION OF SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE LRSD PROPERTIES SITE SELECTION ... OPEN DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, RECOMMENDATIONS NEXT STEPS/ANNOUNCEMENTSEXHIBIT I We Need Your Ideas Attention: NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC MEETING Stephens Interdistrict School Opening for 1994-95 Community Meeting to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration in site seiection of the proposed Stephens interdistrict Schooi which wiii open for 1994-95 TUESDAY, December 15,7 p.m. First Baptist Church Highland Park Fellowship Hall 3800 W. 1 Sth Street Little Rock The Little Rock School District will offer an innovative alternative to your neighborhood school with the opening of Stephens Interdistrict School in the fall of 1994. It will offer a strong, traditional basic skills curriculum woven into a special interest theme. Pulaski County School District students may attend through a majohty-to-minority transfer. STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL INTEREST SURVEY (Coming in 1994-95) The Little Rock School District is surveying parents of elementary students to determine their interest m particular magnet school themes. For the 1994-95 school year, an additional magnet school progr^wUl be * .1 > >..1 M .1. KT__.V V r'zaiinK.r Cn^Cial Ol!triCt&. students from the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County' Special School Districts, plan for tlus future interdistnet available to Enrollment is limited Io availability and allocation. Your input will help us as we magnet school system. Please complete the attached survey form. Read the description of the possible themes for this magnet school . . _ t . < ...__._j Ttal.** MA tofAT* than riCddt -------------------------------- * 1 a *u and list in rank order the three (3) themes to which you arc most attracted. Return the survey no IgRr than Anoust 10.1992. to one of the flowing locations through regular mail or hand delivery. Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Stephens School 3700 West 18th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 (Hand delivery. 830 ajn. - 3:30 pjn.) Ttiiinir you for your time and interest. Students learn the curriculum through their experiences as residents of a simulated city, Steohensville. Steohensville has a mayor and city council. Recycling Center, S.ephensvillc National Bank, Central City Mall, city park, public library, various restaurants, KSTV television station, Stephensvillc Daily News, various industries and businesses, and many natural resources, including the Stephensfork River. The physical structure, decorations, and landscaping of the school reflect the city atmosphere. Students assume the roles of citizens of this simulated dty. Steohensville has environmental problems, as well as other problems that are common in most dties. The dtizens must try to solve these problems. A KSTV newscast bepns each day. The newscast outlines an issue that the community must address. As students study and debate the issues, they see how all subject areas are interconnected in real life. Teachers teach the core curriculum but use Steohensville as a unifying theme. Cooperative Learning is used extensively. Students learn to work together and function successfully as a member of the larger community. A magnet school that stresses mathematics, sciescc, social studies, and language arts. Students arc also encouraged to work in areas of personal interest. A primary focus of the program is to develop critical and creative thinking skills. The core curriculum of this school will be supplemented with experiences that are interesting, challenging, and enjoyable to students. A special focus on language arts activities combined with emphasis on academics. Students spend the majority of their day in a traditional classroom learning the basics-reading, language For arts, math, science, and social studies, approximately one-half hour each day, three to four days a week, depending on their grade level, students will explore the areas of literature, public speaking, creative writing, and play production. Students write and perform speeches, present poetry and choral readings, compose short stories, and produce plays. Accel^ t ed Lanning Students enjoy learning, learn at an accelerated rate, and retain a greater-than-normal percentage of what they learn. Every aspect of the classroom and the teachers presentation at Stephens is designed to give students confidence in their abilities and to minimize external and internalPURPOSE 1. To share a plan of action for the new Stephens School. 2. To introduce members of the Site Selection Advisory Committee 3. To share information regarding sites currently owned by LRSD 4. To engage you in a dialogue to ascertain your general feelings, and desires regarding the site selection for the new Stephens Elementary Schools - Pre-Kindergarten through 6th Grade. PLAN or ACTION Community Involvement that includes neighborhood meetings with community members living in the area surrounding the current Stephens Incentive School. Formation of a Biracial Citizens Site Advisory Committee. Involvement of Parents whose children are targeted for recruitment to the new school.COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Neighborhood Meetings: To ascertain the general feelings of the public, and their desires, with regard to the new Stephens School. Public Meetings: To discuss site selection, academic program, and the general design of the school. Site Advisory Committee To assist with site selection and time schedule Representation: LRSD Administration PCSSD Administration City Planning Officials Parents Local Community Experts Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors Technical ExpertsEDUCATION SPECIFICATION COMMITTEE Specifications to be drafted Composition of committee: Teachers Parents Education Specialists (solicitation/incorporation) PARENT INVOLVEMENT Surveys to determine: Theme of School Desired academic program for the new Stephens School Site Selection Any other areas where parent and/or community involvement is desired in the planning processFINAL SELECTION Selection Criteria: It will be the responsibility of the Site Advisory Committee to draw together, establish, and list in priority sequence all criteria with regard to selecting the school site. Visiting and Evaluation Sites: The Committee will be responsible for visiting proposed sites, and evaluating those sites against the established criteria. Recommendations: The Committee will propose recommendations based on its site visits and its evaluations to the Little Rock School District Administration as outlined in the master schedule. STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMUNITY MEETING November 18, 1992 Stephens school Media Center ? exhibit Marie Parker, Larry Robertson and Doug Eaton facilitated the selection community hearings. site meeting. See agenda attached for process of Concerns of the community members are reflected in the statements listed below
What is the purpose/idea for moving the school to another site? Just what are the designated properties? The school and church compliment each other. The remain at its present site. The school and the life blood of the community. The school owns directly across the neighborhood. You can go east acquire additional properties if this is not adequate. community. the neighborhood. school should church are the the property or north to What if the district has to buy properties. members willing to give up properties? Are communities These community meetings have been going on for over a met with Dr. Steele and the Board of Directors. that time that we wanted the school to stay where- it is. a "landmark." It should be respected for that. It was given by Mrs. Stephens. If Stephens stays here it means that the city clean up this part of the city........ with the current nine member board (Greater met year. We wanted the school to We told them at It should be respected for that. would be more willing to here it It It is school would tie in Little Rock). A new What will happen selected? to the structure of this school if it is not At one time it was hoped that Stephens would close, the site as a Christian Center. We would use We were also Nursery. told this would be an Adult Education Center/Day Was that being said to pacify us, just to shut us up? was onar neing sard Are you really concerned about the Stephens community? In locating Stepehns the school community consider LRSD should IS important. seriously historical landmark, it represents one of our We own. consider know it what as aYou repair things for other schools. our race? The property was donated for this Why not repair things for school and now you want to go and take it away cannot get any white students to attend. from our community, even if you This school is in the center of the black neighborhood. you wish to move We have schools located in the Why do white conmunity? Why not fix-up this historical landmark? What school? message will this send to our students if we move the Have we considered that? this community school then move the school. If you really want to destroy Is this school really important to the LRSD? Remember, support with it. relocation of the school will carry the municipal We need to keep the city interested in us. The LRSD plans are inconsistent with * revitalizing the neighborhood. your discussion of remains here if neighborhood concept. you truly are interested We strongly recommend the school in revitalizing the What same? year will the You are doing school be built? Will the name remain the about the survey? a survey. When will the public find out How were patrons notified? Radio? Television? Letters? Is this documented in your files? When was this done? How do meetings? you plan to communicate information ragarding future People in this area did sets the time not receive proper notification. Who for these meetings? input for the date and time of the meeting. The community should have We would suggest you have the meeting on evening and that the time be set for 7:00 p.m. a Tuesday or Thursday ACORN should be placed on concerning this school. the mailing list for anything Is there another somewhere else? group pushing for the school site to be If so, be up front and share with us. If the another group were attempting to use their influence to place school information with us? s omewhere else. are you at 1iberty to share that We feel we are chasing the chase the white flight "white flight. 11 We should not have toThe themes should be enlarged upon. Would it be fair to ask the Site Selection Committee if it has gotten a clear picture of what the Board is going to accept? The "will of the community" should be put in writing and submitted to the Board.December 15, 1993 First Baptist Church Rev. William Walker, Pastor The second meeting of the site introductions selection committee began with the Stephens community. and a recap of the November 18, 1992, meeting with You expressed your ideas at the November 18, meeting, to us
You said The school and the church serve as a security for each of us
A new school would fit perfectly with the current work of the nine member board that is now active in the community
The LRSD should seriously consider what the Stephens community ,consider important to them
The Stephens school is a historical landmark. of "our own", own. This property was donated for It represents one this school by our Has the LRSD considered what message moving the school would send to the children of this area? weighted factor in all of our selections. The children should be the You have said to us through your student assignment, area schools are important. interested community. We agree. We need the school to keep the city in the community and especially the children of this We are very concerned with your timing for this meeting. in the area were not properly notified. People into the date and the time of the meeting. We should have had input The Stephens community should not be responsible for chasing the "white flight". The whites can always outdistance us. If they don't want to stay let them go, but don't make this community pay for their flight. The theme should be enlarged upon. choosing a theme before choosing a site. We are not comfortable with come back and let's discuss the theme. When you get the site. down so proposing. community. that the We average person can should help decide Break the proposed themes understand what what is best for you are thisCan you tell us what the Board is willing to accept? Who perpetuated the idea that we could not attract whites students to the building? Are the Board of Directors willing to do as much for the Stephens Commxinity school as other schools? (This ends November recap). they have for some of the Marie
This is a recap of our November meeting. We followed your suggestion. We date and time for you to meet. let the community decide what was the best We allowed ample time for you and the LRSD to notify concerned citizens, parents, etc. Does this represent for you November meeting. an accurate The audience agreed this account of what happened at the present from the last meeting did indeed capture their sentiments from the last meeting even better than some of them remembered. Following the introductions and recap, Doxig Eaton reviewed the 1) Current Stephens site , 3800 West 18th
^proposed sites: * Stephens at 12th and Pine (Lee) 3805 West 12th
2) 3) King/Oakhurst site, 4800 West 27th
4)
5) Following are statements commxinity to the proposed sites. representing the reaction of the Many of the above statements were restated and reinforced by those not present at the November meeting
At the November meeting you Community: 1) only proposed three sites to the and Pine (Lee)
discussing five sites? The present Stephens site
and the King/Oakhurst site. 2) Stephens at 12th Why are you now What is the district's rationale for wanting to move the school? Has the district stated what it considers physical plant? to be the perfect Is the district the least bit sensitive to community? the feelings of the present location? Do they understand that we want the site here at its What incentive does the community have to offer? You went from three sites to five sites? sites once we leave this meeting? Will you consider other If the district cannot make consider starting our own school. up its mind we are about ready to Will our message Superintendent. really get to the School Board and the When will we hear from the? Do we get to tell our story before the final decision is made?i Marie
A additional suggestion was conments or conmunity representative made to the concerns audience that those they could contact with their or Committee. anyone on the Site Selection or Marie Parker. The questions were to be returned to Larry Robertson Following Doug Eatons presentation and a length discussion from the audience Larry Robertson presented the audience with to be completed and returned to Rev. Walker or the school, would collect the surveys. a survey Larry *- EXHIBIT COMBINED FORMS (Pulaski County. LRSD and Blue Forms-LRSD) November 1992 STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL INTEREST SURVEY THEME RANK ORDER OF CHOICE 1 [ COMMUNITY OF LEARNING: 5] 2 I 6 ] 3 [ 4 5 [ 7] [ 11 ] 6] ACCELERATED LEARNING: 13] [ 14 ] S CHOOL-WIDE ENRICEMENT: LANGUAGE EXPRESSION: 1] 12] [23 81 21 15 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 2 [ 6 ] 14] -- 4 2 4 [ 2 1 2 [ 5 ] ] 1 4 3 [ 1 13 [11 OTHER: 1 5 [ 1 2 (6) Creativity in Learning (5) Communications (3) Basic Science, Math & Skills (1) Music and Art Appreciation (Band, Art & Dance)1. S. SITE LOCATION: SITE APPRAISAL STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE (Address) EXHIBIT AY ADJACENT STREETS
(North) (South ) (East) (West > CURRENT USE: (1 ) Vacant, (S) Commercial, (3) Residential, ('+> Public Note: If 2, 3 or What is presently on property? 5. MAIN ACCESS TO SITE FROM INTERSTATE OR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE: Thoroughfare: Directions to site: 6. SURROUNDING PROPERTY: (Within 5 blocks each direction) (Nor th)Type: Condi tion: (South)Type
Cond i ti on : (East)Type: Condi tion: 1(West)Type: Condi tion
GENERAL CRITERIA ELEMENT RATING/POINTS 1. Will the school have to be multistory? YES (0) NO (1 ) 2. Are utilities readily available? YES (1) NO (0) 3. Are there zoning restrictions? YES (0) NO (1 ) 5. 6. Are there architectural considerations? Is the site serviced by public transportation? Is the site readily available? YES (0) NO (1 ) YES (1) NO (0) YES (1) NO (0) 7. Will additional property have to be purchased? YES (0) NO (1) 8. Will the site allow for future expansion? YES (1) NO (0) 9. Will extensive relocation be necessary? YES (0) NO (1) 10. Is the site attractive? YES (1) NO (0) TOTAL POINTS
(10 Points Max) COMMENTS: 2SITE EVALUftTION (Note: Criteria are in priority sequence) SITE CRITERIA RATING/POINTS POOR >>>>>>>>>>GOOD 1. SUPPORT PROGRAM (SUFFICIENT SIZE) 4 1 S 3 5 (Consider if the site is large enough to support the educational program to include sufficient space for recreational activities and parking or will have to be purchased?) additional land 2. SITE CONDITIONS (Consider the physical aspects of the site, flatness. vegetation, soil conditions) drainage, 1 2 3 4 5 3. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 1 2 3 5 (Consider if any significant construction requirements will have to be met in order to build on the site,ie
drainage features, access routes) sound barriers. retaining walls. special fences, 4. SITE ACCESSIBILITY\TRAFFICIBILITY 1 2 3 4 5 (Can the site be accessed easily and safely both walking and by bus /auto ) 5. SITE SAFETY (Consider the area around the school present to children and participants. school and areas accessibility by vechicles). and buildings along these police. '6. RECRUITMENT and the dangers it may look at routes to the routes, evaluate fire department and other emergency 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 5 (Consider the impact of the site on recruitment and attendance, zone(s ) ) le. accessibi1ity from outside attendance 37 . EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 1 2 3 (Cons 1der program) if the site will determine the educational 5 8. RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 1 3 4 5 c (Consider proximity to education support facilities 9. libraries. community centers and SITE ENVIRONMENT organizations, par ks > le
1 2 3 5 (Consider the school and how it will surrounding neighborhood) complement the 10. ZONING 1 2 3 5 (Consider the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood, conducive to learning environment will its development enhance the school site) 11 . COMMUNITY SHARING 1 2 3 5 4 (Consider if the site lends beyond educational) itself to community activities 12.-ENHANCE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1 2 4 5 (Consider if the school virtue of its being there) will foster community involvement by TOTAL POINTS
(60 Points Max) 7. GENERAL COMMENTS ON SITE
Signature (Evaluator) (Date )i I i dte -\JJ-purpa>=^ Il><'>i<il<l6i 11 n J. O*-- ^OOO exhibit *1 Z- 3 4 5" (> 1 ( ( I 1 1 o I t ( ' ! I P i I I I !o I I I p I ( I I I O \ i V 11 I I I \ I ~. i :
-----------------------
----r ( 0 P P i o S' H I i 2. ! Z- ny. o e> o 7,' &UW\tV>'Zi7^ i icto e.tfc. Voc Mt^CbXr '-oT I ki^.T 1 8'*^ Z7? I I I I I I I i' H H Ip ( i o f t I o o o 2,\Q 5 I ( V 3 I I i 2- 2- Z o 1 V 1 I o O ( \ O o 1 I V o o <o V <5 ' !' t i O ( 'O Z- z I i i I 3tU- >4 2 I z i 4 3 so I I 4 <1 3 I I 4 X 2. 3 3 4 I t 3 s y ,s 5 I 3 Z. 2- 11/ !2T M. .sr 1 ZvuA irt. ! I 2> 3 4 3 i-i 3 S 3 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 2-2- Z. 2- 3 2_ I 21 I I 3 I ! 5 i 7 2- S I a z- 4 4 no 4- I I I '1 ? I S(. b Z. 11 4 1 4 2-! 3. 3 2, 4p \2.C I I O^tLUtk j I I I. I 5 i4 I 3
2-| S" 35 <\!. I? !^l I i I i 'T 37 ( 1 "1 i 4 i ! 3S 43 3^ 2? HZ- HV 3y.!f I I I I r^ 384 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I ipROpOSitC) S.TCPHezVi airC.' vRtp>Nr i^r: ''S'. I.(p3C> #1 3 < n. g 1 3^x9 o O o O O I i I J (9 So I I ( I I <0 I 1 1 L o I I I I i 7 <0 S cX-'^ Q
5s i: n I I I I I I c? O 6 ( V I o I I O 1 1 I I I t (b t I I I 0 i O Oj o / (0 I oo / I f V ( o -Z) ( I Z-I i, zI t ( I I Z y I Z. I Z. 3 ( 5 2 3 ( 2 2 I q 2 z. I r 2- Z. I z z. l 5 I z. I lb 1 ^^1 Zi^ IZ Q} zo 30 11 . 'i 1 & I ( o o G O a I I t o -o o o o I 2- 3 I m ( 2. 3 I v. -I 3 3( n V \ 3 X I I I 3I iS Z I + I 3 3 I + I 3 Z I \Q I z I \<< I 2 3 f V Iz I I I \ a z. (p (p 3 I MK IV 26 33 IZ-Zl. iz. 5{i- 1^ Zi.] 1 I ? Si JJ 5'3 9 '' *! '3 1 I I I i <' pRoftoscb s^noo -J SCho-i^Ly I 1^1 3 <r 1 770:7777777^ *< /'ifi NA fr.9' . < y/0 I I o I I K I I I I 1 o V I 0 I V I I ( I o e> o ( I I I O I I I C3 o I I } A 'j 'T I) /^v fC', w 4 s' S' 2- S s~ S' H 4 3 5 Q 3 q 3 ( 2. 4 3" S' S' 3 z. 3 S' M ST S M 5 s S' S- 3 s> "5^ 7 fO ^/S H/ 5^3 3&> 35- 4 -i I I Qi) ^1 7^ H : V . 7' I i o I <9 0 1 I I I tefsh^y^ zVWr C^.. I \ I 1 I V c I Con\a> V I I I I I I I V O o o o - v^aA^ L QjCTKAy^^ I cv -'QaAS>Ktiji_ j sfOV I I j i 1 I I <9 I / I I ~ =.rt> I K I I VP 4 4 i, S 3 3 r 3(= 4 I H 2. S' Z-Y It q M, s" it S' 3 Kt < 3 L. < 2^ 12- 3> 5 5 il l 3 (I IT \3 S' Ci A S' iv I, r s~ S< S- r 3 5 S~ iz- ?< S" js" S' S t (c> 8 Mb yz (Al 6o ^''' ?5-| I V
I ii 3 !< itCs^ .5 S( S' 4ocst^*^ \ ! I ! ^Q=*'i Vi eLlV i" ifv>^AT'' -'zi^a-'ZL J- C' vis CTvW V*Qm~. Vscrv<<-^ p\tr V UQi'- I i il I i* I I I ! i ! I I I T s IS "i
-Pro posjiii i>v?-PRt-ns. -si-nt' sect
BL^ Lo. IZ,''- < (,E ^HOOC.'^ y 3 xv / 1 / ' ' O 4^ o' '< -K / <v frl l- 3 4 I o o a t 09 o > c i t I I I t I I I I o I ( I I I o I I (9 t L (O G \ G I I t I t I I I I ( I <p o ( I f o I o > o C3 o o o 09 0 o o O <>:> O G O t Q <9 <9 o I > I 1 O o o > 'O o o I o I
(< I I ) Z- 2. 3, 2- 3 n z 4 3 4 3 4 2. 5 zq zt i. Z- L. 7. 5 3 3 3 z, 3 Z5 q R 3 3 3 R 3> 4 3 3\ R q L i 3 M 3 q 3 4- 3 5 5 2. Z. 4 5" 3> (-4 M I- L. 3 I 2. 3 Z. 3> 3 3 z. , ( 5 Z s 3 q 3 I Z- q 3 3 3 zn 3 3 3 I 3 2. 5- q 4 lY 3 H I S 3 3 Q Q Z"! 3 3 5 Z- 3 4 4 3<5 -t- G 3 S, C, (p *7 (p 55 3?/ 2S 50 3S- ^( 2>} 4/ S'} I Qo.l 5 I I IAXU-pu/posy Pk/jne^r . y.r2^b\gre. siTt.' MgoO v3.LV< Z.-I <OH<kV'oi2,ir/fe,A/G "i=CllOO(^ <> J < '' i, Ur^'*' Y ^ / r~ r~ V X.- -S S' a i- o Z 3> (\ S Q 1 S> I I i O I > i ' o ( I o I I Q-H I 11 I e> ^\ ' ( I o I f'O I !' I i o I ! O o ! N-V- i o o o I I I I I I t O I O I o ( i^O I I Ci4 i ' I o ( r JI cO i G I. O I r I o e> G t I O t I I i I o ! NO i / 1(9 A i V iO I N I Qf i7<f i ' 5" i^/ ! X X S' j 3 \^- 2. i Z.1 Z. i -Z. 0{.3 5 f Z- 2- Z, q is I 3\ I v i3 3 I I i > s z. 2_ 3 3 z 3 M. 3 S 2_ I H / Cl I S' z- j q 7^ ^"1 TD (1>^ Z- T^ XV 3 '3 'S 4/ M S'" I I i I f S~ 5 I 3 2. I i2_ llQ i i I I I I I I I I I H ! 5" 3 <-1 3 5 I 2. ^l r << !<7 i- ! 7- 4! q y/ <^1 /y ' S> 3^ - - I i i I I I 3 <4 SO 3 q 50 +- ss I 3Sr 3r SSr I f 5 3? 'V-1 Z' I I I I i ! [ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i I i I I iLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 25, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services Through: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of SchoolsO 'Xa-'Xc*- Subject: Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School Site Selection Attached is a Special Report submitted to the Superintendent in two parts. The purpose of part 1 of the report is to serve as a decision paper in providing to Dr. Bernd information and a recommendation concerning the siting of the new Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School as required by the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan. The purpose of part 2 of the report is to provide supporting information to part 1. Specific information mentioned in part 2 of the report is available upon request. It is the recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee that the new Stephens Interdistrict School be constructed at the 37 00 block of V.est 18th Street, the present Stephens site. SPECIAL., REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE SELECTION 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Special to'VhVsuXnV^de^ School District7nfnZw.r
*" of the Little Rock the recommendation the siting of the as required by the Little Plan. r... V ----------concerninq 2 Interdistrict Elementary School ------ Rock School District Desegregation 2. INTRODUCTION
Plan^ Stephens Elementary School Strategic piementation of the Deseareoatlon Pi^n The Plan further weni- 4- Desegregation Plan, went on to describe the schedule to be followed. processes to be used, and a time According to that Plan, of -- reoresentfltitro. comittee was formulated consisting AdmiSKration Pul. v"* School District ttu rain IS tration, County Special School 'landing Officials, parents? ocaj technical elKrtV Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, and thS Coiittee ' It the responsibility of Pulaski Rock School District City Planning Officials, School r V CilUi. a f dJlU .It was the responsibility of Elementary School presented to the Superintendent. a recommendation to be 0=4-.KU K4 - establishing establishing a search criteria. timeline e?tah^ Committee wao une oi esraDiishing a timeline establishing a search criteria, conducting site and formulating a written recommendation. visits. 3. PROPOSED SITES
The Site Selection Committee _ was able to identify five proposed sites in the 1-630 corridor for for the new Stephens Elementary School. possible locations Sites are: a) b) 1000 block of East Roosevelt (South of Horace Mann Junior High School). 3805 West 12th (Lee Elementary School Site) . c) 3700 W. 18th (Stephens Elementary School Site). d) 4800 W. 27th (Oakhurst/King Elementary School4. e) Site). West 10th Street property). individual site EVALUATIONS: East of University (vacant j'*? visited by members committee during the period ' ' consHiei oV'Ln"! lnnature7"anS^ consisted of ten (10) questions which answered with a "yes" or "no" answer, weighted with one (1) point. referred to - - was H or "no" could readily be Each preferred answer ... The second criteria Evaluation. as "The Site Evaluation". It was more subjective evaluator waTVrX^^aVf in nature, It V') questions, and each poor to five twelve areas from one, being The evaluations were then "5"tl. eraged, and total scores given in each an overall score was given each school, prepared with each school and to five, being good. area, and Comments were then are summarized below. SITE #1 - 1000 BLOCK OF EAST ROOSEVELT: This site is an unoccupied piece of flat zoned "light industrial". Mann Junior High School. was rated tt Best Overall", that utilities available, there is be few relocations. property in an area It is Immediately south of Horace In the general criteria, this site Its strong points were the fact ^a<lily available, public transportation is room for future expansion, and there would The Committee, however, felt that the be given architectural "tractive, and'that aeriius conceA must relation tn .pi V =ysiderations due to its location in evaliawnn cwt ranked 4th in the site The Committee generally felt that the site was large enough to support the academic recruitment to this area would be relatively ___ other sites, the site itself left wide enough latitude not to constrain the educational evaluation criteria. program, that easy compared to so as program, and that it was readily accessible by traffic. that the site conditions were poor, that additional effort would have to be taken in constructing the school, that construction requirements may be significant in order to build on the site, and that there would be a lack of community sharing if the school were located on this bit.
due lu distance from the homes of the children that would attend. summary, the site is close to the interstate which would mean easy access for buses. It is not generally attractive. There noise The Committee generally felt constructing the school site due to the In is light industry all around, and the possibility of future industry developing in the area. from the It is 2additionally close to the ai sitris not in th H and has poor drainage. h: n^L'ruSs^eyby order to proceed with thi The all The cost of but all property would School District or condemned, s project. in It is anticipated that construction rn=!t-c xu IS anticipated t as -- -- need to offset special construction within the flood There %as ^a qeneral f wicnin rne tiood zone, feeling among the committee that easier as compared to the Horace Mann as a Magnet School is ! and, that the Stephens School a recruitment to this others due to the fact that so tremendously successful
committee might be able to capitalize o7 that^ success? must remember that the attendance has been tentatively identified However, one which presently support Franklin zone for the Stephens School as being those zones presently existing Stephens School and Elementary School. zones SITE #2 ^805 WEST 12TH (LEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
This property ranked fifth of the five (5^ c--- --------- al rri t- or-4 a x I ' * * --** ui*r ^' it would hLe to general criteria. properties in the which would require major purchases of a multi-stoiry school also seriously restrict' generally felt that the property, and would any future expansion. The Committee ranked third. The Committee felt that the physical 1 1 were sufficient to construct additional land had been purchased
of the site criteria, this site attributes that site the school once accessibility traffic ability was good in that thZ school could S easily accessed, both by walking, and by bus or auto* and othL^SeV"'"^ little easier here as opposed to area it was which ranked first in this nece
.,ari A ' ^y^^' that a strong program would be necessary to ensure student recruitment attendance zones. - from outside the outsIdP summary, the site is quite small, and is outside the attendance zone. Presently located on this property is Lee Elementary School which , completely demolished prior to construction, property owned by the Little Rock consists of one city block of less than 1.8 zone. would have to be School In addition, the District only property to the extent of as much blocks would have to be acres. Additional as an additional 1 1/2 city purchased in order to meet the requirements of this school. ' closurels. This would necessitate street In this area of town, the north/south streets -- , axca vx uuwix, uxie iiOita/SOUun StrGetS 31*6 predominantly one-way, and immediately adjacent to the site provide the most direct access to Interstate 630. Closing 3these streets would be suDoort '"Th V difficult for the City to SSshrt be intended that the property 13th street Thl"^^' 1^," * n < would cause extensive relocations of block, cost to the School District at its proximity to the 12th ( adds to the value of the land. This site Street corridor in Little Rock - and the access to the school. SITE ^3 -3700 WEST 18TH (STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE)
This site tied for third in felt that the site general criteria. The Conunittee transportation
was readily accessed by utilities and t there architectural accommodate an that tnere would be few . and, that the site could well elementary school program. that the restrictions
Concern was raised over the fact , _ - - ------------- w V ex Vile xaK.*u school may have to be multi-story because of the ZvTLT property, but yet the site allowed for future which iTiH additional property is immediately available leased from the City. In the overall site evaluation, this site ranked first physical aspectrof^he t conditions and suitability for construction
H t completely surrounded by residential isolated commercial businesses The Committee felt which wciH 1____1 '-'juuuerciax Businesses devpinnmoni- *-11 loaming environment and development of the school site
and, because iV----------oxue
aim, that Of all sites picked, proximity to the attendance greatest community involvement could be school at this site. zones, that the school would foster being there and the raised to support the A primary consideration is that the community involvement by virtue of its adults of the the site evaluation, opportunities that may be presented to community. r' '' Of all twelve (12) rated areas in M evaluation, Stephens ranked highest in all but two (2), Number _ Five (5) "Site Safety", and Number Six (6) Recruitment . The Committee assessed the Stephens school site as being one that may easily be accessed by both walking and by bus or auto, and the Committee felt that the surrounding area was a c safe environment for children. so, safety of the children walking to and from the school not a concern. Its location within the inner-city, with regard to narrow streets accessing the property, may present problems for police or fire department emergency vehicles. was However, City streets are required to be of certain width as to lend themselves readily to emergency vehicles. l_, concerns in this area should be set aside as being covered by surrounding streets meeting City construction criteria. VILL. regard to recruitment, Stephens did not rank as high as the site on the 1000 block of East Roosevelt. so
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.