School closings

FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 O
!
CS 0! Dese3f5'' Ki AonAonng EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK DSP. cLenx LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June In 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students' along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones
(2) students not attending Ish but nrhA lit,A *1..* T_l. * . . ..a. who live within the Ish attendance zones
and (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones.indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that "[t]he process was designed to fail." Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that "[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan." In the June 30, 1993, I Order, 2 conclusion. the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. to these elementary The recruitment of white students area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. ___ incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive The schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school
any -3- a arecruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the demonstrable implementing To meet that goal, the parties services of a consultant who has experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black educational setting. Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the i989i_plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to ..1 1. __ retreat should be approved. They are as (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... which no follows: They are Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists. a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] io decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions its it either 1 effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant "fine- tuning" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools, reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school The Court closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish I Incentive School be, and xt is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITEO states'DIsTRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON -6-iL NOV 2 1995 OBice Oi Dssegrsaa-ion rvicruicnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .x7 2 d 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants. * * * * * * it 4r * A A A No. LR-C-82-866 6y
^Pt^'URiwyACK, CLERK CLftK ?_S Ois
I cSN c:s 'C| ,^,:y^,\s^g ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD) for modification of desegregation plan, filed on June 30, 1995. At that time, the LRSD was seeking the Court's permission to close Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School beginning the 1995-96 school year. The motion is now moot, the LRSD having withdrawn the request. Also before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD") for approval of new school sites. filed on July 21, 1995. The PCSSD was seeking the Court's permission to build a new Daisy Bates Elementary School and a new junior high school at Crystal Hill. This new construction, as well as the purchase of computers for use by fifth and sixth grade students in the PCSSD, was to be financed from a millage increase the PCSSD intended to ask the voters to approve. Because the PCSSD determined not to ask for a millage increase, the motion for new construction is moot. 2 5 6 6 LBecause these motions (docket entry # the Clerk is directed to 2432 & # 2443) are moot, remove them from the pending motions report. SO ORDERED this day of November 1995.
t judge PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON JANCE 2. 20 o. OJU. UxL cc,^^ C^cx^j iLctp. i <'(zp'-^ 2>-Z9-(^3 C/0^'' C~ '7- / -Z- ^3 Drc/e iH i i ZZ i- C/o),/'. u1 From: John W. Walker To: Anr' Brown Date-1/9/96 Time: 17:17:4S Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee Little Rock. AR C'O Dr. Henry Williams Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and pormoted the same philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the p jns modified to reflect you ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the olan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators through you as a court agent. 1 do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of this. But I am putting her on notice of my comments to you by copy of this letter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended. I requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school 'closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding v/hich schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored. Fearing that 1 may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. i r Dr Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms Linda Pendexter Ms Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright - From: John W. Walker To: Airn Brown Dale: 1/9/96 Time: 17:37:32 i, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. } 1 1 I Page 2 of 3 t.-'i-.' . 51'.' ' ATTORNEY AT 1723 SRQADVtkY LITTLE ROCK, ARKAN^,S 72206 TELEPHONE (^1) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 J-*. JOKWW. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE " AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Delivered by Fax 324-2146 & U.S. Mall] January 9. 1996 V k Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority X'J
I IV : : k lt' A I.-- neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That caLises me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If. as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong messagejromlhe Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright v/as aware of your efforts to change our agreement: but I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this tetter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order. A( 1 RR i Prom: John W Walker To: Ann Brown Date
1/9/96 Time: 17:38:32 Page 3 of 3 Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9, 1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7
30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee v/here I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Undersigned Counsel] John W. Walker JWWJp cc: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pendexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright Bl i !KJOHN W. WALKER. PJL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Ja.M 1 i Office of Desegregahcn Wonaoruig JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Deiiverad by Fax 324-2146 & U.S. MaiQ January 9,1996 Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorize to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work If, as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of your efforts to change our agreement
but I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this letter, with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9,1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Str^egic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Untfersigi John W. Walker /
JWWJp cc
Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber WrightJI. frt'^ Ah BEcervED DEC 13 2001 DATE: TO: OmEEOf OESGGR^or^ONms December 13, 2001 BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors: Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment
Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility
Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility
Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 reguires that we, not seek to close schools in African-American ^ighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new ool will be located in the same general area. We do not intend to nmend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor nance, "so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1 Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable
or, 3.7.2 The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Term
The term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be - aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. ! The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o 5 grade: 130 students-required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, & 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size. IRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed: All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools. Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school. Students within the East 6 and 9*^ street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario, Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students. Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, b* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone & 20 students will go back to AZ school *Buiiding Capacity is based upon average class sizeRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer: Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August, 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact: Based upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed: All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools. Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students. Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students. Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creek's African American enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes. iRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed: All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the two school sites, and the Charter Program. Dr. Bonnie Lesley will provide an overview of the academic performance at each campus. E. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $1,754, 628.05 $ $ i It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from the two sites and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs dictate.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 7 F. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students, I Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals. G. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue. There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship. The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent. It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, and the Charter Program is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities. If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action on or before the January 10*^ Agenda meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 8 I In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We are in the process of reviewing other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and will bring forth additional recommendations after the first of the year. H. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors review the data as presented and provide the Superintendent and staff with direction on potential school closures for the 2002-2003 academic year. Attachments:r:L_:r iz_:cz: I JJTTL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION ____ 2001-2002 Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed GfT' _ Counselor Library Princip^ Office Upkeep of Bldg Total T 1st Quarter 7^ Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed___ G/T 1_ Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep ofBIdg Total { Gluafterl Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total FTE-Cert Cert__ 1.00 P2 0.40 l.bo ____0.4b' 1.00 'i.ob 'too N-Cert 4.00 11.80 1 BADGETT 1-40 2.00 140 FTE-Cert Cert TOO ___2.00 ___2.bo J____ojq 2-2O 0-5b TOO FTE N-Cert l.bo 5.50 1.00 1.00 17.50 0.40 0.40 TOO lob 10.30 Salary 129,773.00 291,417.00 "18,831.20 _31916.0b _17,3bl4b 44,313.00 41691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 Salary_ 146,723.00 '66,271.00 347,673.00 15,48100 129,400.20 21,635.50 _47,9iTqq 6,996.20 56,531.67 96,951.00 '31876'00 871,450.5'7 .M -183.37 4^19138 ' FTE-Cert Cert 5.50 ' 0.20 1.00 N-Cert 3.00 6.70 74.38^ Grand Total 36.00 3.00 94^ Salary 151,889.00 -Z'^il 22 1087810.50 _43,20b.0b 31'1,640.50 20.70 1,801,205.01 Ringe Purch Ser Supplies Capital 8,058.80 79,442.21 ' 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 io
697.8i 10^40351 25,196
b5 ^1'1,871.23 163,163.71 350.00 8,572.00 1,473.00 Other DODD Fringe 113,790.23 ' 17338.19 ' 96,290.17 13,871.98 122244.15 15
254.35 1'11,^0.85 2,331.21 i2'2ZZ 50 22,906.61 11,821.50 231,977.34 2,000.00 26,8^.00 27,209.00 1,498.00 11,5'43.00 2,000.00 0.00 __ __ 237,831.80 381.78T2T 23,311.07 1_42J26
76 21,511.87 55,010.81 54,568.b5 _ 128,909.85 ' 7Q,373.23 822,02965 Estimated Sav^ings_ _ -37,831.80 _J5b,ooq.qq -23,311.07 -P-22 - :21^1f87 -55,010.81 -53,095^05 -128,9b9.85 -66,378.23 -536,b48.68 Remainjng Itos^__ _______o.ob ' 231,781.21 _____o.bb 42,726.76 2 __ P-22 12-00 _1,473.00 o.oq -lZi2,bMbq 285,980.97 Purch Ser 1,900.00 48,3^.00 51,435.00 CHARTER Fringe 142,170.36 _1,936.00 _3q,369J2 16,454.00 90,929.48 Purch Ser io,7oo
bb 17,500.00 28,200.00 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 "" 300.00 3,728.0b 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.00 Supplies 23,200.00 19,000.00 41200.00 64,428.00 Cai^ital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital__ 10,500.00 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67 00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200 00 1,200.00 1,617.00 Totai 63780.23 ' ' 83,909.19 450,991.17 __19,353.98 162,444.35 26,^9.85 59,^1.85 9,328.01 17125717 121,507.61 j7,64T5b 1,167,364.91 Savirigs -63,780.23 ' -38,562.92 -251074.27 -19,353.M _l_2 92j -22,889.85 -59,261.85 ' -9,328,01 -70.509.j7 -121,507.61 -77,641.5b -738,909.39 Remaining Costs___ " 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.9 b - o.ob 162,444.35 _ IJP-OO O.bb 0.00 _1,748.00 QOO 2o,boq.qb '_428,455.52 Total 239,659.^ 9,677.00 139.179.6'2 96,154.00 484,669.98 Savings -234,659.36 -9,677.00 -139,1/9.62 1j96,1 54.00 Remaining ' 5,bob.b'o _ _ obb b
oo b.oo 479r669.98 " 5,000.00 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24 Grade Level Grade 2 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6%' 6.24 ~5.9%| 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5%l 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 2051 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189, 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achigygrngnt Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 ________19 3 4 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr, 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 22 10 0 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69% 2001-02 2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 0% 18% 82% 2001-02 2002-03 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12%, 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 2000-01 2001-02 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7%, 13% 13% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5% 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7% I 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achigygrnent Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr, 2001 3 11 6 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr, 2003 13 14 3 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42%| 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% 2001-02 2002-03 ^^j^^^sas^^BenchrTTark_ExarnjnationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 5% 14% 29% 52% 2001-02 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 30% 36% 28%, 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 I I ri^-gTiMCHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Obsgrvation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'S 'Ka Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 a Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 TiV s
TC j'i Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
kj2i3feste ?T/ In Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -Sfa-//. 3?-
5j ri' :si? >4 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 7.Q 6.6 N/A N/AAchieygment Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A 172 174 199 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 N/A N/A Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A \77 192 196 I Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth ordUcS Z,5 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 ----------- ...w. WIWVUI i?s5Bsw!sprwsa3!S^5SS5 X _______87 8 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. Level Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. .....* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 3 i'*'. 1999-00 2001-02 2002-03 0% 0% 25% 75% Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 0% 6% 0% 94% Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade (Kinder 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 1997-98 I 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James FROM: Junious Phone: (501)324-2272 SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6**' board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B VJ/0 TOTAL DODD B TOTAL 185 214 "79 233 200 "76 216 179 "77 796 174 13 146 7 153 156 86 145 79 224 162 131 "72 145 "77 114 74 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL 193 62 255 188 60 165 63 160 6T 167 57 164 ""45 WILSON B W TOTAL 294 68 297 329 53 278 35 MS 257 3T 2^ 232 2M Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 & 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes. Opening of the new Stephens school January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. II. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1,2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd . 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson______ 26. Williams______ 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT _________153_________ _________188_________ _________209_________ _________252_________ _________267_________ _________268_________ _________271_________ _________277_________ _________280_________ _________282_________ _________282_________ _________284_________ _________298_________ _________305_________ _________307_________ _________320_________ 330 _________332_________ 374 _________384_________ _________388_________ ________389_________ ________397_________ ________426_________ ________426_________ ________446_________ ________452_________ ________459_________ ________466_________ 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% ________________________ __________69%__________ __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%___________ __________78%___________ __________81%___________ __________70%___________ __________100%__________ __________76%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________86%___________ __________81%___________ __________83%___________ __________92%___________ __________73%___________ __________81%___________ __________96%___________ __________87%___________ __________90%___________ __________91%___________ __________85%___________ __________68%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99%___________ __________84%___________ __________80%___________ 89%Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCtOf DESKfiEGAPOW MQNIT3fi0ia FAX: 371-0100 Re: Possible School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall: We are in the process of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to allow the Board to determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have presented some very preliminary information to the Board of Education concerning the savings which can be achieved by closing certain schools. At our meeting last night, the Board indicated that it would continue to consider the possibility of closing schools as one way to make necessary budget cuts. Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the possibility of school closings, we would like to share and discuss with you the information we have and to hear your views on this issue. Time is very short because school registration is scheduled for January 28 - February 8^, 2001. We would like to meet with you, if at all possible, on Wednesday, December 19, 2001. Please call me as soon as possible so that we can confirm a time or. if necessary, arrange a different date for a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKJ/bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2012Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I 1 1 FAX
371-0100 Re
Possible, School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall
allow tte tn H P of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to of ft determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have oresented some vir? Board of Education concerning the savings which can bl leved by closing certain schpoooslssl.b iAlitty oouf rd moseinetgin sgk laoslts n iagVhto t^hwe 7Byoard indicated that it Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the Dossibilitv of school informafio^^ January 28 - FebruaT8^?o1)rWe'X'TkZ?^^ school registration is scheduled for CcoonnfLirdme 9ra fti^rrn^n sa sdcif fCearlel nmt dea ates fsoor oan m aese tpinogs.s ibTlhea snok tyhoaut fwoer ycoaunr meet with you. if at all possible, on Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKj/bjg 810 Wejt Mazkhazn Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 324-2012 a 810 West Markham flt? ^Or DATE: Phone
Fay
(501) 324-2020 (5011 324-2032 January 7, 200z f on+rai V..K.J IKI V41 Ariziir>coc Cyi iihia KuWcib AfkunSuS Deinu(.rui-Gu/.^iiS FkOm: Sueiien Vann, uirector of Lommunicatons SUBJECT: Special Si.huoi Buard Meetings MESSAGE
The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special Board meeting Tuesday, January 15, at 6 p.m. to discuss proposed school closings related to budget reducions. Please note that this issue will not be on the agenda on Thursday, January 10, at the Board's agenda meeting. The reason for the change is that one Board member will be out of town on Thursday, and Superintendent Ken James and Board members felt that the entire Board should be present for the discussion and decision. Additionally, the Board will gather on Thursday, January 17, at noon at Metropolitan Career/Technical Center to have lunch and tour the district's new technology center. The center will house the district's upgraded computer network and telephone systems which are funded through the 2000 capital improvement millage. The network will support the installation of new computers in schools throughout the district. # Pages (including cover) TO Fax# 1 An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM P02 JAN 03 02 16:52 JOHN W. WALKER SH.WN CHILDS JuH.k W. XAalker, P.A. Atoeney At Law 1723 Broadway Liitu Rock, .AaituNSAS 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile
324-2146 OK COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKJ, PA. donna J, Mr HENRY 8210 Hindesson Road tnTLs Rock, .uikansas 72210 Phone: (SOU 372-3425 Fax (601) 372-3428 tUAii
mdieiiryd@Awbell.aet January 8, 2002 Ms. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Judy Magness Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. Michael Daugherty Mr. Baker Kurrue Mr. Larry Berkeley Mr- Terry Rose Little Rock Board of Directors Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Closing Dear Board Members
In that I will be unable to appear before the board at the Tuesday meeting to represent the viewpoints of Joshua, I wish to inform you of the Joshua position with respect to the proposal to close Badgett, Dodd and Fairpark Elementary Schools, brief. I will be First. The Revised Rian (para. 3.6) provides in substance that there will be no school closing of schools in majority black areas absent reasons of compelling nece.s.sity. ______... ... administrators' position the closing is dictated by concerns of ('para. As T understand the economy, i.e., the district is in dire economic .strait,s and simply cannot afford to maintain small schools that are far below capacity in student enrollment. under situation. ordinary circumstances, The argument of economy while a valid one it should not be applied in this years. Badgett has been the subject of closing for We opposed the closing each time. at least ten The staff and board determined to shore the .schoni up with charter school programs and with great fanfare and costs created expectancies that the charter50137441S? WALKER LAW FIRM 225 P03 JAN 08 02 Page iwo January 8, 2002 school idsi was a good one and that the boara would support it by allowing time for it to develop and by giving it the support that it would need to overcome doubts from persons like myself about the propriety and efficacy of charter schools. Thsrefore, to close Badgett would be a breach of faith and commitment as well as of the plan and/or the covenant. Moreover, closing of a black school with the it would constitute the transportation burden upon black students. attendant increase in the Second. David 0. Dodd's closing is also based upon reasons of The Revised Desegregation Plan was based upon geographic attendance zones which were presented to the public as neighborhood schools. economy. Joshua has expressed its concern about the manner in which the neighborhood school zones were drawn and that is record. on Dodd seems to fit the standard submitted to the Court of the desired objective of neighborhood schools. one of racial balance by a zoning plan. That standard was It would seem that Dodd's racial balance is better than that of most schools in the district and that Dodd should be maintained for that reason alone. There are many students who live in the Dodd area who attend private schools. Most of those students are white. district would find ways to attract those enhancement of programs and considerate of their parents. activ.ities It would seem that the students to Dodd by and by- being more Your proposal has a promise not only of closing Dodd but of driving appro.ximately 100 more white children out of the district when those students and parents to remain in the di.strict. wsnt. If economy is indeed the reason for the closing, losing 100 students at per student aid of approximately $5,000 per student,' will take, within a year or two, annually from, the district's at least revenue stream. five million dollars That in turn will increase the district's need to close more schools in order to meet current budgetary considerations. The board has said that It parent? out of the district
its is not trying to drive white actions appear otherwise. These parents may not be the white parents to which the board refers when the board members discuss student retention. middle to lower income. Ths Dodd parents ara I mention this factor because while Dodd is being mentioned for closing, ths district, without approval, has actually added classrooms at Otter Creek, Court a more middle class economy is neither Dodd. community in the district. Thus, the reason
onsistent nor logical when applied to David 0.58137441S7 WALKER LAW FIRM P04 JAN 0S '02 Fags Three January 8, 2002 Finally, with respect to Dead, you have a supportive set of parents who actually proKiote the idea of good education and good race relations simultaneously. Those factors have importance when the history of this community is taken into account and when the Revised Plan and Covenant are considered. Third. With respect to the proposed closing of Fairpark, I do not oelievs that the administration Is serious about this closure. It/ 1 believe, is being submitted to deflect attention from the closing of the two lower income schools. income schools, Badgett But like the two lower closing are not substantiated. and Dodd, the justifications for the If economy is the reason for the closing the board may wish to revisit some of the decisions to add administrative staff which were recommended by Superintendent Les Carnins and approved by the board. It IS my belief that a large number of administrative staff were added by Dr. Gamine which were not economically justified at the time. I realize this IS a sensitive area since the board recommendations. approved each of those For example, you approved substantially enhanced pay increases for all the administrators at the associate and assistant superintendent level. While I do not oppose fair pay for administrators, these adminxstrators' pay is comparable to the pay that superintendents receive in other district, and in some cases IS even greater. category, not nine or ten. You expect to find one or two people in this position of Chief Financial Another example is the creation of the Officer, a position which explicitly created to obtain the services of Or. Don Stewart. was It is ironic that the chief defender of the economic basis for the school closings is Dr. Stewart. If the district had maintained its structure without adding Dr. Stewart, it would have saved at least 5100, 000 per year. Stewart, but this example is glaring. I don't want to be personal regarding Dr. I submit that it is more important to actually maintain the "neighborhood schools" that the board championed than to hire a person simply because the superintendent likes that person's experience.s and abil ities, The 5100,000 administrative costs associated with that salary would be more than sufficient to continue, on a operation of either Dodd or Badgett, sound economic basis, the assessment is anywhere close to being correct. or perhaps both. If this the district would take time to reevaluate its overall needs and then make some cost, judgments regarding them. it would seem that staffing Administrative costs are but one item. I have previously brought to your attention the large number of small classes in the advanced placement area and have pointed up the lack of econom.ic justi fication. for small classes for .A.P. students. The educational501374413? WALKER LAW FIRM PQ5 JAM OS '02 16:54 Page Four January 8, 2002 justification is students, made takin Sut in any strongest for small classes of underachieving ass, the appropriate assessirient should be I must a note into account all components of the district's business also 35 we consider closing three schools the district IS still planning to build a new school in an upper middle class area in west Little Reck. schools in The poor areas can simply reason of economy in closing not be j ustifred under circumstances where you are opening new schools without regard tor the same concerns for economy. school in the west. You plen to open an expensive new Nor can reasons of econom.y for school closings be justified when there are so many staff members on the payroll whose work is being duplicated unnecessarily by Others. Lastl J These viewpoints have not been publically discussed by the board members in a public forum. Because they have not and because your procedure does not lend itself to dialogue in public board meetings, may I suggest that before you close any school the board create a committee, rather small, with representatives from the Joshua Intervenors, the teacher's union and the seven school zones, and which includes Dr. James and Dr. Stewart, district's financial circumstances. to review the be simply a resource available to the committee. I would ask that Dr. Stewart I note that Pulaski County School District, In this respect. there. while Dr. Stewart was always had more money than Dr. Stewart said it had. his leadership, Under the district was always very solvent while it clairaed that it was on the verge of disaster. idea, Please consider these views and if you reject my committee I ask that you take no action until Mr. Heller has hjid an opportunity to discuss this matter with Joshua to see if there is some way to avoid any school closing. If this is not possible. Joshua has no choice other than to file formal objections to the anticipated and recommended school closings with the Court. Thank you for listening to me. Sincerely, Johpl^W. Walker Or? Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors JWW
ip5?' iii LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SPECIAL MEETING January 15, 2002 6:00 p.m. Consideration of School Closing Options for 2002-2003 school year DATE: January 15, 2002 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors: Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment
Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility
Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility
Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 requires that we not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. M's do not intend to recommend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor maintenance, so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable
or. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Terrn: The term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. The Superintendent has also included similar financial data and information about Fair Park Elementary, per the Boards direction. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o S* grade: 130 students required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, & 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed: All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools. Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school. Students within the East 6* and 9* street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario. Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students. Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, 5* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone & 20 students will go back to AZ school *Building Capacity is based upon average class sizeSpecial Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer. Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August. 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact
Based upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed: All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools. Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students. Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students. Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creeks African American-enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed: All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. ENROLLMENT DATA: Fair Park Elementary: Enrollment: 212 = 70% usage Building Capacity 304 # of Certified Staff 18.1 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.8 Enrollment w/o 4 yr olds, and 5*^ graders 164 required to move, of which 121 are in the Fair Park zone. 43 students will return to their AZ school In the event that Fair Park is closed: All non-AZ students at Fair Park will return to their Attendance Zone schools. Students south of 1-630 would go to Franklin. Net impact on Franklin would be an increase of 84 students (75 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Franklins enrollment would increase from 385 students to 469 students. The percent of Franklins African American enrollment would decrease from 97% to 96%. The building capacity at Franklin is 532. Students east of McKinley, North of Markham and South of Cantrell would go to Brady. Net impact on Brady would be an increase of 38 students (29 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Bradys enrollment would increase from 338 students to 376 students. The percent of Bradys African American enrollment would decrease from 81% to 80%. The building capacity at Brady is 409. Students east of Mckinley, South of Evergreen, and North of 1-630 would go to Forest Park. Net impact on Forest Park would be an increase of 17 students (5 B and 12 NB). In this scenario.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 7 Forest Parks enrollment would increase from 307 students to 324 students. The percent of Forest Parks African American enrollment would remain at 39%. The building capacity at Forest Park is 400 students. E. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the three school sites, and the Charter Program. F. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 FAIR PARK: $ 749,692.03 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $ 2,504,320.08 $ $ $ It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from Badgett, Dodd and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. If Badgett, Dodd, the Charter Program, and Fair Park Elementary are closed, all of the certified staff could not be absorbed, thus additional reductions in personnel would be necessary. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs and resources allow.Special Board Meeting, January 14, 2002 Board Report Page 8 G. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students. Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals, H. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue. There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship. Even if we do not lose additional revenue this fiscal year, it is still essential that we reduce expenditures to balance the 2002-2003 budget. The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent. At this time, I have targeted a $6.5 million dollar reduction as a target for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, the' Charter Program, and Fair Park is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities. If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action at the January 15' Special meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 9 In preparation of the consideration of any school closures, the following activities took place: During the week of December 10-14.1 faxed and mailed a letter to all of the parties involved in the Desegregation case. During the week of December 17-19.1 met with the following to ensure their understanding of our exploration of school closures for the 2002- 2003 academic year: Dr. James Smith, Superintendent. North Little Rock Schools Dr. Carl Brown. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Dr. John Archetko. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Ms. Clementine Kelley. CTA President Mr. Frank Martin. CTA I met with Ms. Ann Marshall on Friday. January 4, 2002. I did not receive a response from Mr. Walker, during this timeframe, but Mr. Walker has written a letter to the Board of Directors. On December 19*^, letters were mailed to all parents/guardians of students currently attending Badgett. Dodd. The Charter Program, and Fair Park. Informing them of Community Meetings on the following dates: Badgett Elementary/Charter Thursday. January 3"* Dodd Elementary Monday. January 7^ Fair Park Elementary Tuesday. January 8^ 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We have prepared other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and submit same for your review and consideration.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 10 1. RECOMMENDATION: A. B. After careful analysis and processing of all information gleaned as a result of our community meetings, it is the recommendation of the Superintendent that Dodd Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School remain open during the 2002-2003 school year. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider revoking the charter of the Charter school and reassign the students to their respective attendance zone schools, for the 2002-2003 school year. Projected Savings: $479,670.00 C. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider closing Badgett Elementary School under the provisions of 3.72 of the Revised Desegregation Plan, effective at the close of the current school year. Projected Savings: $536, 049.00 Attachments:I FTE-Cert FTE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION 2001-2002 BADGETT I I Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total I i Cert 1.00 6.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 I N-Cert ! 4.00 'ri 11.80 1.40 2.00 7.40 1 st Quarter 1 ADA ' ADM ^52.05 167.95 Salary 29,773.00 291,417.00 18,831.20 33,916.00 17,308.40 44:313.00 42,691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 % Attend
90.53% Fringe 8,058.80 79,442.21 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 10,697.81 10,403.51 25,196.05 11,871.23 163,163.71 I Purch Ser 350.00 26,859.00 27,209.00 Supplies 8,572.00 1,473.00 1,498.00 11,543.00 Capital i Other 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Total 37.831.80 381.781.21 23.311.07 42.726.76 21.511.87 55.6l6.81 54.568.05 128.96'9.85 76,378.23 822,029.65 Estimated Savings -37,831.80 -156,606.06 -23,311.67 ...........6.00 -21,511.87 2 -55,010.81 "-53,69'5:65 -128,909.85 ' '-66,378.23 -536,648:68 Remaining Costs 0.00 231,781.21 0.00 42,726.76 0.00 0.00 1,473.00 0.00 10,006.00 285,986.97 Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total 1st Quarter r FTE-Cert Cert 1.00 2-00 7:66 0.40 3.60 0.50 1.00 FTE N-Cert ' 1.00 5.50 DODD 1.00 1.60 17.50 0.40 0.40 1.00 2.00 10.30 li 93,38 Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total 1st Quartet^ Grand Total FTE-Cert Cert ' '5.56 0.20 1.00 FTE N-Cert 3.00 6.70 3.00 .D>^\AdM': Salary 46,723.00 66,271.06 347,673.00 15.482.06 129:466:26 21,635.56 47,911.00 6,996'.26 56,531.67 96,95i'.'66 35,876.66 871:456.5'7 % Attend , Fringe 13,790.23 17,338.19 96,290.17 3,871.98 _33,044.15 5,254.35 11,350^85 2,33T81 13,977.50 22906.61 11,821.50 23i
977.34 Purch Ser 1,900.00 1,200.00 48^335.00 51,435.00 : /O/MIOIIU' < 94,82% 222 Salary__ 151,889.06 7,741.06 > 108:816.50 43,200.06 311,640:6'6 % Attend 174^3833
85.63 86.86%
36.00 CHARTER _ Fringe 42,170.36 1,936.00 30,369.1'2 ' 16,454.06 90,929.48 Purch Ser '16,700.00 17,500.00 28,260^00 20.70 1,801,205.01 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 300.00 3,728.00 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.60 Supplies 23,200.66 19,000.00 42,200.00 64,428.00 Capital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital 10,506.66 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67.00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200.66 1,200.00 1,617.00 Total 63,786?23 83,969.19 45'6:991:17 19,353.98 2162,444:35 _ 26:889.85 ' '59:261.85 9:328.61 _72,257.i'7 i2i.567.6l '97,641:50 i,167,364:'9T Savings -6'3,780.23 -38,562.92 -252,074.27 2:-i9.353.98 _ 2 0.00 226,8'89.85 -59,261.85 1 _:9'328:6i 2270,569.17 " -121,507.61 '" -77,641.50 -738:'969':39 Remaining Costs 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.90 0.00 162,444.35 ......... 0:00 ............6.00 6:06 1,746:00 0.00 26,666.00 428,4'55.52 Total '239'659.36 '9,67'7.00 139.179.62' 96.154.00 484 669.96 Savings _ -234,659?36 '2-9,677.00 -139,179:62 ' -96.154.00 -479,669.98 Remaining Costs 5,000.00 "6.06 Qoo 0.06 5,006:60 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77, 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print 'Vocabulaiy Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6% 6.24 5.9% I 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5% 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 19 3 4 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 10 0 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69%, Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 0% 18% 82% 0% 5% 27% 59%, 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12% 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7% 13% 13% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999:2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24, Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5%' 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7%| 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205| 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 8.9 5.7 4.8 3 11 6 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Grovirth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 13 14 3 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42% 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level iggs-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 5% 14% 29% 52% 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test iggy-ga igga-gg Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete i9gg-oo 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 30% 36% 28% 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% iggy-ga igga-gg iggg-oo 2000-01 2001-02CHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 S'
(SSP, Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 - Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24. Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'Si * Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -kV w - Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 rST^ Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 safe 7.9 6.6 N/A N/AAchievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A ?72 174 199 [Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A Ml 192 196 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 0% 25% 75% 2001-02 2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2001-02 2002-03 WSsW 0% 6% 0% 94% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 [Kinder I 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 iPrincipal: Samuel Branch Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 47.03 13.03 16.76 30.73 19.97 51.55 15.40 20.80 33.50 19.00 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 53.70 17.44 22.56 28.11 22.22 52.92 17.43 20.78 39.51 29.62 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 19.79 17.73 68.79 38.86 47.69 45.50 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten
Level 16, Grade 1
Level 24, Grade 2 Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 3.54 68.3% 22.44 62.5% 29.07 62.9% 4.75 75.6% 18.16 72.7% 28.56 67.7% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 198 205 212 177 190 193 177 174 196 194 205 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 12.6 7.9 6.6 19 4 12 Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 193 199 207 184 197 201 183 196 194[Grade 5 I Inf 212| 20^ I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 12 -3 5 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 200 208 215 173 189 195 203 179 195 192 207 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 T arget 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 3 12 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 20% 30% 50% 0% 21% 50% 29% 0% 35% 24% 41% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 5% 5% 25% 65% 0% 0% 7% 93% 6% 12% 18% 65% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 17% 18% 12% 19% 20% 34% 42% 19% 34% 34% 28% 29% 15% 26% 26% 25% 31% 15% 24% 22% 24% 17% 12% 21% 21% Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5'A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Juiiious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James Phone: (501)324-2272 FROM: Junious B SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6* board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B vwo TOTAL DODD B W TOTAL 185 21^ 214 233 200 216 179 "77 174 13 146 IM 156 242 145| 79 162) 89j 131 "72 2W 145 ~T1 114 74 188 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL WILSON B \N TOTAL 193 62 188 60 165 63^ 160 167 ~T7 2^ 164 294 68 3W 297 "65 3W 53) 3^ 278 313 3? 232 20 252 Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 & 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes. Opening of the new Stephens school'January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. IL ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1, 2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson 26. Williams 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT 153 188 209 252 267 268 271 277 280 282 282 284 298 305 307 _________320_________ 330 332 374 384 388 389 397 426 426 446 452 459 466 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% __________69%__________ 69% __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%__________ __________78%__________ __________81%__________ __________70%__________ 100% 76% __________95%__________ __________89%__________ __________86%__________ __________81%__________ __________83%__________ __________92%__________ __________73%__________ __________81%__________ __________96%__________ __________87%__________ 90% 91% __________85%___________ __________68%___________ 95% __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99% 84% 80% 89%POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION (2002-2003) (1-14-02) TARGET REDUCTION: $6.5 MILLION PROJECTED SAVINGS SCHOOL CLOSINGS: A. CLOSE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM: $479,670.00 B. CLOSE BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $536,049.00 C. CLOSE DODD ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $738,909.00 D. CLOSE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $749,692.00 ELIMINATE THE TOTAL ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 1,874,205.00-2- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROG $ 378,669.00 ELIMINATE THE 6^^ GRADE ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 56,062.00 CONSIDER PLACING ATHLETICS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL DAY: $ 360,000.00 ELIMINATETHETRANSPORTA TION PROGRAM: $5,724,168.00 REDUCE THE DISTRICTS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FINE ARTS PROGRAM: $ 405,263.00 ELIMINATE ALL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 3,541,514.00 ELIMINATE TWO SECONDARY AND TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 300,000.00 ELIMINATE ALL SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS $ 438,560.00 ELIMINATE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-MIDDLE SCHOOL-SHARE: $ 100,000.00 ELIMINATE THE EXTRA DAYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID DURING THE SUMMER FOR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: $ 174,375.00-3- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE ONE POSITION IN THE HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT: $ 121,500.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASST. SUPERINTENDENT-PRE: $ 86,693.00 ELIMINATE THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR AND REDUCE # OF CLASSES $ 150,000.00 ELIMINATE TWELVE POSITIONS IN THE HIPPY PROGRAM (FIVE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT: $ 220,914.00 ELIMINATE 2 STUDENT RECRUITER POSITIONS: $ 114,000.00 ELIMINATE 2 POSITIONS ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT: $ 39,323.00 REDUCE OVERTIME COST BY 50%: $ 150,000.00-4- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION: ELIMINA TE THE DAIL Y MONEY PICK-UP AT THE SCHOOL SITES AND REPLACE WITH IN-DISTRICT OPERATION: $ 80,000.00 ELIMINATE THE VIPS PROGRAM: $ 268,141.00 ELIMINATE TWO POSITIONS FROM VIPS OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 REDUCE THE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM BY 14 CLASSES: $1,124,000.00 ELIMINATE 50% OF CONSULTATION FEE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SER VICES $ 13 ,000.00 ELIMINATE .50 POSITION OF DROPOUT COORDINA TOR $ 41,000.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL NURSES $ 154,400.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL COUNSELORS $ 199,000.00 REDUCE TRAVEL EXPENSE FROM OPERA TING BUDGET BY 50% $ 156,054.00-5- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE DISTRICT CONVOCATION $ 30,000.00 ELIMINATE 30.0 FTE- CERTIFICATED STAFF-SECONDARY: $1,380,000.00 ELIMINATE 50 AIDES: $ 600,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE READING SPECIALIST: $ 62,000.00 ELIMINATE 1.0 LIBRARIAN: $ 45,877.00 REDUCE ALL DISTRICT FUNDED BUDGETS BY 7 72 %: $1,688,000.00 ELIMINATE THE COORDINATOR OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: $ 86,754.00 ELIMINA TE TWO FTE FROM PRE: $ 92,218.00 ELIMINATE ONE ACTIVITY DIRECTOR AT PARKVIEW: $ 33,000.00 -6- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE BUSINESS OFFICE BUDGET BY: $ 39,000.00 ELIMINATE TWO FTE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES FROM THE IRC: $ 31,128.00 ELIMINATE ONE PROG. EVAL/ESL FROM IRC: $ *61,069.00 (Title I and District Funds) ELIMINATE ONE FTE SPEC. EDUC. ADMINISTRATOR: 67,045.00 ELIMINATE TWO ADAPTIVE PE POSITIONS FROM SPEC. EDUC. PROGRAM: $ 96,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE FTE CUSTODIAN AT THE IRC: $ 18,740.00 REDUCE THE CONTRACT OF THE DISTRICT OMBUDSMAN FROM 12 MONTHS TO 11 MONTHS: $ 12,420.00 REDUCE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING PURCHASE ORDERS, BY IMPLEMENTING A PURCHASE CARD SYSTEM: (WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR). $ 100,000.00 REDUCE MAIL DELIVERY TO SITES TO EVERY OTHER DAY: $ 21.500.00-7- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE FACILITY SERVICE BUDGET BY: S 100,000.00 REDUCE THE COMMUNICATION DIVISION BUDGET BY: $ 25,500.00 ELIMINATE TEN FTE POSITIONS AT THE END OF THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR-THE FUNDING SOURCE (GRANT) WILL EXPIRE: $ 395,048.00-8- VARIED SCENARIOS TO OBTAIN TARGETED REDUCTIONS SCENARIO #1: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary Close Fair Park Elementary $ 536,049.00 $ 479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $749,692.00 $2,504,320.00 reduction The remaining $4.0 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #2: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $1,754,628.00 reduction The remaining $4.74 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #3: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $1,015,719.00 reduction The remaining $5.48 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.-9- SCENARIO #4: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools and make all Target reduction of $6.5 million reductions from the items listed. SCENARIO #5: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools Reduce 60 FTE Certified Staff Reduce 100 FTE Non-Certified Staff $2,760,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $3,960,000.00 reduction The remaining $2.54 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 January 16, 2002 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr Babbs: I understood Dr. Mitchell to say last evening that 78% of the students who attend Badgett Elementary were bused to the school. After the Board meeting, I inquired where she obtained her information and she indicated that it came from you. Would you, therefore, please provide clarification of her comments by providing the following information seriatim: 1) Does the 78% include students in the Charter program and in the school? 2) How did you arrive at your 78%? 3)1 suspect that 78% of the students who attend the Charter program are, in deed, bused there due to the nature of the program and services provided. Is that correct? 4) (a) How of the of the 81 Charter school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 5) (a) How many of the 153 regular school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 6) (a) What is the mile(s) radius of attendance zones for Badgett? zone blocks? (b) In other words, how many miles away is the nearest street? The farthest street? 7) Please identify the streets that are in the Badgett attendance zone. 8) Based upon the answer in number 5(a), how far do these students travel to get tothe school? 9) Dr. James report to the Board indicates that 65 black students would be transported to Rockefeller, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and distance Badgett compared to the distance to distance to Rockefeller. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? 10) Dr. James further reported to the Board that 49 black students would be transported to Washington, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and the distance to Badgett compared to the distance to Washington. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? Finally, would you also please advise whether any of the FTE - certified staff (11.8- Badgett and 6.7 - Charter) members have communicated intentions of retirement, resignations, etc. in order to help confirm the Districts reported approximately million dollar savings by closini the school and charter program. Ig Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, r' /Joy C. Springer* On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Dr. Kenneth JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 Januaiy 16, 2002 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James
This is to request a copy of the Board minutes from last evening along with a tape recording of the meeting. I will provide a cassette tape to Ms. Beverly Griffin on my way into the office on tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attention to this request. r / Joy C. Springer' On Behalf of Joshua JCS/Arkansas Democrat (gazette | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 History saves Central High from consultants hit list BY CYNTHIA HOWEIX Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Central High, the Little Rock School Districts flagship school, needs almost $6 million in repairs and renovations and even then it perhaps wont meet the educational demands placed on schools in the 1990s. Those are the findings of a San .Antonio consulting firm hired last February to evaluate the condition of Little Rock schools and make recommendations on the districts building needs. In ail. the firm found that the districts schools and administrative buildings need more than W million in renovations and repairs over the next several years. The consultants. 3D/Intemation- al. described 70-year-old Central as uniquely imposing, a fine old structure and a landmark, but they ranked the school fifth among the citys five high schools in terms of building condition. Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the- art, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are now unusable and the wooden structure previously used as the 'Tiger Den needs to be removed, the consultants said. The school did not appear well- maintained, especially its mechanical systems, the consultants said. Inspectors said the plaster walls and ceiling are deteriorating, and moisture is seeping throu^ the outside walls. Windows need replacing, and acoustical ceilings are needed. Other needs include new I hardware, plumbing repairs, a new I fire alarm system, extensive work ' on the ventilation systems, and an elevator to provide disabled people with access to each of the schools five floors. Repairs also are needed in the library, in the gymnasium and in Quigley Stadium, where the running track should be replaced. "The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which, when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. the consultants said in their report. The consultants acknowledged that because of Centrals history and its reputation for high-quality academic programs, closing the building is not really an option. They did suggest that the building might be better used as a community college. .A. second alternative would be a super magnet program high school for accelerated programs and adult education. The consultants said the school needs S3.2 million worth of work in the ne.xt two years to solve immediate problems and meet safety codes. In subsequent years, electrical wiring systems need to be installed to support technology programs. Central, which is listed as a National Historic Landmark, was built in 1926 and early in its history was designated as the countrys most beautiful school. In 1957, Central High attracted international attention when federal troops were called to maintain order as nine black students integrated the previously all-white school. Of the five high schools, the consultants said Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School, built in 1968, was in the best shape, followed by J.A. Fair, Hall High and McClellan High. The consultants based rankings of schools on physical condition, size, location and capacity to support educational programming. Central isnt the only building with problems. The consultants recommended closing from eight to 11 of the citys elementary and junior high schools. Following is a list of those schools and some of the prottems found by the consu^ tants: Fair Park Elementary Built in 1929, the school tanks 33id of the 35 elementanes. Ifs heating and air-conditioning system needs replacement as do the plumbing arxf electrical panel boards and al interior finish. Rerxjva- tions would cost $714,626. Woodruff Elementary Bull in 1911, the school ranks 31st out of 35. Plumbing work Is needed as is repair of the plaster walls. Classrooms and the library are small. The consultants said the fine old building' has outlived its usefulness. Renovation costs total $212,098. Wakefield Elementary Built in 1959. the school ranks 34lh of 35 and needs plumbing and electncai work along with complete renovation of interior surfaces. The school grounds also need improvements of fencing, sidewalks, paved areas and playground equipment. Protected renovation costs are $1.2 million. Pulaski Heights Elementary Built in 1925. the school ranks 27th. Needs include new floor tiles and ceilings, replacement of doors and the venolanon system, plumbing and the fire alarm system. The projected cost is $1.4 million. Mitchell Incentive Elementary Bunt In 1908. the school ranks last among the ele- mentaries. The school f^is structural problems and outdated plumbing, ventilation and electncai systems. The projeraed cost is $580,000. Jefferson Elementary Constructed in 1950. the school tanks 30th. The school has the typical electncai. mechanical and plumbing problems. Also, the library and offices are small and load-bearing walls are damaged. The school, already undergoing expansion, would take $1.8 million to renovate. MeadowdHI Elementary Built In 1956, the school tanks 28lh. Virtually all the plumbing and electrical systems need replacement Exterior work is needed. The cost of renovation would ba $1.1 mlKon Ish Elemerttary Built in 1964 and closed by ths district in 1993. the school Is used on a temporary basis for children who attended Chicot before it was damaged by fire last year. Repair would cost $656,776. GatlaiKl Elementary Built in 1922, the schrxil tanks 291h. The district has had longstanding plans to dose the school, which needs about $1.4 million in work to its plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The library and cafeteria are too small. Wilson Elementary Built in 1927, the school tanks 18th out of 35. The school needs about $723,963 in work. Mabelvale Junior High Built in 1952, the school stands last among the eight junior highs. The heating and air-conditioning equipment on the school roof need replacement, as do the field house and stadium bleachets.Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Committee to review LRSD study Will do the legwork oh school closings BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Oazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will rely on a committee of patrons, employees and school board members to suggest how the dis- Irict might use a consulting compa- riys recommendations for closing or renovating schools. Tile 3D/Intemational Co. of San Antonio presented its 13-volume, $^,000 study to the board in September. It projected that the district will lose 3,6()0 students by 2005, making school closures necessary. The consultants evaluated each building and estimated costs of repairs, additions and modernization. They presented the district with three options for dealing with the student loss and recommended closing as many as 10 elementaries and one junior high, and building one new elementary school. Doug Eaton, the district's direc- , lor of plant services, told school I board members Tuesday that an | implementation committee will
meet for the first time at 9 a m. Thursday to begin considering each proposal'.s possible impact on student assignments, the curricu- 1 lum, personnel, the district budget, property tax rates and the districts desegregation plan. The committee will make its ! recommendations to the district administration, which will make recommendations to the school board. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said Tuesday that any recommendations for closing schools in 1996^97 should be presented to those schools communities in January. Before then, though, Williams and members of his staff will meet with parent and community groups to explain the study and to emphasize that no decisions on closing schools have been made. Eaton said closing schools and reassigning students will be complicated and must be phased in over several years. Board member Judy Magness said on Tuesday that the consultant's recommendations could leave more students attending schools closer to home, which many parents say they want She alsb said the recommendations coitld lead to more modem schools thiM will better prepare students forlhe 21st century. Board member Michael Daugherty asked why the district should consider closing so many elementary schools when junior highs are losing more students. Board member Linda Pondexter asked what the schools' racial composition would be under a new student assignment plan. The number of predominantly one-race schools would increase, Williams said. Among the schools that could be closed or used for other purposes If the consultants recommendations are accepted are Fair Park, Garland, Ish, Jefferson, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Pulaski Heights, Wake- field, Wilson, WoodnilT eiemen- taries and Mabelvale Junior H igh ' FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14. 2001 Parents plead cases, but two schools stay in budget axs reach LR board hears of virtues of smallness, then adds Fair Park to possible closures Qnhflfllc for closing because of eir small wUllUUId enrollments. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road near the citys air- Continued from Page 1B port, has 153 students in its regarea for potential budget cuts, ular program and another 80 en- and that he and his staff are rolled in the districts charter preparing recommendations for program, which is housed in the more reductions. same building. Dodd, 6423 Stage- In response to School Board coach Road, has 188 pupils, members who said they cant de- which is 69 percent of the build- cide on closing schools with- mgs capacity. out knowing what their other op- The average elementary tions are, James said he will give school in the district has about them some proposals after the 360 students. The average elementary first of the year. The district would save BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Were going to refuse to let Dodd close, Tiwana Noon- Faced with the possible loss er, a parent of three Dodd of their neighborhood schools pupils, said, Were going to next year to budget cuts, par- fight. Dodd parents and commu- ents and others from the Bad- gett and David O. Dodd ele- nity members pointed to the mentary school communities number of grants that the school Thursday extoUed the virtues has received in recent years to of their small schools to the Lit- restructure the way reading and tie Rock School Board. language arts are taught. Those James, who has been Little $536,048 by closing the regular Rocks school superintendent for Badgett school and another about six months, just last week $479,669 by closing the charter raised the issue of closing one program, plus $738,909 by closer more of the districts small- ing Dodti est schools next faff as a way to By closing the schools, the help offset escalating costs and number of teaching positions in a declining revenue forecast that the district could be reduced by is already affecting the districts about 20. A similar number of $224 milhon budget. support staff positions also could The district is getting $2.4 be reduced. Board members were sym- grants and programs may not pathetic and made no final de- all be transferable to other million less in state funding this cisions. schools, they said. Additional- However, by the end of the ly, they argued that the special- meeting, the School Board not ly trained staff members will be only directed Superintendent scattered across the district, diKenneth James to continue luting the effectiveness of their planning for the possible clos- training. District officials speculated, year than initially budgeted be- however, that most of the peo- cause of shortfalls that were an- pie in jobs at the affected schools nounced last month in state tax could be absorbed into other collections. That loss is expect- schools as vacancies occur be- ed to be earned forward into the cause of retirements and resignext school year when the dis- nations. ing of Badgett and Dodd as a Diane Krippendorf, a com- trict must meet contractually obligated teacher pay increases. way to save about $1.7 million, munity member, also pointed but also asked him to prepare a out that as many as 200 new feasibility study on closing a homes are planned for the Dodd third small school. Fair Park El- attendance zone, which should ementary at 616 N. Harrison St, boost the schools enrollment where about 200 pupils attend over the next few years. District According to preliminary - . plans, Badgett pupils would be The School Board must make assigned to Rockefeller and a decision on the school closings Washington elementary schools, by Jan. 10 to be able to notify Charter school pupils, who at- affected parents of the changes tend the school by applying, before registration starts for the would return to the schools that 2002 school year. That regis- serve the attendance zones in classes. officials said the new homes tration period when parents which they live throughout the The presidents of the parent- might bring in 14 to 20 new chil- teacher associations from both dren for the school in each of Dodd and Badgett presented the the next two years. can make a variety of school district. choices for their children begins Jan. 28. As for Dodd pupils, they School Board with petitions James has said that the pos- Thursday pleading to keep their sible school closings are just one schools. See SCHOOLS, Page 9B would be divided among West- James repeatedly acknowl- ern Hills, Romine and Otter edged that the district is decid- Creek elementary schools if their ing the issue on a very fast time school is closed. line that is contrary to districts Two bands of small children - policy that calls for school clos- set the tone for Thursdays meetings to be considered for at least ing, marching in two circles on 12 months, except in emergen- the administration buildings cies. front steps, waving posters and James assured the board that chanting in support of their is entering dire financial straits, schools, as board members ar- You dont take the largest cut rived for the meeting. Dont in state aid in the history of the close Dodd school, yelled one state and think it is business as group. usual, he said. Please dont close Badgett Badgett and Dodd are targets school, the others said.J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 0 2 District sets sessions on closing 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District will hold a series of public meetings, beginning today, at three low-enrollment schools under consideration for closing. The meetings are scheduled at: Badgett Elementary, 6900 Pecan Road, 6 p.m. today. J Dodd Element^, 6423 Stagecoach Road, 6 p.m. Monday. Fair Park Elementary School, 616 N. Harrison St., 6 p.m. Tuesday. The meetings-are open to the public. The district proposes closing schools beginning July 1 because of state budget cuts. The Little Rock School Board will consider the proposal during its regular meeting Jan. 10 at 5 p. at the School District headquarters at 810 W. Markham St.F Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON Badgett Elementary School parent Jerry Peters (left) Zeigler (center left), Rockefeller Elementary Principal asks Little Rock School Superintendent Ken James a Anne Mangan, and Sadie Mitchell (right), the district's question Thursday night during a public hearing at associate superintendent for school services. Mangan Badgett to discuss the schools possible closing. Lis- and Zeigler attended because Bad^tt tening are Washington Elementary Principal Gwen would attend their schools if Badgett cldses, cIroes students LR parents face closing of 3 schools Badgett meeting held
2 more set BY PATRICK HEALY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT (JAZETIT As solemn-faced parents, teachers and administrators discussed the fate of Badgett Elementary School with urgent voices, the children played. Arm in arm, they pranced across the schools packed gym. inspected TV cameramen and galloped through the banana-yellow hallways while adults discussed shutting down Badgett, in east Little Rock, and two other Little Rock elementary schools. The 'Fliursday meeting was the first of three meetings scheduled before the School Board votes whether to close Badgett, Dodd and Fair Park elementary schools. Other meetings are scheduled at Dodd on Monday and at Fair See BADGETTj^age 4B Badgett Continued from Page 1B Park on Tuesday. Tlie meetings are designed to let school officials explain the shutdown proposal and hear community concerns. Were still in shock, and we still dont want it to happen, said Kim Dunahay, Badgetts Parent Teacher Association president. Even if they vote to close the school, the fights not going to stop. The School Boards vote, rescheduled from Jan. 10 to Jan. 15, comes at a time of financial crisis, said Sadie Mitchell, the districts associate superintendent for school services. In addition to rhe $2.4 million state funding cut, the school district must pay $3 million in promised raises. Altogether, the school district fiiust slice $6 million from its annual budget ol $220 million. Superintendent Ken James Pb-S ! Proposed Wlendance Zones k rl & 31 Arkansas Democrat-Gazetle/STEPHEN B. THORNTON students if the school is closed. The informational meeting Thursday night at the school was the first of three meetings to discuss potential school closings. said, Were going to have to junious Babbs, associate superintendent for deseg-make some tough decisions. regation for the Littie Rock School District, discusses The board is considering clos- proposed attendance zones for Badgett Elementary ing Badgett, Fair Park and Dodd elenientaries primarily due to nickel-and-diine that to death. applauding when parents praised ular elementary schools, their low enrollments, James Normally, a proposal to close Badgett and spoke against its Weve tried regular schook said. This year, 153 students at- schools must be announced one closing. said Carrie Igwe, whose fourth-tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. I like it here because most of grade son, Caleb, has attention tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. ------------- 200 attend Fair Park. But with the budget cuts, James the teachers are nice, and they deficit hyperactivity disorder The average Little Rock ele- said, schools must act fast. let you come into their class- and attends the charter school. Everybody has to be rooms and they give you treats, He has special needs ' ' 1 Igwe said her son did poorly mentary school has 363 students. ____------- , If the tliree schools are closed, touched, James told the crowd. 10-year-old Kenetra Lowe said . . their students would attend dif- Tliis is not a win-win situation. after the meeting. Id rather stay in his classes until he came to The one-hour meeting went here. I may be shy to go to an- Badgett. Igwe said she doesnt the next school year. more smoothly than past dis- other school. I wouldnt have any want her son to return to regu- Some teachers would find cussions about closing Badgett, friends on the first day. lar classes, and she balks at pri- Parents and educators ex- vate school tuition. ferent schools at the start of other jobs in the district, but oth- In 1995, a proposal to close Bad- ' ers could be laid off, James said, gett met with parentsprotests pressed concern about the 83 It certainly seemed reason- and a court challenge that forced students who attend Badgetts money to send him to a private able to me, board Vice President the School Board to back down, charter school. The students, school, she said, unless the Lit- But on Thursday, audience many of whom have learning dis- tie Rock School District is going ' ...... ' to pay it for us. Judy Magness said. When youve _________ got to cut $6 million, you cant members listened quietly, twice abilities, would be sent to reg- We dont have the kind of Z 0 0 3 V A J enuBp I January 1 5. 2 0 0 2 I Some proposed cuts, such as U C n 0 01S eliminating the districts year- '*'*""**** opening ceremony, reducing mail Continued from Page 1B delivery and removing one hu- The schools have been con- man resources job, dont direct-sidered for closure primarily ly target classrooms. because of their low enrollments. Others da They mclude cutting This year, 153 pupils attend Bad- school police officers, eliminating gett, 188 go to Dodd, and 200 at- r.----------- , v tend Fair Park. The average Lit- letic programs and scaling back the middle-school or sixth-grade ath-tie Rock elementary school has fine arts budget by $400,000. 363 pupils. We will do whatever they If the three schools are closed, hand out to us. said Athledc some teachers would find other Director Johimy Johnson, who positions in the district, but some oversees the districts $1.8 milhon could be laid off James said. Because ofstate funding cuts, stone yet. the district must slash $6.5 nul- The Volunteers in Public lion from its annual budget of Schools program and its budget $220 million. Besides closing of $270,000 also could be cut Smce schools, board members are con- 1972, the program has connected sidering broad cuts to staff, trans- volunteers with schools for tutor-athletic program. Nothing is in portation, athletics, pre-kinder- ing, mentoring and field trips, garten and other programs. Debbie Milam, coordinator of * Ideas range from cutting one the program, said she under- 1 librarian to eliminating the trans- stands the budget crisis but hopes ' portation and athletic programs, her program is left alone. Such sweeping cuts probably They would lose aa wweellll-- would be pared down over time, trained, experienced staff, Mil- <James said. am We^U stiU volun- Some of those things you teers. We just wont have Kcant do, James said Monday, re- screened volunteers or trained fferring to the prospect of cutting volunteers. said. Well still have volun-a11 of the $5.7 million transportation program. School Board member Tony Rose said the board can tweak the 11 piu^cuil. - ----------------------------------- . James and board members will budget proposals. Instead of tnm- meet in coming months to dis- ming the budgets at all schools cuss the 50 listed options and how by 7.5 percent, for instance, the they would affect students. board could pass that cut at 4 per- You try to get the majority [of cent or 5 percent. cnuittss]l aass ffaarr aawwaavy ffrroomm tthhee ccllaassss-- Therell be tradeoffs, he said. room as said. you possibly can, James If we cut this, then we 11 keep this. ZX* o D CfTs C5m^ o 5 33. SCT' a g<1 5 Sc O= 7fi - ?o a2. qgq . oS :G ^53 "a S g 3 ' S?! E< 2fl tRr 0w " oM (Z3 f6 > < B (/) o z cz> > co q n m aS W o 1 C3 I o < 5. r s ., 00 "R Em M <! n O rt rt 5 2. 2 Egmi^o-EnW ft 3 O. m 00 OoQq O co <! "R3 S2P. r* S Cu O o S CL E S 3 2. fl CL o OQ '** <D m C. < oE. 3 S 1 >1 !I<3 ft 3*23 0 2. a R- 3 'm' P.O !R'"-2.3 o' r^>-rT r* n> o ..... V' n> O 5 LrS
f Q- cr w CT j " foqft no wj [- rti w o ft -I w 3 n oq r. S' n w n K - o a R Q S S3 " S 33 e ft 9S - - - 2 3 R- . o T 3 &. ? r 7 S o S n n O O o n> c*- o 3 o a nj ^3 p- C. CT 0^ T o gJls-o 8
H-S's i-- " 3 2.-^0/ S
o o o g -o G- 5 2. o 8 (A r V! r. o 3 ~ 2 . -cJ rr^p Ct* w s CD CD C/3 05 CD Q CZ> C9 <"-f <c/3 o n w o t3 c 2. 5=^ 3 BI I a oO ' C2T 3o C3T- o fwl a. S a 5^ o J o S' S 5 e- M E o 5 w ^'^8 M R- OS !. o ftj >-: LL n 5^ n o {r 2. 55* 1 X 3 S co CD 00 3 o Ct* a S' 5 5" S' . R' f s f CL n 55 c S S-g a 3 qr rse S s "a . S d5q ' S' B G',^3 o> 2. b -a S. n 1
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.