Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume II

Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey Introduction, Recent Trends in Enrollments, Factors Influencing Future Enrollments, Enrollment Projections, and Exhibits August 30, 1995 Volume No 2 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture & Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership DemographersM k k COPY 18 OF 30 kp RECEIVED 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994/1995 1 . 1 Linda Pondexter President Fuller Junior High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501)490-1503 SEP ? 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 3 O a c a o i 3 [1 rI I < r Patricia Gee Vice President 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)562-0571 Judy Magness Secretary 708 Hall Drive Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 (501)666-0923 Stephanie Johnson 8701 130, Apartment 206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)340-6681 Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501)374-6305 T. Kevin OMalley Arkansas Board of Review Tower Building - Suite 700 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-9038 John A. Riggs J. A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501)570-3528 Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District Slowest Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 o 3 a a o w 0 Q O o 3 >o oA 3 X FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY RESOURCE TEAM 1994/1995 Little Rock School District Dr. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton Director of Facilities Charles Neal Director of Procurement I Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent Mark Millholen Comptroller il o o. c a o 3 O 3 a w p Suellen Vann Public Information Lucy Lyon Media I Dennis Glasgow PTA Representative Marie A. McNeal Learning Resource Center Dr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Children Susan Chapman Exceptional Children Gene Parker, Jr. English Community Resources Chris Heller Attorney for the District Debbie Glasgow President PTA Council Tim Polk Neighborhoods and Planning Mark McBryde Senior Vice President n a o S D .0 Q O o 3 M > o D O 3 X Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I TABLE OF CONTENTS o a c a o 3 i. INTRODUCTION RECENT TRENDS IN ENROLLMENTS FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Page 1 16 27 (D 3 p 5 I 2 j.. I I ! APPENDIX Change in Enrollments by School, Level and District - 1987 to 1994 Total Enrollment Projections by Grade and Level - 1995 to 2005 Provisional Projections by School, Level, and Race - 2000 and 2005 Page I tt oa 5 1994 Attendance Zones - Elementary Schools Attendance Zones - Junior High Schools Attendanze Zones - Senior High Schools 1 -14 1 -13 1 -11 1995 Projected Attendance Zones by Option Option M Option T Option C Table AZ - 2 Table AZ - 3 Table AZ - 4 A O O 3 M > o 75 A 3 JT Introduction Trends Factors Projections Appendix I llWW1ltF| I Iwwnwl1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 4 V J INTRODUCTION Purpose and Method of Study 3 1, The demographic study of the Little Rock School District, undertaken by The Grier Partnership, is part of an overall examination of the School District's existing facilities by 3D/lntemational. It is intended to assist 3D/I in its assessment of the District's current physical facilities and its recommendations for new and improved facilities for the future. While the study has drawn on a wide variety of data sources for its information, its ultimate objective has been to determine the future size and characteristics of the pupil population these facilities will serve. 3 The study began with an examination of recent trends in school enrollments and the changing characteristics of the pupil population. Particular attention was given to trends since 1987 when the District's overall enrollments increased by more than one-third with the absorption of several schools and 7,000-plus pupils formerly in Pulaski County Special School District. At that time or thereafter, the District made a number of changes that substantially altered the pupil population served by the Little Rock District. Specifically, it: A Q. W I (1) altered the attendance zones from which individual schools drew their pupils. (2) I I a (3) I 3 (4) designated several schools as "magnets" which could be attended by pupils without regard to location of residence. designated others as "incentive schools" which could also be attended by out- of-zone pupils. n fi) a o w added classes for children below kindergarten age in several schools, and I I a (5) exchanged some pupils with Pulaski County Special District and the North Little Rock School District. The study also included examination of independent data for the District's total population and economy, drawing on federal, state and local sources of information. These included various public agencies in the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and the US Department of Education's School District Data Book, an electronic compilation of extensive demographic data from the 1990 Census specific to the geography of every public school district in the nation. The data from these sources was supplemented by interviews with a number of persons, from both the public and private sectors, who are believed knowledgeable about the demography and economy of Little Rock. TJ o a o 3 W M Results of an Earlier Study The Grier Partnership conducted a similar analysis for the Little Rock School District at the time its territory was expanded to take in schools and pupils formerly assigned to the Pulaski District. The study was part of an overall assessment by Stanton Leggett and Associates of the District's existing and recently-added physical facilities with > o o 3 Q. X Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI I I recommendations made for meeting future facilities needs. Since the District was also under court order to maintain racial balance within its schools, as it remains today, the demographic study and facilities plan gave consideration to this requirement. Projecting future enrollments in the newly-expanded District posed particularly difficult problems. Most serious was the lack of any reliable historical data on school enrollments in the territory being added which would permit a clear understanding of recent trends. It was known that there had been substantial new residential construction in the annexed territory since the last decennial census was taken, and that there had also been a substantial gain in population. However, much of the new construction had been of apartments, which typically yield fewer children per unit than single family homes. Furthermore, much of the growth in population had gone into one census tract where the 1980 census had found that many parents sent their school-age children to private schools. The most recent detailed demographic data for the annexed area, as well as for the territory within the old School District boundaries, dated back to the 1980 census. Metroplan had made recent estimates of the population for all census tracts within the Little Rock metropolitan area, but these were for all ages and races combined and did not single out school-age children. Data on the number of births, which are important in projecting enrollments more than five or six years into the future, were reported only for entire counties in Arkansas at that time. Yet in 1987, when they were first broken out separately for the city of Little Rock, only 54 percent of all births in Pulaski County were to residents of the city. For white births, it was only 44 percent. For nonwhites (the term used by the State to classify Blacks and members of other groups), the proportion was higher, but still only 69 percent. (D 3 Q. W a> a om fl fl How close did the projections come to what actually happened? Leaving out prekindergarten classes which were not begun by the District until 1990, we compared the projections made in 1988 (using data for the 1987 school year) with the actual enrollments in fall 1990 (three years ahead) and in fall 1994 (seven years ahead). The projections came within 0.8 percent of the actual enrollments in 1990 and within 1.5 percent in 1994. In both years the overall projections were on the low side-204 pupils below the actual enrollments in 1990 and 361 pupils below in 1994. Table 1 Comparison of 1988 Projections with Actual Enrollments Grades Kto 12, 1990 and 1994, Little Rock School District TJ ,3 oo o3' Actual Projected Discrepancy Number Percent 1990 25,509 25,305 1294 24,131 23,770 -204 -0.8% -361 -1.5% Is i The Grier Partnership Page 2 3 Q. X ( Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI The New Projections I I There are fewer uncertainties affecting the projections made this year for the total Little Rock School District. The boundaries of the District have not changed again since the annexation. Nor have attendance areas serving most of the schools changed, although exceptions have been granted for enrollment in the magnet and incentive schools and, until this year, for pupils who, either themselves or their siblings, formerly attended a school outside the current zone of residence. The magnets, the incentive schools, and the interdistrict schools, as well as the early childhood program-all instituted as part of the District's desegregation plan-have now been in operation long enough to have established trends in most cases. Although two elementary schools have been closed and one new school constructed since 1987, a reliable record of past trends within the entire Little Rock District now exists to assist in the projection of future enrollments. A 3 I rI The current projection series indicate that enrollments in all grades combined will continue to decline as they have over the past several years. The loss is projected to be about 3,600 pupils between the 1994-95 school year and the year 2005-06. This represents a projected decline of about 14.2 percent over the next 11 years. I Enrollments are also projected to decline in all three levels. The largest percentage drop will occur in the high school grades where enrollments, which totaled more than 5,100 in the last school year, are projected to be more than one-fifth smaller in 2005, with only a few more than 4,000 pupils. However, the lowest point will come in 2003, with enrollments increasing somewhat in the final two years. I The largest numerical decline will come among elementary school pupils, who will decline from nearly 14,200 in 1994 to fewer than 12,800 in 2005-a drop of 9.7 percent over the next 11 years. The lowest enrollments will occur at the end of the projection period in 2005. a ow The junior high grades are also projected to decline, with a loss of about 1,100 pupils (18.6 percent) over the next 11 years. However, the drop will not be continuous. After sustaining losses for several years, enrollments will pick up in the three years from 2001 to 2003, then drop back thereafter. fl fl The projections indicate that enrollments of both Black and white/other pupils will follow similar patterns during the next 11 years. As a result, the racial composition of the District will remain close to its recent level at about 67 percent Black. However, assuming present attendance boundaries for elementary schools are not altered, the racial composition of most schools are likely to diverge substantially from these percentages-some schools becoming much more heavily Black in student enrollment while others will have much larger proportions of pupils who are either white or of other races than Black. 0 o A o o 3 W The new projections are discussed in greater detail in a succeeding section. The chart below presents a summary of the annual projections for total enrollments. D D A 3 Q. X Page 3 n I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Projected Total Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 I 26,000 21,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 25,000 ft 3 Q. tt / / / / 125,195 ] 24,494124,048 123J73 123,127122.7M |2X51g j 2X317 ] 22,123121.910 j j 21,605 ) The Grier Partnership I I p Page 4 tt os tt 0 S ft o o 3 W > o o ft 3 Q. X Trends Factors Projections Appendix 1 1 1 1 iMwmwwl I*Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 3 RECENT TRENDS IN ENROLLMENTS 3 Total Enrollments I Like most school systems in established central cities across the nation, the Little Rock School District has experienced a drop in its pupil population since the heady days of a generation ago when the post-World War II baby boom children were making their way through the nation's classrooms. As recently as 1980, the District had an enrollment of more than 20,000 pupils in a land area that was about two-thirds the size of the present District. Every year thereafter until 1986, enrollments declined. In that year, there was a small increase of fewer than 200 pupils. But in 1987, the District suddenly gained more than 7,000 additional pupils who had previously been assigned to the Pulaski County Special District. I1L Since 1987, however, school enrollments have again fallen, albeit slowly. In only one year, 1991, did the District register an increase when enrollments rose by 462. Almost two-thirds of the gain was attributable to the newly instituted pre-kindergarten program in several schools which was designed in part as a tool to promote racial balance. However, there were also small gains in most of the grades from kindergarten to 11th grade. 1 ! Total Enrollment, 1987-1994 Little Rock School District a o 5 p 28,000 I 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 5 0 ft o o 3 (/) i 26,834! 26,633 j 26,022125,856126,318126,212125,594 j 25,195 | The Grier Partnership Source: Little Rock School District The largest decline occurred in 1993, when total enrollments fell by 618 pupils, despite an increase of 152 pupils in the pre-k program. They rose in only three other grades. The overall drop in total pupils since the annexation is more than 1,600, or 6.1 percent. o D 3 Q. X Page 5 r r Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I S3 Racial Differences in Enrollment Change Ih During the first six years of the 1980s, the number of pupils who were white or of other nonwhite races gradually declined while the number of Black pupils rose. As a result, the proportion of all pupils who were Black increased from 63.6 percent in 1980 to 71.3 percent in 1986. The addition of the 7,000-plus pupils from Pulaski County reduced the Black percentage to 60.6 percent in 1987. Since then, the Black proportion has increased somewhat, but has stayed between 64 and 65 percent of the total for the past six years. Since 1987, losses have been experienced by both white and Black pupils in most years. Still, Blacks made a slight overall gain. 103 pupils, between 1987 and 1994. This increase would not have occurred except for the addition of pre-kindergarten in 1991. however. White pupils declined in number by 2.096. The number of pupils of other races, usually of Asian. Hispanic or Native American origin has grown in every year since 1989. with a sharp rise in 1994. Nevertheless, their numbers are still small, and they comprised less than 3 percent of total enrollment by 1994. I Enrollments by Race, 1987-1994 Little Rock School District Number Percent Black 80 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 <6 (4 14 64 65 65 60 16.2(2 10.36> >.M7 3M 282 16,717 9,010 2 16,6S6 8,868 6, MS 332 357 16,726 >,062 404 16,674 8.490 430 16,36S 0,170 6S7 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 The Grief Partnerthip 40 20 *0 Block - Whtre * "Other Pct Block 5 5 o o o 3 (A Source: Little Rock School District I 0 63 a o 5 Enrollment Change at Different Levels Excluding kindergarten and pre-kindergarten enrollments, all three levels-elementary, junior high, and senior high-now have fewer pupils than in 1987. The loss has been especially large in the high schools, where enrollments were nearly one-fifth lower in fall 1994 than in 1987 when the annexation took place. In the seven intervening years, the number of pupils in grades 10 through 12 fell by almost 1,300, for a drop of 19.9 percent. The decline was especially sharp between 1987 and 1990, when enrollments fell by almost 1,000 pupils. They then leveled out and climbed slightly before beginning to drop again. O o <D 3 Q. X Page 6 LIB Bl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I n The loss from 1993 to 1994 was the smallest of any year, and the number of 10th graders in fall 1994 was actually larger than in two previous years. H n Enrollments by School Level (Elementary, Junior High, Senior High) Little Rock School District, 1988-1994 Fl 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Elementary Junior High Senior High 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Elementuy Junior High 14.149 6.138 14,179 6,068 14,076 14,223 14372 5.978 5,984 I 6,062 14,221 6,166 14,017 6,079 14,051 5,862 Senior High 6,444 6,172 5,802 | 5,465 | 5,509 5,632 5,320 5,162 1 5 1 9 j B * (Elementary Figures Include 4-Yr-Olds Beginning in 1991) The Grier Partnership Source
Little Rock School District Elementary school enrollments fell the least, with a loss of only 98 pupils overall in the seven-year period. a S o 3 However, the elementary grades were helped by growth in kindergarten and by the addition of pre-kindergarten classes in several schools, beginning in the 1990-91 school year. These two grades combined added nearly 1,000 pupils to the i 1 school rolls from 1987 to 1994. As a result, elementary enrollments as a whole remained almost flat despite losses in grades 1 to 6. There was a small increase from 1987 to 1990, a small increase in 1990, a somewhat larger gain in 1991, small losses again for two years, and then a gain of 31 pupils in fall 1994. Junior high enrollments fell by 306 pupils or 5 percent. Like the high schools, junior high classes lost nearly 1,000 pupils from 1987 to 1990, but enrollments climbed again during the next two years, then fell back in 1993 and yet again in 1994. Enrollment changes in the individual junior high grades have been quite erratic. In 7th grade the number of pupils was actually higher in five of the seven years than it had been in 1987. In 8th grade, enrollments were higher in three of the intervening years than in 1987. w TJ OQ O o3 W Overall, enrollments for both Black pupils and those who are white or of other racial origin have tended to follow the same trends as those for all pupils combined. The widest divergence between the races has been in the high school grades. Both groups entered the high schools of the expanded system in 1987 with almost exactly the same number of pupils -about 3,200 apiece. Thereafter, while the number of Black pupils grew slightly, an increase of only 83 in the seven years, the number of whites and pupils of "other races" dropped by more than 1,400 by 1994. Despite losses in every following year, nearly two- > o o A 3 Q. X Page 7 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 3 thirds of the white decline occurred during the first three years. Over the entire period, the entire loss in white pupils was spread more or less evenly among the three high school grades. In the elementary grades, the two groups have actually grown closer together since 1987, with Black losses over the entire seven-year period outstripping white/other losses in each grade from 1st to 6th. Both groups added to their numbers in kindergarten and prekindergarten classes. Overall, the number of whites/others has grown slightly since 1990 while the number of Black pupils began dropping after 1991. At the junior high level, the two groups first moved apart after 1987, but then began to follow a similar pattern from 1991 on. Enrollment Changes in Individual Schools fl School assignment has generally been determined by place of residence within the school system. A series of small "zone blocks", often comprising no more than one or two city blocks, have generally determined the school to which a child is sent. Exceptions have been granted for enrollment in magnet or incentive schools, for attendance at out-of-district schools, and for those who wish to continue in schools previously attended by the pupil or his siblings. Zone blocks have been clustered into larger attendance areas, with some schools drawing from only one area while others draw from as many as two or three areas separated from each other by other attendance areas. fl Enrollment change has varied from school to school during the past seven years. While some have lost pupils, others have gained. In general, the gainers have usually drawn many of their pupils from neighborhoods of Little Rock to the west and northwest which have also been growing in total population, while the losers have more often drawn from areas in the central and eastern parts of the city where population has declined. &> gs w fl There have also been racial differences in enrollment change in the individual schools. In some schools, both Black and white pupils declined in number. At others, both groups gained. And in still others, enrollments of one racial group increased while enrollments of the other dropped. fl High Schools: Four of Little Rock's five high schools have lost pupils since 1987. The sole exception has been Fair, which is also the second smallest high school in the District with only 917 pupils on its rolls in 1994, including kindergarten pupils. Overall the school's net gain since 1987 is a grand total of 35 pupils. TJ 5 <D O o' 3 W I 4 Central High School, the District's largest high school, has lost almost 500 pupils during the past seven years, falling from an enrollment of more than 2,000 in 1987 to about 1,600 (including kindergarten) in 1994. Its largest decline occurred between 1993 and 1994. The overall percentage drop has been 22.9 percent. Another big loser has been Hall High School, which started with a much smaller base than Central's, but has lost nearly as many pupils since 1987. Unlike Central, however. Hall's enrollments picked up in 1994. Whether this is a temporary upswing or indicates a reversal j> o O <0 3 X Page 8 A Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I J of past trends we cannot tell at this time. McClellan High School, where enrollments have declined in every year since 1987, also showed a tiny increase in 1994. So did Parkview, whose enrollments had a brief growth spurt in 1991 and 1992, but fell the following year. White enrollments have fallen in all of the District's high schools since 1987, and Black enrollments in three of the five. The exceptions are Fair (a gain of 210 Black students) and McClellan (an increase of 189). High school pupils of other races grew in three of the five schools, but their numbers still remained small and did not make up for losses among the other groups. I 1 Table 2 Change in Enrollments in High Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District fl a Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No. Pct. Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2123 882 1449 1260 833 1637 917 1031 897 800 -486 35 -418 -363 -33 -22.9% 4.0% -28.8% -28.8% -4.0% 1 I I Junior High Schools-Five of the District's junior high schools also lost enrollments over the seven-year period while three gained. The largest loser was Southwest where enrollments fell by 194 pupils in seven years. Other junior highs whose enrollments declined were Henderson, Mabelvale, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale. Mann Junior High, on the other hand, gained nearly 200 pupils between 1987 and 1994. It was by far the largest gainer among the junior highs, with the two remaining schools, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights, registering only small increases. ft) a o 5 fl fl The number of white pupils grew in three of the junior highs-Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Dunbar-but declined in the other five. Mann also experienced a substantial increase in Black enrollment over the entire period, although its numbers had dropped over the past two years. Black gains at Cloverdale, smaller than those at Mann, also dropped in 1993 and 1994. fl Three more schools, with a net increase in Black pupils since 1987, also saw their growth halt and reverse in 1994
these were Forest Heights, Henderson, and Mabelvale. Only Dunbar registered a gain in 1994-but only five pupils over the 1993 figure. Black enrollments were actually lower in 1994 than they had been in 1987 in two schools-Pulaski Heights and Southwest. 5 Q O O 3 (0 4 All but one junior high had a tiny increase in pupils of other races. District-wide, the growth for this group was 47 pupils. Page 9 D o 3 Q. X Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 Table 3 Change in Enrollments in Junior High Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No.Pct. Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hts. Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hts. Southwest 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 -31 25 -82 -116 -87 192 17 -194 -4.6% 3,7% -9.5% -11.2% -12.9% 29.4% 2.3% -24.1% Elementary Schools-The picture was equally mixed in the District's elementary schools. A total of 20 schools lost enrollments between 1987 and 1994, two completely when they were closed. Other elementary schools with enrollments that fell by 100 or more were Badgett, Baseline, Chicot, Dodd, and Romine. H 1 A total of 17 schools gained. The largest increase by far, nearly 500 pupils, was registered by Washington after it re-opened as a magnet school in 1989. The new King school also gained substantially over its predecessor-an increase of almost 300 pupils-in part at least by transfers from other schools. Enrollments at Carver Elementary, also a magnet, grew by more than 200 pupils. fl D) a o 5 In 14 of the elementary schools, enrollments of both white and Black pupils declined between 1987 and 1994, and in four more schools, enrollments of both groups grew during the same period. In the remaining schools, one racial group increased in number while the other fell. In 11 schools, the number of Black pupils increased while the number of white pupils declined. But In eight other schools, racial change was the reverse. fl fl Generally, enrollments in individual schools have followed the same route as the total population of the attendance area. In areas where the population has been growing, enrollments in the District's elementary schools have also risen. Where the general population has been declining, so have enrollments. Thus, those schools located in the west and northwest sections of the District have usually grown since 1987-even when these schools have also drawn pupils from satellite zones located in neighborhoods with declining population. "D *3 O o o' 3 (0 On the other hand, enrollments in several of the elementary schools located in the District's southwest neighborhoods have dropped since 1987. These are usually in neighborhoods which lost total population between 1980 and 1990, and which are expected to continue to lose throughout the current decade. The only exceptions are the Otter Creek and Geyer Springs schools. (See Table 4 on the following page.) o o (0 3 Q. X Page 10 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table 4 Change in Enrollments in Elementary Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No. Pct. I II 1 3 I. I 3 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 290 397 448 636 424 362 642 408 398 315 426 403 503 329 235 265 214 462 269 546 471 449 256 325 340 246 289 484 218 481 467 214 491 314 496 407 229 14,149 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 -113 -88 -122 -63 -16 226 -139 -16 -100 -33 6 40 39 -47 65 28 -214 40 282 -72 23 -38 16 34 80 -17 114 -161 -218 78 -54 473 -64 3 -22 -62 14 -98 -39.0% -22.2% -27.2% -9.9% -3.8% 62.4% -21.7% -3.9% -25.1% -10.5% 1.4% 9.9% 7.8% -14.3% 27.7% 10.6% -100% 8.7% 104.8% -13.2% 4.9% -8.5% 6.3% 10.5% 23.5% -6.9% 39.4% -33.3% -100.0% 16.2% -11.6% 221.0% -13.0% 1.0% -4.4% -15.2% 6,1% -0.7% a> ag 5 D ,3 ft oo 3 o o ft 3 Q. X Page 11 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Impact on the Desegregation Plan I u I What has been the impact of these enrollment changes on the basic objectives of the District's desegregation plan? At the time of the annexation of schools and pupils from the Pulaski District in 1987, an effort was made to balance enrollments racially in as many schools as possible. Several schools, which might be difficult to desegregate, were designated as magnets or incentive schools with special programs intended to help draw pupils from throughout the city as well as some who lived in the adjoining Pulaski and North Little Rock Districts. p I I The evidence indicates that, as a result of racial differences, overall and in specific neighborhoods, the District may now be even farther from achieving racial balance in its schools under the current desegregation plan than it was in 1987. But the failure to do so has not always been in the direction of an increased Black percentage in each school. Even where a school appears to have become "balanced" over time, this may merely be a transitory phase with imbalance merely changing from one direction to another, with a brief "balance" occurring at some point in the process. fl fl fl fl High Schools. In 1987, high school enrollments^ in the District as a whole were 50.6 percent Black
the rest of the pupils were almost entirely white, with only a handful of other races. The five individual high schools varied by no more than 11.3 percentage points from this figure, with McClellan having the smallest black proportion (39.3 percent) and Central High School the highest (56.9 percent). The span between the highest and lowest Black percentage was 17.6 percentage points. Between 1987 and 1994 the number of both Blacks and whites dropped in three of the high schools, but at different rates. In two schools, Black enrollments grew while white enrollments declined. As a result, the overall percentage of Black pupils rose to 65.5 percent, and the range between the highest and lowest Black proportions in individual schools was 21.9 percentage points. The largest change occurred at McClellan, which in 1994 had an enrollment that was 76.3 percent Black. Parkview High School, where enrollments of both racial groups declined, was 54.4 percent Blackan 11 percentage point deviation from the District-wide figure, and a slight drop since 1987. (See Appendix for detail for individual schools.) Junior High Schools. The eight junior highs were close to meeting the criteria for being racially balanced in 1987. As a whole, the junior high population was 61 percent Black and 39 percent white and other. Enrollments in the individual schools ranged from 68-32 to 50-50. Four of the junior highs were less than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the District-wide 61-39 percent figure. Three more were within seven points or less. Only Mabelvale deviated by more than this. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black was 17.8 percentage points. "n a o w T O O O o' 3 (A r s High school enrollment figures used here are for grades 10 to 12 only and do not include kindergarten and pre-kindergarten pupils housed in high school buildings. a o o 3 X Page 12 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl During the next seven years, enrollments of both racial groups climbed at two junior highs, and both fell at one. In three schools. Black pupils gained while white pupils declined, and at one school the reverse occurred. As a result, the overall Black percentage in junior high schools rose to 68.3 percent by 1994. The percentage of Black pupils now ranges from a low of 54.0 percent at Mann (a magnet school) to a high of 80.5 percent at Cloverdale~a span of 26.5 percentage points. (See Appendix.) fl Elementary Schools. At the elementary school level with its smaller attendance areas and enrollments, the District found it much more difficult in 1987 to achieve its objective of no more than a 60 percent enrollment of one or the other race. All four magnet schools met the more demanding requirement of 45-55 percent, with the Black percentage ranging from a low of 49.1 percent at Gibbs to 51.4 percent at Booker. However, none of the incentive or interdistrict schools were able to achieve the racial balance goal of the desegregation plan. Despite efforts to pair some primary attendance areas for the remaining 25 schools with satellite areas with a different racial composition, only eight were able to keep enrollments to no more than 60 percent of one race or the other. The span from lowest to highest percent Black was 44.6 percentage points. fl By 1994, the four magnet schools all remained racially balanced. They were aided in doing so by the enrollment of more than 800 pupils, of whom about 60 percent were white, from Pulaski Special School District and North Little Rock School District. Of the five incentive schools, only Rockefeller came close to achieving a balance between the races at 65.5 percent Black. Two of the three interdistrict schools, which included a new King school with new attendance boundaries, also improved. Among the remaining 2^ elementary schools, the number with a racially balanced student body increased from eight to nine, with the rest outside the limits of racial balance. *n w a o w I fl fl Although these figures may suggest that racial balance has improved over the seven-year period in the Little Rock School District, a closer examination suggests that the improvement could be illusory. While the percentage of Black pupils rose in some schools, the percentage of pupils who are white or other races increased in others and the Black percentage fell. Among the elementary schools, a total of 22 had a higher Black percentage in 1994 than in 1987, but in 13 the Black percentage had fallen. In some cases, the change was small-a few percentage points at most. These included the four magnet schools plus one of the interdistrict schools. In four of the five incentive schools, the Black percentage rose in spite of efforts to encourage enrollment of children from other races. TJ A O o' 3 fl In most of the other elementary schools the shift was much larger. At Mabelvale Elementary, where the drop in number of white/other pupils exceeded a tiny increase among Blacks, for example, the Black percentage grew from 59.3 percent in 1987 to 71.7 percent in 1994. This brought the school's enrollments well past the 60 percent of one race that is the present goal for a racially balanced school. At Terry, on the other hand, the white/other percentage rose from 43 percent to 58.1 percent during the same period as a 2 Two schools. Ish and Stephens, have now been closed. Enrollments in both schools had been more than 80 Black in 1987. > "S 3 Q. X Page 13hi S' 1 fl I fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I result of a substantial increase in their number while Black enrollments declined. At present, the white/other proportion is still below the 60 percent limit, but dangerously close to rising above it. A continuation of present trends for just a year or two more will almost certainly take it over the line. The span from lowest to highest percent Black has increased from 44.6 to 56.4 percentage points. If present attendance areas are preserved and recent trends in enrollment continue, then it is likely that more racial imbalance will occur in the public schools of Little Rock over the next several years. This topic is discussed further in the sections of this report covering demographic shifts in the District's total population and the enrollment projections made for individual schools from 1995 through 2005. The Role of Private Schools Many people concerned about the future of Little Rock public schools believe that private schools have drawn off many of the white children whose presence would help to maintain racial balance in the public schools. This is a difficult view either to confirm or to counter with hard numbers. Certainly if all children now enrolled in schools within the district, public or private, were attending public schools. Little Rock's predominant racial groups would be close to equal in size. Some parents, of whatever race they may be and if their economic situation permits, will always elect a private school education for their children regardless of requirements for racial balance or any other condition of the public school system, and it is difficult to identify the motivation in every case. Accurate and up-to-date information about enrollments in private schools is often hard to come by. These schools are usually not held to the same requirements of reporting of their pupil enrollments as the public schools. In any event, some are reluctant to share this information. And since they seldom limit their student bodies to specific geographic areas as do public schools, they do not keep enrollment information separately for those pupils whose residence is within the boundaries of the public school district. The most recent data on private school enrollments are from the 1990 Census. At that time, the census found a total of about 7,900 children residing in the city of Little Rock and attending private schools. This was an increase of almost 900 since 1980. During the same period, public school enrollments in the city fell by almost 3,100 pupils--more than three times the size of the growth in the private schools. In 1980, 79.5 percent of all children enrolled in school in Little Rock were attending public schools
by 1990, the figure was 75.4 percent. The most recent data on the racial distribution of pupils attending private schools in the Little Rock School District come from special tabulations of the 1990 census prepared for the US Department of Education. They show a total of 31,12^ children, ages 3 to 19, who 3 The number of children said to be enrolled in school in 1990 may vary somewhat from one source to another and the universe which is included in the numbers. The figures on public/private enrollments by race are limited to children between the ages of 3 and 19 who were enrolled in school below the college level. Other figures are for all children enrolled in school regardless of age and may include some below three years of age or more than age 19. Page 14 a o 5 D s. m o o' 3 D o O 3 Q. X fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl resided within the Little Rock District and were enrolled in school below the college level. Of this number nearly one-fourth were attending a private school in 1990
nearly nine out of 10 of the children were white. Fewer than 10 percent were black, with the tiny balance of private school pupils made up of children from other races. fl Table 5 Public vs Private School Enrollment Children Ages 3-19 by Race, Little Rock School District, 1990 Public No. ! Private Total Enrolled 23,369 EsL No. EcL 75.1% 7,760 24.9% 15 kI LI I Nonhispanic White Black Other Hispanic 8,262 14,713 274 120 54.8% 95.1% 76.8% 58.0% 6,824 7,66 83 87 45.2% 4.9% 23.2% 42.0% S Source: Special tabulations, 1990 Census, School District Data Book I Other census tabulations provided to the school District by Metroplan indicate public and private school attendance by census tract in the Little Rock School District. The tabulations also show the number of pupils enrolled in school, public and private combined, by race for each tract. They do not distinguish between public and private school attendance by race, however. a> oa w fl fl The tabulations indicate that the highest rates of private school attendance were in six census tracts located to the northwest of the city center. These are also areas where general population growth, as well as white growth, has been most vigorous in recent years and where median incomes are most likely to permit private school attendance. In 1990 these tracts contained 32.4 percent of all white children enrolled in school, 37 percent of all enrolled children of other races, but only 2.4 percent of the District's Black school children. fl TJ S Q O o' 3 fl 4 Nationally, nearly 15 percent of all school children ages 3 to 19 were enrolled in private schools in 1990, according to the federal census taken that year. Whites comprised 80 percent of the total, Blacks 8 percent, and other races, including Hispanics, 12 percent. In the state of Arkansas as a whole, about 7 percent of all school children were in private schools in 1990
92 percent of these children were white, 6 percent were Black, and other races made up only 2 percent. > o o o 3 g. X Page 15 Factors Projections Appendix 'W.n'.V' IlWWi 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS I I I There is no crystal ball that can foretell with absolute certainty the future of enrollments in any school district. Many factors can influence the direction in which they are heading, causing the rate of change to speed up, slow down or even reverse. I The most reliable guidance to future enrollment trends, at least for the short term, can be found in the most current data on existing trends in the population-not only in its size but also in its characteristics such as age, migratory patterns, and fertility rates. These, in turn. are often related to local economic conditions. A change in the local economy, for 1 s example, may cause families to leave the district if the turn is for the worse, and their children (or the children they may have in the future) will move with them. A growing economy will usually attract families to the district if economic conditions are better here than elsewhere, and add children to the school rolls. Or it may be a mixed bag, with a change in the area's economic base sending some families away while bringing in different kinds of jobs and different kinds of jobholders. 1 3 A change in state or national policy may also influence enrollments. A re-allocation of state funds for education or family services or economic development may impact directly or indirectly on the schools. A shift in federal policy toward immigration may also make a difference to a local district. I I I I s I I Not all of the factors that influence enrollments come from outside the school system itself. Some may result directly from changes in school system policy. If an intensive "stay-in- school" effort is launched, for example, it will almost certainly bring an increase in high school enrollments. Conversely, if the school board decides to set higher standards for promotion and graduation, it will probably lose some pupils. The addition of new programs, such as the pre-kindergarten classes instituted by Little Rock in 1990 and 1991 increased enrollments at the schools where these were placed above what they would otherwise have been. I 3 3 The nature of some factors can be foreseen, at least for a short time into the future, but others are more difficult to identify, assess or predict. Recent Population Change I Changes in the City's Population. The city of Little Rock, whose boundaries are now virtually contiguous with those of the Little Rock School District, has grown throughout the 20th century. The most recent increases, however, have been due in large part to annexations of adjoining territory. Between 1980 and 1990, the city added more than 17,000 people for an overall rate of increase of 10.9 percent. Without the annexed territory, there would have been a small loss. Metroplan estimates that the city gained somewhat 5 o A O o 3 W over 5,600 additional residents between 1990 and January 1993. occurred as a result of annexations to the city's land area. This increase also Page 16 o D O 3 Q X I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Population Change in Little Rock 1900-1990 III 200,000 Pi 150,000 100,000 50,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 I 3.7O7 I 45.941 | 6i.l>2 | ll.t?? | 8.03> 1102.213 | IO7.13 1132.483 1139.024 | 17S.7M | s 3 5 IB 0 I i If5 The Grier Partnership k Source: City of Little Rock and Census Bureau The net gain from 1980 to 1990 was almost entirely made up of adults, however. The total child population, 14 years of age and younger, barely grew at all. There was a small increase of 175 in the number of children below age five, and a slight decrease of 23 children between the ages of 5 and 14. I Table 6 Changes in the Population of Little Rock, 1980 to 1990 I. Population 1980 1990 Change No. IPct. 9 Total White Black Other Under Age 5 Total White Black Other Ages 5 to 14 Total White Black Other 158,461 105,504 51,093 1,864 175,781 113,723 59,864 2,194 17,320 8,219 8,771 330 10.9% 7.8% 17.2% 17.7% 12,605 6,096 6,313 196 12,780 6,969 5,641 170 175 873 1.4% 14.3% 0 5 OQ o3' -672 -10.6% -26 -13.3% 24,012 12,920 10,843 249 23,989 11,406 12,272 311 -23 -0.1% -1,514 -11.7% 1,429 13.2% 62 24.9% Note
Figures in this table may vary slighly from those in text and charts due to differences between Census Bureau source tables. Source: 1980 & 1990 Census a 73 o 3 Q. X I I Page 17 J p Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I I I Numerically, the overall 1980-90 growth was almost evenly divided between Blacks (8,771) and whites and members of other races (8,219). But there were sharp differences in the changes experienced by the two groups of children. Among the youngest children, the number of whites increased by almost 900 while the number of Blacks declined by almost 700. The number of children of other races in this age group also dropped. The reverse occurred among children aged 5 to 14. The number of white children in this age group fell by more than 1,500 while the number of Black children grew by almost the same number. Children of other races also increased. The virtual stability of the combined number of children in each age group during the 1980s makes it highly unlikely that enrollments could grow during the 1990s, absent a fairly large influx of new families into the city. I ! ' a I 1 The large gain among Black children of school age during the 1980s, and the concurrent loss among whites in the same age group, undoubtedly contributed in some part to the growing ascendancy of Black enrollments in the schools of the Little Rock School District during the decade. At the same time, the large increase among whites in the youngest age group who have now entered school could contribute to a more balanced enrollment overall during the '90s decade. I a s I ! i Changes within the City. While the city of Little Rock as a whole gained population during the 1980s, many individual neighborhoods experienced losses. Of the 42 census tracts located wholly or in part within the 1990 city limits, 28 lost population between 1980 and 1990. This was the case with every one of the tracts located on the eastern and central sections of the city as well as some of the tracts extending westward and southwest from the city's center. This included a number of the areas annexed by the Little Rock School District in 1987. I L Almost all of the city's population growth, on the other hand, was absorbed by the northwest sector of the city, its western fringes, and its far southwest corner. Much of the growth shown, on the maps which follow occurred in census tracts which are only partly located within the city's boundaries. Hence, some of the growth shown by the maps may actually have gone outside the city, and the District, limits. I. i L Black children of school age were heavily concentrated in a number of census tracts where the total population declined. Close to 7,100, out of a total of almost 16,000, resided in just 12 tracts in which they made up 90 percent of all children between the ages of 5 and 17 years. At the other extreme, there were also 12 tracts in which white children predominated and in which Blacks were less than 10 percent of their age group. These tracts were located mainly on the northwestern and western borders of the city. Little wonder that the District faced difficult odds in maintaining racial balance in its schools. .0 o o o' 3 w -3 L > o T3 O 3 a X Page 18 IHRUINRg Qi S!h h^m Sm JSb ^^3 Loss 25% or More CHANGE IN POPULATION OF LITTLE ROCK CENSUS TRACTS, 1980-1990 Loss 10-24% Loss Under 10% 0 w (O o (O S' / xipuaddv SUOIl39|OJd No Change Gain Under 10% Gain 10-24% Gain 25% or More a> ::d o o (fi o zr o o O w* a n 03 O o' (/) fi) 03 3 5 S. Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i Future Population Change .4 According to the "1994 Urban Development Report" of the city's Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Little Rock as a whole is expected to grow slowly if at all over the next several years. If growth does occur, it is likely to come mainly from additional annexations to the city, but these will not affect enrollments in the Little Rock School District unless its boundaries are expanded as well. Thus, the District's enrollments are not likely to benefit from increases in the city's population. The report states further that "the existing parts of the City are expected to lose population. The westward shift in population should continue." 1 > This conclusion is borne out by projections of total population change made by Metroplan, and shown on the map that follows. The projections for each of the city's census tracts indicate continued losses in most of the tracts in the city's central core and on the east side, with new growth going mainly to the west and northwest. 1 I No more detailed projections are available for the city of Little Rock which would indicate how the specific age groups served by the schools are likely to change over the next several years. Data on recent births in Little Rock (now reported for larger Arkansas cities as well as for counties) and for Pulaski County, however, offer some clues. Projections of population by age group and race for Pulaski County may also be helpful. At the time of the 1990 Census, about 50 percent of Pulaski's total population resided in the city of Little Rock. 3 n Information on births to residents of Little Rock has been recorded by the state's Health Department only since 1987. They indicate a drop in the number of total births between 1987 and 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available. In 1987, they totaled 3,274. The number fell by nearly 200 in 1988, then climbed slightly above the earlier level in 1989. Since then they have declined every year, reaching a total of 3,021 in 1993. In 1987, births to white residents of the city exceeded those of Black and other nonwhite residents by more than 300. By 1993, the numbers were much closer-1,501 for whites and 1,518 for nonwhites. I L The decline in the city of both total and white births was not matched by a rise in the remainder of Pulaski County. Rather, the trends there matched those of the city. White births declined by 188 from 1987 to 1993 while nonwhite births increased by 110. The net result was a drop of 76 in the total number of births to residents of all races combined. Thus, it is unlikely that enrollments in the interdistrict schools will grow from an increase in the number of pupils from the Pulaski or North Little Rock Districts, unless there is a concurrent loss of pupils by one or both-absent, of course, a major but now unanticipated increase in the number of new residents to the county. "0 Q O O* 3 Other data which may shed some light on the possible future of Little Rock's school age population come from the population projections made for each county in Arkansas by the Arkansas Institute for Economic Advancement at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. D D Q 3 Q. X Page 20H i.rbulk. Loss 15% or More PROJECTED CHANGE IN POPULATION OF LITTLE ROCK CENSUS TRACTS 1990-2000 Loss 5% Loss 2% No Change Tl 0) (a n> M xipuaddv suoipajojd Gain 2% Gain 5% Gain 15% or More a (B :3D O o X" ay o o o D cz>' o -n a> o o' U) Vt CD 0 0) 3 O) W f 2 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI fl The most recent projections were made in 1993. No projections are made for cities in Arkansas. fl fl fl The Institute prepares three projection series by age and race, varying their construction only with regard to assumptions about future age-specific migration patterns in the county. Series A assumes that the individual age groups will continue to migrate in and out of the county at the same rates as in the 1980s decade. Series B assumes that each group will resume the higher migration rates of the 1970s. And Series C assumes that there will be no net gain or loss from migration-that is, there will be no net migration. Fertility and mortality rates used in the projections, the only other elements affecting population change, are the same as those found in 1990. Both are age- and race-specific. The differences between the three series are believed to indicate the most likely range within which the actual change will fall. fl I9 I Two of the three series project decreases in the youngest age group, children below the age of 5, between 1990 when their numbers were actually counted and 2005-one of fewer than 200, but the other of almost 2,800. If either of these projections actually comes to pass, neither the Little Rock School District nor the other districts serving Pulaski County residents are likely to have much if any increase in their elementary schools. Under the third series which projects a gain of more than 4,100 children in this age group, a return to the higher migration patterns of the 1970s would be required. However, most of this growth would have already taken place by 1995, with only modest increases projected thereafter. There is little apparent evidence that this has occurred. II III I Under one series the number of children ages 5-9 and 10-14 would also drop, although the size of the decline would be smaller for the older age group. This is the series that assumes the migration patterns of the 1980s would continue. The "zero net migration" series projects a decline of children ages 5-9, but growth among those ages 10-14. Only the series which assumes return to the '70s migration rates shows an increase in both groups. I -3 All three series project a decline in the number of white children in the age group under five years of age. Two project a decline in the number from 5 to 9 years old. But only one projects a loss in the number ages 10-14. In one series the increase turns into a loss after 1995, and in the other the rate of loss slows. Nonwhite children, on the other hand, increase in all but one age group under one series~a loss of 52 children ages 10-14 under the "80s migration" series. TJ A O o* 3 W II Altogether, the projected size of the change in total child population, 14 years of age or younger, in Pulaski County ranges from a gain of almost 8,700 to a loss of about 4,500. For whites the range of loss is from nearly 1,100 to more than 6,600. For nonwhites, the projected increase is from about 2,100 to almost 9,700 from 1990 to the year 2005. What is one to make of these projections? And how to relate them to the future of enrollments in only one of Pulaski County's school districts? Given what other information is available about current trends and future prospects of the school districts, we are inclined to believe that the projections which continue the recent migration patterns are most likely to come closest to the actual numbers. This is the series which projects an overall loss in a D A 3 Q. X Page 22 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I child population in Pulaski County, a larger loss among white children, and a relatively modest increase among nonwhites. Both the losses and the increases will be spread throughout the county although the longer-established cities are likely to sustain a disproportionate share of the losses and fewer of the gains. The table on the page that follows shows the alternative UALR projections. I M o A O o' 3 o o o 3 Q. X Page 23 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table 7 Projections of Child Population (UALR) Pulaski County, 1990 to 2005 1990 1995 2000 2005 Change 1990-2005 ss 3 I I.a IH Total <5 5-9 10-14 White Total <5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total <5 5-9 10-14 Total <5 5-9 10-14 White Total <5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total <5 5-9 10-14 Total <5 5-9 10-14 White Total <5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total <5 5-9 10-14 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 Series A - Migration at 80-90 Rates 353,000 27,961 24,920 24,118 352,911 25,944 25,835 23,280 350,494 24,262 24,032 24,208 834 -2,758 -1,754 -397 250,830 17,329 15,813 14,428 244,832 15,032 15,631 14,211 236,773 13,354 13,559 14,047 -16,620 -4,177 -2,497 -345 102,170 10,632 9,107 9,690 108,079 10,912 10,204 9,069 113,721 10,908 10,473 10,161 17,454 1,419 743 -52 Series B- Migration at 70-80 Rates 372,262 30,411 26,444 25,850 393,546 30,547 29,890 26,503 414,695 31,154 30,155 30,085 65,035 4,134 4,369 5,480 262,577 18,358 16,577 15,526 268,827 17,051 17,357 16,034 273,525 16,475 16,121 16,786 20,132 -1.056 65 2,394 109,685 12,053 9,867 10,324 124,719 13,496 12,533 10,469 141,170 14,679 14,034 13,299 44,903 5,190 4,304 3,086 Series C - Zero Net Migration 363,744 29,752 26,948 25,702 374,584 27,769 29,672 26,861 383,247 26,841 27,693 29,577 33,587 -179 1,907 4,972 D s <0 o o' (A 259,933 18,348 17,471 16,007 263,175 16,041 18,306 17,348 264,449 15,013 16,005 18,251 11,056 -2,518 -51 3,859 103,811 11,404 6,457 9,695 111,409 11,728 11,366 9,423 118,798 11,828 11,688 11,326 22,531 2,339 1,958 1,113 o o Q 3 aX Page 24 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i i Changes in the Economy With a backbone of government, medical facilities, and educational institutions. Little Rock has enjoyed a steady rate of economic growth over the years. Unlike "boom and bust" economies, rates of both growth and decline have usually been modest. Pulaski County's labor force and its population actually holding jobs have often moved together in synchrony. Between 1991 and 1993, for example, annual unemployment rates moved no more than one percentage point apart, varying between 5.7 percent and 4.7 percent. For 1994, the unemployment rate was lower still at 4.0 percent. The most recent rate (for July 1995 and unadjusted) is even lower, at 3.3 percent. I Pulaski County Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rate Annual Averages 1990-1994 and July 1995 :a 210.000 200.000 190.000 180.000 170.000 160.000 150.000 140.000 Unemployment Kate ------ 14 Thousands > I Labor Fore* Eaployneot UiMBployBt Rate 1990 185.475 175.575 5.3 1991 ^2^25 172.225 5.7 1992 1U.500 177.875 5.6 1993 189.425 180.575 4.7 1994 Jul 1995 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6.S7S 202.500 I 1.625 195.775 _____ 3.3 i 196.575 US.625 The Grier Partnership Labor Force Employment lUnemploymt Rate Source: Arkansas Employment Security Dept. Asked about prospects for expansion or contraction of employment sectors in the Little Rock area, knowledgeable sources said they saw little likelihood of major changes within the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County over the foreseeable future, although other jurisdictions within the four-county metro area such as Maumelle and Conway are experiencing substantial growth in both jobs and industry. Recent construction along the waterfront to the west of downtown probably has relatively few children. 0 Q O O 3 (A The issuance of building permits, an indicator of activity in the construction industry, rose from 1991 through 1993. The number declined somewhat in 1994, but was still almost as high as it had been during the peak year of the 1980s. It is too early to tell whether the decline represents a real drop in construction activity and whether the drop will continue or whether building is simply playing "catch up" with the permits. The number of permits for single-family buildings, more closely indicative of change affecting family households, was also down in 1994 in both the city of Little Rock and > o o o 3 Q. X Page 25 I3 I a I [ f VI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 j Pulaski County. Nevertheless, the number of permits issued for units in the city that year was higher than it had been in any year since 1986. i Single-Family Building Permits 1980-1994 Little Rock and Pulaski County 4 J I i I 0 400 200 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 I B 11 I IW I 1 I J33 I 437 I 7 I > I 5W I 7 I 1 I 4 I MS I 7 I M I I I ns I <72 I 3M I 74 J37|13|1.173[ 773 | 777 | 7< | 434 | 71 |l.in4|l jw] Little Sack PttlJMfcl Co. ~ Little Rock + Pulaski Co. The Grier Partnership I Source: Metroplan 5 o <D O o 3 W > D D O 3 Q. X Page 26 1 r Projections Appendix WW" RMTOW*Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 4 I1! J I i 4 $ 1 All projections are fallible. None is the product of a crystal ball. Even when alternative projection scenarios are postulated, they assume that present trends or at least modifications of present trends that appear reasonable will continue throughout their term. All assume also that present policies will remain in force, or at least that any possible future policy changes can be predicted with present knowledge. Thus, any major change in the demographic and economic forces that exist at this time in Little Rock could cause enrollment projections made at this time to be in error-as could any drastic change in current policies affecting the schools, such as the desegregation plan. In addition to being affected by overall shifts in trends and policies, enrollment projections are also subject to random factors-e.g., unpredictable variations in birthrates and patterns of population movement. These random factors will usually tend to wash out when the projections are for a fairly large population, such as a school district. The smaller the population, however, the riskier the projection. Even a modest change in school policy or program or the demolition or addition of a few dozen housing units could alter the picture. Hence, projection errors for individual schools are more subject to error than those for the entire school system, and allowance made for these when interpreting the results. The chance of projection error also increases the farther a projection extends out in time. A projection for the year to come will typically be more accurate than one for ten years in the future, since the latter is affected by events which were not anticipated when the projection was made. As one example, there was a sharp and temporary rise in nonwhite births recorded for both Pulaski County and the City of Little Rock in 1989 and 1990 which has since subsided but is just beginning to be reflected in enrollments in the earliest grades. White births also rose, but for one year only. These events affect the projections as well, creating a sudden and short-lived increase which will continue to move through the enrolled population for the next decade, but will have only a slight effect on the trend overall. I Projections made prior to 1989 probably would not have reflected these events. We recommend that projections be updated often, preferably annually, to detect changes that otherwise might alter the outcome significantly. With these caveats in mind, we present our current projections for the Little Rock School District.^ Total Enrollments 5 I Enrollments in the Little Rock School District are projected to continue their recent pattern of slow decline through the year 2005. By that year, the number of pupils will total 21,605 - lower by nearly 3,600 or 14 percent than in 1994. The rate of decline will slow gradually, from 701 pupils between 1994 and 1995 to 169 between 2004 and 2005. Hence nearly 2,700 of the 3,600 loss projected by 2005 will have occurred by the year 2000. ' The projections for the District as a whole and for the various levels, and the 1994 numbers from which the changes are measured, include ungraded students at the level in which they are enrolled. > D o A 3 Q. X Page 27 aa Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI aa a All three school levels-elementary, junior and senior high schools-will lose pupils, but at different rates. Enrollments in the elementary grades will decline by 1,379 or 9.7 percent. At the junior and senior high levels, the numerical loss will be almost identical. They will differ by only 30 pupils, from a drop of 1,091 for junior high to 1,121 for senior high. But because there are fewer pupils in the senior high schools, the percentage rates of decline will be quite different: 18.6 percent for junior high students, and 21.7 percent for those in senior high. Projected Total Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 26,000 21,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 25,000 / 125,195 124.494 j 24.M8123.573123,127 j 22,764122.5H 122J17122,12} 121,910 j 21,774121.605 | The Grier Partnership Elementary Schools Ia I 1 > Looking at all three levels on a single chart, the trends appear quite similar. Losses are of roughly the same magnitude for all three. But when the elementary schools, whose total enrollment is greater than the junior and senior high levels combined, are separated out and shown on a different chart, it becomes possible to look more closely at the trends. Here we can see that the decline in elementary enrollments will begin at a fairly rapid pace, then will moderate between 1997 and 2000, but after that will return close to its initial rate. Between 1994 and 1997, the loss will average 155 students per year. From 1997 to 2000 the average will drop to 63 per year. But between 2000 and 2005 it will accelerate again to 145 per year. Page 28 -O Q X T Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I I i I Projected Enrollments by School Level Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 J4 3 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 I *** Eleawataiy ^Sr Hiflx + + + + + + * 0 Flmininn [l<.nill4.021H3.S81|13.70an.Mai3.57iH.511ll3.JHIH.12il3.00ll2.9iai2.TO JrHlch SrHl^ 5,882 5,162 5,500 4,973 5,24915.174 4.919(4.694 5,042 4.423 4,959 4432 4.827 4,173 4,933 4.065 4,999 3,999 5,005 14,871 3,897(3.992 4,771 4,041 The Grier Partnership I Projected Elementary Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 J3 14^00 Ii 3 3 L 13,500 13,000 14,000 / / 114.171 114,021 ! 13,881 113,705 j (13.573 113317 113.319113.125 113.008 112.912 112,792 | I I 12,500 The Grier Partnership Junior High Schools The year-to-year trends for the junior and senior high levels will be quite different, both from the elementary level and from each other. In the junior highs, the decline during the first two years is projected to be steep, an average of 307 per year. Then from 1996 through > o o A 3 Q. X Page 29 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 2000 it will moderate sharply to barely more than one-third that rate-106 per year. Between 2000 and 2003, junior high enrollments will actually increase. The gain will be modest, however, only 59 students per year, returning enrollments to not quite where they were in 1998 . Then the decline will resume at an average pace of 117 per year between 2003 and 2005. 1 Projected Enrollments in Jr. and Sr. High Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 13 I 3 3 K a 6,000 3,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 5,500 / / / / / / +jf Hitb *Sr High fI I Jr I S,M2 i S.500 I S.:49 t S.174 I 5,042 i 4.9S9 14.S27 14,933 i 4.999 I S.OOS I 4.S71 I 4.77} I I Sr 15,162 14,973 I 4,919 (4,694 | 4,423 14.232 14,173 14,065 | 3,999 | 3.B97 | 3,992 | 4,041 | The Grier Partnership I I Senior High Schools J I Senior high enrollments will decline at a fairly moderate rate at first, 122 per year between 1994 and 1996. Then the loss will accelerate to nearly twice that rate, 229 per year, from 1996 to 1999. This will be followed by a deceleration to an average loss of 84 per year from 1999 to 2003. Finally, as the junior high increase of 2000 to 2003 hits the senior high school years, they too will gain moderately at about 72 pupils per year. I Individual Schools^ I A total of 19 elementary schools, more than half of the 35 in operation in 1994, are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollment by 2005. Eight of these will lose 50 percent or more. Another three schools will lose between 10 and 25 percent, and one will 2 The projections for individual schools do not include ungraded students. > o o A 3 Q. X Page 30 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I I J lose less than ten percent, for a total of 23 elementary schools or 66 percent that are projected to lose enrollment by the year 2005. A total of 12 elementary schools are projected to gain enrollment by 2005. Six of the 12 will gain by 25 percent or more, and three of these six will gain by 50 percent or more. Another three schools will add between 10 and 24 percent to their present enrollments, and three will add less than ten percent. In the great majority of these elementary schools, the decline will be clearly apparent by the year 2000. All of the 19 schools that are projected to lose 25 percent or more in the next decade will have experienced over half of that loss by 2000, and many will have lost well over half. Eight will already be in the over-25 percent loss category. Similarly, all of the schools projected to be big gainers will have gained more than half of those amounts by 2000. Among junior high schools, three of the eight (38 percent) are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollments by 2005
one more will escape their fate by a mere three- tenths of a percentage point. One of these schools, Cloverdale Junior High, will see its enrollment decline by 54 percent. No junior high will gain enrollment
but one, Mann, will lose by only one-tenth of one percent, and a second, Dunbar, will come nearly as close with a loss of four-tenths of one percent. Several schools - Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and Pulaski Heights - will be further in the loss column in 2000 than in 2005, and will recover somewhat thereafter. Two of the five high schools. Hall and McClellan, are projected to lose by over 25 percent, and Hall will lose by 51 percent. None will gain enrollment but Fair will drop by only a modest four percent. As with the junior highs, some of these schools will be deeper in the loss column by 2000 than by 2005. I I 5 A table in the appendix shows the projected change in enrollments for each school. Racial Changes in Enrollments L- Overall, black pupils are projected to decrease in number by somewhat over 1,800 or 11 percent over the next 11 years. Pupils of white and other races will decline by close to the same amount-nearly 1,800 or about one-fifth in the same period. The Black percentage of the total will increase only slightly as a result, however, going from 65 percent in 1994 to 67 percent in 2005. 1 I Both Black and white/other enrollments will also decline in each of the three levels. For Black pupils the decline will be about four percent at the elementary level, 19 percent in the junior highs, and 21 percent in the high schools. The comparable losses for the white/other group will be 19 percent in elementary grades, 17 percent in the junior highs, and 24 percent in the high schools. Page 31 > o Q O 3 a XLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Projected Enrollments by Level and Race Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 Elementary 9300 8300 < 7300 a 6300 3300 4300 5300 MM W t.m ack (.m
N* I M I .( I I (,r I M>* WMiatk S^tt MM tJU MH M 4^ MM MM 44W 440 I I Junior High 1 4300 3 I I 4,000 3300 3,000 2300 4 2,000 1300 Blkck White/Othet 1300 / ^4* ^4** ,j5S / ack 44M VM 4a M41 MO 4n MM U MW MM (4 WMliHlIWi LB* l.Tff L7 !,? 1.M* 1,W 141 l.M 14W 14M 14S tM> D D A 3 O. X Page 32 * Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I II II Senior High 4,000 I 3,500 II 3,000 II 2300 2,000 1300 1,000 500 Bl4 Wbite/Other BMe MM J4U Un KUl UM UWIITM WMUWa< 1.7M 113M I MM 113t I 1.W I MM I UM I M I LWl I MsTI I yu 11,O I MM I t4i II4WI The racial changes in the system as whole, however, mask widely different patterns of racial composition at the individual school level. The percent of students who are Black will actually increase in 22 of the individual elementary schools and decrease in the remaining 13 where the proportion of pupils who are white or of other races will grow. In the junior highs, the Black proportion will increase in five of the eight schools, white and other pupils in the other three. In the senior highs, there will be an increase in the Black percentage in three schools, an increase in white/other in two. 'I 'I p As a result of these changes, few if any schools in the Little Rock School District are likely to be racially balanced by the year 2005 without substantial changes in program and policy. *0 T3 3 Q. X Page 33 f' L fl fl fl I I L I o D A 3 X Ifl Change in Enrollments by School, Level and District -1987 to 1994t itttMOk) IlitUS- Wl M I I H H H H HL g CHANCE IN ENROLLMENTS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL AND DISTRICT - 1987 TO 1994 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987 1994 PCT. CHANGE 1987 TO 1994 TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I CHANGE IN RACIAL COM,POSITION PERCENT BLACK PERCENT WHT/O 1987 1994 1987 1994 HIGH SCHOOLS Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUH 2123 882 1449 1260 833 6547 1207 421 727 495 462 3312 916 I 461 I 722 I 765 I 371 I 3235 I 1637 917 1031 897 800 5282 1040 631 669 684 435 3459 597 I 286 I 362 I 213 I 365 I 1823 I -22.91 4.01 -28.81 -28.81 -4.01 -19.31 -13.81 49.91 -8.01 38.21 -5.81 4.41 -34.81 I -38.01 I -49.91 I -72.21 I -1.61 I -43.61 I 56.9% 47.7% 50.2% 39.3% 55.5% 50.6% 63.51 43.11 36.51 68.81 52.31 31.21 64.91 49.81 35.11 76.31 60.71 23.71 54.41 44.51 45.61 65.51 49.41 34.51 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Hann Pulaski Hgts Southwest SUM 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 429 463 532 617 337 349 477 529 3733 249 I 219 I 330 I 416 I 335 I 304 I 277 I 275 I 2405 I 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5862 521 468 565 661 417 456 431 487 4006 126 I 239 I 215 I 256 I 168 I 389 I 340 I 123 I 1856 I -4.61 3.71 -9.51 -11.21 -12.91 29.41 2.31 -24.11 -4.51 21.41 1.11 6.21 7.11 23.71 30.71 -9.61 -7.91 7.31 -49.41 I 9.11 I -34.81 I -38.51 I -49.91 I 28.01 I 22.71 I -55.31 I -22.81 I 63.31 67.91 61.71 59.71 50.11 53.41 63.31 65.81 60.81 80.51 36.71 19.51 66.21 32.11 33.81 72.41 38.31 27.61 72.11 40.31 27.91 71.31 49.91 28.71 54.01 46.61 46.01 55.91 36.71 44.11 79.81 34.21 20.21 68.31 39.21 31.71 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale El Dodd 290 397 448 636 424 362 642 408 398 208 276 318 327 274 177 365 260 243 82 I 121 I 130 I 309 I 150 I 185 I 277 I 148 I 155 I 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 133 214 245 305 254 309 344 312 193 44 I 95 I 81 I 268 I 154 I 279 I 159 I 80 I 105 I -39.01 -22.21 -27.21 -9.91 -3.81 62.41 -21.71 -3.91 -25.11 -36.11 -22.51 -23.01 -6.71 -7.31 74.61 -5.81 20.01 -20.61 -46.31 I -21.51 I -37.71 I -13.31 I 2.71 I 50.81 I -42.61 I -45.91 I -32.31 I 71.7% 69.5% 71.0% 51.4% 64.6% 48.9% 56.9% 63.7% 61. U 75.U 28.3% 24.9% 69.3% 30.5% 30.71! 15.2% 29.01 24.81 53.21 48.61 46.81 62.31 35.41 37.71 52.61 51.11 47.41 68.41 43.11 31.61 79.61 36.31 20.41 64.81 38.91 35.21 aojono i I W V k'lWtx*-' CHANGE IN ENBOLLMENTS BY SCH(L, LEVEL AND DISTRICT - 1987 TO 1994 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) I 1987 1994 Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale McDeniiott Headoncliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff SUM TOTAL 315 426 403 503 329 235 265 214 462 269 546 471 449 256 325 340 246 289 484 218 481 467 214 491 314 496 407 229 14149 BLACK 217 253 290 289 280 156 130 174 260 217 324 263 293 219 196 256 189 251 343 196 274 290 200 309 192 246 288 174 9217 WHITE/ I OTHER I 98 I 173 I 113 I 214 I 49 I 79 I 135 I 40 I 202 I 52 I 222 I 208 I 156 I 37 I 129 I 84 I 57 I 38 I 141 I 22 I 207 I 177 I 14 I 182 I 122 I 250 I 119 I 55 I 4932 I TOTAL 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14051 BLACK 204 198 393 235 246 223 160 closed 218 309 340 241 279 260 154 197 225 264 234 closed 234 327 443 340 215 250 254 148 8900 WHITE/ I OTHER I 78 I 234 I 50 I 307 I 36 I 77 I 133 I I 284 I 242 I 134 I 253 I 132 I 12 I 205 I 223 I 4 I 139 I 89 I I 325 I 86 I 244 I 87 I 102 I 224 I 91 I 95 I 5151 I GRAND TOTAL 26834 16262 10572 I 25195 16365 8830 I PCT. CHANGE 1987 TO 1994 TOTAL -10.5% 1.4% 9.9% 7.8% -14.3% 27.7% 10.6% BLACK -6.0% -21.7% 35.5% -18.7% -12.1% 42.9% 23.1% -100.0^ -100.0% 8.7% 104.8% -13.2% 4.9% -8.5% 6.3% 10.5% 23.5% -6.9% 39.4% -33.3% -16.2% 42.4% 4.9% -8.4% -4.8% 18.7% -21.4% -23.0% 19.0% 5.2% -31.8% -100.0% -100.0% 16.2% -11.6% 221.0% -13.0% 1.0% -4.4% -15.2% 6.1% -0.7% -14.6% 12.8% 121.5% 10.0% 12.0% 1.6% -11.8% -14.9% -3.4% WHITE/ I OTHER I -20.4% I 35.3% I -55.8% I 43.5% I -26.5% I -2.5% I -1.5% I -100.0% I 40.6% I 365.4% I -39.6% I 21.6% I -15.4% I -67.6% I 58.9% I 165.5% I -93.0% I 265.8% I -36.9% I -100.0% I 57.0% I -51.4% I 1642.9% I -52.2% I -16.4% I -10.4% I -23.5% I 72.7% I 4.4% I CHANGE IN RACIAL COM,POSITION PERCENT BLACK PERCENT WHT/0 1987 68.9% 59.4% 72.0% 57.5% 85.1% 66.4% 49.1% 81.3% 56.3% 80.7% 59.3% 55.8% 65.3% 85.5% 60.3% 75.3% 76.8% 86.9% 70.9% 89.9% 57.0% 62.1% 93.5% 62.9% 61.1% 49.6% 70.8% 76.0% 65.1% 1994 1987 1994 72.3% 31.1% 27.7% 45.8% 40.6% 54.2% 88.7% 28.0% 11.3% 43.4% 42.5% 56.6% 87.2% 14.9% 12.8% 74.3% 33.6% 25.7% 54.6% 50.9% 45.4% 18.7% 43.4% 43.7% 56.6% 56.1% 19.3% 43.9% 71.7% 40.7% 28.3% 48.8% 44.2% 51.2% 67.9% 34.7% 32.1% 95.6% 14.5% 4.4% 42.9% 39.7% 57.1% 46.9% 24.7% 53.1% 98.3% 23.2% 1.7% 65.5% 13.1% 34.5% 72.4% 29.1% 27.6% 10.1% 41.9% 43.0% 58.1% 79.2% 37.9% 20.8% 64.5% 6.5% 35.5% 79.6% 37.1% 20.4% 67.8% 38.9% 32.2% 52.7% 50.4% 47.3% 73.6% 29.2% 26.4% 60.9% 24.0% 39.1% 63.3% 34.9% 36.7% -6.1% 0.6% -16.5% I 60.6% 65.0% 39.4% 35.0% J fl 11 tl Total Enrollment Projections by Grade and Level -1995 to 2005TOTAL ENROLLHENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PRE-K 726 I 575 564 566 562 557 552 546 541 536 531 526 Kindergarten 2060 I 2056 1951 1911 1923 1898 1882 1865 1849 1833 1818 1802 1 1990 I 2146 2126 2017 1976 1989 1962 1945 1928 1911 1894 1878 2 1914 I 1855 2000 1982 1880 1842 1853 1829 1812 1796 1780 1764 3 1796 I 1824 1768 1906 1888 1791 1755 1766 1742 1726 1710 1695 4 1895 I 1770 1798 1743 1878 1861 1765 1730 1740 1717 1702 1686 5 1842 1 1844 1722 1749 1696 1828 1811 1719 1684 1694 1672 1657 6 1797 I 1795 1797 1678 1704 1652 1781 1765 1675 1641 1651 1629 7 1949 I 1847 1843 1847 1724 1749 1697 1831 1815 1723 1686 1698 8 1966 I 1798 1702 1698 1703 1589 1611 1564 1688 1674 1589 1555 9 1843 1 1791 1638 1550 1546 1551 1447 1467 1424 1537 1524 1447 10 1930 I 1897 1844 1687 1596 1592 1597 1489 1510 1466 1583 1569 11 1601 1 1620 1593 1545 1413 1341 1338 1341 1252 1271 1232 1329 12 1548 I 1403 1419 1395 1353 1237 1175 1173 1175 1097 1114 1080 Ungraded Elei 151 I Ungraded Jr Hi 104 I Ungraded Sr Hi 83 I 156 64 53 154 65 63 154 78 66 155 69 60 154 71 63 154 73 63 154 71 62 154 71 63 154 72 63 154 71 63 154 71 63 TOTAL 25195 I 24494 24048 23573 23127 22764 22518 22317 22123 21910 21774 21605 SUMMARY OF TOTAL PROJECTIONS BY LEVEL Eleientary Junior High Senior High 14171 I 14021 13881 13705 13662 13573 13517 13319 13125 13008 12912 12792 5862 I 5500 5249 5174 5042 4959 4827 4933 4999 5005 4871 4771 5162 I 4973 4919 4694 4423 4232 4173 4065 3999 3897 3992 4041 TOTAL 25195 I 24494 24048 23573 23127 22764 22518 22317 22123 21910 21774 21605 I I I I I ii i a BLACK ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 H PRE-K 451 1 352 339 347 347 346 345 344 343 342 341 340 d KINDERGARTEN 1332 I 1349 1292 1242 1274 1274 1270 1266 1262 1257 1254 1250 1 1268 I 1385 1384 1325 1274 1306 1306 1303 1298 1294 1290 1286 2 1189 I 1172 1281 1279 1225 1177 1208 1208 1204 1200 1196 1192 3 1128 I 1129 1113 1216 1214 1163 1118 1147 1147 1143 1140 1136 4 1211 I 1112 1113 1097 1199 1197 1147 1102 1130 1130 1127 1124 5 1160 I 1189 1092 1093 1077 1177 1175 1126 1082 1110 1110 1107 6 1155 I 1133 1161 1067 1067 1052 1150 1148 1100 1057 1084 1084 7 1333 I 1219 1196 1226 1126 1127 1111 1214 1212 1161 1116 1145 8 1349 I 1243 1137 1116 1143 1050 1051 1036 1132 1130 1082 1040 d n 9 1243 I 1234 1137 1040 1020 1046 960 10 1311 I 1285 1276 1176 1076 1055 1082 961 993 947 1035 1034 994 990 980 1071 1069 11 1022 I 1058 1037 1029 12 Ungraded Elei Ungraded Jr Hi Ungraded Sr Hi 957 I no I 81 I 65 I 883 114 46 39 914 113 50 47 896 113 59 50 948 889 113 52 45 868 819 113 54 47 851 750 113 55 47 872 801 736 754 113 53 47 113 54 47 802 692 113 54 47 790 693 113 54 47 864 683 113 54 47 TOTAL 16365 I 15943 15681 15370 15091 14872 14739 14668 14620 14549 14541 14523 Eleentary Junior High Senior High 9004 1 8936 8887 8778 8790 8806 8832 8756 8679 8647 8654 8631 4006 1 3743 3520 3441 3342 3276 3177 3264 3345 3380 3286 3229 3355 1 3265 3273 3151 2959 2790 2730 2648 2596 2521 2601 2663 TOTAL 16365 I 15943 15681 15370 15091 14872 14739 14668 14620 14549 14541 14523 I Q I IWHITE/OTHER ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY 6RADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 y PRE-K Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Elei Ungraded Jr Hi Ungraded Sr Hi 275 1 728 I 722 I 725 I 668 I 684 I 682 I 642 I 616 I 617 I 600 I 619 I 579 I 591 I 41 I 23 I 18 I 222 707 760 683 695 658 656 661 627 555 557 612 562 520 42 18 14 226 659 743 719 655 685 631 636 646 565 501 568 556 505 41 16 16 219 669 692 703 690 645 656 612 621 582 510 511 516 499 41 19 16 215 649 702 655 674 680 619 637 597 560 526 521 465 464 41 17 15 211 625 682 665 628 664 651 600 622 539 505 536 473 417 41 17 16 206 612 656 646 637 619 636 632 586 561 486 515 487 425 41 18 16 202 599 642 621 619 628 593 617 617 528 506 496 468 438 41 17 16 198 587 629 608 595 610 602 575 603 556 477 516 451 421 41 17 16 194 576 617 595 583 586 584 584 562 543 502 486 469 405 41 18 16 190 564 604 584 571 574 562 567 570 507 490 512 442 421 41 17 16 186 552 592 572 560 562 550 545 554 514 457 500 465 397 41 17 16 TOTAL 8830 I 8551 8368 8203 8037 7892 7779 7649 7502 7361 7233 7082 Elementary Junior High Senior High 5167 I 5085 4994 4928 4872 4767 4685 4563 4446 4360 4257 4162 1856 I 1757 1728 1733 1700 1683 1651 1669 1653 1625 1585 1542 1807 I 1708 1645 1543 1464 1442 1443 1418 1403 1376 1391 1378 TOTAL 8830 I 8551 8368 8203 8037 7892 7779 7649 7502 7361 7233 7082 u I a r I 1 I Jifl H 11 11 d Provisional Projections by School, Level, and Race - 2000 and 2005L SHB B H fi H H H H PROVISIONAL PROJECTIONS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL, AND RACE - 2000 AND 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS - 1994 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I TOTAL BLACK OTHER PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2000 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I HIGH SCHOOLS Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUH 1637 917 1031 897 800 5282 1040 631 669 684 435 3459 597 286 362 213 365 1823 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hgts Southwest SUM 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5862 521 468 565 661 417 456 431 487 4006 126 239 215 256 168 389 340 123 1856 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 133 214 245 305 254 309 344 312 193 44 95 81 268 154 279 159 80 105 BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2005 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH 63.5% 36.5% I 68.8% 31.2% I 64.9% 35.1% I 76.3% 23.7% I 54.4% 45.6% I 65.5% 34.5% I 80.5% 19.5% I 66.2% 33.8% I 72.4% 27.6% I 72.1% 27.9% I 71.3% 28.7% I 54.0% 46.0% I 55.9% 44.1% I 79.8% 20.2% I 68.3% 31.7% I 75.1% 24.9% I 69.3% 30.7% I 75.2% 24.8% I 53.2% 46.8% I 62.3% 37.7% I 52.6% 47.4% I 68.4% 31.6% I 79.6% 20.4% I 64.8% 35.2% I 1405 825 655 624 664 4173 829 600 440 561 299 2730 576 224 215 63 366 1443 59.0% 41.0% I 72.8% 27.2% I 67.2% 32.8% I 90.0% 10.0% I 45.0% 55.0% I 65.4% 34.6% I 1451 880 505 535 669 4041 816 669 358 535 255 2633 635 211 147 0 414 1408 56.2% 43.8% 76.1% 23.9% 70.8% 29.2% 99.9% 0.1% 38.1% 61.9% 65.2% 34.8% 407 653 672 796 454 667 714 463 4827 400 427 493 515 348 294 317 383 3177 8 226 179 281 106 373 397 80 1650 98.0% 2.0% I 65.4% 34.6% I 73.4% 26.6% I 64.7% 35.3% I 76.7% 23.3% I 44.1% 55.9% I 44.4% 55.6% I 82.7% 17.3% I 65.8% 34.2% I 300 704 688 821 426 636 770 426 4771 299 481 539 515 369 242 301 387 3133 1 223 149 306 57 394 469 39 1638 99.8% 0.2% 68.4% 31.6% 78.3% 21.7% 62.8% 37.2% 86.6% 13.4% 38.1% 61.9% 39.1% 60.9% 90.8% 9.2% 65.7% 34.3% 106 202 248 486 320 536 420 375 237 95 103 223 266 162 303 341 365 204 11 99 26 220 158 233 79 10 33 89.7% 10.3% I 50.9% 49.1% I 89.7% 10.3% I 54.8% 45.2% I 50.7% 49.3% I 56.6% 43.4% I 81.2% 18.8% I 97.2% 2.8% I 86.2% 13.8% I 52 120 186 411 249 485 349 353 187 51 11 185 230 85 293 331 353 186 1 109 1 181 164 192 18 0 1 98.4% 1.6% 8.8% 91.2% 99.6% 0.4% 56.0% 44.0% 34.1% 65.9% 60.5% 39.5% 94.9% 99.9% 99.7% 5.1% 0.1% 0.3%1 u1 fc-j in -'Aw
OJOJOttO PROVISIONAL PROJECTIONS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL, AND RACE - 2000 AND 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ENROLLMENTS - 1994 PROJECTED EHROLLMEHTS - 2000 PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2005 TOTAL BLACK OTHER Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff SUM 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14051 204 198 393 235 246 223 160 218 309 340 241 279 260 154 197 225 264 234 234 327 443 340 215 250 254 148 8900 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I WHITE/ PCT. PCT. BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH 78 234 50 307 36 77 133 284 242 134 253 132 12 205 223 4 139 89 325 86 244 87 102 224 91 95 5151 72.3% 27.7% I 45.8% 54.2% I 88.7% 11.3% I 43.4% 56.6% I 87.2% 12.8% I 74.3% 25.7% I 54.6% 45.4% I 43.4% 56.6% I 56.1% 43.9% I 71.7% 28.3% I 48.8% 51.2% I 67.9% 32.1% I 95.6% 4.4% I 42.9% 57.1% I 46.9% 53.1% I 98.3% 1.7% I 65.5% 34.5% I 72.4% 27.6% I 41.9% 58.1% I 79.2% 20.8% I 64.5% 35.5% I 79.6% 20.4% I 67.8% 32.2% I 52.7% 47.3% I 73.6% 26.4% I 60.9% 39.1% I 180 471 464 490 325 421 222 521 1281 332 426 344 347 340 529 266 564 211 580 268 547 279 270 406 226 309 63.3% 36.7% I 13549 111 201 463 168 312 348 132 205 312 331 140 286 346 127 190 265 379 123 171 267 479 278 245 222 208 197 8567 70 270 1 322 13 72 90 316 969 1 286 58 1 213 339 1 184 88 409 1 68 1 25 184 18 111 4982 61.3% 38.7% I 42.6% 57.4% I 99.9% 0. I 34.2% 65.8% I 96.0% 4.0% I 82.9% 17.1% I 59.4% 40.6% I 39.4% 60.6% I 24.4% 75.6% I 99.8% 0.2% I 32.8% 67.2% I 83.1% 16.9% I 99.7% 0.3% I 37.4% 62.6% I 35.9% 64.1% I 99.4% 0.6% I 67.3% 32.7% I 58.2% 41.8% I 29.5% 70.5% I 99.5% 0.5% I 87.5% 12.5% I 99.7% 90.6% 0.3% I 9.4% I 54.7% 45.3% I 92.0% 8.0% I 64.0% 36.0% I 103 486 466 439 347 495 166 520 1767 221 367 286 391 317 592 286 663 125 580 158 433 166 229 347 135 347 63.2% 36.8% I 12824 33 199 465 110 346 443 107 191 308 220 55 286 390 103 180 285 465 30 117 157 432 165 228 195 134 234 7603 70 287 1 329 1 52 59 329 1459 1 311 1 1 215 411 1 197 95 463 1 1 1 1 152 1 113 5220 31.8% 68.2% 41.0% 59.0% 99.8% 0.21 25.0% 75.0t 99.8% 0.2% 89.5% 10.5% 64.3% 35.7% 36.7% 63.3% 17.5% 82.5% 99.4% 0.6% 15.1% 84.9% 99.7% 99.7% 0.3% 0.3% 32.4% 67.6% 30.5% 69.5% 99.7% 0.3% 70.2% 29.8% 23.9% 76.1% 20.1% 79.9% 99.3% 99.8% 99.5% 99.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 56.3% 43.7% 99.1% 0.9% 67.3% 32.7% 59.3% 40.7% TOTAL 25195 16365 8830 65.0% 35.0% I 22549 14474 8075 64.2% 35.8% I 21636 13370 8266 61.8% 38.2% B 0 I a Attendance Zones Elementary SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. ZONE-SCHOOL Badgett (20) Subtotal UI z o U 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3640 Of lU z H X o 3 co z UI S O 0 Z UI 177 0 35 17 4 0 0 56 4 32 21 24 0 23 104 4 67 38 28 0 23 160 I Bale (21) 309 Subtotal 521 531 532 534 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 9 23 5 5 34 21 24 14 3 138 29 40 29 18 48 12 12 65 4 257 38 63 34 23 82 33 36 79 7 395 Baseline (41) 326 Subtotal 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 3652 14 5 21 2 5 4 13 18 14 5 101 55 90 7 51 17 19 4 5 12 8 268 69 95 28 53 22 23 17 23 26 13 369 Page 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Brady (7) lU z o n 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 Subtotal oc UJ z - o I o 03 JS o hL Z UJ S O K z UJ___ 408 7 33 28 12 38 9 39 9 6 12 0 193 3 10 1 0 7 0 8 45 6 22 16 118 10 43 29 12 45 9 47 54 12 34 16 311 Brady (31) Subtotal 540 591 592 593 4 2 1 0 7 7 52 2 0 61 11 54 3 0 68 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Chicot (45) lU z oe lU z H o CD Subtotal z tu O DC Z UJ___ 503 3435 3440 3445 3464 5408 7401 7405 7410 7415 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7476 7479 7480 10 5 0 29 7 33 6 10 14 5 1 13 2 3 2 3 6 1 2 152 7 7 1 29 40 25 21 31 39 20 13 28 24 16 13 15 13 0 16 358 17 12 1 58 47 58 27 41 53 25 14 41 26 19 15 18 19 1 18 510 X o Cloverdale (42) 392 Subtotal 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 10 12 9 2 4 2 4 8 9 3 2 3 2 4 74 31 16 20 0 46 17 32 22 17 64 28 9 23 96 421 41 28 29 2 50 19 36 30 26 67 30 12 25 100 495 I Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Dodd (34) LU z o N 1722 1728 4001 4010 4017 4020 4025 4046 4049 4052 4053 5467 Subtotal Q Itt o u} t z A 16 5 21 12 0 18 11 21 11 21 1 4 141 43 31 0 43 0 3 29 1 22 1 0 0 173 JS o 59 36 21 55 0 21 40 22 33 22 .1 4 314 I- z LU s o O' z m___ 298 O 3 m Fair Park (9) 282 Subtotal Forest Park (1) Subtotal Forest Park (4) Subtotal 511 512 513 554 920 1110 1111 1120 1121 6110 6125 6610 811 821 910 13 1 5 5 38 43 42 4 11 162 66 9 1 76 40 59 75 174 9 11 76 59 8 0 29 2 0 194 7 1 0 8 0 1 5 6 22 12 81 64 46 43 71 6 11 356 73 10 1 84 40 60 80 180 432 I t I I Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Forest Park (12) lU z o u 411 412 413 420 Subtotal IX UI z I- z o 3 m < t- o hL z UI S O IX z tu 0 0 1 9 10 0 3 1 14 18 0 3 2 23 28 z 5 Forest Park (18) I I Subtotal 553 556 63 42 105 71 42 113 8 0 8 Franklin (23) 443 Subtotal Fulbright (2) Subtotal 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 539 571 575 1210 1405 1410 1440 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 8 1 4 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 4 0 25 51 61 64 40 22 30 40 5 18 29 10 46 33 449 59 62 68 42 22 31 43 5 18 31 10 50 33 474 542 33 26 114 35 31 0 15 24 44 322 4 1 12 1 14 0 3 4 3 42 37 27 126 36 45 0 18 28 47 364 Page 5 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Fulbright (15) UI z o 0^ lU X o Ui I- z UJ S Subtotal o 3 CD ! o o q: z UJ 1714 1810 1811 1812 14 12 0 5 31 137 38 30 40 245 151 50 30 45 276 X Garland (30) 282 Subtotal Geyer Springs (38) ___________________Subtotal Geyer Springs (47) Subtotal Jefferson (3) Subtotal 581 582 584 585 586 587 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 3405 1220 1230 1231 1240 5 2 5 14 0 0 26 3 9 10 9 12 5 5 53 11 56 40 220 327 45 57 89 55 23 44 313 35 19 22 12 28 36 20 172 54 54 1 1 0 6 8 50 59 94 69 23 44 339 38 28 32 21 40 41 25 225 62 62 12 57 40 226 335 300 502 8 8 Pagesi . 4 f i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Jefferson (13) lU z o U 111 112 121 122 210 Subtotal it ui Z H o a t z 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 Z ID u 3 co 19 26 14 47 76 182 19 26 14 47 77 183 O a z tu s Jefferson (19) ( 431 Subtotal 36 36 37 37 1 1 Jefferson (22) t| Subtotal 434 435 0 11 11 18 6 24 18 17 35 King (17) 551 Subtotal 432 433 438 439 4 0 0 0 4 23 41 43 70 177 27 41 43 70 181 King (36) Subtotal McDermott (5) 473 476 477 479 480 485 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 63 49 40 44 26 56 278 63 49 40 46 26 57 281 494 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 32 3 36 42 118 20 13 29 20 0 2 1 38 3 4 7 52 3 38 43 156 23 17 36 Page 7I f Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o tu z X 293 z UJ S tie o 5 (0 75 O Jz. 368 O O' z lU McDermott (16) Subtotal 552 561 562 4 0 0 4 63 46 53 162 67 46 53 166 Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Mabelvale (44) LU Z s. 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5462 5465 7420 7475 Subtotal DC LU Z H X 5 4 10 12 7 25 11 14 8 13 19 4 7 16 4 9 163 69 46 9 0 1 10 1 9 6 0 1 0 7 30 33 222 z LU S < I- o 73 56 21 7 26 21 15 17 19 19 5 7 23 34 42 385 o q: z LU___ 474 O < m Mabelvale (48) t Subtotal Meadowcliff (32) Subtotal 7325 7383 7388 7390 533 535 536 537 0 2 1 1 4 0 5 3 5 13 33 14 30 57 134 41 41 41 56 179 33 16 31 58 138 41 46 44 61 192 411 Page 9Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Meadowcliff (39) UJ z O U 2110 2120 4015 4048 Subtotal DC UJ z o tu t X 77 41 19 20 157 60 60 8 9 137 z UJ S < I- O hL 137 101 27 29 294 O z UJ o 3 Mitchell (28) 272 Subtotal 442 443 444 445 446 451 452 453 457 458 459 3 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 31 25 19 17 9 24 40 26 50 37 39 317 34 30 19 17 9 25 41 26 50 37 40 328 Otter Creek (35) 359 Subtotal 471 472 475 30 48 48 126 30 48 48 126 60 96 96 252 Otter Creek (43) Subtotal 5460 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 31 2 0 56 45 41 25 10 210 3 0 0 7 12 6 1 5 34 34 2 0 63 57 47 26 15 244 Page 10 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT p ZONE-SCHOOL Pulaski Heights (6) UJ z P Nl 610 620 630 640 641 651 660 710 Subtotal K UJ z o U} I 34 46 10 16 14 73 24 37 254 o < _1 m 1 2 0 2 0 0 78 9 92 35 48 10 18 14 73 102 46 346 z tu S _i o It z UJ___ 420 < O Rightsell (29) 229 Subtotal 448 449 450 454 455 464 1 1 0 0 14 2 18 101 54 55 19 42 45 316 102 55 55 19 56 47 334 Rockefeller (25) 403 Subtotal Romine (27) Subtotal 232 440 456 460 461 462 463 1715 1717 1721 1723 1724 1727 1 4 13 3 2 4 0 27 2 0 3 0 22 7 34 7 17 35 32 42 54 35 222 8 21 48 35 44 58 35 249 323 75 98 49 38 44 86 390 77 98 52 38 66 93 424 I Page 11Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .1 ZONE-SCHOOL Stephens (26) UJ iZ o N 441 572 573 574 583 Subtotal Terry (8) 1510 1511 1512 1515 1530 1532 1550 1610 1620 3330 Subtotal Terry (24) 436 437 563 Subtotal DC UJ z o in t z 0 01 0 01 38 96 26 98 9 18 44 23 19 47 418 45 48 46 139 o CD 24 56 34 45 48 207 6 33 55 4 19 8 2 35 90 45 48 46 139 < I-o Jz 24 56 35 45 48 208 44 129 31 103 13 37 52 25 22 52 508 90 96 92 278 z UJ S o DC Z UJ 559 1 1I L 0 Page 12 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Wakefield (40) lU z o It tu I O iu z < m z LU 5 IOt tzu __ 413 _____________Subtotal Washington (14) Subtotal 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 123 124 125 126 127 220 240 301 474 478 481 482 483 484 16 10 69 12 2 7 13 6 14 551 106 71 15 9 30 51 16 73 50 21 12 21 9 16 394 87 25 15 39 63 18 80 63 27 26 26 14 17 500 687 01100 10 0 001210 0 16 42 80 25 39 17 107 29 7 14 36 85 69 86 30 666 42 81 26 39 17 117 29 7 14 37 87 70 86 30 682 Page 13 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study fl 3D/I 5f ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Watson (46) Subtotal Western Hills (37) Wilson (10) Wilson (33) Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal UJ z O N 7301 7305 7315 7330 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7384 7385 7490 7495 1725 1726 1822 2010 2015 2020 1711 3301 3312 3316 1813 1821 1823 1824 a: UJ I 9 UJ Z hoe 3 co o t-t-z UJ S o O' z UJ___ 427 7 13 22 3 16 49 12 4 12 116 110 1 15 19 23 47 17 122 18 36 40 27 121 16 8 32 25 81 71 9 51 4 60 15 42 27 63 40 27 1 17 427 78 22 73 7 76 19 51 39 67 52 28 2 23 537 317 29 14 92 12 28 18 193 30 29 111 35 75 35 315 345 1 14 10 9 34 19 50 50 36 155 57 59 107 30 253 73 67 139 55 334 Page 14 dd Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Woodruff (11) UJ z o N 650 662 670 Subtotal TOTAL o: UJ z H-o uj _j < o z UJ S o O' z UJ___ 243 5 4 51 60 5 29 51 85 10 33 102 145 4592 8965 13557 Z 5 o 3 m I I Page 15 h fl Attendance Zones Junior High SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O' 2 - z UJ S s ZONE-SCHOOL Cloverdale UJ z o N ULI t- 5S o o DC z UI 647 240 301 474 478 480 481 482 483 484 485 3435 3440 3445 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 5408 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 0 5 7 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 6 3 0 4 5 4 0 8 0 1 1 7 0 4 12 4 12 12 16 29 22 16 11 20 5 2 1 10 8 4 6 3 15 17 10 9 4 10 8 21 26 7 7 18 11 3 2 14 3 24 12 4 12 13 16 29 23 16 11 20 9 5 1 15 15 6 7 6 16 18 10 9 10 13 8 25 31 11 7 26 11 4 3 21 3 28 I Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal ui z o hl____ 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7474 7476 7479 7490 7495 oc lU z I- _i i5 S z UJ S -I o z z 1 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 15 3 4 3 1 7 0 4 6 1 1 0 1 127 14 17 7 17 21 27 5 17 13 7 20 13 5 14 12 11 10 12 0 0 13 657 15 17 7 20 22 27 8 18 28 10 24 16 6 21 12 15 16 13 1 0 14 784 z u Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT i ZONE-SCHOOL Dunbar UJ z o O' UJ z I- o z z UI S o a: z Ly___ 707 126 412 413 420 431 433 434 435 439 445 446 448 449 450 650 670 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3625 3640 3652 4401 4405 4410 4415 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 19 0 11 2 1 0 2 5 5 3 1 3 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 8 1 18 2 0 3 15 13 5 4 25 7 9 28 26 28 1 13 4 13 12 12 0 18 33 34 2 11 5 9 2 6 11 3 11 13 4 7 18 2 1 8 15 13 6 9 25 7 9 28 26 28 5 32 "4 24 14 13 0 20 38 39 5 12 8 9 4 13 11 4 12 13 12 8 o 3 o Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UJ z o JSl____ 4420 4429 4430 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 or UJ z t- o UJ t X < I- o I- z UJ s J o z z UJ 1 5 2 6 0 2 4 1 2 3 7 2 10 3 0 0 136 8 17 5 34 8 2 14 14 11 13 15 7 8 12 0 6 581 9 22 7 40 8 4 18 15 13 16 22 9 18 15 0 6 717 o 3 m Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT -1 ZONE-SCHOOL Forest Heights UJ z o U 511 512 513 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 554 561 562 571 572 573 574 575 620 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1321 1331 1405 ce. UI z I- o 12 I- I 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 20 2 6 12 13 4 4 11 15 9 15 8 5 3 19 29 21 32 6 11 14 10 2 7 17 16 40 27 28 25 19 16 13 2 1 4 0 11 0 0 11 2 0 5 5 I- z LU S -I i* O z. 6 3 22 30 21 33 6 11 14 10 2 7 19 16 40 28 31 25 19 16 13 22 3 10 12 24 4 4 22 17 9 20 13 o z jy___ 780 u 3 m Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o Nl____ 1410 1450 1451 1430 1440 1910 O' tu z t- o is 42 22 15 32 9 1 252 I- z lU S y: u < -1 EQ i* o h- O O' z 14 5 1 16 1 14 452 56 27 16 48 10 15 704 z Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Henderson UJ z o n Ct UJ z I- o in t X -1 o H Z UJ S o Ct z tu___ 915 432 436 437 438 441 442 443 444 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 464 563 1210 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1712 1713 1714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 12 12 23 6 29 7 1 4 5 7 20 5 6 16 3 3 1 8 27 23 13 12 8 10 3 17 13 8 15 13 17 22 18 20 16 24 1 4 6 8 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 1 0 7 23 8 48 8 27 23 13 12 8 10 3 17 13 8 15 18 22 22 18 21 16 24 13 16 29 14 33 9 5 6 9 10 22 6 6 23 26 11 49 u m Page 7Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UJ z o ___ 1715 1716 1717 1721 1723 1724 1727 1810 1811 1812 3330 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 6610 Q UJ X o X !5 o z UJ s u o X z 2 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 6 4 13 0 11 12 5 7 8 0 247 38 16 33 36 19 24 34 13 13 30 3 1 0 4 3 0 0 4 0 685 40 19 34 36 20 26 35 13 13 36 7 14 0 15 15 5 7 12 0 932 u m Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Mablevale lU z o Jti 471 472 473 475 476 477 479 540 582 583 584 585 586 587 591 592 593 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5425 5455 5460 5462 5465 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 a^ tu X I- o X o < _l m -J O hL z tu s _1 o X z tu___ 585 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 5 3 8 4 4 4 3 0 14 1 3 0 0 9 14 23 10 12 26 26 20 6 16 1 30 20 31 15 8 23 22 0 1 19 23 5 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 6 10 12 27 26 20 6 17 4 30 20 31 22 8 23 22 0 1 23 28 7 5 5 9 4 8 5 3 0 14 1 6 0 0 10 17 29 Page 9I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o N 5478 5492 7415 7420 7471 7475 7480 QC UI X o is t X 2 4 6 4 3 3 7 3 148 1 0 28 13 16 18 4 415 5 6 32 16 19 25 7 563 I- z UJ S 21 O X z o 3 m Page 101B r. 1 I I. I I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Pulaski Heights ui z o 111 112 121 122 123 124 125 127 210 220 232 440 460 461 462 463 552 553 556 610 620 630 640 641 651 660 662 710 811 821 910 1220 1230 1231 1240 Subtotal a: UJ z i U 2 m JS o I-z UJ s-J o oc z UJ 771 0 0 00 00 00 31 05 01 0012 0 14 19 752 23 17 5 15 19 15 28 5 27 22 78 314 __ 6 12 89 20 29 10 11 27 59 2 11 10 21 17 12 33 31 25 12 0 200 40 10 2 0030111 416 __ 6 12 8 __ 9 20 29 10 11 30 60 2 16 10 22 17 12 34 33 25 15 21 77 2 23 57 15 17 19 15 31 5 28 23 79 730 Page 11 i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Southwest lU z o IU X o a I- I- z UJ S O O' z lU 610 521 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 539 581 1711 1722 1725 1726 1728 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 2301 3312 3316 4001 4010 4015 4 4 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 8 7 1 5 0 7 7 8 15 6 22 12 9 2 3 10 12 10 27 15 11 15 10 4 9 3 35 19 18 15 3 15 27 33 4 20 4 7 13 14 15 25 22 25 35 15 27 7 8 33 1 8 13 9 14 12 5 2 4 1 47 1 39 23 19 15 6 15 30 33 4 21 12 14 14 19 15 32 29 33 50 21 49 19 17 35 4 18 25 19 41 27 16 17 14 5 56 4 O m < O Page 12u Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL lU z s____ 4017 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 5457 UJ z - o t3 H I z UJ S mV Subtotal 0 3 1 3 12 4 3 1 0 281 o < _l < O I- o Q Z lU TOTAL 1505 0 0 19 0 2 14 0 0 0 591 0 3 20 3 14 18 3 1 0 872 3797 5302 L 3^ Page 13Li Attendance Zones Senior High SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a ZONE-SCHOOL Central tu z o JI 110 112 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 210 220 411 412 413 420 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 448 451 452 453 457 O' UJ z I- o iD t z -J O z UJ S o z z UJ 1637 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 16 18 13 7 17 6 13 35 0 0 0 4 13 5 4 4 0 16 13 14 23 5 7 9 5 7 3 6 17 4 7 10 13 7 6 7 16 18 14 7 17 6 14 36 0 0 0 7 14 6 4 4 4 16 13 14 23 5 7 9 6 1 3 6 17 4 1 10 13 o 3 m Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL UJ z o U Q UJ Z l- o Qj 458 459 521 531 532 534 535 552 563 610 620 630 640 641 650 651 660 662 670 710 811 821 910 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 3640 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 8 5 2 2 7 15 11 2 14 15 16 21 21 10 10 22 18 44 0 14 27 6 29 7 1 6 5 17 16 18 16 17 8 8 22 19 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 21 10 14 2 0 1 2 5 0 1 0 1 11 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 4 i5 o hi z UJ S _i -J o z z UJ 17 16 19 17 18 9 9 24 20 8 9 5 3 2 7 15 32 12 28 17 16 22 23 15 10 23 18 45 11 18 33 9 31 8 4 7 9 z U 3 a Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL IU z o ___ 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1715 1717 1721 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3301 3312 3316 oe IU z I- o a 4 16 4 1 13 3 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 4 2 12 3 6 14 5 2 3 3 9 4 1 7 4 3 0 18 10 7 2 3 0 0 2 2 29 40 44 14 20 9 12 32 23 15 36 28 17 21 8 3 22 1 5 8 12 4 6 4 15 0 15 3 0 !5 o I- z lU S d oe z UJ 6 19 4 1 15 5 31 42 45 15 22 9 12 33 28 19 38 40 20 27 22 8 24 4 8 17 16 5 13 8 18 0 33 13 7 I u m Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal tu z o N____ 3330 6110 6125 O' tu z 1- o a 9 25 2 575 4 2 0 1030 _t J5 o - z tu S _i -I o x z tu 13 27 2 1605 X O 5 m r r Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT rj ZONE-SCHOOL Hall ui z o U 511 512 513 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 553 554 556 591 562 571 572 573 574 575 578 920 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1312 1321 1331 UI z H o in JS o Jtz I- z UI S O Q Z JU__ 1031 2 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 5 10 19 17 5 5 3 27 0 8 20 1 5 23 17 35 27 1 9 4 8 0 0 21 20 18 17 18 17 21 15 14 11 8 0 0 1 4 0 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 3 5 26 21 35 30 1 9 4 8 0 0 21 20 18 19 20 17 21 15 14 11 9 1 15 6 14 19 23 5 5 8 28 0 8 21 z u Page 5IT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UI z o hl____ 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1712 1713 1714 1716 1810 1811 1812 1910 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 UI z I- o a t z z lU S 9 23 57 16 25 37 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 5 0 18 0 9 7 20 404 1 3 10 2 0 23 2 27 6 46 7 16 21 25 10 3 0 1 1 3 535 < I- o Of z m 10 26 67 18 25 60 16 30 9 49 10 16 21 30 10 21 0 10 8 23 939 o 3 m Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI p ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Fair UJ z o U 471 472 473 475 476 477 479 533 536 537 539 540 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 591 592 593 1722 1728 2110 2120 3630 3656 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4017 4020 4025 UJ X o a t z 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 1 25 10 0 3 2 2 5 8 0 0 6 0 11 23 16 19 23 12 11 19 17 20 6 4 13 16 20 37 15 8 19 26 1 0 17 24 19 6 0 19 13 4 0 46 1 0 1 21 o hl 11 23 17 19 23 12 11 19 17 23 6 6 14 16 20 39 16 8 19 28 1 0 23 25 44 16 0 22 15 6 5 54 1 0 7 21 I- z UJ S o z z JU__ 917 1. o 3 m t ! I t I Page 7Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal IU z o 1____ 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 5467 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 7415 7420 7471 7475 7480 0* tu X t- X JS o z IU s O X z IU 5 13 2 2 0 2 7 11 7 5 5 6 0 8 3 1 1 1 0 19 18 31 8 4 7 0 2 6 3 257 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 10 9 12 10 4 579 6 13 9 2 0 2 7 13 7 7 7 6 0 9 3 4 1 1 0 19 23 35 8 4 17 9 14 16 7 836 O m Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL McClellan UJ z o UJ I 1- O iD z UJ S O 0^ z UJ___ 897 240 301 449 450 454 455 456 460 461 462 463 464 474 478 480 481 482 483 484 485 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3445 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 3 0 1 2 0 5 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 1 4 7 10 13 5 11 5 10 15 14 10 13 8 10 11 16 13 20 5 13 10 24 20 1 12 4 6 2 5 2 0 6 8 4 8 2 4 7 10 13 5 16 8 11 17 16 10 13 8 10 11 16 14 20 5 13 14 27 23 1 13 6 6 7 7 6 0 7 9 8 10 3 X 5 o < m O h: Page 9Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL ui z o N 3625 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5408 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 O' lU z I- z z UJ S 4 0 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 0 4 6 3 0 0 3 1 8 3 0 2 0 4 1 6 0 2 3 2 0 3 3 2 12 1 6 2 6 13 7 5 8 5 16 4 1 13 11 3 4 3 7 6 11 18 12 4 13 10 7 12 10 4 8 6 5 1 26 1 5 14 7 2 1 10 13 8 9 11 7 18 5 3 13 15 g 7 3 7 9 12 26 15 4 15 10 11 13 16 4 10 9 7 1 29 4 1 26 8 8 3 u m I o z z Page 10Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Fl ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal TOTAL tu z o ____ 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 8384 8385 8387 8388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7474 7476 7479 7490 7495 oc tu X H o X 3 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 6 4 2 7 1 6 0 7 3 2 1 2 10 211 14 6 18 9 10 9 23 18 22 14 11 12 16 18 6 6 13 7 7 4 9 0 1 13 882 i5 o hi z tu S J O flC z m 1447 3026 17 6 23 9 10 10 24 19 23 14 16 18 20 20 13 7 19 7 14 7 11 1 3 23 1093 4473 u m Page 11Projected Attendance Zones Option TLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION "T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL BADGETT (1) (*) Rockefeller - 27 (TRock-27/Wash-32 (*) Washington - 32 Subtotal Adjustments Table AZ-3 N IU O < o in a + z < o z IU Of lu z I- 1- z s w Z UJ Z o 3 co o z JiL. 177 nrr 112 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 210 220 240 301 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3640 0" 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 35 17 4 0 0 63 26 14 47 42 80 25 39 17 38 53 14 7 4 32 21 24 0 23 525 nT 26 14 47 42 81 26 39 17 38 58 14 7 4 67 38 28 0 23 588 Assigned to Booker Magnet Assigned to Carver Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total I BALE (2) 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1823 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total {) Indicates split attendance blocks. 14 38 5 6 I 42 115 39 329 I 56 153 44 335 I 309 12 0 5 16 8 32 34 21 24 14 3 169 11 158 38 30 40 57 59 107 48 12 12 65 4 472 38 434 50 30 45 73 67 139 82 33 36 79 7 641 49 592 Table AZ-3 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION "T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL BASELINE (3) N lU U o IO U + Z < Q Z tu t A 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3435 3440 3445 3464 7325 7330 7375 7383 7384 7385 7387 7388 7390 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total I i BRADY (5) (*) Terry - 30 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1312 1321 1331 1332 1541 1910 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Williams Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total () Indicates split attendance blocks. o> a> O' tu z I- o a t z O 3 m -I s z UJ S o a z 111 326 14 8 5 21 2 10 5 0 29 0 3 2 2 12 1 4 1 1 120 12 108 I 7 33 43 42 4 11 32 28 3 12 38 9 14 0 276 47 17 212 55 54 90 7 51 7 7 1 29 33 4 23 14 40 27 96 30 57 625 33 592 I 3 10 0 29 2 0 20 1 0 0 7 0 3 16 91 76 11 4 69 62 95 28 53 17 12 1 58 33 7 25 16 52 26 100 31 58 745 45 700 I 408 10 43 43 71 6 11 52 29 3 12 45 9 17 16 367 123 28 216 Table AZ-3 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION "T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL CHICOT (7) Adjustments Subtotal N UI O r> o in Q + Z < o z UJ 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 7401 7415 7420 7425 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total O) z UI z H s t z z lU S i* o i=. o z z UJ 503 4 10 12 7 25 11 14 8 13 19 4 31 7 16 33 14 4 5 2 3 9 6 1 2 260 17 343 69 46 9 0 1 10 1 9 6 0 1 3 0 7 25 39 30 20 13 15 33 13 0 16 366 73 56 21 7 26 21 15 17 19 19 5 34 7 23 58 53 34 25 15 18 42 19 1 18 626 37 32? 54 371 u 3 m ( ) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 3r Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION "T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL CLOVERDALE (8) N UI U o o O + z < Q Z UI t Of UI z I- o a t z A O> I- z UI s Adjustments Subtotal 3420 3425 3430 3601 3605 3615 3620 3625 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 5 4 13 10 12 9 18 14 2 4 2 4 8 9 3 2 5 T5T o 3 o z UJ 392 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 11 TTT DODD (9) () Romine - 28 1722 1725 1726 1728 4001 4010 4025 4046 4052 4053 Subtotal 16 1 15 5 21 12 11 21 11 1 114 Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 8 106 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. 17 19 4 31 16 20 5 12 0 46 17 32 22 17 64 28 8 w 33 32F 43 29 14 31 0 43 29 1 1 0 191 37 1S4 22 23 17 41 28 29 23 26 2 50 19 36 30 26 67 30 13 ISS 44 w 298 59 30 29 36 21 55 40 22 12 1 305 45 260 Table AZ-3 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION "T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL FOREST PARK (11) (*) Pulaski Heights - 2 (*) McDermott - 2C Subtotal Adjustments N UJ U > O in U + z < Q Z UJ t 710 811 821 910 1240 O' UJ X - X 18 40 59 75 55 247 24 O 3 m 4 0 1 5 2 12 J* O 22 40 60 80 57 259 o> O) z UJ s -I o X z UJ 432 f^ftAKikLlKi <12) Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 8 239 13 246 443 5 7 () 39/40 () 39/40 () 39/40 () 39/40 Subtotal 511 512 513 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 554 561 571 575 13 1 5 9 6 1 4 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 55 9 11 76 29 39 31 64 40 22 30 40 5 18 29 59 46 35 17 600 22 12 81 38 45 32 68 42 22 31 43 5 18 31 64 46 38 17 655 Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 7 48 39 561 46 609 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION T" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL FULBRIGHT (13) N UJ U o IO U + z < a z UJ A 1210 1405 1410 1440 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 6610 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total a: UJ z 1- I i 33 26 114 35 66 31 0 15 9 24 44 1 398 16 382 at at J- Z UJ S O q: z JU_ 542 4 1 12 1 7 14 0 3 1 4 3 0 50 11 39 37 27 126 36 73 45 0 18 10 28 47 1 448 27 421 O O 6VfeR spriN6$(15) 300 Subtotal Adjustments 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 3 9 10 9 12 5 5 16 10 6 9 12 2 7 13 6 14 5 5 1 159 35 19 22 12 28 36 20 71 15 9 30 51 16 73 50 21 12 21 9 16 566 38 28 32 21 40 41 25 87 25 15 39 63 18 80 63 27 26 26 14 17 725 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 11 148 47 519 58 667 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Stu
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.