{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_734","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary,'' 3D/International, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-11-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary,'' 3D/International, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/734"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nreceived FEB 29 199 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary Revisions based on 1995 enrollment and various modifications to tables and cost data. Recommendations remain unchanged November 22,1995 Volume No 1 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026lt;S Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership Demographers112 Easl Pecan Streel. Suite 2350 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone 210/227-2500 Fax 210/227-9704 November 22, 1995 Little Rock School District Subject: Supplement to the Executive Summary Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study The following documents represent changes to tables provided in the August 30, 1995 Executive Summary to the Facilities Master Plan Study. In addition, certain new tables have been added which reflect enrollment impact on the middle school concept as well as readjustment of enrollment projections based on the actual 1995 enrollment. These documents are being provided in this bound form and should be substituted for the previously provided tables issued report. in Volume 1 of the I 9 3D International Central Region Tab_______ Cost Factor Table CST-1 CST-3 CST-4 CST-5 CST-6 Action Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace a Demographic Study Analysis of 1994-1995 Enrollment Projections New Document Educational Study Table 4A and 4B Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table ES-1 Table ES-3 Table ES-4 Table ES-7 (95) Table ES-8 (95) Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace New Document New Document Attendance Zone AZ-1 Replace  Based on the 1995 enrollment and a review of the projections, no substantial change were encountered that would alter the recommendations set out in Volume 1. Very truly yours, Barbara Trammell Project AdministratorIN ij IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT O EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS s' I WESTERN DIVISION district court eastern district ARKANSAS I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEB 2 81996 PLAINTIFF JAMES W McCORiVirtGK, CLER By------------- - V. LR-C-82-866 OEP CL.  I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING I The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the I1 filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. H Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I N FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helled It I Bar No. 81083 L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Cost FactorCOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 2 McClellan 3 J.A.FAIR 4 HALL 5 PARKVIEW (Building 1) (Building 2) (Buildirtg 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 CLOVERDALE 8 DUNBAR 9 FOREST HEIGHTS 10 HENDERSON 11 MABELVALE 12 MANN MAGNET (Building #1) (Building #2) 13 PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) ___________________(Building #2) (Building #3) 14 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 15 ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC TOTAL ALC Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2008 SO $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $965,994 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 DIST SITE NO 1 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 I $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $8,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $412,381 $412,381 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $277,011 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,453,981 $415,614 $415,614 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 $505,588 $505,588 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,642 $819,091 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $3,565,459 $474,524 $474,524 $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 SO so $967 $2.284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $944,741 $328,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $4,701,777 $133,401 $133,401 $16,586 $77,696 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $0 $86,423 $8,415 $0 $24,526 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $790,338 $40,658 $40,658 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2.940.722 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $637,872 $13,997,995 12 6 2 5 $996,969 $998,969 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $326,960 $197,872 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $2.068,798 $119,074 $119,074 $3,488,367 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $645,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,968 $1,483.632 14,580,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 Table CST-1 Page 1 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 BADGETT TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $666,504 17 BALE $1,200,466 18 BASELINE $1,111,915 19 BOOKER MAGNET $892,564 20 BRADY $476,919 21 CARVER MAGNET $378,889 22 CHICOT $0 23 CLOVERDALE $481,989 24 DAVID 0 DODD $954,119 25 FAIR PARK $714,626 26 FOREST PARK $752,687 27 FRANKLIN $1,845,175 28 FULBRIGHT $484,019 29 GARLAND $1,373,658 30 GEYER SPRINGS $321,017 31 GIBBS MAGNET $215,003 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,028 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $35,836 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $63,502 $36,857 $5,446 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $263,911 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 $538,790 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 $620,356 $96,646 $12,684 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 35 Years 98-2001 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,076 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $47,995 $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 $431,070 $51,671 $39,827 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $28,034 $2,588 $38,364 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $74,594 $107,175 $193,889 $237,544 $136,712 $205,943 $0 $139,186 $156,315 $92,005 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $230,695 $133,255 $118,682 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 OIST SITE NO 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27  32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ISH $656,776 $10,800 $328,091 $216,525 $0 JEFFERSON $1,814,531 $953,937 $601,600 $120,203 $0 MARTIN L KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $139,245 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $126,957 $7,807 $308,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 $37,892 $4,621,163 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $258,663 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $734,402 $7,206 $252,213 $304,581 $294,576 $440,444 $11,315 $10,542,382 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $37,943 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,785 $60,406 $253,058 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $38,301 $6,489,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $4,489 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $3,476 $1,383,323 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ANNEX CASHION BUILDING TRANSPORTATION PLANT SERVICES PURCHASING SAFETY/SECURITY TOTAL ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $65,182,530 $274,848 $54,724 $17,576 $47,649 $53,716 $41,951 $20,563 $511,026 $14,091,965 $110,770 $128,376 $1,981 $54,714 $19,625 $47,959 $126,004 $24,594 $172,268 $187,670 $32,380 $27,469 $113,938 $215,840 $115,296 $12,736 $39,574 $26,403 $313,590 $697,256 $19,750,412 $34,671 $812,769 $15,990,139 $759 $296,593 $2,644,228 $101,360 $138,791 $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $143,666 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $119,186 $286,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $121,114 $6,234,682 $81,673 $70,339 $20,280 $25,425 $63,760 $63,760 $18,292 $343,530 $12,705,775 1 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $65,182,531 Table CST-1 Page 2 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME DISTRICT ESTIMATES AOA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 1995 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,530 $77,205,530 1 Year 1995 $3,088,221 $80,293,751 $3,088,221 $80,293,751 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,587,000 $17,738,965 $17,738,965 1 -2 years 1995-1997 $1,447,500 $19,186,464 $709,559 $16,448,523 $737,941 $19,186,464 $767,459 $19,953,923 $798,157 $20,752,080 $830,083 $21,582,163 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,598,000 $22,609,412 $22,609,412 3 Years 1996 $2,823,102 $25,432,514 $904,376 $23,513,789 $940,552 $24,454,340 $978,174 $25,432,514 $1,017,301 $26,449,815 $1,057,993 $27,507,807 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $1,000,000 $406,000 $17,396,139 $17,396,139 3-5 Years 2000 $3,768,924 $21,165,063 $695,846 $18,091,985 $723,679 $18,815,664 $752,627 I $19,568,290 $782,732 $20,351,022 $814,041 $21,165,063 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,069,228 $5,069,228 5-10 Years 2005 $2,434,468 $7,503,696 $202,769 $5,271,997 $210,880 $5,482,877 $219,315 $5,702,192 $228,088 $5,930,280 $237,211 $6,167,491 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $14,391,775 $14,391,775 10-15 Years 2010 $11,526,998 $25,918,773 $575,671 $14,967,446 $598,698 $15,566,143 $622,646 $16,188,789 $647,552 $16,836,341 $673,454 $17,509,794 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,530 $77,205,530 $22,000,991 $99,206,521 DIST SITE NO hl hl I + 6 2001 7 2002 8 2003 9 2004 10 2005 11 2006 n 12 2007 13 2008 Bl n Bl Bl 14 2009 15 2010 $863,287 $22,445,449 $897,818 $23,343,267 $933,731 $24,276,998 $971,080 $25,248,078 $1,009,923 $26,258,001 $1,050,320 $27,308,321 $1.092,333 $28,400,654 $1,136,026 $29,536,680 $1,181,467 $30,718,147 $1,228,726 $31,946,873 $1,100,312 $28,608,119 $1,144,325 $29,752,444 $1,190,098 $30,942,542 $1,237,702 $32,180,244 $1,287,210 $33,467,453 $1,338,698 $34,806,152 $1,392,246 $36,198,398 $1,447,936 $37,646,333 $1,505,853 $39,152,187 $1,566,087 $40,718,274 $846,603 $22,011,665 $880,467 $22,892,132 $915,685 $23,807,817 $952,313 $24,760,130 $990,405 $25,750,535 $246,700 $6,414,191 $256,568 $6,670,758 $266,830 $6,937,589 $277,504 $7,215,092 $288,604 $7,503,696 $700,392 $18,210,186 $728,407 $18,938,593 $757,544 $19,696,137 $787,845 $20,483,983 $819,359 $21,303,342 $1,030,021 $26,780,557 $1,071,222 $27,851,779 $1,114,071 $28,965,850 $1,158,634 $30,124,484 $1,204,979 $31,329,463 $300,148 $7,803,844 $312,154 $8,115,998 $324,640 $8,440,638 $337,626 $8,778,263 $351,131 $9,129,394 $852,134 $22,155,476 $886,219 $23,041,695 $921,668 $23,963,363 $958,535 $24,921,897 $996,876 $25,918,773 ..............in n I ............ Table CST-1 Page 3 hCOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 2 McClellan 3 J.A.FAIR 4 HALL 5 PARKVIEW (Building 1) (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $8,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $412,381 $412,381 $505,588 $505,588 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 CLOVERDALE 8 DUNBAR 9 FOREST HEIGHTS 10 HENDERSON $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 11 MABELVALE 12 MANN MAGNET 13 PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) (Building #2) (Building #1) (Building #2) (Building #3) $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,968 14 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS $1,483,632 $12,317,113 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,176,970 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $2,746,368 ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER 15 ALC TOTAL ALC $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $415,614 $415,614 $474,524 $474,524 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 BADGETT 17 BALE 18 BASELINE 19 BOOKER MAGNET 20 BRADY 21 22 23 24 25 CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $692,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,028 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $263,911 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 26 FOREST PARK 27 FRANKLIN 28 FULBRIGHT $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 29 30 GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS $321,017 $36,857 I $96,646 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $328,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $3,757,036 $133,401 $133,401 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,076 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 $51,671 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 $18,588 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $0 $86,423 $8,415 $0 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $765,812 $40,658 $40,658 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $2,588 PRIORITY S 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $965,994 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $998,969 $998,969 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $1,870,926 $119,074 $119,074 $74,594 $107,175 $193,689 $237,544 $136,712 $205,943 $0 $139,186 $156,315 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $133,255 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,463,632 12,317,113 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,689 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $321,017 Table CST-3 Page 1 OIST SITE NO 1 12 8 2 5 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME 31 GIBBS MAGNET 32 ISH 33 JEFFERSON 34 MARTIN L KING 35 MABELVALE 36 MCDERMOTT 37 MEADOWCLIFF 38 MITCHELL 39 MARTIN L KING 40 OTTER CREEK 41 PULASKI HEIGHTS 42 RIGHTSELL 43 ROCKEFELLER 44 ROMINE 45 TERRY 46 WAKEFIELD 47 WASHINGTON 48 WATSON 49 WESTERN HILLS 50 WILLIAMS MAGNET 51 WILSON TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $215,003 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $5,446 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $7,807 $306,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $12,684 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $7,206 $252,213 $304,581 $294,576 $440,444 52 WOODRUFF TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $22,682,055 $3,252,993 $7,449,166 ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $2,661,172 $511,026 $697,256 SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $56,329,991 $12,446,784 $15,838,105 DISTRICT ESTIMATES ADA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN Deduct District Costs TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $39,827 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,785 $60,406 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $5,344,708 $812,769 $13,900,303 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $38,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $1,347,324 $296,593 $2,583,704 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $118,682 $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $286,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $5,287,864 $343,530 $11,561,084 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $215,003 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $22,682,055 $2,661,172 $56,329,992 OIST SITE NO 27 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 IH OPTIONS OPTION M ESCALATION OPTION T ESCALATION OPTION C ESCALATION TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST I $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 $12,730,000 $3,194,400 $63,054,391 $23,413,500 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $18,281,000 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,685,000 $16,191,784 ($1,223,000) $14,968,764 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,500,010 $18,599,115 $18,599,115 $12,730,000 $3,911,879 $35,240,994 $12,808,500 $3,921,680 $35,329,296 $11,807,000 $3,796,629 $34,202,745 $1,000,000 $406,000 $15,306,303 $15,306,303 $0 $3,316,155 $18,622,458 $8,291,000 $5,112,424 $28,709,728 $6,474,000 $4,718,766 $26,499,069 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,008,704 $5,008,704 $0 $2,405,401 $7,414,105 $2,314,000 $3,516,687 $10,839,391 $0 $2,405,401 $7,414,105 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $13,247,084 $13,247,084 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,010 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 $12,730,000 $21,465,054 $101,325,045 $23,413,500 $24,382,410 $114,925,901 $18,281,000 $22,752,415 $108,163,406 Table CST-3 Page 2 COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1996 OPTION M ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION $5,811,000 $6,919,000 $5,811,000 $6,919,000 Total Option Cost ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 $12,730,000 $79,859,991 1 Year 1995 $3,194,400 $83,054,391 $3,194,400 1996 I $83,054,391 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 e $0 $12,730,000 + 2003 9 2004 T 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 13 2008 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $0 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $0 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $5,811,000 $6,919,000 $12,730,000 DIST SITE NO $14,968,784 1 -2 years 1995-1997 $31,329,115 3 Years $15,306,303 3-5 Years $5,008,704 5-10 Years $13,247,084 10-15 Years $79,859,991 $1,221,453 1998 $3,911,879 2000 $3,316,155 2005 $2,405,401 2010 $10,610,166 $21,465,054 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 $22,157,457 $35,240,994 $18,622,458 $7,414,105 $23,857,250 $101,325,045 $1,253,165 $32,562,280 $612,252 $15,918,555 $200,348 $5,209,052 $529,883 $13,776,967 $1,303,291 $33,885,571 $1,355,423 $35,240,994 $1,409,640 $36,650,634 $1,466,025 $38,116,659 $1,524,666 $39,641,326 $1,585,653 $41,226,979 $1,649,079 $42,876,058 $1,715,042 $44,591,100 $1,783,644 $46,374,744 $636,742 $16,555,298 $662,212 I $17,217,510 $688,700 $17,906,210 $716,248 $18,622,458 $744,898 $19,367,357 $774,694 $20,142,051 $805,682 $20,947,733 $837,909 $21,785,642 $871,426 $22,657,068 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,168 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,889 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 $19,608,920 } i I T I 14 2009 15 2010 $886,298 $23,043,756 $921,750 $23,965,506 $958,620 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 $1,854,990 $48,229,734 $1,929,189 $50,158,923 $2,006,357 $52,165,280 $2,086,611 $54,251,891 $2,170,076 $56,421,967 $906,283 $23,563,351 $942,534 $24,505,885 $980,235 $25,486,120 $1,019,445 $26,505,565 $1,060,223 $27,565,788 $296,564 $7,710,670 $308,427 $8,019,096 $320,764 $8,339,860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 $9,020,393 $784,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,008 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,587 $23,857,250 Table CST-3 Page 3COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 OPTION T ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Total Option Cost ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 6 2003 9 2004 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 T X 13 2008 14 X 2009 15 2010 $13,513,500 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 BASE COST $90,543,491 1 Year 1995 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $0 PRIORITY 1 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 $22,157,457 $866,298 $23,043,756 $921,750 $23,965,506 $958,620 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY S 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $7,858,500 $4,950,000 I $12,808,500 PRIORITY 2 $31,407,615 3 Years 1998 $3,921,680 $35,329,296 $1,256,305 $32,663,920 $1,306,557 I $33,970,477 $1,358,819 $35,329,296 $1,413,172 $36,742,468 $1,469,699 $38,212,166 $1,528,487 $39,740,653 $1,589,626 $41,330,279 $1,653,211 $42,983,490 $1,719,340 $44,702,830 $1,788,113 $46,490,943 $1,859,638 $48,350,581 $1,934,023 $50,284,604 $2,011,384 $52,295,988 $2,091,640 $54,387,828 $2,175,513 $56,563,341 $3,341,000 $4,950,000 $8,291,000 PRIORITY 3 $23,597,303 3-5 Years 2000 $5,112,424 $28,709,728 $943,892 $24,541,195 $981,648 $25,522,843 $1,020,914 I $26,543,757 $1,061,750 $27,605,507 $1,104,220 $28,709,728 $1,148,389 $29,858,117 $1,194,325 $31,052,441 $1,242,098 $32,294,539 $1,291,782 $33,586,321 $1,343,453 $34,929,773 $1,397,191 $36,326,964 $1,453,079 $37,780,043 $1,511,202 $39,291,245 $1,571,650 $40,862,894 $1,634,516 $42,497,410 $2,314,000 $2,314,000 PRIORITY 4 $7,322,704 5-10 Years 2005 $3,516,687 $10,839,391 $292,908 $7,615,612 $304,624 $7,920,237 $316,809 $8,237,046 $329,482 $6,566,528 $342,661 $8,909,169 $356,368 $9,265,557 $370,622 $9,636,179 $385,447 $10,021,626 $400,865 $10,422,491 $416,900 $10,839,391 $433,576 $11,272,966 $450,919 $11,723,885 $466,955 $12,192,840 $487,714 $12,680,554 $507,222 $13,187,776 $0 PRIORITY 5 $13,247,084 10-15 Years 2010 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $529,863 $13,776,967 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,166 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,869 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 $19,608,920 $764,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,006 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,58 $23,857,250 $13,513.500 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 TOTAL 1-5 $90,543,491 $24,382,410 $114,925,901 I ( I i Table CST-3 Page 4 I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 OPTION C ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $7,891,000 $3,916,000 Total Option Cost $18,281,000 $0 $11,807,000 ESCALATION IMPACT BASE COST PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 COST Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-S Years 98-2001 $6,474,000 $6,474,000 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $0 PRIORITY 5 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $18,281,000 TOTAL 1-5 OIST SITE NO H  II H II n ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 I 8 2003 9 2004 10 2005 : 11 2006 ! 12! 2007 I 13 2008 14 2009 T 4- 15 2010 $85,410,991 1 Year 1995 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 I $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 I $22,157,457 ! $886,298 I $23,043,756 I I $30,406,115 3 Years $21,780,303 3-5 Years $5,008,704 5-10 Years $13,247,084 10-15 Years $85,410,991 1998 $3,796,629 2000 $4,718,766 2005 $2,405,401 2010 $10,610,166 $22,752,415 $34,202,745 $1,216,245 $31,622,360 $1,264,894 $32,887,254 $1,315,490 $34,202,745 $1,368,110 $35,570,854 $1,422,834 $36,993,669 $1,479,748 $38,473,436 $1,538,937 $40,012,373 $1,600,495 $41,612,868 $1,664,515 $43,277,383 $1,731,095 $45,008,478 $26,499,069 $7,414,105 $23,857,250 $108,163,406 I $871,212 $22,651,515 $906,061 $23,557,576 $942,303 $24,499,879 $979,995 $25,479,874 $1,019,195 $26,499,069 I $1,059,963 $27,559,032 $1,102,361 $28,661,393 $1,146,456 $29,807,849 $1,192,314 $31,000,163 $1,240,007 $32,240,170 $200,348 $5,209,052 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $529,883 $13,776,967 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,168 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,889 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 I $19,608,920 $921,750 $23,965,506 $956,620 $1,800,339 $46,806,818 $1,872,353 $48,681,170 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 $1,947,247 $50,628,417 $2,025,137 $52,653,554 $2,106,142 $54,759,696 $1,289,607 $33,529,776 $1,341,191 $34,870,967 $1,394,839 $36,265,806 $1,450,632 $37,716,438 $1,508,658 $39,225,096 $296,564 $7,710,670 $308,427 $6,019,096 $320,764 $8,339,860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 $9,020,393 $784,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,008 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,587 $23,857,250 Table CST-3 Page 5 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST - 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT tn D . tn tn LU in in SCHOOL OPTION \"M II BADGETT BALE (REVISED) BASELINE (REVISED) BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS (REVISED) GIBBS MAGNET q: LU X o LU X  O \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; O o \u0026lt; to z. LU o Qt LU Q. o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; tn LU Ql o o LL LU to \u0026lt; LU Q 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 179 118 379 270 47% 44% z o u tn LU Q. LL tn o o \u0026lt; LU tn \u0026lt; Li. \u0026lt;2 in tf\u0026gt; /\u0026gt; o o o z LU tn tn O o tn tn z o o 5 LU z. 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 341 59 81 -60 -33 31 -185 641 66 175 598 13 45 -61 -30 55 84 -16 25 -22 -2 33 -75 -18 -42 34 -162 341 Elementary 5,900 8,100 -6,000 -3,300 3,100 -18,500 64,100 6,600 17,500 59,800 1,300 4,500 -6,100 -3,000 5,500 8,400 -1,600 2,500 -2,200 -200 3,300 -7,500 -1,800 -4,200 3,400 -16,200 34,100 Subtotal $214,500 $1,202,500 $195,000 $143,000 $117,000 $1,053,000 $2,925,000 I Table CST-4 Page 1 $0Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST - 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M ISH II (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT (REVISED) MABELVALE) MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON (REVISED) a LU I o iu X g O 2 m \u0026lt; t- O 340 250 590 o \u0026lt; _l m 2 LU O O' LU Q. 42% o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; O' LU Q. o 445 tn D Q. X D V\u0026gt; + O u. LU Q  LU Q -145 z o w X LU O. LL tn o o \u0026lt; LU X \u0026lt; -14,500' u. 55 \u0026lt;o V) o o o z UJ Of u. 52 u\u0026gt; U) Vi @) h V\u0026gt; O O X I  Z Q O 5 LU Z Elementary 1 4 2^7 27% 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 16 15 110 107 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 448 283 165 165 44 -68 4 59 -38 15 -45 16,500 16,500 4,400 -6,800 400 5,900 -3,800 1,500 -4,500 $442,000 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 666 574 427 414 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 682 589 537 521 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 367 367 380 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 -129 34 65 -70 -56 177 196 -15 ___9 -260 -164 24 -12,900 -7,400 3,400 6,500 -7,000 -5,600 17,700 19,600 -1,500 900 -26,000 -16,400 2,400 $481,000 $364,000 $1,066,000 98% 97% 80% 79% 782 782 491 491 100 193 -46 -30 10,000 19,300 -4,600 -3,000 Subtotal $195,000 $2,548,000 $0 Table CST-4 Page 2fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF II (REVISED) (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"M II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST CST - 4 to 3 _l Q. U. D CO LU kO IO IX LU I o LU X 5 O m \u0026lt; I- O t- o \u0026lt; m z LU o a: LU Q. O \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; K LU 0. O 122 119 193 186 315 305 61% 61% o LU LU Q \u0026lt; LU Q 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 59% 340 340 501 421 421 316 25 35 501 -68 -52 171 28 449 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 614 642 96% 0 -642 167 616 27% 0 -616 z o Vi lU Q. iu tn o o \u0026lt; LU O' \u0026lt; LX. u5 \u0026lt;o t Vi O U O z LU O' m O o IX tn z o o 5 ai z Elementary 2,500 3,500 50,100 -6,800 -5,200 17,100 -64,200 -61,600 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $338,000 $338,000 $5,811,000 $3,531,000 $3,388,000 $6,919,000 $6,919,000 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 59 322 400 561 472 289 470 174 Jr.High School 416 378 591 53S 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 938 955 971 971 971 938 225 298 99 123 TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Table CST-4 Page 3 $0Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT co o _l a. Of 3 U) U. io IO SCHOOL OPTION \"Wl II CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLAN PARKVIEW MAGNET K LU X I- O LU I 5 O 3 ffi \u0026lt; I- O o 3 m z UJ o a: UJ Q. O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; K UJ Q. O o LL UJ Q \u0026lt; in o   Z o CO Q UJ LU Ui o o \u0026lt; in q: \u0026lt; u. io u\u0026gt; @ CO O O O z UJ tn w O o O' co z o o 5 LU Z 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 365 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 435 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 800 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 54% 2252 2252 1206 1206 1385 1385 1157 1157 991 647 592 370 473 448 632 64 130 191 TOTAL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OPTION \"M\" COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Sr.High School $0 ADDITION $5,811,000 $0 ________$0 $5,811,000 NEW $6,919,000 $0 _______$0 $6,919,000 $12,730,000 Table CST-4 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (0 :o _i Q. Z Z) w u. 2 U) lA SCHOOL OPTION \"T II BADGETT (REVISED) BALE (REVISED) BASELINE_______ BOOKER MAGNET (REVISED) BRADY__________ CARVER MAGNET CHICOT (REVISED) CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) I FOREST PARK FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET (REVISED) UJ I o UJ z S o m O O \u0026lt; _i DO z tu o a: UJ Q. to \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; ce UJ Q. o O iu Q \u0026lt; I- _i LU Q z o w q: UJ LL (n o o \u0026lt; UI q: \u0026lt; LL  io vy @ I to O to o z UJ a: V) O o d: tn z O o g UJ z Elementary 56 6 138 158 101 108 200 212 152 243 74 113 141 106 162 268 239 25 48 353 382 26 61 148 104 329 257 434 268 592 160 335 395 592 369 700 65% 98% 65% 73% 73% 85% 179 4 379 216 47% 2% 358 329 421 325 173 154 194 510 572 495 438 314 260 356 70% 58% 85% 74% 55% 59% 54% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 59 -116 -60 -257 31 -300 66 229 13 -49 -61 -4 55 109 5,900 -11,600 -6,000 -25,700 3,100 -30,000 6,600 22,900 1,300 -4,900 -6,100 -400 5,500 10,900 $754,000 $1,670,500 $1,950,000 $318,500 $26,000 137 ___7_ 449 561 287 39 313 405 246 474 609 640 421 339 34% 3% 95% 92% 45% 9% 92% 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 25 184 -2 -137 -75 144 -42 2,500 18,400 -200 -13,700 -7,500 14,400 -4,200 $890,500 226 519 287 667 79% 78% 321 321 341 34 -346 341 3,400 -34,600 34,100 Subtotal $2,249,000 $7,858,500 I $0 Table CST-5 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST \u0026lt;5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT tn D a. tn =3 tn SCHOOL OPTION \"T II ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE (NOT USED) MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (REVISED) RIGHTSELL (NOT USED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON tn UJ I I- o Z 5 O 3 CO o 340 250 590 o \u0026lt; m z UJ o tn UJ Q. 42% o \u0026lt; o o z UJ Q. O 445 t o u. UI Q \u0026lt; LU Q -145 7 91 297 445 167 462 378 169 35 356 469 469 466 480 523 99% 81% 36% 7% 68% 634 634 510 510 527 165 165 44 30 4 170 316 486 65% 448 -38 11 336 233 254 312 18 27 19 34 173 557 506 106 16 13 317 328 97% 283 -45 160 60 92 144 316 496 293 346 456 334 32% 20% 27% 32% 95% 367 367 380 380 264 -129 74 34 -76 -70 z O 0) tn LU Q. LL tn o o UJ tn \u0026lt; -14,500 16,500 16,500 4,400 3,000 400 -3,800 -4,500 -12,900 7,400 3,400 -7,600 -7,000 u. \u0026lt;2 u\u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 W O O O Z LU OC u. 52 in in @) 0) O o od CO z o o 5 UI z Elementary $494,000 222 451 390 574 229 76 394 249 470 424 747 786 582 500 89% 96% 92% 77% 29% 13% 79% 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 177 -44 -15 -338 -260 -56 24 17,700 -4,400 -1,500 -33,800 -26,000 -5,600 2,400 $286,000 $2,197,000 $364,000 666 645 682 658 98% 98% 782 782 100 124 10,000 12,400 Subtotal $3,341,000 I $0 Table CST-5 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CST-5 SCHOOL OPTION \"T II WATSON (REVISED) WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET (REVISED) WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF NEW SCHOOLS (NOT USED) (LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Of LU Z I- O iu I 5 it: o 3 m O it: o 3 m z LU O z UJ Q. 110 139 122 240 427 538 193 270 537 677 315 510 80% 79% 61% 53% 202 287 489 59% 60 85 145 59% 128 125 743 743 871 868 85% 86% SUMMARY OPTION \"T\" COSTS (/} 3 Q. K  W o \u0026lt; CL \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; q: lU Q. o 491 491 340 340 501 421 316 900 900 O u. UI Q \u0026lt; Ui Q z o Ui z UJ Q. LL Ui o o \u0026lt; UJ Q \u0026lt; u. 52 in to Ui O o o z UJ q: u. w in in @ W o o cd (Z\u0026gt; z O o  UI Z Elementary -46 -186 25 -170 501 -68 171 465 466 -4,600 -18,600 2,500 -17,000 50,100 -6,800 17,100 90,000 90,000 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) $1,209,000 $1,105,000 $2,314,000 $13,513,500 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $9,900,000 $9,900,000 ADDITION $13,513,500 $0 ________$0 $13,513,500 NEW $9,900,000 $0 _______$0 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 Table CST-5 Page 3H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I B ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w D _l Q. 0 O v\u0026gt; u. 52 io IO SCHOOL OPTION \"C II BADGETT (REVISED) BALE (REVISED) BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY__________ CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD (REVISED) FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH (REVISED) (CLOSED) 0* UJ I I- O UJ X 5 o 3 m o lx: o m z UJ o a: LU Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z. \u0026lt; K UJ Q. O O u. UJ o Ji _i UI o z o w a: UI LL  o o \u0026lt; UJ O' \u0026lt; u. 52 u\u0026gt; (D @ CD o o o z LU q: W O o q:  Z o o 5 UJ z Elementary 66 66 138 137 101 145 200 300 152 90 74 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 73% 56% 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 358 386 421 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 287 48 313 226 548 510 476 495 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 70% 81% 85% 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 49 -139 -60 -49 31 69 66 90 598 13 47 -61 -93 55 -79 25 -288 -2 -187 -75 137 -42 34 -379 341 -13,900 -4,900 6,900 9,000 4,700 -9,300 -7,900 2,675 -28,800 -200 -18,700 -7,500 13,700 -4,200 3,400 -37,900 Subtotal $903,500 $318,500 $604,500 $513,500 $1,872,000 $1,215,500 $2,463,500 $7,891,000 $0 Table CST-6 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w Q. X 3 tn SCHOOL OPTION \"C II JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON or UJ X o X 5 O m \u0026lt; (- o 340 590 o \u0026lt; _i 03 2 LU O 01 LU Q. 42% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; 01 LU Q. O 445 5 LL LU Q \u0026lt; LU O -145 z o w O' LU LU o o \u0026lt; LU Q^ \u0026lt; u. u5 co F tn O o O z LU O' LU 52 lO in  U) o o q:  z o o S LU Z Elementary 7 147 297 419 167 187 170 462 459 169 83 356 217 316 469 606 466 502 523 404 486 99% 76% 36% 17% 68% 54% 65% 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 165 28 44 8 4 123 -38 2,800 4,400 800 400 12,300 -3,800 11 336 304 254 18 20 27 88 34 94 557 399 106 16 98 110 22 317 328 97% 283 -45 -4,500 160 66 92 496 370 346 32% 18% 27% 367 367 380 -129 -3 34 -12,900 -300 3,400 $19,500 316 531 222 587 390 536 229 87 394 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 29% 18% 79% 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 -70 177 -249 -15 -221 -260 40 24 -7,000 -28,700 17,700 -24,900 -1,500 -22,100 -26,000 4,000 2,400 $1,865,500 $1,618,500 $1,436,500 666 667 427 419 682 765 537 441 98% 87% 80% 95% 782 782 491 491 100 17 -46 60 10,000 1,700 -4,600 6,000 Subtotal $4,940,000 $0 Table CST-6 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CST-6 SCHOOL OPTION \"C II WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET a: UJ I O UJ I  o m O 122 182 193 394 315 576 202 287 489 o 3 m z UJ o a: UJ Q. 61% 68% 59% Ui ZD -I Q. q: o Ui LL w A m o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 340 340 501 421 6 LL UJ O \u0026lt; UJ Q z O Ui a: UJ IL Ui o o ? IE. \u0026lt; u. !2 io (O  @) w O o O z UJ Q (0 O o of Ui z o 5 UJ z Elementary 25 -236 501 -68 -23,600 $1,534,000 WILSON (NOT USED) 60 85 145 59% 316 171 WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL 73 639 712 90% 712 71,200 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $1,534,000 $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $3,916,000 $3,916,000 I Table CST-6 Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w o Q. o u. OT in lA SCHOOL OPTION \"C II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS I a SOUTHWEST Q UJ I 1- O LU I 5 O m \u0026lt; I- O O 3 OQ z UJ o O' UJ Q. (D \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; O' UJ a. O 6 u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q z o  tn UJ u V) o o @) \u0026lt; UI O' \u0026lt; u. A to in O o O z UI Q^  o o oi H W Z o o 5 UJ z Jr.High School 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 724 765 707 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 203 322 281 561 197 289 614 174 21,600 20,300 32,200 28,100 56,100 19,700 28,900 61,400 17,400 314 110 281 264 416 473 591 582 730 583 872 846 57% 81% 68% 69% 935 955 955 971 971 935 225 372 99 125 93,500 22,500 39,804 9,900 12,500 TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS $oT $0 SUMMARY OPTION \"C\" COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) ADDITION $14,365,000 $0 $0 $14,365,000 NEW $3,916,000 $0 _______$0 $3,916,000 $18,281,000 Table CST-6 Page 4Demographic StudyLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Analysis of 1994 1995 Enrollment Projections Table DS-1 Summary 1994 1995 1994 25258 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 24515 24076 23610 23156 22795 22550 22348 22154 21941 21805 21636 24922 24711 24280 23829 23385 22990 22731 22537 22353 22157 22042 delta delta % 407 635 670 673 590 440 383 383 412 1.66% 2.64% 2.84% 2.91% 2.59% 1.95% 1.71% 1.73% 1.88% 352 406 1.61% 1.88% Enrollment Projections 1995 to 2005 Grades Pre-K Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4fh 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Ungraded elem jr.hi sr. hi 1994 1995 747 2050 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 1840 1791 1899 1946 1598 1435 1996 718 2046 2094 1890 1843 1749 1849 1796 1821 1789 1846 1917 1608 1426 1997 704 1941 2076 1989 1820 1794 1706 1803 1818 1671 1680 1921 1597 1432 1998 707 1901 1970 1972 1916 1773 1750 1664 1830 1667 1569 1749 1594 1423 1999 703 1914 1928 1872 1900 1868 1731 1707 1687 1679 1565 1633 1450 1418 2000 696 1889 1942 1832 1803 1852 1825 1688 1730 1548 1578 1629 1355 1289 2001 690 1872 1918 1845 1765 1759 1809 1781 1715 1587 1454 1642 1353 1206 2002 683 1855 1901 1822 1778 1720 1718 1766 1815 1575 1491 1513 1361 1205 2003 677 1839 1885 1806 1756 1733 1680 1677 1802 1668 1480 1551 1255 1210 2004 671 1823 1869 1791 1741 1712 1694 1640 1713 1655 1569 1541 1287 1116 2005 665 1808 1853 1775 1726 1698 1673 1653 1671 1574 1558 1634 1275 1145 SpcI Schools totals 162 93 89 156 64 53 154 65 63 154 78 66 155 69 60 154 71 63 24876 24665 24234 23783 23339 22944 154 73 62 154 71 63 154 71 63 154 72 63 154 71 63 46 46 46 46 46 46 22685 22491 22307 22111 21996 46 24922 24711 24280 23829 23385 22990 22731 46 46 46 46 22537 22353 22157 22042 Table DS-1, Page 1 of 2 II Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H II 11 Impact of Middle School Enrollment Middle School (Option #1) 6th 7th 8th Ungraded 6th 7th \u0026amp; 8th totals elem@1/6 jr. hi @2/3 Middle School (Option #2) 7th 8th Ungraded 7th \u0026amp; 8th totals jr. hi @2/3 High Schools 9th 10th 11th 12th Ungraded 9th jr. hi @1/3 sr. hi @1/3 totals 1797 1840 1791 1796 1821 1789 1803 1818 1671 1664 1830 1667 1707 1687 1679 1688 1730 1548 1781 1715 1587 1766 1815 1575 1677 1802 1668 1640 1713 1655 1653 1671 1574 27 62 5517 26 43 5475 26 43 5361 26 52 5239 26 46 5145 26 47 5039 26 49 5157 26 47 5229 26 47 5220 26 48 5082 26 47 4971 1840 1791 1821 1789 1818 1671 1830 1667 1687 1679 1730 1548 1715 1587 1815 1575 1802 1668 1713 1655 1671 1574 1227 4858 1214 4824 1212 4701 1220 4717 1125 4491 1153 4431 1143 4445 1210 4600 1201 4671 1142 4510 1114 4359 1899 1946 1598 1435 1846 1917 1608 1426 1680 1921 1597 1432 1569 1749 1594 1423 1565 1633 1450 1418 1578 1629 1355 1289 1454 1642 1353 1206 1491 1513 1361 1205 1480 1551 1255 1210 1569 1541 1287 1116 1558 1634 1275 1145 31 89 6998 21 53 6871 22 63 6715 26 66 6427 23 60 6149 24 63 5938 24 62 5741 24 63 5657 24 63 5583 24 63 5600 24 63 5699 H H H n n n II H Assumptions: 1. Ungraded elementary enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 1 through 6. 2. Ungraded junior high enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 7, 8, and 9. 3. Ungraded senior high enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 10, 11, and 12. 4. Special school enrollment is assumed to remain constant and students in this program are housed in facilities other than those included in this survey, and therefore, do not impact enrollment projections. H a Table DS-1, Page 2 of 2r ibH Educational Study FS? teWBLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 TABLE 4-A PROJECTIONS 1995-1999 Grade Level Pre4\u0026lt; Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Total 1994 Current \"^26 2060 1990 1914 1796 1895 1842 1797 1949 1966 1843 1930 1601 1548 338 25195 1995 575 2056 2146 1855 1824 1770 1844 1795 1847 1798 1791 1897 1620 1403 273 24494 1996 564 1951 2126 2000 1768 1798 1722 1797 1843 1702 1638 1844 1593 1419 283 24048 1997 566 1911 2017 1982 1906 1743 1749 1678 1847 1698 1550 1687 1545 1395 299 23573 1998 562 1923 1976 1880 1888 1878 1696 1704 1724 1703 1546 1596 1413 1353 285 23127 1999 557 1898 1989 1842 1791 1861 1828 1652 1749 1589 1551 1592 1341 1237 287 22764 TABLE 4-B PROJECTIONS 2000-2005 I Grade Level Pre^K Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Total 2000 552 1882 1962 1853 1755 1765 1811 1781 1697 1611 1447 1597 1338 1175 292 22518 2001 546 1865 1945 1829 1766 1730 1719 1765 1831 1564 1467 1489 1341 1173 287 22317 2002 541 1849 1928 1812 1742 1740 1684 1675 1815 1688 1424 1510 1252 1175 288 22123 2003 536 1833 1911 1796 1726 1717 1694 1641 1723 1674 1537 1466 1271 1097 288 21910 2004 531 1818 1894 1780 1710 1702 1672 1651 1686 1589 1524 1583 1232 1114 288 21774 2005 526 1802 1878 1764 1695 1686 1657 1629 1698 1555 1447 1569 1329 1080 288 21603 Page 10Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I TABLE 5 Elementary Schools with High Value Scores and Estimated Capacity for Each School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity ! i I I 1 I I Baseline Brady Carver Magnet Cloverdale Forest Park Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet McDermott Mablevale Otter Creek Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Martin Luther King Chicot (new) 755 820 850 765 765 850 815 870 835 885 900 820 790 915 785 755 895 780 820 770 765 940 Not Rated 400 445 598 434 430 565 297 321 341 510 527 367 264 426 409 523 782 491 340 501 421 634 523 10549 e:ltl-rock\\ed-survey\\table5 Page 11Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I Table 6 Elementary Schools with Average Value Scores and Estimated Capacity for Each School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity Badgett Bale Booker Magnet David O. Dodd Franklin Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights 735 725 735 730 705 710 705 Total Operating Capacity this Group L w 219 335 641 369 472 448 380 2864 Table 7 Elementary Schools Subject to Alternate Use Or Closure Estimated Capacity for Each n I School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity II I n Jefferson Woodruff Ish Fair Park Wakefield Mitchell 680 670 660 685 690 600 445 316 0 340 524 283 i Total Operating Capacity this Group 1908 I I Garland (Previously shown on Table 5) 815 297 L E Page 12  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1  RANKING BY EVALUATION SCORES Table-ES-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL EDUCATIO RATING FACILITY RATING SCORE NO NAME TOTAL COST ESTIMATE PRIORITY 1 ESTIMATE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 900-1000 * HIGH SCHOOLS NONE HIGHLY * JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SATISFACTORY NONE * ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 700-900 ACCEPTABLE 1 2 1 2 3 4 * 1 2 w 1 * 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  14 ' 15 ' 16 17 18 ' 19  20 21 ' 22 23  24 ' 26 I 27 ! 28 I MARTIN L KING WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOLS PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR HALL McClellan Subtotal JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE FOREST HEIGHTS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL METROPOLITAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS CARVER MAGNET FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS ROCKEFELLER incentive WESTERN HILLS OTTER CREEK BRADY McDermott MABELVALE GIBBS MAGNET baseline ROMINE WATSON FOREST PARK TERRY WILSON BALE DAVID O DODD BOOKER MAGNET WILLIAMS RIGHTSELL incentive BADGETT CLOVERDALE FRANKLIN incentive PULASKI HEIGHTS MEADOWCLIFF T Subtotal I 940 895 82S 760 780 700 755 755 830 850 850 870 915 820 820 820 885 900 835 755 785 780 765 755 765 725 730 735 770 790 735 765 705 705 710 1 T 986 968 814 872 704 695 890 711 724 896 862 818 759 823 814 806 733 689 752 801 740 727 742 747 737 771 755 746 708 688 721 680 690 680 623 $239,042 $313,822 $552,864 $837,872 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $3,489,032 $687,389 $2,410,310 $3,488,387 $378,889 $484,019 $321,017 $399,444 $850,067 $674,313 $476,919 $689,136 $1,568,674 $215,003 $1,111,915 $1,660,421 $937,532 $752,687 $498,742 $933,698 $1,200,466 $954,119 $892,564 $723,963 $645,652 $666,504 $481,989 $1,845,175 $1,389,146 $1,138,095 $36,710,512 $0 $7,807 $7,807 $8,690 $411,771 $453,800 $579,059 $228,836 $822,810 $412,381 $5,028 $26,102 $36,857 $133,487 $89,413 $48,281 $220 $94,614 $334,844 $5,446 $156,719 $233,762 $308,388 $91,391 $96,792 $23,358 $341,296 $12,275 $154,780 $211,937 $61,724 $145,216 $45,062 $214,024 $302,995 $71,174 $6,162,534 $1,773,977 $2,258,943 $4,032,920 $3,678,656 $3,041,886 $3,233,040 $3,366,982 $1,957,408 $2,464,108 $1,334,595 $2,134,430 $1,544,004 $823,012 $1,955,387 $926,227 $938,437 $1,147,571 $1,322,150 $1,343,716 $1,320,131 $972,972 $1,364,597 $1,202,740 $1,130,600 $1,363,947 $1,159,664 $1,081,655 $916,524 $2,342,801 $1,873,461 $1,029,820 $704,527 $1,107,190 $1,838,099 $1,004,237 $1,144,114 $52,768,688 Table-ES-1 Page 1RANKING BY EVALUATION SCORES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL EDUCATIO RATING SCORE NO NAME 600-700 * HIGH SCHOOLS NEED OF REPAIR 400-600 POOR CONDITIONS RE-STUDY T 5 * 3 4 5 6 7 * 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 8 * * 1 CENTRAL 665 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS MANN MAGNET HENDERSON SOUTHWEST PULASKI HEIGHTS DUNBAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS GARLAND incentive JEFFERSON WOODRUFF ISH FAIR PARK WAKEFIELD MITCHELL incentive HIGH SCHOOLS NONE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS NONE ALTERNATE LEARNING ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-1 FACILITY RATING TOTAL COST ESTIMATE PRIORITY 1 ESTIMATE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 687 $5,763,718 $3,224,480 $4,998,321 685 630 665 680 640 815 680 670 660 685 690 600 565 475 T Position ranking is based on an average of the Education and Facility Rating scores in | decending order by score groups I 1 726 771 691 616 652 629 764 772 752 718 693 683 682 628 4- $1,414,500 $845,431 $1,483,632 $1,620,183 $3,855,668 $120,619 $219,472 $18,690 $290,309 $1,476,235 $3,264,881 $3,049,193 $2,133,841 $2,323,492 $2,287,694 $1,373,658 $1,814,531 $212,098 $656,776 $714,626 $1,238,092 $579,516 $21,572,429 $2,263,241 $1,183,270 $3,446,511 $62,282,316 $63,502 $953,937 $37,892 $10,800 $35,836 $126,957 $139,245 $1,246,993 $1,437,864 $735,334 $1,572,822 $924,020 $1,178,781 $1,242,719 $6,717,973 $26,395,955 $277,011 $415,614 $692,625 $13,580,939 $2,162,579 $445,144 $2,607,723 $85,805,286 Table-ES-1 Page 2CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A B C D TYPE OF SCHOOL LU NO NAME HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J.A.FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 0\u0026gt; Oi co z o V) Oi LU Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-3 E F G H J K PUPIL STATIONS CO z o CAPACITY CO It UJ s UI uT Q CO z o o \u0026lt; Q UJ CO 3 O X w UJ o \u0026lt;2. CO 10,11,12 10,11,12 10,11,12 10.11.12 10.11,12 0 0 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7,8.9 0 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 z UJ S o It z UJ 1,637 1,031 800 917 897 5,282 1,058 0 0 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5,862 733 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 UJ co It o Q. 3 o 0 0 0 2 Single S.ID.+ann 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5D. IS 0 2Double 2D. IS 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 2 Double 0 0 0 2649 1629 1344 1419 1421 8462 0 0 1111 1162 1409 1357 1054 1437 1160 1179 9869 230 353 421 716 468 671 550 457 m (t o S Vi z o W o Q. 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 99 100 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0. z UI z \u0026lt; S Ct UJ z UJ (t (t o o 2649 1629 1344 1419 1361 8,402 1,680 0 0 1111 1162 1409 1357 819 1437 1061 1079 9,435 1,173 230 353 421 716 468 671 550 457 \u0026lt; U \u0026lt; z o 2 UJ O z UJ It It 3 u 2252 1385 1142 1206 1157 7,142 0 0 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 1293 955 971 8,492 219 335 400 680 445 637 523 434 z LU s UJ LU oi \u0026lt; o UJ Vi LU o LU LU s o (0 z LU s co D J Q -151 151 0 0 -358 358 -39 -39 o O z o UJ O  LU co D Q z UJ It (t 3 o @85% utiliz. 2252 1385 991 1206 1157 6,991 1,338 0 0 @90% utiliz. 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 1,017 @95% utiliz. 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 OQ o O CO CO UJ o X UJ 615 354 191 289 260 1,709 342 0 0 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 2,272 284 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 Table ES-3 Pagel o z o s o D CQ U Ct CO A 1 2 5 8 12 4 ' 15 I 9 1 13 I 16 1 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A B C D TYPE OF SCHOOL UJ NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (cont) 9 DAVID 0 DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 JEFFERSON 18 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS MAGNET 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY Average Size | TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS I Oi co z o co 0^ UJ Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-3 E F G H J K PUPIL STATIONS CO z o CAPACITY Q UJ co D o X UJ Q z UJ S O a Z UJ s UJ _J ffi s E O CL CO o K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 494 474 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 401 I 25,195 0 3 Double 2 Single 0 ISingle 0 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 0 1 Double 0 0 1 Double 1 Double 0 2D, IS 1 Single ID, IS 0 ID. IS 0 2D, 2S 2 Single 0 0 0 388 386 481 497 595 313 338 358 552 667 537 555 472 298 386 456 278 448 431 582 552 823 517 358 537 443 333 16,447 i 34,778 I co IX UJ I UJ co 0^ o Q. Z \"Z o I co 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 lU Q CO z o I CO D 0. z UJ z \u0026lt; s ce UJ Q. z UJ o o 388 358 453 497 595 313 338 358 468 667 537 555 472 298 386 400 278 446 431 554 552 823 517 358 537 443 333 16,223 464 34,060 o \u0026lt; \u0026lt; o z o I- UJ Q. o z UJ o\n 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 340 445 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 510 421 316 15,412 31,045 z UJ s UJ UI O' o \u0026lt; o UJ co UJ o UJ UJ S O Vi I- z UJ s Vi Q X 1 -9 -86 595 o o \u0026lt; z o p UJ 0. o  UJ co D Q \u0026lt; z UJ a: z D 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 341 445 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 15,326 436 30,450 OQ o \u0026lt; O CO CO UJ o X UJ 71 58 .2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 1,275 36 5,255 I Table ES-3 Page 2 o z o z Q  co o 5 W A 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 20 46 33 34 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 14UTILIZATION RATIOS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL UJ NO NAME HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW MAGNET 4 J .A.FAIR 5 MCCLELLAN TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASK! HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 0\u0026gt; O) (0 z o Vi a: UJ Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-4 WITH PORTABLES WITHOUT PORTABLES TRAILERS TRAILERS (f) UJ co UJ Q o UJ (Z) o o UJ Q o z UI S O z UJ Q 10,11.12 10,11.12 10,11,12 10,11,12 10,11,12 0 0 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7.8.9 0 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 1,637 1,031 800 917 897 5,282 1,056 0 0 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5,862 733 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 UJ ffi 5 o z o UJ O 0 0 0 2 Single 1S,1D,+annex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5D, IS 0 2Double 1 Single 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 2 Double 0 not in service 1206 1208 2414 0 0 949 1044 1061 3054 219 335 445 o s Z o I- 3 @85% utiliz. 76% 74% 75% 0 0 62% 74% 57% 64% 81% 92% 92% o \u0026lt; Q \u0026lt; z 2 I- UJ O Q UJ CO Q 2252 1385 1142 1206 1157 7,142 1,428 0 0 1000 1064 1268 1221 737 1293 955 971 8,509 1,064 219 335 400 680 445 637 2 s z o Z3 @85% utiliz. 73% 74% 70% 76% 78% 74% 0 0 @90% utiliz. 65% 66% 62% 75% 79% 65% 81% 63% 79% @95% utiliz. 81% 92% 82% 84% 92% 92% not in service 6 z 0 z Q m g a: w Q 1 2 5 8 12 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 Table-ES-4 Page 1UTILIZATION RATIOS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL Oi Oi UJ fA Z o \u0026lt;0 UJ NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (continued) 6 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID 0 DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 JEFFERSON 18 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 iMEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS MAGNET 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY Average Size TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-4 WITH PORTABLES TRAILERS WITHOUT PORTABLES TRAILERS V) w UJ O o \u0026lt; o o UJ co 3 O Z (0 UJ o s o \u0026lt; Z UJ S o z UJ PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 0 0 392 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 494 474 411 272 359 I 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 401 4 I I 25,195 I 2 UJ O m \u0026lt; ft O z O I- UJ o 0 0 3 Double 2 Double 0 ISingle 0 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 0 1 Double 0 0 1 Double 1 Double 0 2D. IS 1 Single ID, IS 0 ID, IS 0 2D. 2S 2 Single 0 0 0 367 457 565 340 524 448 433 264 409 553 524 491 510 421 7.306 12,774 4. O I- 2 z o   77% 95% 96% 86% 96% 92% 97% 87% 79% 101% 79% 87% 93% 82% \u0026lt; z o 2 UJ Q. o  UJ CO 3 o 434 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 340 445 634 510 627 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 510 421 316 14,889 425 30,541 I o I z o s 3 @95% utiliz. 90% 81% 83% 100% 94% 96% 95% 93% 86% 113% 87% 97% 90% 92% 96% 98% 111% 87% 95% 79% 106% 79% 88% 87% 93% 93% 82% 77% 88% 6 z o z o  CD o 0^ \u0026lt;/) Q 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 20 46 33 34 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 14 Table-ES-4 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL Table ES-7 (95) ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION BY GRADES/ BY SCHOOLS I I 2 I 3 I NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS PK I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I UNGR 45 17 18 15 20 115 625 330 310 337 344 527 287 268 241 275 389 269 259 280 238 1946 1598 1436 5 25 0 32 27 89 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 6 7 I 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 metropolitan TOTAL VTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 199 251 241 234 152 291 272 200 192 234 222 252 157 281 266 187 214 247 271 279 169 275 233 211 1840 1791 1899 0 0 0 4 0 25 27 13 0 10 14 93 Table ES-7 Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION BY GRADES/ BY SCHOOLS PK 1 I 2 I 3 I 4~r 5 I 6 Table ES-7 (95) I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I UNG'R 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 36 35 36 17 0 18 53 36 69 18 37 38 39 59 78 60 60 59 78 39 39 60 63 78 29 39 40 22 47 51 90 62 66 72 69 32 45 67 75 76 37 41 48 23 46 31 79 64 91 56 55 39 31 68 51 71 30 46 45 17 50 41 93 53 99 46 51 45 26 64 38 64 35 35 42 28 36 30 77 37 107 60 50 29 42 50 44 65 29 43 40 20 40 36 92 50 105 61 51 44 24 73 39 75 32 26 47 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 8 13 6 0 7 0 22 1 16 0 0 12 7 7 0 0 71 17 18 18 93 33 53 35 18 36 60 103 60 59 57 37 40 57 30 58 52 75 57 78 59 40 60 55 40 62 86 69 74 63 38 48 61 30 53 45 72 74 96 67 47 73 61 32 74 57 73 58 61 37 45 67 19 42 47 70 61 83 63 43 75 61 38 73 68 70 52 50 23 48 67 37 47 37 98 47 79 55 49 72 46 41 72 47 66 63 66 24 41 54 26 40 26 67 66 71 62 48 81 50 23 77 51 75 73 54 36 61 49 39 39 20 72 63 105 57 49 75 28 22 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 I 39 72 44 22 9 0 0 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 21 0 747 1935 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLs| 747 2050 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 1840 1791 1899 1946 1598 1435 344 Table ES-7 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;tf2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83.8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 8,134 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-STH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Attendance Zoner H a a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL OPTION \"M II BADGETT BALE (REVISED) BASELINE (REVISED) BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET (X UJ z O \u0026lt; CD o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; co o z O UJ t X 5 O \u0026lt; CQ \u0026lt; o Z UJ o ix UJ 0. UJ Q. o ELEMENTARY SCH OOLS 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 179 118 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 379 270 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 47% 44% 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING McDermott (REVISED) MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) x LU I o iu X 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; o 340 7 4 297 276 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 16 15 110 107 122 119 250 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 666 574 427 414 193 186 590 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 682 589 537 521 315 305 O \u0026lt; m Z lU o x LU Q. 42% 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% O \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; X LU Q. O 445 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 448 283 367 367 380 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"M II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE (CLOSED) MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST 0^ UJ X O LU I 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; O 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 28 449 614 642 167 616 JR HIGH SCHOOLS 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 ie o \u0026lt; m z LU O q: UJ Q. 59% 58% 59% 96% 27% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 501 421 421 316 0 0 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 416 378 591 535 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 935 955 955 971 971 TABLE AZ-1 PAGESLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL OPTION \"M CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan II PARKVIEW MAGNET OPTION \"T BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK 'll (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) O' UJ Z o UJ t z g O \u0026lt; _l m _i \u0026lt; o o \u0026lt; m I-z UJ o q: UJ Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z a UJ Q. o HIGH SCHOOLS 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 5525 2252 1206 1206 1385 1385 1157 1157 991 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 56 6 138 158 101 108 200 212 152 243 74 113 141 106 162 104 329 257 434 268 592 179 4 358 329 421 325 173 154 194 160 335 395 592 369 700 379 216 510 572 495 438 314 260 356 65% 65% 73% 73% 85% 47% 2% 70% 58% 85% 74% 55% 59% 54% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 4 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL FOREST PARK FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT n Q n H n a GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) (CLOSED) (CLOSED) (NOT USED) (NOT USED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (NOT USED) (REVISED) QC UJ X o UJ t X 5 268 239 25 48 353 382 26 61 148 340 7 91 297 445 167 170 11 336 233 254 312 18 27 19 O \u0026lt; CQ O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z o \u0026lt; CQ \u0026lt; O Z UJ o IX UJ CL UJ Q. O 137 7 449 561 287 39 313 405 246 474 609 640 421 339 34% 3% 95% 92% 45% 9% 92% 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 226 519 250 462 378 169 35 356 316 317 160 60 92 144 316 222 451 287 667 590 469 469 466 480 523 486 328 496 293 346 456 334 249 470 79% 78% 42% 99% 81% 36% 7% 68% 65% 97% 32% 20% 27% 32% 95% 89% 96% 321 321 341 445 634 634 510 510 527 448 283 367 367 380 380 264 426 426 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON (REVISED) WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF NEW SCHOOLS (NOT USED) (LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) DC UJ X (J \u0026lt; m o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O \u0026lt;3 Z o UJ t X 5 34 173 557 506 106 16 13 110 139 122 240 202 60 128 125 O \u0026lt; _J CO \u0026lt; o Z UJ o DC UJ Q. \u0026lt; CC UJ Q. O 390 574 229 76 394 666 645 427 538 193 270 287 85 743 743 OPTION T JR. HIGH \u0026amp; HIGH SCHOOLS SAME OPTION M OPTION \"CII BADGETT (REVISED) BALE REVISED) 424 747 786 582 500 682 658 537 677 315 510 489 145 871 868 92% 77% 29% 13% 79% 98% 98% 80% 79% 61% 53% 59% 59% 85% 86% ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 501 421 421 316 316 900 900 BASELINE 66 66 138 137 101 145 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 73% 56% 219 219 335 335 400 40 BOOKER MAGNET BRADY 200 300 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 641 445 445 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 6 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 H \u0026gt; SCHOOL CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD (REVISED) FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS (REVISED) GIBBS MAGNET ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING McDermott MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) 0^ LU z O u] X g O \u0026lt; I OQ \u0026lt; O lx: o \u0026lt; I co I- z LU O QO LU Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O O z LU Q. O 152 90 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 340 7 147 297 419 167 187 170 358 386 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 287 48 313 226 548 250 462 459 169 83 356 217 316 510 476 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 590 469 606 466 502 523 404 486 70% 81% 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 42% 99% 76% 36% 17% 68% 54% 65% 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 445 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE?Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt;- SCHOOL MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL QC LU I O LU I g 11 336 304 254 18 20 27 88 34 94 557 399 106 16 98 110 22 122 182 202 60 83 o \u0026lt; m 317 160 66 92 316 531 222 587 390 536 229 87 394 666 667 427 419 193 394 287 85 635 \u0026lt; I- O 1- 328 496 370 346 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 682 765 537 441 315 576 489 145 718 o \u0026lt; -I m Z 111 o UJ CL 97% 32% 18% 27% 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 29% 18% 79% 98% 87% 80% 95% 61% 68% 59% 59% 88% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 283 367 367 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 501 421 316 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 8II H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION II (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 II H \u0026gt; II 0^ UJ z O \u0026lt; CO o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z II H tl II n II n  a SCHOOL o UJ t z 5 o \u0026lt; 00 \u0026lt; 1- O z UJ o Qt UJ Q. \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o OPTION \"C II JR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST (CLOSED) 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 724 765 707 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 314 110 281 264 416 473 591 582 730 583 872 846 51% 81% 68% 69% 935 955 955 971 971 OPTION C HIGH SCHOOLS SAME AS OPTION M TABLE AZ-1 PAGES\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"usm_hmp_mus-m345-0065","title":"Resolution honoring Victoria Gray Adams; November 4, 1995","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":["Thompson, Bennie G., 1948"],"dc_date":["1995-11-04"],"dcterms_description":["From the Adams (Victoria Gray) Papers. \u0026lt;br\u0026gt;Resolution by Congressman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi honoring Victoria Gray Adams for her lifelong dedication to and work in the areas of civil and human rights. Includes biographical information and highlights of her civil rights work and professional activities.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute for Museum and Library Services.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["M345 Adams (Victoria Gray) Papers","Box 8, Folder 1"],"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers","African American political activists"],"dcterms_title":["Resolution honoring Victoria Gray Adams; November 4, 1995"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_5bf2183f-6f39-4495-b345-3d07ef4a9417"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["University Libraries provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. When possible, we have provided information regarding the copyright right status of an item; however, the information we have may not be accurate or complete. Obtaining permissions to publish or otherwise use is the sole responsibility of the user."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_237","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1995-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/237"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["117 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nR' .'E '~ ~ \"1'f\n-:--0 \"\"\"' ,,-4..  , ,,- l :_\"_,\n: --:-, ~~ - 1019195 Little Roel\u0026lt; School Olatrict r1 J.-,.- _,:  {r( C Page 1 October 1, 1995 Companaon 199!\u0026gt;-96 OCT 1 1'\\ IJ 199.5 Comp11mon  Octob., 1 19/U to Octob., 1 1996 r\u0026gt;o~,,_, October I. 1994 October I. 1995 0.itf..,enc . - I iii r-'\"' ~\n,l~dW i!lt~wII Jh\n. i, ,cztH~ ~ ! I ~ l f ' ~ 1 .. l i I J i~ ... ! ! Ji .!! :.( --~ central HS 10.l 5.48, 49 1637, 63.53\" 1017 543 31 1591. 63.9n. .23 .5 -18 ~ 0.\nm1, 1891 . 300 ~ ... Fair HS 631 279 7 917 68.81\" 651 246 8 9051 71.93'.II 20 .33 I -12 3.12'!\n954 .49 95'J. Hal/HS 669 326 36 1031 64.89'.II 626 262 ,4() 928I 67.46'.II ..J -64 4 -103 2.57\" 1291 -363 ----rii MCOellan Hs 684 203 10 897 76.2596 n1 171 6 90,tl 80.4.ns 43 -32  7 4.1,:.. 1199 -295 75% PariMewHS 435 328 37 8001 54.3896 447 373 35 8551 52.28\" 12 \"5 -2 55 -2.~ 1000 -145 86% Sub-Total 3459 1684 139: 5282 65.49\"1. 34611 1595 120 5183 68.91% I -at -111 -91 1.42'1 8335 -1152 62'!\nwloMagneta 3024 13561 102, 4482 67.47% 3021 1222 851 4328, 69.80'1. -a, 0 1341 .17 0 154 2 . .\u0026gt;.\u0026gt;\n, 53351 -1007 81% uoveraaIe JH 521 119 7 1\u0026gt;47l 110.5J'H\u0026gt; :u., /j ':I 6091 66.5411 6 ~ 2 -38 6.01:.. 668 -259 7~ ounoar JH\" 468 227 12! 707: 66.2096 440, 279 13 732! 60.I1'.II -28 52 1 2516.~ 8121 -80 90'J. Forest Hetgnts JH 565 197 18 7801 72.44% 576 165 16 7591 76.15% 13 -32 -2 -21 3.7D. ~'\"79 88% Henaerson JH  661 229 27 9171 72.08',1!\n623 152 17 7921 78.66',1!\n.381 .77 -10 -125? 6.~ 907 -115 87',1!\nMaoeIvaIe JH 417 161 7 5851 71.28',1!\n363 125' 3 491 I 73.93',1!\n-S. -36  -94 2.6511 614 -123 80'J. MannJW 456 366 23! 845: 53.96')!\n451 j 382 141 ~71 53.25',1!\n-5 16 -9 2 --0.72\" 850 -3 100',I!\nPU/aSKI Helgnts JH 431 334 61 7711 55.90,: 447 327 7 781 ! 57.23% 16 -7 I 10 1.33,i 745 36 105% soutnwest JH 487 1051 181 610' 79.84% 512' 841 16 6121 83.66% 25! -21 ! -2 2. 3.8~ 7371 -125 83% Sub-Total 40061 17381 118 5862 68.34/o 39'1 1587: 95! 5623 70.09\"1. -65 1 -151 1 -231-2391 1.75')1 6391' -768 88% wlo Magnets 35501 1372, 95 5017 70.76 3490 1205. 81: 4776 73.07 -o(), -167, -141 -241 2.31% 5541 -765 66% saagett 133 441 o. 177 15.14'6 1bti I 441 Oj 210, 79 .05% 331 01 01 33i 3.91% 257 -47 82% Bale 214 87' Bi 309, 69.2696 24J 85 19 I :w: 70.03% 29 -21 11 38\n0.77% 401 -54 87'J. 8ase/lne 245 77 4 326\n75.1596 247 75 51 327i 75.54% 21 -21 1 1 o.= 3901 -63 ~% sooKer 305 245 23 5731 53.23% 316 267 211 6041 52.32% 111 22 -2 311--0,91')1 656 -52 92% sraav 254 137 171 408 62.25')!\n2501 124 20 394( 63.45%  -131 3 -141 l.L\\J'Ji 4671 -73 ~% carver 309 267 12 588 52.55'\n11\n326 290 13 629~ 51.83% 17 231 1 411--0.7~ 613i 16 103% cnIcot 3441 151 I 81 503 68.3996 345\n99 \\ 8 452, 76.33% 11 -52 0 -51 7.94')1 558 -106 81% CJoveraaIe 312 74 6! 392 79.5996 384 64 5 453 84.77% 72 -JOI -1 611 5.1~ 492: -39 92% ooaa 193 971 8 298 64.7796 190 97 7 294 64.63% -31 01 -1!  1--0,14% 3281 -34 90% Fair ParK 204 73 5 282 n.3496 211 I 53 6 270' 78.15% 7! -201 1 -12: 5.81')1 351! -81 77% Forest ParK 198 228 61 432. 45.8396 205: 2221 8 435 47.1:r,\n71 -6j 2 3 1.29\\11 399 36 109% FranKfln 393 41 9f 443 88.7196 400i 241 7 431  9_2.81% 71 -17 -21 -121 4.Cl'1% 4341 -3 99% FU/Ortgnt 235 2891 18: 542 43.36')1 255, 2541 91 518' 49.23% 201 -351 -9 -24\\ 5.8~ 5401 -22 96% Gartamr 246 9( 271 282 87.2396 2351 21 181 255 92.16% -111 -7j .91 -271 4.92% 2981 -43 86% Gever sorlngs 223i 661 11' 300 74.3396 231  71. 8: 310 7 4.5.\n, 8' 5: -3: 10, 0.18% 328: -18 95~ GIOIJs 160 1211 12: 293 54.6196 165' 132: 10: 307 53.75'\n11\n5, 11: -21 14:--0.86% 3531 -46 87% 1,./efferson 218 279' Si 502, 43.43'll 210, 285j 6i 501, 41.92'.lo -Si 61 1 -1 -1.51% 492i 9 102% King- 309, 227 1 15 551 S6.D896 289 1 230 1 12r 531  54.43% -201 31 -31 -201 -1.65% 728! -197 73% Matlelvale 3401 1241 10: 474 71.7396 318 1 139 I 31 460- 69.13% -22! 151 -71 -141 -2.60% 5151 -55 89% McDermott 241 I 233, 201 494 .48.79')1 2591 213: !Si .487 53.18% 18\n-201 -51 -7 4.-w\n,, 5171 -30 94% Meaaowcllff 279 131\nI 411 67.8896 305 93 2, 400 76.25% 26, -381 I -111 8.37% 465i -65 86% MltcneIi- 260\ne: 4 272 95.5996 250: 7 o. 257 97.28% -10: -1\n-41 -15\n1.69% 298 -41 86% otter creeK 154: 196'. 9 359 42.90% 139' 193 7' 339 41.00'.li -15' -3 -2 -20' -1.89% 351' -12 97% PU1as1\u0026lt;HIe lgnts 197, 207' 16' 420 46.90')1 189 207 1 10 4061 46.55% -8, O -61- -14 --0.35% 374, 32 109% RigntseIi- 2251 41 0, 229 98.2596 210, 6, 3, 219 95.89'\n11\n-151 2\n3i -101 -2.36% 258: .39 85% ROCl\u0026lt;efeller\" 264 1241 15' 403 65.5196 259  131 16 406 63.79% -5! 7, 11 31 -1.72% 469 -63 87% Romine- 234, 73 16 323 72.4596 213  80 1 9! 302 70.53% -21: 71 -7! -21\n-1.92% 487 -185 \"62% Steonens- closed closed ' I Terry _ 234L .. 295, _ 30._ 559 41.86% 239 279 18 536 44.59\",\n5 -16 -12' -23 2.73% 515 21 104% wa1\u0026lt;efieIa 3271 731 13 .. 413\"79_18% 368, 51 ! 10  429 85.78% 41 I -22 -31 16: 6.60% - 492-~ -m wasnington - 443 211 I 33 687 64.48% 422, 210 24 I 656 ! 64.33% -21 ! -1: -91 -31\n-0.15% 836 -180 '\"\"78% Watson 341 81 I 6, 427 79.63% -tsr\n-84\n7\n444 79.5~ 131 3: I 17! -0.12% 492: -48 ~ western Hills 215 95: 7, 317 67.8296 208, 106 1, 315 66.03% -71 111 -6 -21 -1.79% 328 -13 -ra WIiiiams 250 214: 10 474 52.7 4% 264, 232, 12 508 51.97% 14, Ie: 2 34, -0.77% 517. -9~ WIison 254 83 8 345 73.6296 304. 72' 8 3841 79.17,\nso: -111 0 39\n5.54% 394, -10 -m\nwooaruff 1481 871 8. 243 60.91% 170 81, 3. 254 66.93% 22, -6, .5 11, 6.02% 324 -70 '\"\"78% soectaT\"scnoots- 15\\ 21 ! 0 36 41.67% 17 29 o, 46 36.96~ 2' 8 o: 10 -VI% - --  Sub-Total 89151 4772 400 14087 63.29/, 9155 4631 330 14116 64.86 240 -141 -70 29 1.57% 15717 -1601 90% w/o Magneta 7876, 3904 343 12123 64.97-J. 8067 3681 274 12022 67.1~ 191 -223 -69, -101 2.13% 13578 -1556 89% Grana Total 11,jl/U I 81':14 b57 L)L31 54.~L'n, 1b)04 7813 545, 24':IL\u0026gt; 55.4b..., 164- -381 -112, -309 1.5% 2844.5 -3521 88% wlo Magnets 14450, OOJL 540 21h.1.t 66.ISJ'H, 14~/l:I 6108 440 21126 69.01% 128 524 -100 -496 2.17% 1244)4 -3328 86%  Mognet  Magnet Program \"'1ncenf1ve  Interd1slricl Office of Student Assignment 10710/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIG1'1M PAGE 03 SCHOOL ~ENTRAL Sthool Total HALL School Total PARKVIEW --- School Total FAIR School Total MCCLELLAN ... School Tot  ! Total Sr Total Sr/KG Grade 10 11 12 1(f s LITTLE JtOCX SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, /995 ENltOLLMENTltEPORT WH BL OT 216 400 193 322 133 247 I 43 0 s 5-11\n,_ 543 91-'I 1017 30 Grade WH BL OT 10 81 241 II 70 204 12 95 156 KF 8 8 s 8 17 :J.51 262 Mil 626 31 Grade WH BL OT 10 138 16) II 117 136 12 118 132 1(f 0 18 ~3 373 1--1\n2~ 447 ~6 Grade WH BL OT 10 78 255 II 56 182 12 99 180 KF 2 13 s II 21 ~ 246 \u0026lt;\n.3'1S 651 ~ Grade WH BL OT 10 46 294 II 69 206 12 48 189 KF 0 19 s -8 19 --- --- t'/1 171 70~ 727 5 1595 3468 11 IOI 3. 3\u0026lt;,1 o/Black Total 9 625 64.00% 12 517 81.10% 9 389 83.60% I 45 96.58% 0 5 100.00% 31 1:5'-J(1, 591S \u0026amp;3.92% Total 8 330 73.03% 13 287 71.08% 18 269 67.99% I 17 47.08% 0 2S 88.00% 40 1,1 928 (,'!S87.48% Total II 310 51.94% 15 268 60.75% 9 2S9 50.97% 0 18 100.00% 3S '!37 855 ~162.28% Total 4 337 76.67% 3 241 76.62% 1 280 64.29% 0 15 86.87% 0 Jl 86.83% 8 ~\"IC\u0026gt; 905 7.,\n\u0026gt;71.93% Total 4 344 85.47% \" 0 17.S 74.91% 1 ---~- 238 79.41% I --- .....2._.0... . 96.00% 0 27 70.37% 6 \u0026lt;\u0026amp;~1 904 W,80.42% 120 5183 66.91% 3 11~ 87.83% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10i10/19'35 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 04 2 SCHOOL I I CLOVERDALE JR School Total DUNBAR School Total FOREST HT JR !khool Total HENDERSON School Total MABEL VALE JR - School Total MANN MIS School Total PULASKJ HT JR ,.._, ______ ----- ---- School TotI SOUTHWEST JR - ----- Ll1'TLE ltOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0CTOJJE/f 2, 1995 ENltOLLMENTREPORT I Grade WH Bl OT 7 17 179 I 33 156 9 23 188 s 0 4 73 .527 Grade WH BL OT 7 113 133 g 83 147 9 83 160 279 440 Grade WH SL OT 7 SI 185 8 43 174 9 65 200 s 6 19 165 578 Grade WH BL OT 7 39 192 8 49 19.5 9 59 214 s s 22 JS2 623 Grad WH BL OT 7 40 I II II 38 117 9 41 128 s 6 7 125 363 Grade WH BL OT 7 133 1.53 g 136 143 9 113 155 382 451 Grade WH BL OT 7 119 ISO 8 97 168 9 109 121 ., ...... s 2 8 327 447 Grade WH BL OT 7 25 170 8 32 ISO I I 3 3 3 0 9 5 4 4 13 s s 6 0 16 3 8 6 0 17 I 2 0 0 3 s 2 7 14 3 I 3 0 7 s ---- ----- 5 9 26 179 6 '----- .......,._ ..__. ..-. ----s-- . -----. -........ -- ---- I 13 0 ., -- .. -- - .. -- --- . -- School Total 84 512 16 Total JR 1587 3941 95 ' l/.Blck Total 199 89.96% 192 81.25% 214 ---8-7-.85% 4 100.00% 609 86.54% Tatel .251 52.99% 234 82.82% 247 64.78% 732 60.11% Total 241 78.76% 222 78.38% 271 73.80% 25 76.00% 759 76.16% Total 234 82.06% 2!'12 77.38% 279 76.70% 27 81.48% 792 78.88% Tatel 152 73.03% 1!'17 74.152% 169 75.74% 13 153.815% 491 73.93% Total 29t 52.58% 281 50.89% 27!'1- 66.38% 841 63.26% Total ----2-72 66.16% ---- 266 63.16% -- ...-..... 233 51.93% ----- 10 80.00% 78J 67.23% Total -- 200 85.00% ---' .. ..... -- 187 80.21% -~-- .. 211 84.83% -- - 14 92.86% - --.. 61'.2 83.66% 5623 70.09% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDEi'lTA SSI GNM PAGE 05 SCHOOL BADGETT School TotI BALE Stbool Total BASELINE ----- School Total BOOJ(EJl ------ ...... .., . . .. \"--------- .. ----- ............ --- --  ------ ------- ----- ----- -\" - -- ---- School Total Grde I 2 3 4 .5 6 E KF PK L/1TU /tOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT/tEPORT I I WH BL OT 6 16 8 1.5 3 14 6 22 6 14 I 17 0 8 .5 33 9 27 44 166 Grade WH BL OT I IC 34 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 ...-. - 3 2 9 35 2 3 13 35 2 4 8 26 2 5 10 30 0 6 6 34 I E t 7 0 KF 12 23 4 PK 11 19 s 85 243 19 Grade WH BL OT I 12 38 I 2 s 26 ( ---.-- 3 9 31 I 4 6 24 0 s 8 27 I 6 12 2.5 0 E I 5 0 l/Dlack I Total 22 72.73% 13 65.22% 17 82.35% 28 78,57% lO 70.00% 18 94.44% 8 ,00.00% 38 86.84% 36 76.00% 210 79.06% Total ----- 47 ___7 ,. 2._3_4_% 46 76.09% so 70.00% 36 72.22% 40 715.00% 41 82.93% 13 63.815% 39 58.97% JS 54.29% 347 70.03% Total 51 74.61% 31 83.87% 41 75.81% 30 80.00% -- 36 ~--7--6.00% 37 67.57% 6 83.33%  --- -- _____,. _ __ KF 12 47 0 59 79.66% -- ----- PK 10 24 -~----2 36 ----6-6-.-6-7% 75 247 5 327 76.54% Gnida WH 8L OT Total I 37 -----. 49 - 4 ..... 90 64.44% 2 37 40 2 79 50.63% ---- - . - . ----3-  ..... _., 4S 44 -I 93 47.31% ____ ----- --- ----- -----4- - 37 38 2 77 49.35% ,,_ _,, ..- ---... . ~. - . - ,, -- --- -- - ---. -- 5 36 54 2 9:2 S8.70% -----., ~---- --- ----- --- .. ----.- ------6- -- 44 49 2 95 61.58% --- --. .. . - ---- -- - ---. KF 31 ----. 42 5 711 63.85% - .. .., 267 316 21 604 52.32% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10\"/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 SCHOOL BRADY School Total CARVER School Total CHICOT School Total CLOVERDALE EL LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM Grade I 2 3 4 s 6 E KF PK Grade I 2 3 4 5 6 KF Lln'LE /UJCX SCHOOL l\u0026gt;IST/lJCT oeroaE1t 2, ,1195 EN/tOLLMENTREPORT WH BL OT 22 37 1, 39 14 37 I  21 9 39 7 34 4 3 28 32 ~ 8 124 250 WH BL OT 30 JS 37 49 46 S2 so S4 S2 52 48 53 27 31 290 326 Grede WH BL OT I 17 55 2 11 45 3 7 39 4 IS 4S s II 49 6 8 47 E 10 12 KF 14 42 PK 6 II 99 345 Grade WH BL OT I 7 61 2 8 46 3 9 42 4 4 46 TotI 3 62 8 64 2 S3 2 37 2 50 3 \" 0 7 0 60 0 17 20 394 Tatel I 66 s 91 I 99 3 107 I 105 0 101 2 60 13 619 Total 0 72 0 56 0 46 0 60 I 61 3 58 0 22 3 59 I 18 8 452 Total I 69 I 55 0 51 ~ .. -- 0 50 -- s 12 39 0 51 6 3 42 0 ---- 45 E 0 I 0 I --- - --- KF II 65 -2 - 78 ., ..... PK 10 42 I 53 - -- - ---- - ---- School Total 64 384 s 45.1 PAGE 05 o/oBltk 59.88% 60.94% 69.81% 68.78% 78.00% 77.27% 42.88% 63.33% 47.06% 83.46% 63.03% 63.86% 62.63% 60.47% 49.52% 52.48% 51.87% 61.83% 78.39% 80.36% 84.78% 76.00% 80.33% 81.03% 64.56% 71.19% 61.11% 76.33% 88.41% - 83.64% 82.3!5Cj(, 92.00% --- ----7-6.47% 93.33% ----\" --10 -0.00% - -- .8 3.33% 79.26% \" .. 84.77% OFrlCE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1~/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 SCHOOL DODD School Total FAIR PARK Scbool Tot I FOREST PARK School Tot I FRANKLIN ....  -M - - --OMO - ... ...... ----- -------- School TotI LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM Gr1d1 I 2 3 4 5 6 E KF Grade I 2 3 4 s 6 KF PK Gr dt I 2 3 4 s 6 KF Gr1d1 I 2 Lf'n'LE /10CK SCHOOL DISTIi.JCT OCTOBER 2, /99$ ENROLLMENTREPOll.T WH BL OT 7 25 17 20 17 27 8 19 12 32 17 31 \"'. OM 4 12 1, 24 97 190 WH BL OT 8 37 9 22 6 20 6 36 2 22 1 26 6 30 IS 18 S3 211 WH BL OT 37 30 JS 32 28 3S 24 26 3, 36 29 22 34 24 222 205 WH ISL OT 2 73 0 2 I 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 I 1 0 2 2 2 8 0 --- ----.- ----- 3 -,,_M ___ 47 ---- I 3 2 35 I 1.Bl ck Tot11I 32 --7-8-.13% 39 51.28% 45 80.00% 29 86.62% 44 72.73,C, so 62.00% ..-. ...... 16 76.00% 39 61.64% 294 64.63% Total 45 82.22% --- - 31 70.97% 26 76.92% 42 86.71% 24 91.87% 27 96.30% 39 76.92% J6 60.00% 170 78.15% Total 67 44.78% 68 47.06% 64 54.69% so 62.00% 73 49.32% SJ 41.51% 60 40.00% 435 47.13% Total 75 97.33% ------ -----. --~--- SI -- 92.1-6%-  ....... .......... --- 38 92.11% 4 I 41 --2 ---- -4~4 93.18% ..-. -----M-- s I 38 0 39 97.44% - --- -- ------ .. - 6 0 38 -----~----2 --~--- 40 96.00% f-- E 2 9 I 12 75.00% , .... --- -- . --__ ., __,, - ------ - -K-F- - 7 S6 0 63 88.88% ,., ______ ... ----P--K- - ---- 6 ... , ...._ _ ___63 0 69 91.30% , \"' ...._, .. --- 24 400 7 431 92.81% PAGE 07 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10110/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGl'-IM PAGE 08 SCHOOL FULBRIGHT Srltool Total GARLAND Srbool Total GEYER SP School Total GIBBS - ..-. ....... '\"----- School Total LITTLE llOCK SCHOOL DIS't'ltlCf OCTOBE/l 1, /99$ EN/lOLLMENT~EPORT Grede WH BL OT I 35 31 2 36 35 3 21 41 4 36 28 \" 34 40 6 46 35 E 5 2 KF 41 36 254 255 Grade WH BL OT I 0 32 2 0 29 3 0 32 4 0 29 5 0 29 6 I 35 E 0 7 KF 0 29 PK I 13 2 235 Grade WH BL OT I 7 33 2 12 34 3 7 27 4 7 33 5 7 19 6 8 35 KF 8 29 PK 15 21 71 231 Grade WH BL OT I 21 24 2 19 24 3 21 21 4 16 23 5 21 25 3 0 2 I I I 0 I 9 5 I 3 0 3 2 0 0 4 18 I 0 I 3 0 0 2 I 8 3 2 0 I I --- 6 19 25 I --- KF IS 23 2 ------ -- - ..... 132 165 10 1.BJ1ck Total 76 60.00% 71 49.30'11, 64 64.08% 65 43.0B'lb 75 63.33% 82 42.88% 7 28.57'!', 78 46,15% 518 49.23% Total 37 88.49% 30 98.87% 35 91.43% 29 100.00% J2 90.63% 38 92.11% 7 100.00% 211 100.00% 18 72.22% 255 92.18% Total 41 80.49% 46 73.91% 35 77.14% 43 76.74% 26 73.08% 43 81.40% 39 74.38% 37 56.76% 310 74.62% Total 48 60.00% 45 53.33% 42 !i0.00-%- 40 57.50% ----- ., ~----.... -----,,. ...4.7.. .... .. 5_,3,,,..,1.,. 9.% , 45 55.66% -- ----- .... . 40 67.50% ' .... - 307 53.76% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Ht/.Hl/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 09 SCHOOL I.JEFFERSON School Total M LKING School Total MABELV ALEE L -- ------- Sthool Total MCDERMOT - --- --- -- --  -----  -------- School Total 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCT08EJ 2. J99S .ENROLLMENTR EPORT G,.d WH BL OT I 36 25 I 2 39 34 I 3 47 25 I 4 38 34 0 5 50 26 I 6 31 41 2 E 2 7 0 KF 42 18 0 283 210 6 Gr11d11 WH BL OT I 35 49 2 2 21 34 2 3 28 - 37 3 4 26 20 1 s 20 30 1 6 22 2S I KF 47 54 2 PK 31 40 0 230 289 12 Grade WH BL OT 1 20 54 0 2 19 39 0 3 IS 36 I 4 17 46 0 s 25 47 1 6 1.5 40 0 E 1 8 0 KF 19 39 1 PK 8 9 0 ---- 139 318 3 Grade WH BL OT I 31 36 2 2 35 34 4 3 32 37 ------ I 4 25 39 2 s 29 42 4 -----\"- --- ---  6 29 44 I --- ---- ----- ----- - ... -- _K_.F. _ _- - ----- 32 --- 27 ____ ., __I 213 259 IS t.lllack Total 62 40.32% 74 45.915% 73 34.215% 72 47.22% 77 33.77% 74 515.41% 9 77.78% 60 30.00% 501 41.92% Total 86 56.98% 57 69.86% 68 54.41% 47 42.66% 51 68.82% 48 62.08% 103 52.43% 71 56.34% 531 54.43% Total 74 72.97% S8 61.24% 52 89.23% 63 73.02'!(, 73 64.38% 55 72.73% 9 88.89% 54) 66.10% ---- 17 62.94% '\"   ',N   460 69.13% Total 69 62.17% ----- ------- 73 - 46.68% ---- 70 52.86% .. ------. .. --- 66 69.09~ --- --- 75 56.00~ . - -. . .. - '14 59.46~  --- -------6-0 46.00% 487 63.18% OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENT 10/.10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 10 SCHOOL MEADOWCLIFF School Total MJTCHELL School Total OTTERCREEK School Total PULASKI HT EL School Tolal L/7TLE JtOCK SCHOOi. DISTIUCT OCTOBE/t 2, /995 EN/tOLlMENTkEPOIT Grede WH BL OT I 13 so 2 13 47 3 II 39 4 14 52 s 14 39 6 17 32 KF II 46 93 305 Orde WH Bl OT I I 37 2 0 37 3 2 21 4 I 23 5 I 3S 6 0 34 E 0 10 .l(F I 36 PK I 17 7 2SO Grad  WH BL OT I 32 16 2 27 16 3 22 2.5 4 20 19 5 33 28 6 34 20 KF 25 IS 193 139 Grade WH BL OT I 29 32 2 38 25 3 34 32 4 25 29 5 25 22 , ___6,. ._. 23 27 KF 33 22 - 207 139 o/.Bt ck Total 0 63 79.37% I 61 77.06% 0 so 78.00% 0 66 78.79% I 54 72.22% 0 49 86.31'1(, 0 57 80.70% 2 400 78.26% Total 0 38 97.37% 0 37 100.00% 0 l3 91.30% 0 14 915.83% 0 36 97.22% 0 34 100.00% 0 JO 100.00% 0 37 97.30% 0 18 94.44% 0 157 97.28% Total 0 48 33.33% 2 45 35.56% I 48 62.08% 2 41 46.34% 0 61 46.90% 2 ~6 36.71% 0 40 37.60,C. 7 339 41.00% Tot111t 0 61 62.46% 4 67 37.31% I 67 47.78,C. 0 54 53.70,C. 2 ---- 4..9.. . ---4--4-.9--0% I ---- 51 ---6-2-.9-4% 2 S7 38.60% ----~ -- 10 406 48.65% OFFICE OF SfUOEN1' ASSIGNMENT 10110/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 11 SCHOOL RIGHTSELL .. School Total ROCKFELLER School Total ROMINE -- ----- ---- School To11I rERRY - --- ---- --- --\"- -------- ----- ----- ....... .... - --- School Tol I L/1TLE ltOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCiOIER 1, 1995 ENJtOLLMENTRE/'ORT Grad WH BL OT I 0 30 2 0 19 3 I 34 4 C 26 s 2 31 6 C 19 KF I 29 PK 2 16 6 210 Grede WH BL OT I IE 35 2 7 34 3 19 2E 4 17 22 s 9 30 6 8 24 KF 13 42 PK 42 46 131 259 Grade WH BL OT I 14 30 2 II 35 3 16 21 4 7 19 s 3 16 6 s 26 E 0 10 - KF 14 35 . P. K 10 .. 21 80 213 Grade WH BL OT I 37 32 2 41 28 3 SI 43 ----- ---- 4 37 29 - s 32 3..7 -- .... 6 - ,. ... _. __ 40 - 37 - - - - - l(f 41 33 0 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 3 2 I 2 l 0 2 3 s 16 I I 0 0 1 I 0 3 2 9 3 I 4 I 3 5 - --- --- I --- - ------- 279 239 18 1.Blck Total JO 100.00% 19 100.00% 37 91.89% 26 100,00% 39 94.87% lO 95.00% JO 96.67% 18 88.89% 119 96.89% Total 53 66.04% ,2 80.95% 47 66.32% 40 66.00% 39 76.92% 34 70.69% S8 72.41% 93 49.46% 406 63.79% Total 4~ 66.67% 47 74.47'l!\u0026gt; Ji !56.78% Zt 73.08% 20 80.00% 32 81.25% 10 100.00% 52 87.31% 33 63.64% ---- -- . - 302 70.63% Total 72 44.44% ----- 70 40.00% -- -- ....... - 98 43.88% ____ 6_,7.., --4 3.28% .. . - . . . 72 . . 51.39% .. 82 45.12% - 15 44.00% -- 5J6 44.59% OFFICI, OF STUDENT ASSIGNl,4ENT Black Black Total White White Class Male Female Black Male Female K 18 24 42 4 9 Pl 4 2 6 2 2 P2 2 4 6 4 4 P3 5 4 9 4 3 P4 13 12 25 14 9 TOTAL 42 46 88 28 27 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Total Other Other Total Total White Male Female Other Count 13 0 3 3 58 4 0 0 0 10 B 0 0 0 14 7 1 1 2 18 23 0 3 3 51 55 1 7 B 151 Black White Other Min.% Max.% Max. % % % Black Black Cap. 72.4 22.4 5.2 50.0 50.0 60 60.0 40.0 .o 50.0 50.0 10 42.9 57.1 .o 50.0 50.0 17 50.0 38.9 11.1 50.0 50.0 18 49.0 45.1 5.9 50.0 50.0 54 58.3 36.4 5.3 159 l~/.10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 12 SCHOOL WAKEFJELD Sebool Total WASHNGTON IScbool TotI WATSON ,., __ Srhool Total WESTERN HILLS --------- - --- ... _,. __  -------------- --- ..... -~ .. School TotI 10 LITTLE JlOCI\u0026lt;S CHOOLD ISiJIICT OCTOBE/]l, /995 ENROLLMENRTE PORT Grade WH BL OT I II 60 2 ' S4 3 6 37 4 8 58 s 5 S? 6 14 47 KF 2 S5 SI 368 Grade WH BL OT I 2S 68 2 27 51 3 2S ,c -- 4 3( 4C s 34 70 6 30 56 E 2 2 KF IS ss PK 22 3C 210 422 Grade WH IIL OT I II \" 2 II SC 3 12 42 4 13 4~ s 10 45 6 s 4( KF 12 47 PK 10 25 84 353 Grade WH BL OT - I 12 35 2 14 29 3 17 32 3 2 4 C I 0 0 10 3 s 4 I 1 I 0 8 I 24 I 2 1 C 2 1 C C 7 0 0 0 -- --..... ----- ------ ------ 4 21 27 0 '----- ----5 14 3S 0 . ~-.. -- ------6 -- 12 26 I --- KF 16 24 0 --- . .. --  106 208 I \"lBlark Total 74 81.08C!E, 61 88,152'M, 47 78,72-M, 66 87.88% 63 90.48% 61 77.05% 57 96.49'Mi 425 86.78% Total 96 70.83% 83 81.46% 79 63.29'M, 71 1515.34% 10!! 68.87% 87 84.37% 4 60.00% 78 70.61% 53 68.80% 656 84.33% Total 67 82.09% 63 79.37% S!l - 76.38% 62 79.03% 57 78.95% 4fi 86.98% 59 79.66% 35 71.43% ---- 444 79.50% Total ----47 --7-4-.-47% 43 67.44% ..... 4-9 -- 6_6_. 31% ,, __ - --- 48 68.25% - ---- 4-9 - 71.43% --- J'J -~6-6--.67--%- 40 60.00% --- ---------- 31~ 66.03% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CQ~RECTED SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON School Total WOODRUFF School Total Total Elem i Grand Total 11 Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 KF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT WH BL OT 32 38 38 36 34 38 37 41 31 42 31 39 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT 1 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 13 37 5 6 21 6 10 34 E 3 18 KF 7 47 PK 7 10 72 304 Grade WH BL OT 1 10 22 2 5 32 3 10 30 4 9 14 5 10 11 6 9 13 KF 12 28 PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 7784 16547 Black Total 3 73 52.05% I 75 48.00% 0 72 52.78% 3 81 50.62% 2 75 56.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 51.97% Total 1 61 77.05% 2 61 86.89% 2 46 80.43% 0 so 74.00% 1 28 75.00% 0 44 77.27% 0 21 85.71% I 55 85.45% 1 18 55.56% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.75% I 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 23 60.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 59.09% 0 40 70.00% 0 36 55.56% 3 25~ 66.93% 330 14070 64.95% 545 24876 66.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT w ~ a... ::\n: z l!) H UJ UJ \u0026lt;I fzw 0 ::J fUJ 0 UJ Cl'.'. _J ..... 00 N N v N (\") ..... ~ lf) 00 (\") .......... - -- - . - . - . - ~ . - - ' ', -. .. - . SAOGTI 114 0.l( USfl.N a\u0026gt;OUR illUY c.,..,'.(.J.l f-ci: NlflAl CHOJr --~ ~ ,o .. 11 ,. ,, . ii!I -.----,-,-\n i,-~ c\n10 ( 1 2 ' ' , i - ,. 20 \" TOTM.. ,., 41\u0026amp; Ma 385 1.al SH 51.l \u0026gt;n 1 n, IS\u0026amp; 111 6M UJ \"67 .,, lOS 311 um E 'AOCK SCHOOL DISTfllCl S,:t-100.. ATTVll:\u0026gt;i'-NCE i()N( SUMMARY OCTOBER l. 1 HS i ,o ,.  ,u, .U 4U SOI 1112 5-24 451 lll!i 551 ., . -,-- \" October 1 State Department Enrollment Report q!]- 9/tJ !All Enrolled Stud_ents: ( I 02-0ct-95 001 CENTRAL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 ~ 110 106 197 203 I 2 3 3 0 0 625 11 82 ~11 ~401g182 ~ 0 ~ 2 \\J. 4 5 0 1 ~ 527 12 't 62 ~ 11 f105 ijl42 '\\ 0 ..... 2 4 3 0 0 ~389 KF 1 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 45 s 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 002 HALL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF TQtal 10 37 44 124 117 3 3 1 0 o 330 11 ~27 \u0026lt;) 43 ~ 94 l(jl0 -.....3 ~ 4 3 3 0 0 287 12 ~ 43 t52 ~80 IX\\76 '\\)5--..5 6 2 0 .. 0 ~' 269 KF 1 7 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 s 7 1 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 003 MANNM/S Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 54 79 62 ~ 91  1 1 0 1 291 08 ~64 o'n ~64 79 ~ o \\) 1 0 0 0 ~281 09 \"55 '158 ....7._3 82 2 1 3 0 0 275 005 PARKVIEW Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 10 52 86 60 101 3 4 3 1 0 0 310 11 ~ 51 \"\"'~66 t61_ 0 15 ~2 ~ 3 3 5 2 0 ~268 ~74 --.: 12 44 74 58 0 ~ 6 0 3 0 0 259 KF 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 006 BOOKER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 20 17 24 25  0 3 1 0 0 0 90 02 20 17 17 23 0 1 1 0 0 0 79 03 -..,.22 0..23 '26 ~18 0 2 1 0 0 3 04 112 ):25 '!!22 ~ 16 ~ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ~77 05 18 18 23 31 0 1 1 0 0 0 92 06 19 25 25 24 0 1 0 0 0 1 95 KF 15 16 22 20 2 0 2 1 0 0 78 007 DUNBAR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 61 ~52 {70 63 2 0 1 2 0 0 r! 251 08 , 36 ...._47. 81 ~66 ~2 frt 1 0 0 0 ~234 ' 09 47 36 93 67 2 0 2 0 0 0 247 008 FAIR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 33 45 136 119 1 1 0 0 337 11 Os.. 28 ~28 .\u0026gt; 88 ~94 ~ ~~ 0 0 0 -5:)241 ( ....... 12 '- 54 \"'-45 ~91 ~89 I 0 0 0 0 ~2'8 0 KF 2 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 s 4 7 15 6 0 0 o 0 0 0 32 009 FORSTHT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 1 jAll Enrolled Students: 010 PULHTJ 011 SOUTHWST 012 MCCLELLA HENDERSN 015 CLOVRJR 016 MABELJR 017 BALE 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 10 11 12 KF s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 01 02 03 04 05 06 LRSD Information Services Department 27 24 .98 87 1 1 \"22 ~21 --... 97 t\n-77 ~ 0 ~ 2 OQ37 ~28 ~101 'l,99 2 0 3 3 15 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 02-Oct-95 0 '241 0 ~222 0 \"'2 71 0 25 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 61 58 78 72 oo 48 ~9 !l 89 l,{)79 ~ 57 ~ 52 i6o '\\61 2 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 ~266 0 r-:233 0 10 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total  15 10 89 81 2 1 m13 ~19 ~75 ~5 \"\"-4 1.rt 1 1 \"\"'14 12 'l 90 \"[89 \" 1 'G 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 200 . 0 ~ 187 0 'S211 0 14 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 21 25 . 153 141 3 ~33 ~36 ~93 ~113 ~ 0 I' 16 0-:.32 '''89 ~100 0 0 6 0 11 2 15 8 4 1 0 0 0 'o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3\\.344 0 ()I:) 275 0 '\\) 238 0 20 0 27 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 27 12 95 97  0 l'-.._26 ~23 ~ 89 ~106 Oa5 \u0026lt;l3 1 ~ 28 4'11110l't \\104 2 3 2 16 6 0 . I 1 0 0 0 1 0 2. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 234 o d252 0 f' 279 0 27 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 7 91 88 1 0 (!119 014 ~72 --...84 ~1 j20  14 tr\\ 9 '{90 ~98 1 'O 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 0 ~192 0 \\J 214 0 4 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 22 18 62 49 0 IV)18 J20 ~55 \"- 2 , 1 ,.j 1 \\l 19 \\J 22 ' 64 ' 64 0  e 0 4 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 0 \u0026lt;' \u0026gt;-..157.  0 ~ 169 0 13 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 4 6 ~8 2 7 4 6 17 3 ~ 19 rs ~22 6 15 3 18 17 16 ~ 13 11 12 2 17 17 0 0 '-0 0 0 0 1 0 ~1 \"0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 46 ~50 ~36 40 41 2 !All Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 E 1 5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 KF 7 5 13 10 1 1 0 0 39 PK 6 5 8 11 2 1 1 0 0 35 018 BRADY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 9 17 20 0 0 2 0 1  0 62 02 9 8 22 17 0 0 4 4 0 0 64 03 9 5 18 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 53 04 10 4 14 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 \\ 37 05 ~ 3 ~6 ~4 ~5 ~o l\\\ni 0 0 2 0 0 V\\50 '.: 06 6 1 13 \" 21 0 1 2 0 0 0 /\\i)44 E 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 13 15 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 PK 6 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 019 BADGETT Grade WM WF .BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 02 3 5 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 03 0 3 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 04 4 ~ 2 d13 ~9 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~28 ~3 \" 'r. 05 3 CK 8 6 ~ 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 120 06 0 1 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 E 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 K. F 3 2 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 PK 5 4 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 020 MCDERMOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 15 16 17 19 0 0 0 0 69 02 18 17 19 15 0 0 1 3 0 0 73 03 d 16 16 18 ' 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~70 04 ........_.1.,4 Qll ~'019 (b20 \\}..o 0\\.0 2 0 0 0 ):66 --..: ~ 05 20 9 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 75 06 13 16 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 74 KF 16 16 13 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 60 021 CARVER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 17 17 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 66 02 23 14 32 17 0 3 0 0  91. 03 28 11')18 ~31 }21 ).__0 0 0 0 0 '~ 99. 04 '~\\S2 4 ~-.\n::26~'- 24 30 0 \"-1 1 0 . 0 107 '- 05 '35 17 32 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 105 06 27 21 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 KF 17 10 17 14 0 0 1 0 0 60 022 BASELINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 8 22 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 \u0026lt;\\ 51 J\\3 \"\" ......... \" 0 02 ~2 I] 14 112 \u0026lt;ti 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 31 03 fl) 5 '14 '-22 -x 9 0 0 0 0 1 41 04 4 2 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 LRSD Information Services Department 3 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 05 3 5 11 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 36 06 5 7 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 E 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 KF 5 7 18 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 6 10 14 0 0 0 0 1 36 023 FAIRPRK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 4 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 5 4 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 03 3 3 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 04 ~3 \\J3 ~13 '123 \\o 1~ 0 0 0 0 R 42 05 1o 'o 2 , 11 ~ 11 0 0 0 0 0 ~24 06 0 1 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 KF 3 3 16 14 1 1 0 0 0  39 PK 9 .6 11 7 1 0 1 0 0 36 024 FORSTPK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 17 20 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 19 16 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 68 03 12 16 17 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~ 64 04 ~14 '(}10 E 14 ~12 /\\)0 V)o 0 0 0 0 50 05 '15 ' 20 ' 13 '23 0 0 1 0 0 73 06 12 17 10 12 0 0 0 0 53 ( KF 18 16 10 14 0 0 0 0 60 025 FRANKLIN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM. AF . IM. IF Total 01 2 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 02 2 1 25 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 51 03 0 2 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 38 04 0 1 n 20 ~21 ,~\" ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 44 05 ~l ~ 0 ~ 19 \"tI9 0 0 0 0 ~39 06 'o 0 24 14 0 0 0 0 40 E 1 1 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 KF 3 4 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 PK 3' 3 24 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 026 GARLAND Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM. AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 16 16 4 0 0 0 0 37 02 0 0 17 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 .. : 30 03 0 0 18 ~14 1 2 0 0 0 0  . 35 04 0 0 ~15 ~14 !)) 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 -~ 29 05 ' 0 '- 0 ~ 17 12 \" 2 1 0 0 0 0 ~32 06 1 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 38 E 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ( KF 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 PK 0 1 .7 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 18 027 GIBBS Grade WM WF BM BF- HM HF. AM AF IM IF Total 01 16 5 14 10 1 0 0 0 48 LRSD Information Services Department 4 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-0ct-95 02 7 12 16 8 1 0 0 0 0 45 03 \\l 11 10 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 ( 04 (\\ 8 ~8 ~3 ~10 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 16 vis 12 13 ~o 1 0 0 0 lft47 06 11 8 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 45 KF 7 8 9 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 40 028 CHICOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 3 29 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 02 6 5 26 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 03 2 5 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 6 9 IY)2 1 rl24 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~60 05 ) 8 3'-~3 ~27 ~22 )o \")1 0 0 0 0 ')-- 61 06 f.{\\4 4 26 '--21 1 0 1 0 0 58 E 5 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 4 10 19 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 6 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 029 WESTHIL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 02 9 5 16 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03  11 6 ~15 C) 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1)-49 04 ~12 ~9 ~15 (:) 12 \\)0 \"-0 0 0 0 0 '-48 05 7 7 ' 21 '\\ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~49 06 8 4 15 . 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 39 KF 7 9 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 030 JEFFRSN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 21 15 13 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 02 17 22 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 74 03 23 24 13 ~12 0 0 0 0 1 0 73 04 ~21 ~17 ~17 017 1\u0026lt;J0 '- 0 0 0 0 0 \"'-72 05 '31 \"19 \"-11 '15 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~77 06 15 16 17 24 1 0 1 0 0 0 74 E 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF 25 17 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 031 CLOVREL Grade WM WF BM BF HM ~ AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 33 28 0 0 0 0 .. 0 . 69 02 5 3 20 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 55 03 6 3 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 04 1 ~3 ~19 '27 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti50 05 l'f8\\ 'J4 --.._20~ 19 -o 0 0 0 0 0 +.51 06 2 1 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 ( E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 6 5 35 30 0 2 0 0 0 0 78 PK 5 5 21 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 53 032 DODD Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 5 jAU Enrolled Students: . 02-0ct-95 01 3 4 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 02 3 14 12 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 03 7 IO 11 16 0 0 0 0 0 45 04 2 6 9 10 \\~ 1 0 0 0 0 ').._29 05 )... 9 t3 \u0026amp;11 ~15 1\\-JO 0 0 0 0 '44 06 13 4 '\\ 15 16 1 0 0 0 0 '150 E 2 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 16  KF 9 6 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 033 MEADCLIF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 7 31 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 8 5 29 18 0 . 0. 1 0 0 0 61 03 9 2  16 23 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 50 04 t\\.11 '\\l.3 ~ 25 '}-27 ~o .0 0 0 0 ~66 05 q 6 \"18 '14 \"25 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 06 9 8 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 KF 8 3 24 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 034 MITCHELL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 0 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 02 0 0 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 03 2 0 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 04 0 1 ~ 13  10 0 0 0 0 0 0 t',...24 ( 05 'rjo .11 12 4!2!3 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 I.f3l6 06 0 --.:: ' 1)34: 0 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 0 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 PK 1 0 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 035 MLKING Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 21 26 23 0 0 2 0 0 0 86 02 12 9 20 14 0 1 0 0 0 57 03 16 12 21 16 0 0 1 0 68 04 ~12 ~14 ~lO '\\)-10 \\J. 0 \\J. 0 0 1 0 0 --47 05 ''- 11 ~ 9 t14 1:16 0 0 0 0 0 q51 06 12 10 15 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 48 KF 22 25 18 36 0 2 0 .0 0 0 103 PK 14 17 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 036 ROCKFELR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 11 5 . 21 14 0 0 0 0 53 ----- 02 4 3 12 22 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 9 10 15 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 47 04 \u0026lt;la9 \"18 ~12 ~ 10 (\\, 1 bu0 0 0 0 0 \\tV-40 05 \"4 \"5 --q3 \"'17 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 06 5 3 14 10 1 0 0 0 0 34 KF 4 9 18 24 0 0 0 3 0 0 58 PK 22 20 24 22 0 0 3 2 0 0 93 LRSD Information Services Department . 6 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 037 GEYERSP Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 01 1 6 13 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 41 02 7 5 14 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 03 4 3 16 11 1 0 0 0 o 0 35 04 2 5 20 '\\J-.13 1 2 0 0 0 0 ~43 05 ~5 ~2 ~11 ~ 8 ~o~o 0 0 0 0 \"26 ~ 06 3 5 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 KF 4 4 12 17 1 0 0 0 0 39 PK 10 5 12 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 038 PULHTE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 16 13 18 14 o 0 ' 0 . 0 o 0 61 02 18 20 11 14 3 0 1 0 0 io 67 03 1{119').._15 \u0026lt;i 16~ 16 0 1 0 0 0\nQ '-'-67 04 ~ 9 C) 16 cy,...14(J '-15 ~o 0 0 0 - 0 0 )-54 '- ' 05 13 12 10 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 49 06 11 12 14  13 0 1 0 0 0 0 51 KF 17 16 9 13 0 0 0 0 57 039 RIGHTSEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 02 0 0 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 ( 03 0 21 13 1 0 0 0 0 37 04 \"} 0 ' 0 ~ 11 't--,.15 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 '26 ...... ...... ...... 05 2 0 'I9 ~18 o 0 o 0 0 \u0026lt;f\\39 06 0 0 10 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 KF 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 PK 2 0 10 6 O 0 0 0 0 0 18 040 ROMINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 7 7 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 5 6 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 7 9 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 04 5 \\,fl 2 1Y1J2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 26 05 ~2 l'(\\l ~ 8 a-- 8 '),.o \") 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 4 1 16 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 I\\'\\3 2 E 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 10 KF 9 5 15 20 0 1 0 0 52 PK 6 4 14 7 0 0 0 0 33 042 WASHNGTN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 12 13 35 33 2 0 0 0 0 96 02 18 9 32 19 2 0 1 2 0 0 83 ( 03 16 ~9 ~~31 ~19 2 0 0 2 0 0 \"'19 04 ~ 9 ~1 21 ~19 ':Qo '-.o 0 1 0 0 ~71 05 17 17 40 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 105 06 21 9 28 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 87 E 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LRSD Information Services Department 7 IAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 KF 8 7 30 25 4 2 1 0 1 0 78 PK 14 8 13 17 0 0 0 0 0 53 ( 043 WILLIAMS Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF ll\\1 IF Total 01 15 17 16 22 0 0 1 1 0 73 02 17 21 20 16 0 0 0 0 0 75 03 14 C),20 ~8 ~ 20 \\0 0 0 0 0 0 00 72 04 120 ~17 '\\'. 9 12 0 l\\:, 0 0 2 0 I 0 81 05 '16 15 20 ~22 0 0 0 2 0 0 lf\\75 06 14 17 17 22 0 0 1 0 0 72 KF 16 13 14 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 60 044 WILSON Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 8 19 28 . 1 . O 0 0 0 0 61 02 2 4 31 22 1 :  ' 1 0 0 o , ... 0 : 61 03 5 2 20 17 1 0 0 0 0 . ' 46 04 ~6 \\~ ~ 22 0,.,.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 05 I'{\\4 7 t 14 ff\\0 I,{1\\ 0 0 0 0 ~28 \"-! ' 06 3 7 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 E 3 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 KF 4 3 19 28 0 0 0 0 0 55 PK 6 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 '45 WOODRUFF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 5 14 8. 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 02 1 4 21 11 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 7 3 17 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~41 04 i! (J'l 0,..., 9 ...,__5 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 23 lt\\5 0---6 ~5 - 05 0 1 0 0 0 22 06 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 5 7 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK 7 9 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 046 MABELEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 12 8 34 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 02 7 12 20 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 03 4 11 19 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 04 i 1! I\"\\.. 9 R20 ~26 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 63 ~ 05 \"11 , 25 ,22 ' 0 0 0 0 1 ~73 06 6 9 18 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 E 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF 6 13 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 ()47 TERRY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 01 24 13 18 14 1 0 0 0 72 02 '\\j, 22 ~ 19 Q 10 ~18 0 0 0 0 0 ~70 03 lQ 34 '- 17 ~ 21 \"- 22 \"'o '-.1 2 1 0 0 ~98 04 12 25 16 13 0 .0 0 1 0 0 67 LRSD Information Services Department 8 IAII Enrolled Students: 02-0ct-95 05 16 16 18 19 0 0 2 1 0 0 72 06 25 15 18 19 0 2 2 0 0 82 ( KF 23 18 19 14 0 0 0 0 0 75 048 FULBRIGH Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 15 20 24 14 1 0 2 0 0 0 76 02 17 19 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 03 13 8 23 18 0 1 0 0 0 64 04 ) 22 ~ 14 :::-,..,12~6 ~ 0 1 0 0 0 0 ~ 65 05 ~ 13 --.:2: 1 t22 --.\n:18 0 ~o 0 0 0 ~ 75 06 24 22 20 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 82 E 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 17 24 20 16 0 0 0 0 0 78 050 OTTER CR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM . IF Total 01 14 18 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 02 12 15 10 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 45 03 '\\J.-12 10 dl4 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~48 04 O'- 7 '13 \" 8 \\Ju \\). 0 'o 0 0 2 0 ,~41 05 22 11 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 06 19 15 9 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 56 KF 10 15 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 ( ''51 WAKEFIEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 5 26 34 0 1 0 1 0 74 02 2 3 29 25 1 0 0 0 0 61 03 3 3 '\\21 16 \\J2 \\...1 . 0 0 1 0 '\u0026amp;47 V.4 04 ~4 ~23 135 ~4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~66 05 1 27 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 63 06 5 9 19 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 KF 2 0 22 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 052 WA.TSON Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 10 24 31 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 6 5 25 25 0 1 1 0 0 0 63 03 4 8 ~o '22  0 1 0 0 0 . 0 ~5 04 ~: ~~ 23 \"26 ~o )__o 0 0 0 0 I \\. \"\\. 62 05 5 28 17 0 0 1 1 0 0 57 06 2 3 19 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 KF 6 6 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 6 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 ( LRSD Information Services Department 9 10/16/1995 15:20 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM GIVa ~  ... :2 ............................... . OilEcrOoRfS rudoAos siGNM lifnNtJR ockS dtOODli mact ~O1 SloMM lJnlR ockA, R7 2202  Tdq,lto,Ej0 1 -} 24-2109  FAX~ 0 I .J 24-2281 DATI TO P@4Zta!lll!tf/10 BIIBBr PAGE 01 ~OM-~n---~-~~-fL:-~__~\n__ ____ _ SHCJAL. IHST'ltUCT10H$ 311- Q/00 ------------------- NUMIJU OF PA.GSIH. CLUOINGCOVER _ __.:i.:~---------- 5013242281 To: Mtfl1u hll4111 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM umE ROCSKC HOODLIS TRICT STUDEANSTS IGNMOEFNFTIC E S01 SHERMAN LlfflE ROCKAR, 7 2202 o.. ., 16, 1995 Ftet11: ~N1111y A1n, Dlrtetor Su\u0026amp;Jtot: OetHtr 2, 1995 ENROLLMREENPTO R[jTy l PAGE 02 A minor. ,,or u 41nwettda fttt the paeket,0 , ll'lformatlarenl atedf o Otfo\u0026amp;e1r 1ntolh11ewn1fr 1 dllttl\u0026amp;uttcl.O n 01tol,e,2 , t 995, the eounft aken by Data Proeo1,l1w19u unt to the Student A1tl9nm1O11Mt 11,h to It u ~tiffedth at the numbtttw ett the nm, 11 then 9on1rat1bdy thl1 offl11. Ther eportw 11 11ntf o the Arkan11D1e partmeonft Edu11tl1ftNo1m D 1t1P tN111ln98. 111u11 the n11mb1ato1n tt o the D1p1ttm1o1t1 Et d11ottld1lNclnt oth 1v1to tal,, th, numhn thenh adt o bo h1nd t1bul1t1bdy t hlt oM11in d rtproduaeIdn th14 pa91d oeu111t1on wt hlohth lt 1111tt1tftt1,1 . P1911 1 of th1d ooumenent titled\"L lfflE ROCKSC HOODLI STRICOTC, TOBE2,R 1 99SE NROLLMENT REPOR0T, IHIII]\" h1t a 111lto1alotluofn . lh1 errorI  In the CrandT ot1tI1 bul1tlotni white1 h1d1ntt for Hl'llohr l9h, juniorh lth, ind 1l1111111TttJ,yi1t.o t1If ort he WHc olumnd touldb e 7714,l net11do f 6197. Then umb1Irn ,,,.,, 6197, 11a totalo f 1f1ment1aryn d 11nloht l9h,o nly. TheJ unloth igh totalw 11 t111clvmenlftfflylt tedft omt he1 1lo1d1tl01'1. Th, Ore11Tuolt el 1 111untefo rt he othtt eolumnh1, th dNu1111anntc, lt h Tofll ealumnle eorraeat nd 1111tehth1e1T otaol ntollmtnItn t hoo therd oe1tmentT1h. ltt tror It dNI notN Hr ht anro thtt doeument, andd  n,t hf tht o1tl1in 11ro ft ho theert loul1t1rde port, \"\"\" t1111oPvtt  11 of yoiadr oe1111a1nedn to plaooIt witht he 1tt11h1odo tt11t1pd1 9t 11. Th doeuMewntl llt henl tee o,tHt, Thanky ouf ory ouru nclmtndln9T. hieo ffice9 1nentecal l ot of d1t1I n a 1hotpt e,lodo f tl111tto ptoWltdloM elyre port.f or1 11 pernn1w aitingfo rf h, lnltnntlon, 1. 0/15/1995 15:20 ' 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 03 CO~RECTEO SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON Stbool Total WOODRUFF ---------- SthoolToUI Total Elem I Gr.nd Total I 11 LITTLE ltOCX SCHOOL DIST/tJCT OCTOaER 1, 199$ ENIOLJ.MENTlt!PO/tT Grad WH ISL OT I 32 38 2 38 36 3 34 38 4 37 --41 s 31 42 6 31 39 KF 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT I 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 1:3 37 .s ~ 21 6 IC 34 E 3 18 l(F 7 47 PK 7 JO 72 304 Grd WH BL OT I 10 22 2 s 32 3 10 30 4 9 14 .5 10 II 6 9 13 KF 12 28 ----\"' PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 I 77841 166471 !eBh,ck Total 3 13 62-.-0-6% I 15 48.00% 0 12 62.78% 3 81 60.62% 2 15 68.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 61.97% Total I 61 77.06% 2 61 88.89% 2 -46 80.43% 0 ~ 74.00% 1 2! 75.00% 0 \" 77.27% C ll 85.71% 1 55 85.45% I 18 66.66% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.76% 1 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 13 80.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 ~-6-9.09% ..., - --- 0 40 70.00% - --- --- 0 36 55.56% J ls.\u0026amp; 66.93% J30 14070 64.95% 6451 248761 86.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent~ Date: October 18, 1995 Subject: Desegregation Update- October, 1995 The attached information represents the revised desegregation update for the month of October. Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 LRSD BIRACIAL COl\\1MIITEE The Bi-racial committee for LRSD continues to hold the monthly established meetings. The committee elected to meet the 2nd Tuesday of each month in the LRSD Board Room. The October meeting was held bn Tuesday, October 10, 1995. The November meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, 1995. At the October meeting the Bi-racial committee received a report on recruitment from LRSD Parent Recruiters, Becky Rather and Essie Middleton. Dr. Ed Jackson, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, along with Dr. Paul Smith, LRSD monitor, presented an overview of the monitoring process. The committee decided to begin the monitoring of the Incentive schools in October. LRSDCOUNTS The official October 1, 1995 count (actually taken October 2, 1995) which was submitted to the State Department is attached (attachment 1). This official count compares the 1995-96 with the 1994-95 count. The enrollment comparison chart (attachment 2) shows the LRSD official count for the last seven (7) years. An enrollment report (attachment 3) shows the enrollment by school and grade at all LRSD schools on October 2, 1995 (note: page 11 is revised) .. Attached (attachment 4) is the 4 year old count for all schools which have a 4 year old program. This count indicates the number enrolled as of October 4, 1995, and the number of vacancies at each school. The school attendance zone summary chart (attachment 5) is attached for your review. The enrollment vs. allocation of the six original magnet schools is also attached (attachment 6). This chart indicates the number of seats allocated vs. the number filled as of October 10, 1995 by each participating district. ...... +-' C: (lJ E ..r::: u \u0026lt;tl +-' +-' \u0026lt;tl Comparison - October 3, 1994 to October 2, 1995 c:= October 3, 1994 0~ Cl) ..: ... ... ..: Cl) s 0 0 :E .t:. IO ... 0 IO in ~ 0 I- in - -------------- central HS* 1040 548 49 1637 63.53% -- ---- -- ---- --- -- ---- - - -- Fair HS 631 279 7 917 68.81 % Hall fis -- - --- --- - ---- ---- ----- 669 326 36 1031 64.89% .. ---- --- --- --- -- McClellan HS*. 684 203 10 897 76.25% Parkview HS -. - .. 435 328 37 800 54.38% Sub-Total 3459 1684 139 5282 65.49% w/o Magnets 3024 1356 102 4482 67.47% Cloverdale JH 521 119 7 647 80.53% Dunbar JH** -- -- I--- --- ---- 468 227 12 707 66.20% Forest Heights JH 565 197 18 780 - 72.44% Henderson JH** --- --- -- --- r-------- .. 661 229 27 917 72.08% --- ----- Mabe/vale JH 417 161 7 585 71.28% Mann1R ---- ---- 456 366 23 845 53.96% ------ ---- -- ---- ----- Pulaski Heights JH 431 334 6 771 55.90% southwesfjjj - ------- ----- -- -- - ... -- - - 487 105 18 610 79.84% Sub-Total 4006 1738 118 5862 68.34% w/oMagnets 3550 1372 95 5017 70.76% 95-96.XLS II Little Rock School District October 1, 1995 Comparison October 2, 199 5 ... 0~ ..: Cl) ..: 0 ... Cl) s 0 IO ~- .t:. IO in 0 ::. iii 1017 543 31 1591 63.92% ----- ---- ------ ---- --- 651 246 8 905 71.93% ---- -- --- - 67A6% 626 262 40 928 - - -- . .. -- ---- - - . -- -- 727 171 6 904 80.42% 447 373 35 855 52.28% 3468 1595 120 5183 66.91% 3021 1222 85 4328 69.80% 527 73 9 609 86.54% -440 --- ---- 279 13 732 60.11% --- --- ---- --- ---- 578 165 16 759 76.15% ----- e---- -- ------ --78.66% 623 152 17 792 ---- -- ---- --- ---- 363 125 3 491 73.93% -- --- --- 451 382 14 ---847 53.25% ----- ----- -- .. .. --- -- - 447 327 7 781 57.23% 512 84 16 612 83.66% 3941 1587 95 5623 70.09% 3490 1205 81 4776 73.07% Office of Student Assignment I Difference \u0026gt;, l\n- l\n- ... ..: u 0 u u IO ..: .! ... IO IO IO C. 0 Cl) s in IO IO ~ .t:. C. C. 0 iii 0. .. ::. ~ ~ ~i 'if!. -23 -5 -18 -46 0.39% 1891 -300 84% ------ ----- 20 -33 1 -12 3.12% 954 -49 95% 74 ~ ----- ------ -43 -103 2.57% 1291 -363 72% - -- - - ---- 43 -32 -4 7 4.17% 1199 -295 75% .. .. - - --- --- ----- - .. 12 45 -2 55 -2.09% 1000 -145 86% 9 -89 -19 -99 1.42% 6335 -1152 82% -3 -134 -17 -154 2.33% 5335 -1007 81% 6 -46 2 -38 6.01% 868 -259 70% -- ------ --- -28 52 1 25 -6.09% 812 -80 90% ~2 -3.72% 858 ---- 13 -2 -21 --- -99 88% --- ----- -38 -77 -10 -125 6.58% 907 -115 87% -- --- ---123 80% -54 -36 -4 -94 2.65% 614 - --- -5 16 -9 2 -0.72% -850 -----:3 100% -- ----- ---- - -- ... 16 -7 1 10 1.33% 745 36 105% ---- ----- - ---2 ----- - 737 - 25 -21 -2 3.82% -125 83% -65 -151 -23 -239 1.75% 6391 -768 88% -60 -167 -14 -241 2.31% 5541 -765 86% - - --------------- +' C: QJ E ..c: u ro ~+' .., ro 95-96 XLS Comparison October 3 1994 to October 2 1995 Badgett aaie  -- ----- Baseline Booker. . --- Brady Carver - ----- ciiicot - c1ove,aaie ---- i5octii - -- -------- Fair Paik ___ - Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland -- Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King- Mabe/vale McDermott Meadowcllff Mltche,,.- ------ otter creek Pu/ask/ Heights Rlghtse11 Rockere,ie, ---- Romine-terry _____ --- Wakefield Washington - Watson western HIiis w\niiiams  - .. . .. Wilson woodruff Speciai Schools .. Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/oMagnets  Magnel \" Magnet Prograrr \"Incentive - lnlerdislricl Oclober 3. 1994 0~ ! ... .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; G) s .u\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u :E s ('II\n(\n'I\nI 0 ~ 0 I- iii . 133 44 0 177 75.14% - ---- -- . - - - -- --- -- 214 87 8 309 69.26% i45 77 4 jii\n75.15% -- - -- - 23 .. --- 53.23% 305 245 573 ---- -jj7 ---- ---- --62.25% 254 17 408 ---- -- --- -- i2 ----- 309 267 588 52.55% j,j,j 1si .. - - - -- -- 8 503 68.39% -- - - - ------ - - -6 ------- 19.59% 312 74 392 ----- ----- -8 ----- --- -- 193 97 298 64.77% --20,i- 73 5 --- 282 -7fi4% -198 -228 --6 ----432 7s:s.3% --- --- - ---- -ss:1i% 393 41 9 443 -- -~--- ----- -- 0 235 289 18 542 4.3.36% -- --- --- -282 ----- 246 9 27 87.23% --- -66 - ---- 223 11 300 --74J3% -160 --i21 12 -293 -54:i\nf% ---- --279 --5 --- --4fiJ% 218 502 --- 227 - --- 309 15 551 56.08% -340 -m --10 ----4-74 - 1i.T3% ---- -m -- . -- ----- .. 241 20 494 48.79% --- -jjj -j ------- 0 279 411 67.88% ---260 ----- 8 --4 212 -95.59% -- -196 -9 ---- - 42.90% 154 359 -197 --w1 n --,\n20 -- --- 46.90% -22.s --4 -o --229 98.25% --264 --i24 --is ---403 -- -- - -- 65.51% ----- -73 - ii\n-3ij -72.45% 234 ------ 295 -30 -- --\ni.B6% 234 559 - 'j27 ---- -- ---- - --- 73 13 413 -1iJ.1B% - . - . - jj -- - 443 211 687 64.48% ----- ----- 6 ----- -- . -- 340 81 427 79.63% --- --95 - 1 ------ - - --- 215 317 67.82% . -- - -- ii4  io - - - . - 250 474 52.74% 254 8.l 8 j45 7.1.62% i48 87 ii 24.1 60.91% is -- 21 0 36 41.67% 8915 47721 400 14087 63.29' 7876 3904 343 12123 64.97/. 1638018194 657 25231 64.92% 14450 6632 540 21622 66.83% Little Rock School District October 1, 1995 Comparison October 2. 1995 ... 0~ .,. ! .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u G) s ~ ~ u ('II ('II\n~\n166 44 0 210 79.05% - -. - - - - - 19 ---- --  70.03% 243 85 347 247 75 5 - -- 327 75.54% ---- 316 ------ :ii .. 267 604 -5fi2% ----- 124 -- -394 -63.45% 250 20 ----- \"290 13 --629 --51.83% 326 - - - -- - -- - - - --- -76.33% 345 99 8 452 - 384 64 5  \"453 -84.77% --- --- ---- 190 97 7 ~4 -64.63% -2it -53 -6 --270 78.15% \"ws 222 --- --- - 47.13% 8 435 ~00 --24 -- 7 -431 92.81% --255 -254 -----9 --518 49.23% -235 -- -- ---- 2 18 255 92.16% -- --7i ---- ----- 231 8 310 -74.52% ----1-65 ---132 - to ----307 -53.75% -- 210 285 --- 6 -501 -41.92% --289 -230 -12 ------ ----- 531 54.43% --- - ---- 318 139 3 460 .. 69.13% --- -- - -2i3 15 --- 259 487 - 53.18% --- --93 - -- - 305 2 400 76.25% --- 250 -7 - - -0- -----257 -97.28% --- 139 193 ---7 -----339 -4iooi -- - . -- -- --- --406 --46.55% 189 207 10 - --- 210 6 3 -219 -95.89% --259 - 131 --i6 --406 -63.79% - --- - --- _ _._ 4'---- ----- 213 80 9 302 70.53% --239 ---- --- 279 18 -536 -:59% ---- --- - - - - - . ---- ------ - 368 51 10 429 85.78% - --- 24 -- . 422 210 656 64.33% ----- - - -- --- -- --- -79.50% 353 84 7 444 --- 208 ----- -- --- -315 --66.03%. 106 1 264 --- 12 - - ... 232 5011 51.97-X, 304 72 ti 384 79.17% 170 -- 3 -- 81 254 6693'X, j7 29 .. 0 46  36.96% 9155 4631 330 14116 64.86' 8067 3681 274 12022 67.10' 16564 7813 545 24922 66.46% 1457816108 440 21126 69.01% Office of Sludent Assignment Difference .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ! ... u G) s ('II ~ g\ne. 33 0 0 33 -- -- --- --29 -2 11 38 -- ----- -- 2 -2 1 1 11 -22 ~ 31 -- -4 -13 3 -14 -17 --- -- -- 23 1 41 -1 72 --0 71 --~n 7o --1 -61 -3 0 .1 -4 7 -20 1 -12 7 -6 2 3 7 -17 -2 -12 20 -35 -9 -24 - -11 -7 -9 -27 8 5 -3 to 5 11 -2 14 -8 6 1 -1 -20 3 -3 -20 -- '----- -- -- -22 15 -7 -14 18 --:w-- 5 -7 - 26 -38 1 -11 -to -1 -4 -15 -15 -3 -2 -20 --8 --0 ~ ---:f4 -=is -2 --3 -=to -- -- ~ ,_ -5 7 1 3 ---21 7 -7 -21 s --=-i6 -=ii ~ 41 -=22 - -3 ~ --21 7 --9 -:31. 13 3 1 17 -:7 -11 ~ ~ 14 -lii --2 74 50 .. -- --ii 39 -II 22 ----=6 ----5 --11 '\"2 - ... 8 --o -10 240 -141 -70 29 191 -223 -69 -101 184 -381 -112 -309 128 -524 -100 -496 .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ?\n- u u ('II ('II iii 0. ~ c'J 3.91% 257 0.77% --451 ------ -- 390 0.38% -:0:91% -656 --- 1.20% 467 ---- -6i3 --0.72% 7.94% ---558 S.i8% 792 --0.14% 328 5.81% -351 -1.29% ~ 4.09% ~ 5.87% -540 4.92% 298 0.18% ~ii --0.86% 353 -1.51 % 492 -1.65% -728 --- -515 -2.60% 4.40% -517 8.37% --465 Im 298 -1.89% 351 -0.35% -374 -2.36% -258 --- -469 -1.72% --- -1.92% 487 2.73% -515 6.60% ---492 --0.15% ... 836 --0.12% -492 -1.79% -328 --=o.n?i. - .m 5.54-X. 394 6.02% ---324 ''-4J1%-- --- 1.57% 15717 2.13% 13578 1.54% 28443 2.17% 24454 ?\n- u ('II 0. c'J- .47 ---:54 -----63 --.:s2 --_73 -----ii, ---IT\u0026gt;6 --~39 -34 --:a. --36 ---3 ---22 --:-43 ---fa ---46 9 ----197 --.55 -75 ---=7is -41 -12 \u0026gt;--32 --:-j9 --:7\n3 \u0026gt;------- -185 ----- 21 ---:1,3 ---180 --:.jij -:j3 ---9 -io - --- -70 -1601 -1556 -3521 -3328 ?\n- u ('II 0. ('II 0 ~ -8-2% 87% '\"7r.i% '\"\"\"\"92% 84% 103% 'ai% '\"72% 90% -m\n109% ~ ~ ~ -~ 87% 102% -m \"'\"89% -m .~ 86% '97% 109% ~ .8_7 % ._ 62% 104% .,__8 7% 78% 90% -m ~ \"77% -~ 90% 89% 88% 86% PJ r+ r+ PJ n :::T 3 (l) ::::, r+ ,._. - -- -- ----------- ...... C Cl) E C u ,U ...... ...... \"' CenlralHS .. Fa,rHS f-lal/HS At,.\nC/eUan HS .. October 1, UH October f, 1190 1110 120 33 1863 60% 917 617 35 1629 60\" SIT oo -, 92 56% sis --- 355 -ii - -BTii sii,i ii12 sti\n,1 ,ii2 s2ii foj -- 5i2 16 m, s,ii 6-47 442 s J09\n59% 6jo j82 11 102j 62% PJrlo-iew HS 448 j59 ,B 825 s4% 447 350\ng B,6 55% Sub-TotI 3354 24H 71 5921 57% 3272 2211 to 5571 5'% wlo Mgnefs 2901 2129 11 5091 57% 2125 UH 71 47'2 59\" Clovemale JH 10 ?~f 10 131 64\" 535 224 ~ 764 70\" Dunbar JH .. 4s ,20 -i s\ni, 1iiii -J?J - zjii  -- iiii\n:\n\" Fo,esl He9hls JH fltmdenon Jll 0 Mabe/vale JH Mann JII\" PulasN Heighls Jtl Soulhwesl JII s1a 2s\"4 ,ii 80ii 67% s10 m ii --,,2 ~~ii 680 2~ 20 i~ ,,,. i12 2,i \nii 902 ,s,,. 372 :_ ?~~ 2 ~~ i\nj,i --,o, 2i4 - 2 620 -65% 476 m ?~ m s,ii -sis --35ii-,s -iisii-ss% 454 256 ,, 72, 63% s -262 6 - 722 63% .jgj 198 -9 ,oo ,o\n-,92 --,s\n12 -m Hii Sub-TotI 39J7 U51 tO 5971 HY. 4025 1171 If 5H4 17\" Bad9ett Bale aalseine Book.a,,\nBrady Can-r - e\"io\"W' ntile Dodd -- - Frank.hn\" Fulbrlf/hi G~tland\n,, Geye~S~! q,o~~- Jelturson King- MJbe/vale 4fc0ttonott M,tcht1JI\" Ott8rCre~~ Pul slu He~hls R,ghlsell\"' Roc1o:eie11er Rom,neSl pheM\" Torry Wa.liefield W.ishmgt0/1- w.iisM  - wSr~m~! W\"'1ams IWson Woodl\\llf , .. 1 1510 10 5101 \"\" 1510 1522 H 5091 19 180 51 0 237 16\" 166 56 -~ 222 75\" iiii -- ii - s .iis 1iii : ]~? ---ii 1 :::___p~ _ i,\niii - 100 7 ~J!! -,iii _?7? =]j 7 370 7.j,i m -2io --s ___ 610 _sjii m 260 -\n-i\n-, siiii 2~? ---1\u0026lt;2 --, -~~! _.!~ JJO -- f2f - 5 - 456 72\" ?7! -.JOii --, 589 6\" --j27 --267 i -6oj 54\" 339 181 4 531 64\" -262 110 2 444 59\" 2ii, -- - 122 - 3 - 419 10\" m --\" 2 -,,ii ~ isj - 118 1 194 \"\" 19 134 1 11, s9\" ?1ci -ii - o - \"jjz - nii 219 65 , 345 \"\" 221 --ii5 4 -,ii2 - s1ii 20s m s n1 s1\" 364 --- -,i -,2 - 448\n,ii 10 sg 9 4,, u\" J?~ 242 -i 576 56% 293 - - 259 - 552 SJ\" 268 15 2 285 94\" 211 II ff 20 \"\" jj5 69 0 205 --~'!! 145 56 0 201 72\" i12 --159 -, --338 51\" -,., - 140 -6 -333 56\" is1 1 o 164 96\" 142 4 o 16 97\" i~~ 211 1 419 so\" _ 211 225 _ L 469 _ s1\" cloHd cloed Jf, ---222 - 2 --5j5 -~'! - 321 --235 --~ ~ii 57\" ji4 190 10 Si 61\" Jij 193  524 ~?~ 268 i~? 2 ~~? 62% 287 ii.4 j 4\u0026lt;4 65\" 220 1i O ?~~ i2X iil  2 --~ 20\n,,~ i10 ~!!? - 0 342 50i jjQ 119 0 JS9 SO\" 2ii __ !? ~1- jo, -,,ii ~u ~-=-1-P-6! - m -\"\" 194 16 1 2ft 92\" 191 f --, --,iii ii9ii 215 - Ji 2 - 250 -,iii - iii5 -,\n--5 -2,, -nii j.2 -- - !! ~ 425 ioii -i?~ --:-66 3 - jii2 !?~ 22s I q 226 ,ooii 190 - ,i o - 202 ,.,. 1i2 - 191 ~  sij -ii iii iiii --227 -i -522 55% 301 -- iio J  464 ~~~ -_j?~ - iiii _1 --502 ~~ sio _::_:_] -:-___1 5iii 98\" m -1TI ,, - ni s1\" 29, 1ao 2 ,si - G\" 31 m , -m -i,i iia - 140 -- 1 - ,,, - 58\" 20 -\n,\n- 4 -.m aoi iss u, 5 so, s,\" 211 211 6 -505 sii 2\u0026lt;ij - ij4 o - _\ng\n- oi6ii -2iii ---\n2 :\n7iii jj7 s2 -  iiij\n\" -,20 -- ii2 4 i8i i\nisii Spcc,al Schools 27 jg i 61 40\"  22 49 0\nji% Sub-Toll/ 9426 4592 125 1414J 61\" 9259 4714 154 14111 65% wlo Magnets 1401 JCi04 100 12105 \"\" 1111 JIii 125 12U2 ,,,, G,.nd Tofil 16717 9031 294 26042 64\" 16556 H61 325 25149 64\" Lillie Rock School Dislfict Enrollment Comparison October 1, 1991 330 12 ,ooo 66% j\n, 2s ,s\nsj\" JJU 2170 114 2H1 1793 U 429 235 _ ! 49j - - ji,5 16 -m468 -2m91 2\n5120 47U \"\"' 4112 1H2 U IOU \"\" 3121 1517 52 5190 7\" 1~! 59 0 ??q ?J'!! 295 60 -5 -~ 82\" ::__1-~-, . --5 331 77% 347 -275 -,2 - 5j4 : ~~ 286 128 6 420 68\" 325 271 5 601 54\" 341 187 J 531 6\" JO U  J92 18\" -- 166 --134 -3 -- ,OJ 55\" - 257 -- 60 - 3 - 120 !B'!! 191 206 5 02 48\" 428 ,, 8 507 \"\" 2Ji 264 - i1 506 46% - 262 --15 - -i - 279 94i - ,io --- 74 --0 - 25\u0026lt; 71% -\niii -,41 -- i -339 --56% - m =\"l :-::-1,i .i - uii - 209 270 5 -444 - :_j\n~loud - --266 ---23 --~ -~5 53\" i9i 206 ,. m ~\n,. 252 i\n4 1 427 S9\" 2BS  2\n~ ji2 9JK - i60  -191 s 356 4SX -,,s ,s, --i - 342 ~~ - 282 -- -- 6 I -- 289 98\" - 2i2 -1-16 - 5 - 403 -Toi -m ---ss 1 - m -ii,ii \"235 9 , us ~~'!! - 243 253 --\ni\n512 ~?'!! - J2ii ,,\n-ii ~7~ ~~~ - 410 jsi\n5  , 57\" -ii, ---iii --:-1- ,i\n-72% ,iii ----\n.io 3 m -:siii -m -m --~ ,is ssii - 2ii ios 1 1i4 fai 145 -77 J 225 iHl\u0026lt; 24 :.o o 64 js% 1321 40U 10 12550 66% 16904 9041 356 26101 64\" 1182 -S80 568 656 soi 29H 511 410 October 1, 1992 761 311 400 313 359 56 1999 JI 2144 121 1715 112 192 12 281 12 ??q -ij 215 ,. 226 --3 327 17 jig 3 i66 6 -905 994 985 87i 5754 4HJ 175 705 1s\n91~ 667 849 114 695 59\" 1228 64% -596 51% 586 67% 666 58\" 463 .,,,. 353' .,,,. 1071 October 1, 1993 i ,. 618 33 1819 65\" -- 314 ~ 91~ ~~~ ~~2 28 976 60% ?13 7 8s6\ns% 315 10 788 59% 1122 H 5447 UY. 1507 71 4659 \"\" ,.,, 566 110 ~ 58% m - \"is, ,, 70% 5\n5 jg5 18 1sii 678 --::_:-~io? 7 66% 45j 59% 494 58% 43 Hii si.j 701 !1'!! 7~f 61% 788 7.l\" 9is rn~ 197 34j 351\n:\n,  16 ,s . 654 ssi 790 679 October 1, 1994 ,q~~ 548 .9 1631 64\" 1017 631 --279 -, -9i7 69% 651 669 326 16 ,oii iisii 626 684 2oj io 897 16ii\n21   35 328 j7 800 S.% .f47 ~59 1614 139 5212 15Y. , .. 1 1024 1351 102 4412 .,,,. J021 ~?' 119 1 647 !!'!! _ ~27 468 - -227 12 107 66% 4\u0026lt;0 _ -~~ -=~ J~1 ia ,ilo ,2,. s18 ~, 229 27 g,\n72% 623 411 -,tfi - -,  585 71% J6J 56 - ji\ni\n23 '45 54% 451 ,j, -334 -6\n56% 447 - - ,i, -,os ,i -- i\nio soi fo October 1. 151515 543 31 1591 64% 246 8 905 12,. 262 40 928 67% 111 6 904 ao, 373 35 855 52% 1595 120 5fl3 '7% 1222 15 4321 70% 13 9 609 \"\" 279 fl 165 Hi is2 11 125 J 362 14 327 7 732 60% 759 76,~ 192 79\" 491 14% B47 s1, 7BI 51% 4131 HMI 10 ,1u 61 41U 111' 100 ,019 HY. 4001 1731 111 5H2 HK l!M1 1517 SIS 5123 70 3UJ 1121 13 5317 \"\" 3669 1475 14 5221 70\" 3550 U72 95 5017 11% 3490 1205 If 4771 73 154 48 0 202 76\" 13? 57 0 189 70\" 133 44 0 171 !~'!! 166  0 210 79% u8 - 62 ! ! iii 17% 22s  -- 68 ,O  jOJ\n4\" J~~ - e\n! 309 ~~~ _ ~~ is ,9 141 10% 262 - 74 3 3j9 77% ?~~ -- 76 _-_? -34j 77% us - 71  _J?~ 75\" ?7 75 5 327 76Y. -.i,s - 26i\n-- iii ~~~ _12, ---2iis _! --:~~ s.ii 10s us 2, s11 sjii 116 261 21 604 52\" __ ?7~ ~=-\nii -,iii ~'!! _?~ _1?? 12 397 -66% 254 m 11 =~! ~~ --250 ii io m 6J\" 329 __ ?~ -7 ~ 598 55\" 325 263 -, -sj5 -55% -}oj -267 12 ,_ 5H 53\" --326 iio fJ 629 52Y. --.iso 111 8 s1s ,s\" 1s6 141 s 509 10\" 1.. 1s, 8 ,_ so, 61\" --j,5 - - -iii 8 ,s2 16\" - 291 - 7j --. - 366 BO% 304 -75 - 7 386 79\" 312 14 6 392 10\" -J!~ 64 -5 SJ 15\" -\n,j .:-~ i?i o - JO\u0026lt; 60% 180 97 5 292 65\" - 193 97 - a 298 - 65\" 190 9\n7 29 55\" - iii2 49 2 -- 243 1iix 200 - 60 j 263 76%  204 7J 5 282 12\" --iii 53 ~ 270 78\" iiii -- 2,2 --, ~~ ~~ 200 --zsi s -:\nsii -\"\" t98 221 G m 6\" - 205 222 8 415 1\" - js2 - -50 ii ~,, 86\" joii ---:\nii --s --14s i1ii 191 __ !! 9 40 89\" - 400  2\nm 91\" 22s 295 i s10 ,2i 211 - - 212 ,s s20 45% -2js 289 \" - 542 43\" zss 2s.i 9 511 \"\" - m ~ -~1~ -i ?~ eiii -,\n---.i -21 --:~~ iiii -2,ii ----9 21 212 \"\" -??~ --2 18 ?5~ n\" - 177 105 - ~ 282 ~~ 108 - -- 11 -2 2\" _!?i! :-22! =~ ff JOO 74\" 23f Ti 8 310 75\" - 191 - - 134 ,, - ii6 ~?~ _ _Tr _ili ~- -299 51\" 160 ,2, -\n2 - 293 55\" 165 iii ,g j(i7 54% --\n2 -5 -o -ii, 97\" closed cloud c,-oa\nd 20 211 _ ~ j!~ 2\" 211 217 4 504 42\" -21i -279 -5 \"siiz Tlil  2iil  -2is 6 cloHd 351 119 1 553 -~~~ -,oii --227 15 -551 -56% - zag ijo iz so, 2\" 5j, 54\" ?!~ ---ii9 ~ 500 ~~~ 3\n1 -- i14 3 488 64% 340 124 10 41.\n12i jjj 139 J ,ii,o 69Y. 215 220 !~ so9 54\" 262 f,2 !s ~~ s1\" 2\n-- iJj 2q 494 :.\nx 2s9 292 232 i4j iiii iiii 250 - 21\n?~? 238 347 -.1j ii2 209 -- 275 265 i,1 28 H7 !  40 66\" j{)5 127 1 434\n\" 2\ns, j3j 1 41' 6i\" jo5 28 4 264 ii\" 2,S -i2 J 2il 9j\" ~~ \n~ _ }!~ iii 250 2oj\njsj ,ix\n., --- i95 ---~  34i \u0026lt;ix 154 --\n9i __ ! 159 4ji ,.ii -- ,,j\n379 siil iiio ___ i!r ,, --398 48% -,ii, -201 16 -.20 -,7% _:i!! - --ii ---, -]4! ~~~ !!~ -- ! -\n-7~ _!7~ __ ??~ 4 0 -22ii-iiiii 210 --,04 -, 161 69\" 240 91 - -, 340 71\" 264 -,24 15 -403 i6ii 259 - - \n--,o 16, 11i 2:-, ---rj 14 -15, 14\" __ -2j4 - - --,j 16 123 ,2\n2,1 \no 209 ~7~ !~! -- 3 , 145 97% __ _ __ C10ffd -- 286 17 541 !!1' 243 292 26 561 O\" 21 295 JO  -~~-!- ~i! 219 _ ,., s ~ ~~~ ~~\n- ,06 ~ --.,, t~~ _: m -_-~_f ~ -,3 _ ~!~ 79\" J~! ,12 --, 822 s9\" .s, --zio ,o 12i ,1\" 441 2,, jj \", i,ii 22 --,\n--2 451 -,:\n-x iii --,ii -o --i iox - 340 --\n6 ---,i, ,oii -E.i i24 2 -,H is2x 2is --,,. - 3 .ij2 is\n2is --- is - , - ,\n-,,i m -~'! i 502 ssii is, --ici1 i 472 :S,ii 250 - ii, ,ci -,\n4 :Si\n 254 90 o j55 75ji iii - ii 4 j~ 74% ?54 - -,j i j45 74% - jci4 il 4 2j4 6.)%\n4\nj4 5 236 62% 148 ~\ni 243 6 i 170 o ii 1, 19\" 21 i1 , s, s1\" is 21 b -16 42% 11 9101 4990 201 14292 64Y. U72 4845 251 14068 64 UIS 4772 400 14017 U\" 1155 7751 4059 161 11977 65\" 7172 JUI 211 12056 65!1 7871 J904 ~3 12UJ 15\" 10'7 16126 9082 404 26212 64\" 16614 8483 01 25594 65\" 16380 1194 651 25231 65\" 16564 2JJ 15 91 7 193 2 0\n?~i ,o j 80  87 53\"  OD 76% 257 97\" 3j9 41% 406 ~7% 219 96\" 406 64\" 302 71\" closed 2?9 '8 536 45% S! 10 429 86\" 2 ,o 24 656 6\u0026lt;'!  ,4 \n 4 80\" 106 , 115 66\" in 12 508 s2\" 72 8 384 ,si,~ II J 254 67:. 29 0 -16 37\" 4U1 310 1,11, '5 3511 274 12021 \"\" 1113 545 24922 66\" wlo l.lagnels 14168 1103 2JI 22302 66\" 1453 7277 262 21992 66\" 14823 1391 282 22503 66\" 14310 165 342 22171 65\" 1617 6948 371 2190 61\" 14450 6632 540 21622 61\" 14511 6108 440 21126 69\" t4_8S XlS Offtee of Desegregation I. i SCHOOL CENTRAL School Total HALL School Total PARKVIEW School Total FAIR School Total MCCLELLAN School Total Total Sr Total Sr/KG ! I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 10 216 400 II 193 322 12 133 247 KF 1 43 s 0 5 543 1017 Grade WH BL OT 10 81 241 11 70 204 12 95 156 KF 8 8 s 8 17 262 626 Grade WH BL OT 10 138 161 II 117 136 12 118 132 KF 0 18 373 447 Grade WH BL OT 10 78 255 II 56 182 12 99 180 KF 2 13 s II 21 246 651 Grade WH BL OT 10 46 294 II 69 206 12 48 189 KF 0 19 s 8 19 171 727 1595 3468 11 101 I ! I i I I I attachment 3 Black Total 9 625 64.00% 12 527 61.10% 9 389 63.50% I 45 95.56% 0 5 100.00% 31 1591 63.92% Total 8 330 73.03% 13 287 71.08% 18 269 57.99% I 17 47.06% 0 25 68.00% 40 928 67.46% Total II 310 51.94% 15 268 50.75% 9 259 50.97% 0 18 100.00% 35 855 52.28% Total 4 337 75.87% 3 241 75.52% I 280 64.29% 0 15 86.67% 0 32 65.63% 8 905 71.93% Total 4 344 85.47% 0 275 74.91% 1 238 79.41% I 20 95.00% 0 27 70.37% 6 904 80.42% 120 5183 66.91% 3 115 87.83% I i OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL CLOVERDALE JR School Total DUNBAR School Total FOREST HT JR School Total HENDERSON School Total MABEL VALE JR School Total MANNM/S School Total PULASKI HT JR School Total SOUTHWEST JR School Total Total JR ' 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, /995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 7 17 179 8 33 156 9 23 188 s 0 4 73 527 Grade WH BL OT 7 I 13 133 8 83 147 9 83 160 279 440 Grade WH BL OT 7 51 185 8 43 174 9 65 200 s 6 19 165 578 Grade WH BL OT 7 39 192 8 49 195 9 59 214 s 5 22 152 623 Grade WH BL OT 7 40 111 8 38 117 9 41 128 s 6 7 125 363 Grade WH BL OT 7 133 153 8 136 143 9 113 155 382 451 Grade WH BL OT 7 119 150 8 97 168 9 109 121 s 2 8 327 447 Grade WH BL OT 7 25 170 8 32 150 9 26 179 s 1 13 84 512 1587 3941 ' Black Total 3 199 89.95% 3 192 81.25% 3 214 87.85% 0 4 100.00% 9 609 86.54% Total 5 251 52.99% 4 234 62.82% 4 247 64.78% 13 732 60.11% Total 5 241 76.76% 5 222 78.38% 6 271 73.80% 0 25 76.00% 16 759 76.15% Total 3 234 82.05% 8 252 77.38% 6 279 76.70% 0 27 81.48% 17 792 78.66% Total 1 152 73.03% 2 157 74.52% 0 169 75.74% 0 13 53.85% 3 491 73.93% Total 5 291 52.58% 2 281 50.89% 7 275 56.36% 14 847 53.25% Total 3 272 55.15% 1 266 63.16% 3 233 51.93% 0 10 80.00% 7 781 57.23% Total 5 200 85.00% 5 187 80.21% 6 211 84.83% 0 14 92.86% 16 612 83.66% 95 5623 70.09% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL I i BADGETT School Total BALE School Total BASELINE School Total BOOKER School Total 3 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT I I I Grade WH BL OT I 6 16 2 8 15 3 3 14 4 6 22 5 6 14 6 1 17 E 0 8 KF 5 33 PK 9 27 44 166 Grade WH BL OT I 10 34 2 9 35 3 13 35 4 8 26 5 10 30 6 6 34 E 6 7 KF 12 23 PK II 19 85 243 Grade WH BL OT 1 12 38 2' 5 26 3 9 31 4 6 24 5 8 27 6 12 25 E 1 5 KF 12 47 PK 10 24 75 247 Grade WH BL OT I 37 49 2 37 40 3 45 44 4 37 38 5 36 54 6 44 49 KF 31 42 267 316 Black I : Total 0 22 72.73% 0 23 65.22% 0 17 82.35% 0 28 78.57% 0 20 70.00% 0 18 94.44% 0 8 100.00% 0 38 86.84% 0 36 75.00% 0 210 79.05% Total 3 47 72.34% 2 46 76.09% 2 50 70.00% 2 36 72.22% 0 40 75.00% 1 41 82.93% 0 13 53.85% 4 39 58.97% 5 35 54.29% 19 347 70.03% Total I 51 74.51% 0 31 83.87% I 41 75.61% 0 30 80.00% 1 36 75.00% 0 37 67.57% 0 6 83.33% 0 59 79.66% 2 36 66.67% 5 327 75.54% Total 4 90 54.44% 2 79 50.63% 4 93 47.31% 2 77 49.35% 2 92 58.70% 2 95 51.58% 5 78 53.85% 21 604 52.32% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL BRADY School Total CARVER School Total CHICOT School Total CLOVERDALE EL School Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 22 37 2 17 39 3 14 37 4 14 .-21 5 9 39 6 7 34 E 4 3 KF 28 32 PK 9 8 124 250 Grade WH BL OT I 30 35 2 37 49 3 46 52 4 50 54 5 52 52 6 48 53 KF 27 31 290 326 Grade WH BL OT I 17 55 2 11 45 3 7 39 4 15 45 5 11 49 6 8 47 E 10 12 KF 14 42 PK 6 11 99 345 Grade WH BL OT 1 7 61 2 8 46 3 9 42 4 4 46 5 12 39 6 3 42 E 0 1 KF 11 65 PK 10 42 64 384 Black Total 3 62 59.68% 8 64 60.94% 2 53 69.81% 2 37 56.76% 2 50 78.00% 3 44 77.27% 0 7 42.86% 0 60 53.33% 0 17 47.06% 20 394 63.45% Total 1 66 53.03% 5 91 53.85% 1 99 52.53% 3 107 50.47% 1 105 49.52% 0 101 52.48% 2 60 51.67% 13 629 51.83% Total 0 72 76.39% 0 56 80.36% 0 46 84.78% 0 60 75.00% 1 61 80.33% 3 58 81.03% 0 22 54.55% 3 59 71.19% 1 18 61.11% 8 452 76.33% Total 1 69 88.41% 1 55 83.64% 0 51 82.35% 0 so 92.00% 0 51 76.47% 0 45 93.33% 0 1 100.00% 2 78 83.33% 1 53 79.25% 5 453 84.77% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL DODD School Total FAIR PARK School Total FOREST PARK School Total FRANKLIN School Total 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 7 25 2 17 20 3 17 27 4 8 19 5 12 32 6 17 31 E 4 12 KF 15 24 97 190 Grade WH BL OT 1 8 37 2 9 22 3 6 20 4 6 36 5 2 22 6 1 26 KF 6 30 PK 15 18 53 211 Grade WH BL OT 1 37 30 2 35 32 3 28 35 4 24 26 5 35 36 6 29 22 KF 34 24 222 205 Grade WH BL OT 1 2 73 2 3 47 3 2 35 4 1 41 5 1 38 6 0 38 E 2 9 KF 7 56 PK 6 63 24 400 Black Total 0 32 78.13% 2 39 51.28% 1 45 60.00% 2 29 65.52% 0 44 72.73% 2 50 62.00% 0 16 75.00% 0 39 61.54% 7 294 64.63% Total 0 45 82.22% 0 31 70.97% 0 26 76.92% 0 42 85.71% 0 24 91.67% 0 27 96.30% 3 39 76.92% 3 36 50.00% 6 270 78.15% Total 0 67 44.78% I 68 47.06% 1 64 54.69% 0 50 52.00% 2 73 49.32% 2 53 41.51% 2 60 40.00% 8 435 47.13% Total 0 75 97.33% I SI 92.16% 1 38 92.11% 2 44 93.18% 0 39 97.44% 2 40 95.00% 1 12 75.00% 0 63 88.89% 0 69 91.30% 7 431 92.81% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL FULBRIGHT School Total GARLAND School Total GEYER SP School Total GIBBS School Total 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER l, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 35 38 2 36 35 3 21 -41 4 36 28 5 34 40 6 46 35 E 5 2 KF 41 36 254 255 Grade WH BL OT 1 0 32 2 0 29 3 0 32 4 0 29 5 0 29 6 1 35 E 0 7 KF 0 29 PK 1 13 2 235 Grade WH BL OT 1 7 33 2 12 34 3 7 27 4 7 33 5 7 19 6 8 35 KF 8 29 PK 15 21 71 231 Grade WH BL OT 1 21 24 2 19 24 3 21 21 4 16 23 5 21 25 6 19 25 KF 15 23 132 165 %Black Total 3 76 50.00% 0 71 49.30% 2 64 64.06% 1 65 43.08% 1 75 53.33% 1 82 42.68% 0 7 2B.57% 1 78 46.15% 9 518 49.23% Total 5 37 86.49% 1 30 96.67% 3 35 91.43% 0 29 100.00% 3 32 90.63% 2 38 92.11% 0 7 100.00% 0 29 100.00% 4 18 72.22% 18 255 92.16% Total 1 41 80.49% 0 46 73.91% 1 35 77.14% 3 43 76.74% 0 26 73.08% 0 43 81.40% 2 39 74.36% 1 37 56.76% 8 310 74.52% Total 3 48 50.00% 2 45 53.33% 0 42 50.00% 1 40 57.50% 1 47 53.19% 1 45 55.56% 2 40 57.50% 10 307 53.75% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL JEFFERSON School Total M LKING School Total MABELY ALE EL School Total MCDERMOT School Total 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 36 25 2 39 34 3 47 .25 4 38 34 5 50 26 6 31 41 E 2 7 KF 42 18 285 210 Grade WH BL OT I 35 49 2 21 34 3 28 37 4 26 20 5 20 30 6 22 25 KF 47 54 PK 31 40 230 289 Grade WH BL OT I 20 54 2 19 39 3 15 36 4 17 46 5 25 47 6 IS 40 E I 8 KF 19 39 PK 8 9 139 318 Grade WH BL OT 1 31 36 2 35 34 3 32 37 4 25 39 s 29 42 6 29 44 KF 32 27 213 259 Black Total I 62 40.32% I 74 45.95% I 73 34.25% 0 72 47.22% I 77 33.77% 2 74 55.41% 0 9 77.78% 0 60 30.00% 6 501 41.92% Total 2 86 56.98% 2 57 59.65% 3 68 54.41% I 47 42.55% I 51 SB.82% I 48 52.08% 2 103 52.43% 0 71 56.34% 12 531 54.43% Total 0 74 72.97% 0 58 67.24% I S2 69.23% 0 63 73.02% I 73 64.38% 0 5S 72.73% 0 9 88.89% 1 59 66.10% 0 17 52.94% 3 460 69.13% Total 2 69 52.17% 4 73 46.58% 1 70 52.86% 2 66 59.09% 4 75 56.00% I 74 59.46% I 60 45.00% 15 487 53.18% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL MEADOW CLIFF School Total MITCHELL School Total OTTERCREEK School Total PULASKI HT EL School Total 8 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 13 50 2 13 ,47 3 11 39 4 14 52 5 14 39 6 17 32 KF 11 46 93 305 Grade WH BL OT 1 I 37 2 0 37 3 2 21 4 I 23 5 I 35 6 0 34 E 0 10 KF 1 36 PK 1 17 7 250 Grade WH BL OT 1 32 16 2 27 16 3 22 25 4 20 19 5 33 28 6 34 20 KF 25 IS 193 139 Grade WH BL OT 1 29 32 2 38 25 3 34 32 4 .. 25 29 5 25 22 6 23 27 KF 33 22 207 189 Black Total 0 63 79.37% I 61 77.05% 0 so 78.00% 0 66 78.79% 1 54 72.22% 0 49 65.31% 0 57 80.70% 2 400 76.25% Total 0 38 97.37% 0 37 100.00% 0 23 91.30% 0 24 95.83% 0 36 97.22% 0 34 100.00% 0 10 100.00% 0 37 97.30% 0 18 94.44% 0 257 97.28% Total 0 48 33.33% 2 45 35.56% I 48 52.08% 2 41 46.34% 0 61 45.90% 2 56 35.71% 0 40 37.50% 7 339 41.00% Total 0 61 52.46% 4 67 37.31% I 67 47.76% 0 54 53.70% 2 49 44.90% I 51 52.94% 2 57 38.60% 10 406 46.55% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL RIGHTSELL School Total ROCKFELLER School Total ROMINE School Total TERRY School Total 9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 0 30 2 0 19 3 I -34 4 0 26 5 2 37 6 0 19 KF 1 29 PK 2 16 6 210 Grade WH BL OT 1 16 35 2 7 34 3 19 26 4 17 22 5 9 30 6 8 24 KF 13 42 PK 42 46 131 259 Grade WH BL OT I 14 30 2 11 35 3 16 21 4 7 19 5 3 16 6 5 26 E 0 10 KF 14 35 PK 10 21 80 213 Grade WH BL OT 1 37 32 2 41 28 3 51 43 4 37 29 5 32 37 6 40 37 KF 41 33 279 239 Black Total 0 30 100.00% 0 19 100.00% 2 37 91.89% 0 26 100.00% 0 39 94.87% 1 20 95.00% 0 30 96.67% 0 18 88.89% 3 219 95.89% Total 2 53 66.04% 1 42 80.95% 2 47 55.32% I 40 55.00% 0 39 76.92% 2 34 70.59% 3 58 72.41% 5 93 49.46% 16 406 63.79% Total I 45 66.67% I 47 74.47% 0 37 56.76% 0 26 73.08% 1 20 80.00% 1 32 81.25% 0 10 100.00% 3 52 67.31% 2 33 63.64% 9 302 70.53% Total 3 72 44.44% 1 70 40.00% 4 98 43.88% I 67 43.28% 3 72 51.39% 5 82 45.12% I 75 44.00% 18 536 44.59% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL WAKEFIELD School Total WASHNGTON School Total WATSON School Total WESTERN HILLS School Total 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 11 60 2 5 54 3 6 37 4 8 58 5 5 57 6 14 47 KF 2 55 51 368 Grade WH BL OT I 25 68 2 27 51 3 25 so 4 30 40 5 34 70 6 30 56 E 2 2 KF 15 55 PK 22 30 210 422 Grade WH BL OT I II 55 2 II 50 3 12 42 4 13 49 5 JO 45 6 5 40 KF 12 47 PK 10 25 84 353 Grade WH BL OT I 12 35 2 14 29 3 17 32 4 21 27 5 14 35 6 12 26 KF 16 24 106 208 Black Total 3 74 81.08% 2 61 88.52% 4 47 78.72% 0 66 87.88% 1 63 90.48% 0 61 77.05% 0 57 96.49% 10 429 85.78% Total 3 96 70.83% 5 83 61.45% 4 79 63.29% I 71 56.34% I 105 66.67% I 87 64.37% 0 4 50.00% 8 78 70.51% I 53 56.60% 24 656 64.33% Total I 67 82.09% 2 63 79.37% I 55 76.36% 0 62 79.03% 2 57 78.95% I 46 86.96% 0 59 79.66% 0 35 71.43% 7 444 79.50% Total 0 47 74.47% 0 43 67.44% 0 49 65.31% 0 48 56.25% 0 49 71.43% 1 39 66.67% 0 40 60.00% I 315 66.03% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON School Total WOODRUFF School Total Total Elem I Grand Total 11 Grade I 2 3 4 5 6 KF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT WH BL OT 32 38 38 36 34 38 37 41 31 42 31 39 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT I 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 13 37 5 6 21 6 10 34 E 3 18 KF 7 47 PK 7 10 72 304 Grade WH BL OT I 10 22 2 5 32 3 .. 10 30 4 9 14 5 10 11 6 9 13 KF 12 28 PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 i I I 7784 16547 Black Total 3 73 52.05% 1 75 48.00% 0 72 52.78% 3 81 50.62% 2 75 56.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 51.97% Total I 61 77.05% 2 61 86.89% 2 46 80.43% 0 50 74.00% I 28 75.00% 0 44 77.27% 0 21 85.71% I 55 85.45% 1 18 55.56% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.75% I 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 23 60.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 59.09% 0 40 70.00% 0 36 55.56% 3 254 66.93% 330 14070 64.95% 545 24876 66.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT attachment 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT OCTOBER 4,1995 Cl) \u0026gt; jS ::i::: I- ~ w ' a: i _, ca (.) c3 I~ '= \u0026lt; \u0026lt; I t:: :~ I ca 1\nI\u0026gt; _, ' c.. SCHOOL ':: 3:c:: I I- IO I\u0026lt; a:i :\u0026lt; iO I I- l:it ~0 (.) BADGETT I 27! 81 11 36i 01 75.00%i 36 BALE 19\n10j 6i 35i 1 i 54.29% 36 BASELINE 24! 101 21 36i 01 66.67%1 36 BRADY 81 9i 0! 17! 1 i 47.06%1 18 CHICOT 111 61 1i 181 0i 61.11%, 18 CLOVERDALE 42i 91 2! 53i 1 ! 79.25%1 54 FAIR PARK 181 151 31 36i 01 50.00%: 36 FRANKLIN 641 31 3i 701 2 l 91.43%, 72 GARLAND I 13i 0i 5i 181 0i 72.22%i 18 GEYER SPRINGS ! 201 15! 11 361 0i 55.56% 36 KING I 40\n31 i 0i 71 i 1 I 56.34% 72 MABEL VALE i 9, 81 0! 171 11 52.94%' 18 MITCHELL 17: 1! 01 18i 01 94.44%, 18 RIGHTSELL 16 21 0! 18i 0! 88.89%, 18 ROCKEFELLER 25: 22: 5l 52i 2: 48.08% 54 ROMINE 211 10! 21 331 3: 63.64% 36 WASHINGTON I 301 191 5! 541 0, 55.56% 54 WATSON 25: 101 0i 35i 1: 71.43%  36 WILSON 10 T 1\n18'. 0 55.56% 18 WOODRUFF 20: 14i 2: 36l 0 55.56% 36 TOTAL 4591 2091 391 7071 13 64.92%1 720 As of 10/4/95 Page 1 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT LO +' c:: QI E .c u +\"' ' +' \"' School BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CENTRAL CIIICOT CLOVR EL DODD FAIR FAIR PAK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS HALL JEFFRSN ML KING MABEL EL MCCLELLA MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCIIELL OTTER CR PARKVIEW PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WllllAMS WILSON WOODRUFF ELEM TOTAL E IU z 8 ~ IiI)i i ~ ~ ~ 124 1 1/ 221 220 10 15 19 11 15 8 2 5 3 18 2 2 2 10 1 1 4 - -- 11 3 1 3 5 12 2 8 1 3 6 2 . .. 4 15 3 5 8 2 2 i ii 2 7 2 1 2 13 7 11 9 6 2 .. 5 14 8 1 11 7 2 10 5 I I I I 1:1 2 I 160I416I360 Iii I-  I a 0 ~ u li 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 17 26 12 14 20 199 3 15 18 9 4 302 13 1 30 318 8 3 \"j - 2 1 6 .. 2 - - 5 - 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 13 7 11 4 8 -- - 2 6 1 1 7 1 3 -- - .. 23 20 i 6 8 3 3 2 7 1 1 16 -- . 6 2 4 4 4 2 4 14 8 7 1 1 7 1 1 2 13 14 .. - 8 12 ii 38 11 2 34 8 3 8 6 1 2 1 385 559 512 C .. .. \"\" ~ \"' ... I 0 ... I- g \"' ~ ~ 1 4 3 5 3 9 3 1 1 2 11 9 4 6 . 5 4 3 9 :\nj 11 ii 4 3 3 1 179 1 i - - - - 1 165 9 11 1 5 286 11 - . - 7 - - - 6 4 249 .. s 8 --- 4 1 11 2 1 .. 1 1 8 10 -- 1 2 2 6 7 6 3 5 9 2 - - -- . --- 5 .. .. - 1 2 7 30 2 1 15 .. - 1 6 - 6 ---- - - i 1 6 6 6 1 6 1 2 5 4 28 1 2 7 3 2 10 2 2 1 - . 4 15 10 4 2 6 5 3 9 52 6 14 8/ 2 1 10 I 2 17 6 3061 321 418 467 - ,. .. .\n-. -. ~ r ..\n. :c a ... \" ~ II) z i.i: . \"' r l\u0026amp;I ~ ~\" ' tio:i  :\n2 10 5 2 3 1 5 11 1 12 19 17 4 1 8 .. 19 2 3 41 1 1 4 2 8 1 2 1 7 .. 5 3 1 -- 1 2 2 3 i\n8 1 17 4 -- - 2 24 4 385 .. 6 3 ... -- 164 1 1 3 203 9 2 9 5 - .. - 6 7 352 10 7 1 5 -- - - i ------ 1 1 --- - . - 1 21 j 3 4 15 9 2 6 4 .. - i --- ---- 4 9 3 2 3 9 .. 1 1 4 1 5 4 9 25 15 2 18 8 5 9 3 16 4 -- 4 16 1 1 3 5 6 1 12 1 2 5 13 2/ 1 j 6 61 6 615 3051 311 555 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE S~MMARY OCTOBEO 2, 1995 ., ' l .-, i\ni ~ . g II :/ : i ' ~ \"' IL -a ~ CJ ill ~ g ~ ~ Iii' I\"U ' :c ~ 1} \"\" u .c ..\n... ~ t t: 1: !111 f\n: ~- 2 4 4 1 2 5 7 2 1 11 3 1 18 11 15 18 5 102 14 26 3 5 1 i1 6 -- 2 2 10 16 105 6 5 1 j 7 12 18 1 2 5 23 1 1 i 1 9 4 --- --- 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 14 4 2 10 4 2 s -- -9 - 2 2 ---- 1 19 6 15 6 .. 1 3 i 3 8 4 ... 1 2 3 14 6 7 2 8 3 j 46 - 3 2 4 14 6 1 10 4 221 4 10 2 12 5 ---- ------ 1 4 329 2 3 2 1 i 1 1 1 318 1 7 4 4 2 274 3 5 4 5 3 173 i --- 5 ...i . ---- 6 4 2 6 1 13 3 4 6 11 1 14 3 1 5 3 3 7 5 6 2 8 2 i 4 1 2 2 11 2 3 2 4 4 7 2 1 9 12 11 i1 8 15 1 1:1 3 1 9 2 3 1 51 14 10 4 62 4 I 7 4 1 11 6/ 4 9 3 35 424 484 5241458 326 368 .., .,.., r . i,- .. -. \" .. ' .- ' i ,\n_, ): ., .,. ,,. !i , . .., . s Ii, : \"' IU 8. Iii I: u II) ~ IU \"' .... j'\n..... z  ~- :c tj. :i \"' ~ :c. CJ,- E ~\nn\n: S! 2 1 5 1 1 1 6 7 2 4 2 4 4 2 11 144 9 6 3 2 i3 5 3 i 5 14 j 29 ---- 2 2 . - ... 1 5 186 11 1 22 4 4 :i i - i 5 3 2 1 9 4 3 1 2 2 -- .. ii -- 5 - 7 1 27 2 -- -- .. - - 2 1 3 4 1 2 5 1 3 i 9 13 5 5 2 --- -- ----- -- ---- ----- - ----- ---- 4 1 5 3 45 1 6 8 i -- 2 7 2 15 -- 1 2 ... 1 3-5- 3 2 1 4 1 3 3 -- - 6 -- i 4 2 18 67 18 4 ... 1 3 1 12 5 9 5 5 13 8 .. 2 .. 7 140 7 6 23  ... ---- ---- --- - 15 2 1 1 2 --- -- -- i 1 .. 1 ii 1:i 19 6 6 2 6 7 10 3 -- 2 3 3 268 --------- 2 ---- ------ ------- 3 1 1 4 240 6 9 4 2 7 3 -- .. 161 3 1 4 4 25 7 170 4 8 1 1 4 1 2 190 4 2 1 2 4 26 6 392 6 1 39 15 is 8  2 16 1 1 2 2 4 10 6 sJ j i - 4 139 1 24 18 11 3 6 5 19 12 2 21 16 7 1 2 1 5 6 3651 343 774 321 269 396 190 619 \"'-=1-!f {:~\n~:, ~ ':t. :t,p. ~., ti 'J\u0026gt; ,(\\' :t~.. _f. i f 1- ... z ::I - It,\n~\n:c' wlie,' I!: l\n4 u  I 1-i(\nIi~\nii' ~Li 1 42 2 9 7 3 11 11 5 6 3 18 26 11 1 6 1 --- - - 6 8 34 5 .. 11 ii \"j4 22 4 15 2 19 3 - - i --3 3 7 - - ----  2 i 4 5 4 1 3 .. -- 17 3 ----- . ii ----------- 7 2 1 --- - . 1 10 1 3 -- -- . ... 1 1 3 12 5 5 5 3 4 ... - -' 2 14 2 - 11 2 ---- ---- .. .. --- 4 3 17 -- --- - - 1 5 1 1 i\n4 2 8 16 6 1 13 -2 --3 ... --- 1 2 14 2 2 - i ----- 2 2 4 17 5 1 1 4 1 2 3 .. 340 2 12  14 295 .. 16 7 1 349 5 1 213 -- 5 7 12 8 2 7 4 15 9 3 :i 496 634 531 298 ,!r :,~ . ii ... IL z :\"::,' t a -' 0 .\". . i e 1 1 210 18 1 347 327 24 3 604 10 394 24 1 629 452 - - 453 - 9 294 :i .. 3 1 - 270 - . 4 2 435 --- - ...  - . 3 431 7 .5.1 8 4 255 -- ... 310 - 8 8 307 2 1 5 2 501 --- . 4 2 531 --- 1 1 460 -  9 487 2 ..4 00 -3 257 .. 339 4 7 11 406 i .. 219 4 6 406 17 302 ..1 6 5..3 6 3 429 21 2 656 444 20 315 20 2 508 ii:1 - 1 384 1141 254 48511631 14070 w z 0 N ~ .,,_ 59.05% -63.69% 67.28% \u0026gt;- \u0026gt;- ~ - \u0026gt;- 66.81% \u0026gt;- 70.20% \u0026gt;- 60.88% -- 61.11% \u0026gt;- 65.75% \u0026gt;- -57.77% -74.32% 64.31% -65.48% --- 70.26% - 41.62% -71.52% -- 65.30% --68.50% -67.32% ~ -59.11% 73.52% --41.87% -62.91% ~ -79.25% ~ 78.60% --67.62% 58.85% \u0026gt;- 44.68% Ill rt rt Ill n ::T 3 ro :::I rt 1.71 H-~' I .,...., ~:\\:).~\n,. rl l . 494 62 DUNBAR 38 443 --------- ----- ----- FORST HT 23 45 --- -- HENDERSN 21 36 - - ------- MABEL JR 73 50 MANN M/S 90 57 ----------- ----- --- - PUL HT J 21 21 SOUTHWST 17 23 JR TOTAL 777 737 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 {: !:r1 - ! -f.( -\" '.~::\n~ -.\n-~t,' _: ~.\nu , -l.\n,\u0026lt;. 0 \u0026gt;- a: . /\n' .,, I,, z  C o, ., ::I I- Ill .a.: , ::: .., u0 a:' :.::\nI- .c :z: ~. . ~ -'' tQ z0 '.\n~{f. :i 4. 3 4 23 1 6 1 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 --- - ------ -- ------ - - ---- 483 50 20 72 7 - ------ 34 588 11 1 19 11 ---  ----- 4 4 333 7 3 ... 54 114 3 66 109 67 220 ------- ---- -- --- ------ ------ 36 48 1 15 2 ~70 8 18 20 25 ! 1 4 I 696 892 7 508 123 767 271 mf\nii . ,'~t:. Jf{:~t C3l):.  w I ' z ::c \u0026gt; J- 0 ! b ., ~-~\\ i\n\n:fi ~o :.,Cl)  J~~\\\n,,\n:.,. 15 609 81.12% - --- - ... 53 732 60.52% ----- -- 59 759 63.64% -------- 71 792 74.24% --------- 17 491 67.82% ------- 67 847 ------- ------- 59 781 72.98% 504 612 82.35% 845 5623 orncE OF SllJl)fNI ASSl(\ntlf'.1fNf -,~ il,_ '!'f'YM :1\n,  ~:,\n31i1\n.- .. 1}!1 li 1 ~!1J ii\nI j:1\n,. !., , f f ~-\ni~ ,,, v-\n~'. '11 ~ '-~ ,.! ~-:.'~fi - i ik -.~: J' t}~\" 1' ... ' .... ' , ..... .\nl\\ !! ~ ... Cl ~ '~ ~ f i I .... ... ...  !:t ~ ..f \u0026amp;1 1- $. I ~ i - ~ .:.\nf ,, School 1:f CENTRAL 2 I j 1150 I 67 4 1 ! - FAIR 1 84 1 620 1 HALL 1 2 155 33 1 2 2 MCCLELLAN 3 33 2 6 61 PARKVIEW 2 260 85 9 SR TOTAL 3 3 5 1682 2 6 1 866 1 6 3 10 --------- ----- - .l~ i e.n.,. f 0 .. z j l5 ~- 1 1 1 2 1 LITTLE ROCK SCIIOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 ,p ., ..:.. ,ti~,\n\n~j,!!r' _ ' .:~:,_ \\'l' !-, : \"t1 i~ 1 !f\n' ,., 1-~~:.i~~li .!:~:! ~ ~ I 1, ~i ~ '1 ' C iii' /-1!~ ! :i .. !! Cl i!i I ,... GI J\\ 1-l_' f'. l .\". .. ., o .... 1:11 ~ :\n-::11,: I i 166 4 6 5 105 1 3 37 1 1 1 130 1 - 615 2 86 3 9 2 1 771 136 6 80 963 4 17 6 2 1172 5 3 ... t,t . \"'ii~ u .,1 0 cc ,. i ul ::I !i: .c t: 0 Ii! z 7 2 4 1 1 i 65 I 79 1 ..!:.!.!._TL_\n_BOCJS...SCHOOOII STRlrT *' I' ~i~f ~(,.\nr llf' I~\n~~ ~:r\\.\n- . ~t~ . t' 1.'  \"i' i~t ~ ~:-\n'11: c 'i},\n.~ ~ ' i.' .,'.i.q  i1. il t ~\\ \"' W. f\n- 1 t r ' ' ll:. u a\"i', 'ij 'J~ ~ \"' .. z ~- .... ~i ir ~ %J ~- 0 :\ni !! It .... .. !.:, .., N :II!. ~. .\u0026lt;..( .' i{ 0 ~ . ~} ~- ' i Sl 2 !!!.'' :~ au i.\n~' ,\ne ~ 47 4 4 2 1 11 !I 1591 72.28% -- ... .. 17 - 2 2 1 2 905 68.51% - - -- .. - 15 3 - . 2 1 ! 928 66.27% -~-.. --7 1 -5 1 I 904 85.29% 206 1 1 4 i 855 292 4 4 2 2 5 1 16 3 2 8 1 15183 -- -- -- -- ------------- IO +-' i:: QJ E .c: u +\"-' ' +-' \"' Little Rock School District Original Magnet Schools - Enrollment v. A/location October 10, 1995 Booker ------- --- Settlement Capacities 660 ------ ---- ~ :s i\"ii ' District ~ ~ LRSD . . .. .. ----- ------- --- 95-96 Seat Allocations 382 - --- ---------- ---- ---- Actual Enrollmenl 337 58.8% - - Difference -45 PCCSD - .. 95--96 Seal Allocations 190 --.. - - ------ --- Actual Enrollment 152 38.8% --------- ----- Difference -38 ------ NLRSD - ... ---- 95-96 Seat Allocations 84 -  -------------- ------- --- Actual Enrollmenl 110 52.7% - Difference 26 --- --- TOTALS .. - ---- - ---- -- --- --- - --- - 95-96 Seat Allocations 656 Actual Enrollment 599 52.6% - Difference -57 Walling Lists Black 427 Non-Black ----- 0 Total 427 MAGNETS Xi.S Carver -- - - -. --------- 613 --------- --- ~ \"iii i\"ii ' ~ ~ ------ ---- 357 328 64.3% -29 ---- -- 177 ------- -- 190 33.2% 13 --- ----- -- 79 ---- -- ... 108 29 613 626 13 400 12 412 47.2% .. 51.9% Gibbs ------ - - . 351 -------- ----- -u\" :s i\"ii ' ~ ~ ----- _ _._ . -- 191 ------- --- 192 55.7% 1 ---- ------ 95 ---------- --- 63 49.2% -32 ------ 42 ------ --- 48 ---- 6 328 303 -25 377 16 393 --- -- -- 56.3% ----- 54.5% Williams -- --- --- ---- .. - 615 ----- :s ~ ---- --- 287 ---- 307 20 ---- -------- 142 ----- ---- 140 -2 --- ----- 63 ------ 63 0 492 S10 18 317 365 682 ---- -u\" i\"ii' ~ -- --- ---- 61.9% ~--- --- ------- 32.1% -- ---- -- 49.2% ---- 52.2% Office of Stutlent Assignment Mann ---- --- . - ------ 935 --------- ~ ------- 522 ------ 504 -18 ---- 261 ------ --- 229 -32 ----- 11..7 111 -6 900 844 -56 1381 167 1548 ------ -u\" i\"ii' ~ ------ 55.8% ---- -------- 49.3% --- --- ---- 51.4% --- 53.4% Parkview --- ------- 991 ----- :s ~ ------- 604 ---- 577 -27 ----- 289 ----- 209 -80 ---- 100 63 -37 993 849 -144 717 110 827 --- ~ i\"ii' ~ ---- -- 53.7% -- ------ 48.3% ----- 57.1% 52.7% ni 0 I-lJ ---- .. 2343 ------ 2245 -98 ---------- ----- - .. ---- --- ----- ----- 1154 983 -.1 -7 1 ... 485 503 1..8 3982 3731 -251 3619 670 4289 11\u0026gt; rt rt 11\u0026gt; n ::T 3 It) ~ rt O'I .. ~ il/08/95 12:54 FAX 501 771 8069 LR School Dist .,~~ N~a.lJIR ffunff. ~/1. ~ \"1f HfflJ \u0026amp;rm4 IJNIU, MruJilaM ,m~ 1fl/!4HJ'MlrJ1~ H Tf-lJJI~: ~ fFtJJ~'U 'fl}IJl/$,YJUWIJ\u0026amp; 1 J--e re p. fo7 (?1uw.,, ,j ))A(/ -721- 4 l(rO TFMJl'll: (d,\na\n,d~ :~~) IJ)IJ(U$: -~l.,,,ljh\"\"\"\"r.-,,11a11S1--N-C#lla--#llfff.-.,--- Qi(J: '1Jil5' J) f74r,/4,,,,7 14)001 C\\I 0 0 ~ ...... 0 0 ..c:: u \u0026lt;J) P::: ,-..l z C) \"' 0 00 .,. m.. C\\I ..... m C) ...... 00 0 ...... .......... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 : 08 09 10 11 12 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Totals 1 1 4 1 3 2 ,3 1 4 4 2 5 4 8\n(/ 40 ---- - 12 North Little Rock Public Schools Baring Cross Center 6002-078 K-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 C 1 I 0 ..\n0 .1 0 0 0 ~ 0 1 u :l 1 u 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 ~ 10 ,-1 5 ti 15 '( 9 (J) 0 t:J 0 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% 22.5% 0.0% 0.0% - 5 1 4 2 0 0 41.7% 8.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 u u u u 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 p 0 C\u0026gt; 0 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .., 0 0 ~ +-' \"' -.-\u0026lt; 0 ...... 0 0 .i::: u Cl) 5 z 0, (0 0 0() in 0, '- 0() 0 '...... ...... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals : Percentages - Grade 1-6 Percentages - North Little Rock Public Schools Amboy Elementary 6002-050 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Totals M F M F M F M F 66 15 18 21 12 0 0 0 0 67 11 13 21 22 0 0 0 0 69 17 12 20 20 0 0 0 0 55 11 20 12 12 0 0 0 0 62 20 10 20 12 0 0 0 0 65 25 6 18 16 0 0 0 0 55 12 15 14 14 0 0 0 0 439 111 94 126 108 0 0 0 0 25.3% 21.4% 28.7% 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ~0.5 ~ 0 ---=5..~ /Z\u0026gt; 373]-- 96 76 105 96 0 o - of o 25.7% 20.4% 28.2% 25.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -----~ Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% j..) .\"..'. . 0 .... 0 0 ..c:: u V} 5 z 0) 0\" ' 00 .... rt- .... 0 ,n .. \".I ... t.n 0) '- 00 0 '........ - Grade Totals K 11 01 16 02 18 03 21 04 19 05 19 06 22 Totals : 126 Percenta~es Grades 1-6 115 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Belwood Elementary 6002-053 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 1 3 4 0 0 2 1 7 6 0 0 5 1 6 6 0 0 4 8 5 4 0 0 4 8 2 5 0 0 4 6 3 6 0 0 6 6 6 4 0 0 28 31 32 35 0 0 22.2% 24.6% 25.4% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% --59 C7 0 25 30 29 31 0 0 21.7% 26.1% 25.2% 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ..:53\n,. 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ir., 0 0 ~  rn ..... 0 ...... 0 0 .c: u V) :3 z c\"o' 0 00 .... r--r--- .... 0 ir., .. .\".\". . ir., '\" ' 00 0 '.. ...... Grade J g\n-7. K 01 02 03 04 05 06 : Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percenta es Totals 33 97 60 42 55 46 55 41 429 North Little Rock Public Schools Boone Park Elementary 6002-054 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F .5 3 2 -11 9 18 I 0 1 12 14 35 32 4 0 10 3 24 23 0 0 8 10 14 10 0 0 10 7 21 16 0 1 8 7 12 18 0 1 12 8 18 15 2 0 6 7 12 15 1 0 69 58 145 147 7 3 16.1% 13.5% 33.8% 34.3% 1.6% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 299 54 42 101 97 3 2 0 0 0 0 18.1% 14.0% 33.8% 32.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00 0 0 1 ...... 0 0 .uc : en p:\n...J 7. 0) co 0 00 ...... rr- ..... 0 on .., o.n. ~ ...... on 0) '-- 00 0 '.-.... ..... Grade Totals J ~77.., 36 K 87 01 42 02 45 03 47 04 47 05 51 06 : 48 Totals 403 Percentages Grades 1-6 280 Percenta es M -i North Little Rock Public Schools Central Elementary 6002-059 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 1 3 ~14 18 0 0 2 8 40 37 0 8 8 15 11 0 6 10 14 15 0 9 8 15 14 1 12 10 20 5 0 4 19 11 16 1 14 6 14 13 1 56 72 143 129 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9% 17.9% 35.5% 32.0% 0.7% 0.0% .3 53 89 74 3 0 18.9% 21.8% 31.8% 26.4% 1.1% 0.0% . Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% +-' rJl ..... A ,-s 0 0 .c: u rJ) 0:: ,_J z C) (C 0 0() .... t-t-- .... 0 lt) \"\" lt) lt) C) ...... 0() 0 .......... .... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals : Percentages Grades 1-6 Percenta es Totals 30 34 31 - 30 39 46 33 - 243 \"' 213 M North Little Rock Public Schools Crestwood Elementary 6002-055 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 15 7 5 3 0 9 6 11 8 0 10 7 7 6 0 8 7 9 6 0 14 8 8 9 0 12 10 10 14 0 3 11 9 10 0 71 56 59 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29.2% 23.0% 24.3% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% / 49 54 53 0 0 26.3% 23.0% 25.4% 24.9% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 0:: ...l z c\"o' 0 00 ...... tr- ...... 0 tr.\u0026gt; tr.\u0026gt; '\"- ' 00 0 '...... ...... Grade Totals K 31 01 32 02 30 03 33 04 24 05 34 06 25 Totals ' 209 Percentages Grades 1-6 178 M North Little Rock Public Schools Glenview Elementary 6002-056 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 2 6 10 13 0 3 8 11 8 0 5 5 10 9 0 8 9 8 8 0 6 3 5 10 0 3 8 17 6 0 8 3 9 5 0 35 42 70 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7% 20.1% 33.5% 28.2% 0.0% 0.0% 77 ....3 33 36 60 46 0 0 18.5% 20.2% 33.7% 25.8% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1 0 2 0 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% ..... 0 0 ..c:: u V) z~ C) ' 0 00 .... iI- .... 0 u:, u:, C) '- 00 0 '.... .... Grade Totals K 53 01 69 02 52 03 55 04 41 05 46 06 66 Totals : 382 Percentages Grades 1-6 329 Percenta es M North Little Rock Public Schools Indian Hills Elementary 6002-057 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 17 24 5 5 0 14 22 15 15 0 12 11 17 11 0 14 11 16 13 0 7 9 8 15 0 8 7 14 16 0 13 19 17 14 0 85 103 92 89 0 Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 6 2 1 22.3% 27.0% 24.1% 23.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 68 79 87 84 0 0 4 4 2 1 -,--+---+---=--,....,....,.----l----,--+---+----1----+----+----l 20.7% 24.0% 26.4% 25.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 0.3% .., rn ...\n0 ...\n0 0 .c: () Cll Ct: ....J z 0) to 0 00 .... r-r-- .... 0 '\" \"'1' ,.r.., ..\".. ll) 0) 0'0 0 ..' ...... Grade Totals K 22 01 39 02 31 03 23 04 29 05 44 06 - 36 Totals ' 224 Percentages Grade 1-6 202 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Elementary 6002-058 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 9 4 5 0 0 7 9 16 7 0 0 10 3 10 7 0 1 6 6 5 6 0 0 7 7 7 8 0 0 8 13 10 11 2 0 11 7 7 10 1 0 53 54 59 54 3 1 23.7% 24.1% 26.3% 24.1% 1.3% 0.4% /07 //3 -Y 49 45 55 49 3 1 24.3% 22.3% 27.2% .24.3% 1.5% 0.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .,,,So)i:, 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ,- 0 0 I .... 0 0 ,Q u VJ ~ ,--l z Cl) cc 0 00 .... t... .... 0 tn .. .\".\".. tn Cl) 0'0 0 ..' ...... -Grade Totals K 63 01 57 02 66 03 59 04 63 05 75 06 52 Totals : 435 - Percentages Grades 1-6 372 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lynch Drive Elementary 6002-060 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 11 10 20 22 0 0 10 12 20 15 0 0 15 14 22 15 0 0 13 13 19 14 0 0 12 11 25 15 0 0 19 13 22 21 0 0 9 4 16 23 0 0 89 77 144 125 0 0 2o.5o/~ 17.7% 33.1% 28.7% 0.0% 0.0% /C,~ ,\nice\n0 78 67 124 103 0 0 21.0% 18.0% 33.3% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C..\nJh 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -~ ----------~ 0, 0 0 ~  VJ ..... 0 ...... o 0 .c: u en P::: ,-..l z 0, (0 0 00 ,.... r-- .... 0 u:, .. .N. .. 0\", ' '- 00 0 '........ Grade Totals K 23 01 33 02 32 03 26 04 32 05 41 06 40 Totals : 227 Grades 1-6 204 M North Little Rock Public Schools Meadow Park Elementary 6002-061 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 3 2 8 10 0 2 8 14 9 0 7 5 9 11 0 6 6 9 5 0 5 6 7 14 0 6 9 8 18 0 7 11 11 10 0 36 47 66 77 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15.9% 20.7% 29.1% 33.9% 0.0% 0.4% ?3 H'~ / Asian/Pl Arnl/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C.37o 33 45 58 67 0 1 0 0 0 0 16.2% 22.1 % ,_2_8_.4+_-o3/i-_2o-. 8-l%-0 -. 0-o/+c--o0 -.50--1./.o_ 0_ _0_ -1/o-+-0---%o- .- -0-.0-%1 --0-.0-o/c-lo 0. ... 0 (1 ...... 0 0 .c: u en P:: ..J z a, co 0 00 .... iI'- .... ,0 ,, .. \u0026lt;.'.I .. u:, a, 0'0 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals K 64 01 67 02 58 03 52 04 50 05 53 06 54 Totals ' 398 Percentages Grades 1-6 334 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools North Heights Elementary 6002-063 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 17 20 16 10 1 18 13 18 17 0 12 14 7 24 0 8 13 16 14 1 13 5 10 20 1 13 8 17 14 0 12 10 17 12 2 93 83 101 111 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 23.4% 20.9% 25.4% 27.9% 1.3% 1.3% /7(,, c,)/,\n /v 76 63 85 101 4 5 22.8% 18.9% 25.4% 30.2% 1.2% 1.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ._,_a,/4 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  .\"..'. . Cl ...... 0 0 .c u VJ 0,: ..J ,'\n0) \u0026lt;D 0 0() .... \"' C\\I ..... ,r., 0) 0'( ) 0 ..'.. ...... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals ' Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages Totals 36 45 - 46 45 46 39 46 303 267 North Little Rock Public Schools Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 10 13 6 7 0 0 12 6 11 14 1 1 10 11 12 10 1 0 10 8 11 14 2 0 11 12 16 7 0 0 10 9 7 11 1 1 13 11 9 13 0 0 76 70 72 76 5 2 25.1% 23.1% 23.8% 25.1% 1.7% 0.7% /J/(,, /-\n/8' 9 66 57 66 69 5 2 24.7% 21.3% 24.7% 25.8% 1.9% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% --1\"'7'?o 0 0 2 01 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% ,., ....., 0 ~ ...... 0 0 .uc : en o::\n..J z a, (0 0 00 ....., r-- 1- ....., 0 u, .. I.N.. .., u, a, 0'0 0 .'. ..., ....., Grade Totals K 52 01 58 02 40 03 41 04 57 05 50 06 48 Totals : 346 Percentages Grades 1-6 294 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Pike View Elementary 6002-065 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 11 8 20 12 0 0 12 12 20 14 0 0 10 5 10 14 0 1 7 12 10 11 0 1 10 15 13 18 1 0 15 7 17 11 0 0 14 .7 11 15 0 1 79 66 101 95 1 3 22.8% 19.1% 29.2% 27.5% 0.3% 0.9% /-~6 /'Jc,, ..5 68 58 81 83 1 3 23.1% 19.7% 27.6% 28.2% 0.3% 1.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% .\"77o 0 0 0 01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% t-..... 0 ~ ,...\n0 0 ..c:: u Vl 0:: ,_J z a, (0 0 00 ...... t-t-- ..... 0 ir., .... If.) . .\"..\"... ir., a, 0'0 0 .'. .... ...... Grade Totals J 7'(qJ., 25 K 26 01 35 02 22 03 24 04 28 05 33 06 ' 30 Totals 223 Percentages Grades 1-6  172 Percentages M I North Little Rock Public Schools Redwood Elementary 6002-067 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 0 1\nl../ 15 9 0 0 0 0 15 11 0 6 5 14 9 1 4 4 7 6 1 4 6 7 6 1 4 6 6 11 0 7 9 5 10 1 6 3 12 7 0 31 34 81 69 4 - Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 13.9% 15.2% 36.3% 30.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33 51 49 4 4 0 0 0 0 29.7% 28.5% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% co 0 0 rll ...-f 0 0 ..c: u VJ i:i:: ,-l z C7) co 0 co ........ .... .... 0 \"' .. \"..\". . \"' C7) ' co 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals K 55 01 47 02 50 03 40 04 54 05 78 06 53 Totals ' 377 Percentages Grades 1-6 322 Percentages --- - North Little Rock Public Schools Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 1 1 20 33 0 6 4 20 17 0 9 13 13 14 1 7 11 14 7 0 18 16 11 9 0 18 19 22 19 0 20 11 5 17 0 79 75 105 116 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 21.0% 19.9% 27.9% 30.8% 0.3% 0.3% /51/ .,\nJc\n\u0026gt;-/ .,\nl- 78 74 85 83 1 1 24.2% 23.0% 26.4% 25.8% 0.3% 0.3% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cff'jT- 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- .., rJl ..... ~ ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 5 z a, co 0 co ...... t-t-- ...... 0 tt:) .. \"I ...... tt:) a, ' co 0 .'. .... ...... Grade Totals 09 27 10 60 11 653 12 506 Totals 1246 Percentages M North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus 6002-076 11-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 7 2 11 6 0 10 4 26 18 2 162 170 159 158 1 136 127 100 130 1 - 315 303 296 312 4 1 0 1 7 9 25.3% 24.3% 23.8% 25.0% 0.3% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% ..... 0 0 .c: u \"' z~ a, (0 0 00 ..... ,,_ ..... 0 ti') ,.,.,. . .. ~ ..... ti') a, '- 00 0 .'.... ..... Grade 07 08 09 10 11 12 Totals Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus Annex 6002-076 07-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic Totals M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 3 2 0 16 2 1 9 3 0 27 3 0 15 9 0 20 1 0 10 9 0 9 1 0 7 1 0 80 9 1 44 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3% 1.3% 55.0% 31.3% 0.0% 0.0% I Asian/Pl Ami/A~ M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 \"\" 0 t'J ..., \"' T-1 A ..... 0 0 .d u C/l Cl) \u0026lt;O 0 00 ..... t-t-- ..... 0 I() .. .\"..\".. (I') Cl) '- 00 0 '..... ..... - - - -- -- Grade Totals 09 --- 691 10 607 Totals 1298 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 October 2, 1995 White Black _ljispanic M F M F M F 163 181 148 186 3 5 161 147 148 139 4 4 324 328 296 325 7 9 25.0% 25.3% -22.8% 25.0% 0.5% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 4 4 1 0 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%  .\",.'.. , A ..... 0 0 .d u en 5 z C) (0 0 00 .... it- .... 0 u:, .. .\".\". . u:, C) '- 0() 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals 07 249 08 236 Totals 485 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 98 55 50 45 0 64 59 57 55 0 162 114 107 100 0 0 0 0 33.4% 23.5% 22.1% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% .... 0 0 .c: u ti) 0::: ...l z \"' (0 0 00 .... tr- _, 0 u:, .... u:, .. C\\\nj .... u:, \"' ' 00 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals - 07 302 08 301 Totals 603 North Little Rock Public Schools Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 October 2, 1995 - White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 71 62 86 78 3 70 51 79 94 3 141 113 165 172 6 2 4 6 23.4% 18.7% 27.4% 28.5% 1.0% 1.0% Asian/Pl Ami/A~ M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ...... 0 0 .c: u \u0026lt;I) P::: ,-..l z C) co 0 co ...... ..... r- ...... 0 II) '\u0026lt;t' ti) .. .\"..\"... ti) C) 'co 0 '...... ...... Grade Totals 07 169 08 177 Totals 346 PercentaQes North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 42 32 52 43 0 34 29 59 52 2 76 61 111 95 2 0 0 0 22.0% 17.6% 32.1% 27.5% 0.6% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 00 ..... 0 11  .\"...'. . Cl ..... 0 0 .c: u en 5 z 0) cc 0 00 ..... iI'- .... 0 IQ \"\" IQ IQ 0) '- 00 0 '..... ..... -- Grade Totals ------ -- 05 8 06 10 07 5 08 16 Totals 39 Grades 1-6' 18 - North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle Annex 6002-077 05-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F ---0 - 1 7 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 0 9 2 0 8 0 25 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 20.5% 0.0% 64.1% 12.8% 2.6% 0.0% \u0026lt;ii\n0 I 2 0 14 2 0 0 11.1% 0.0% 77.8% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%\n:,7 ~ . 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  \"' ~ 0 .-\u0026lt; 0 0 .c:: u \u0026lt;I) 0,: ,-.l z C) (0 0 00 ..... iI'- .... 0 ,n .. .\".\".. . IQ C) '- 00 0 '..... ..... Grade --- Totals Elementary 4795 Percentages Grades 1-6 3984 Percenta es Seconda : 4106 8901 District 1-12 8090 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F 1)/ M F,,vf M F --999 7~3 1414 1?-'1350 29 20 20.8% 20.1% 29.5% 28.2% 0.6% 0.4% 871 816 1148 1089 24 19 21.9% 20.5% 28.8% 27.3% 0.6% 0.5% 1037 924 1041 1039 20 24 25.3% 22.5% 25.4% 25.3% 0.5% 0.6% 2036 1887 2389 49 22.9% 21.2% 27. 26.8% 0.6% ..3\nf.\n8 '-yj/ 1908 1740 21 2128 23.6% 21.5% 0.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M,q F M F !.(l 5 8 6 1 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 5 5 6 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 13 6 1 1 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14 7 2 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% ~ 11 7 2 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% ' (0 \"' 0 ~  (/) ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ..c: (.) U) 0,,: ...J z a, (0 0 00 ..... r-r-- ..... 0. ,, .... '.\". .\".'.. . .,, a, ...... 00 0 ...... .......... Grade Totals Pre-school 94 Kindergarten 717 01 702 02 : 636 03 607 04 640 05 739 . -- 06 660 07 730 08 741 09 736 10 699 -- ---- 11 677 12 523 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY BY GRADE October 2, 1995 White Black Hisoanic M F M F M F /0 4 6 ~~ 38 45 I 0 1 4.3% 6.4% 40.4% 47.9% 0.0% 1.1% 124 141 228 216 5 0 17.3% 19.7% 31.8% 30.1% 0.7% 0.0% 130 130 237 196 2 2 18.5% 18.5% 33.8% 27.9% 0.3% 0.3% 142 126 179 178 3 3 22.3% 19.8% 28.1% 28.0% 0.5% 0.5% 125 145 178 150 5 3 20.6% 23.9% 29.3% 24.7% 0.8% 0.5% 152 133 172 176 23 1 23.8% 20.8% 26.9% 27.5% 3.6% 0.2% 166 151 206 205 7 3 22.5% 20.4% 27.9% 27.7% 0.9% 0.4% 156 131 176 184 5 5 23.6% 19.8% 26.7% 27.9% 0.8% 0.8% 213 149 192 169 4 2 29.2% 20.4% 26.3% 23.2% 0.5% 0.3% 176 141 207 206 5 4 23.8% 19.0% 27.9% 27.8% 0.7% 0.5% 173 184 168 195 3 6 23.5% 25.0% 22.8% 26.5% 0.4% 0.8% 174 151 191 169 6 4 24.9% 21.6% 27.3% 24.2% 0.9% 0.6% 164 171 170 168 1 1 24.2% 25.3% 25.1% 24.8% 0.1% 0.1% 137 128 113 132 1 7 26.2% 24.5% 21.6% 25.2% 0.2% 1.3% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F ~/o 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 3 0 0 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2 1 2 0 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 1 1 3 0 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 3 0 0 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 4 2 1 0 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 2 2 0 0 __ a.._ ___ 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 1 0 0 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 10-2-95 ENROLLMENT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC SCHOOL BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS Adkins ,::,?1:5 116 99 66 59 /d- ) 1 l Arnold Drive.,.111 146 135 47 46 q~ J 2 Baker :?'3~ 128 104 40 45 'H.~ Bates ~/.\nJ. 127 85 134 139 -Yi j Bayou Meto ,~g 303 305 5 5 /4 D 6 5 Cato :V...a1 229 202 73 46 // 7 Clinton -:(/7 174 143 159 170 ~ C, 6 3 Coll. Sta. /7/ 115 62 76 52 /.\nl ~ 2 1 Crvstal Hill -VIC 204 212 185 182~ 7 2 1 Dupree. ::B'i 184 153 58 61 /, 'f 1 Full~r Elem. ~4i 98 67 118 98 ~, ~ Harris /:SF{ 92 66 81 80 A:: I/ 5 J'ville Elem . ..J,Q 7 215 212 153 158 3, / 3 4 Landmark ..:)~..Y 14.7 137 108 92 ...:,, Ill? Lawsou _J.'~ 127 121 29 31 /.. ~ Oak Grove El.-::H- ~ 183 163 46 57 /~ '.~ l Oakbrooke ~v 176 168 55 4 9 /(_ )...,/ 3 1 Pine Forest ....sJI J 210 180 49 53 /t G\\- 1 Pinewood =1'5\u0026lt;\\\" 196 189 88 89 /~ 17 3 4 Robinson Elem . ...:F: JJ 159 132 53 43 c\nV : Scott R 7 41 46 27 22  !9 Sherwood 3~ Iv 180 154 72 54 .1,,:~. 2 1 s. Hills Elem.2 ~} 179 152 57 52 /( ,9 2 2 Tavlor _:] t'.? 125 145 89 60 / VJ\" Tolleson ..u-f\u0026lt;j 216 213 50 65 h l\"5 TOTAL ELEM. 7, 7.1-' 4 070 3.645 1. 918 1. 808.3 l:Y.. 39 24 Fuller Jr. ~ st 2~6 188 238 194 ~ ~ 1 J'ville North4 w 234 200 98 103-:2 i:\u0026gt;/ J'ville South\n:. bl~ 172 151 101 80 J ,\nJ 2 J 'ville High /,\n, J/ 325 289 187 181 .~ K 1 1 Mills ~I-~  230 153 196 163 ~-D'=J 2 1 North Pulaski 5 ,9 310 289 118 88 _-:',l C. 3 3 Northwood 7\n[/_ 373 363 108 124 .:1 u 3 5 Oak Grove Hiqh/.: r/~ 359 284 125 119 ....::wS 5 1 Robinson Jr. .::(dl 175 181 53 58 l,V Robinson Sr. ::J\" o 144 126 62 28 l in 1 s. Hills Jr. \"\"i'' !.\nl. 323 269 138 117 ol 155 6 3 s. Hills Sr. .e:\n~/ 278 293 112 113 ...:l\n:)5 5 2 TO'rAL SECOND. 3,179 2,786 1. 536 1,368 27 18 -59( 5 ~ 0- TOTAL DIST. 7.249 6.431 3,454 3,176 66 42 ASIAN/PAC.ISL. AM. IND/ESKIMC BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS 1 -~ 3 .l (, 1 I 0 l 1 2 2 I-? 2 .,,.,:2. 3 J /5 1 ..J/ 1 2 1 7 2 3 ~ tr) l C. 1 1 5 /~ 0 0 l c\u0026gt; 1 1 , ..I. 7 l 4 C, 2 6 2 1? r 0 ~~ - l I rJ 21 19 12 6 /,,:J, 3 3 7 F, 3 3 ~ 8 6 JC, 1 6 IC 1 4 II 4 I 1 1 /~ 3 2 l /,\ni 1 I I 1 1 // 4 /) 28 27 1 2 /02 49 46 ' 13 8 . TOTAL 343 380 318 485 635 552 661 309 790 462 381 325 752 484 308 451 455 498 579 387 136 463 444 420 544 11. 562 883 635 512 998 752 816 983 899 468 361 858 807 8,972 20.534 5,. S3 . .\nn l5G. .. :t?. ..:,g ~o -/ ~ ~(p ' ~o --ti/ -II 19 ~.3 ~3 'I,\n/ ~ ~G, bl1 l..:\u0026gt;!i i55 L.,/ ~ L~~ ~1 -\u0026gt;IK ~ ~~ ~o 30. LI I.Jg N 3 .. NOV 08 '95 15:03 c: ~ .... P.1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr DtxoN ROAD Lmu Rooc,A RKANSAS7 2206 (501) 4902000 Date: 11/4/4s Time: To: From: Numbero f Pages {includingc overs heet): _..=....\n.__ __ Message POST Oma Box 8601  Lmu ROCKA, RKANSA7S2 216 FAX(501)490--0483 i-!OV 09 '95 14=01 P.1 ANNUASIC,. ROOuLr o:a:r- mn. ENROUMNBTY SCROOFLO RM- ocroaza1 . 1995 -scaooL CROIC2 BY SCROOL - 60 03 090 PULr~SKI PULASKCI OUNTSYP EC HOMEARD KINSE LEMENTARY GRADSEP AN PK-06 ~I Jora I 114 09-00-010 11'2 I.- 10 - USC l21ll-1 X!dup:-:c A..k. Zi:dqar.:c:t. p .!!. I: !\"qll l\u0026gt;ay Oa.17 G\"ad l Gt'aci 1 Crad.-3 Gracie 4 \u0026lt;:~\u0026amp;d 5 C.t'acle6 j\nude. 7 C:t-ade 8 n-. ua.sr. S_51ccu.t Ed. ?m:oll I O:i.oic:eH . !~ou C:11\nt,.,\ne Lsi:-ou 51 Cboic:11.,_ .Ettt'oll* 4 Cboic:a** !croll* Cbo:f.~ilr !Dt'oll* ~1.c.,. ?ni:-oll* Choic:\"\" !n?'oll* O:i.oic:* !~~u:J To Dept. Fax# U.S. Depc. of ld\u0026amp;aca.CioaP. DD6 \u0026amp;/92 J.\u0026amp; .... - \"-l,la tt 111\u0026amp;:k -t.oa\u0026amp;IMILM .... lolc Ut.-w U.,....,.,.OW~ U..-~a i.,i,.. .. I~-- a.c,.- \"' ~ loTf C.1..\nh i.i,. Cl.rtr . s..,. GL:!.s la7 G~ a.a,. C4'1s '- I 5 5 I 6 r I I 11 Iii l ?\"l,A\nI I l l f1----++-J+-- F-+ -f -1---f --1J--tr-Ef :-r-rI= l l I .. f I .I E I I 141 8 -fol 9 14, 12 13[ 8 151 7 2 f 12 6 --1- f I l I I 2 (\\ I I. t . I I Phone# Fax 11 I f J I I .I { I f t t l ....... 11- f~ -c illcl.- all a.:. .... --oclaa la Sclloo1 a.im. \"~ ..ir -u ,-rti\u0026lt;i'\"SA\u0026amp; la .a.ate.a f..., tlla Unc a-.. Marilyn Nowlin llw of IM'nmr ..UOt,uJ. r.~c,: Tl.a,i-. 490~2@0 .NOV 09 '95 14:01 P.2 ARNUALS CBOOLR EPOR!-l' PtJPII. ENROLI.MEN\nSTY SCHOOLF ORM- OCTOBERl, . 1995 -SCHOOL CHOICZ BY scaoot. - ----- 60 03 095 Pill.ASKI PLIL, CO, SPEC. WM+Ji CLINTONIN TR-DISTE LE GRADSEP AN PK-Ob Cz:acl 'I'oi:a.l. ?z:e-Uderprem !i:raU 69 CMi~-- 83 [  ... - ADI Pom I l'1ll 09-00--010 l/92 1- %0  use llll:\u0026amp;-1 11S. . Depti. ot lch1catiG11 1.uu6 1/92 ... --- u.-\"' Mi.M  1...C.:ic -u.,a ~Ma ., ~ft~ ~-\"\" ~ ... 1.u..-..-.- ~ lo)'11 G.L=!.a ..,.. CL:l.a So1 GL=~ J.711 G1t!.a Jo1a ~=!.a 16 I ll .d I 21 t I J w1 1-f..1, lC/l.f I I 4 l I :t t . I l I I :I I f l 18 I 23 -l 25 f2 I I If I 1 s  1 4 17 I 18: l 22 I l J l l t 1 f ~~\n:.[~ 9 1 [ 15 221 20 t 19 f l I 1: I 1 I I ( 23 f 20 t 24 1 13 I I I I I Gl:'ade 4 u . Ucsr .. S_peci\u0026amp;l Ed.. !croll* 80 Choic: !!nroll* 72 Enroll* 83 Cl:ioic:.a t I .I E:3: I I I. J. ~~~~::._f -----iJ I I I I l t . f I  Choic:a.,.. f 1 I l 1 I I f l psa. C 132 l 13a 114::f 6 . l l I l. I I f =1 ... ,.u- .u- -4 b,tl- aU ,c ... u -~111 la ScllaD1 a..u ... ~ -,,,. at..._.. ,-~1c:1.,....1.q 1- caot\u0026lt;a tor tM u .. c u.o. ~..arilyn Nowlin 3 3 4 11- of penm .-a1 ~ tepon: ?!~-------- NOV 09 '95 14:02 P.3 ~ saooz. IUOB: - PWn. DJOttMDT n scmor.! OllM - oc.roBBJt 1. _1 _9__ 9_5_ _ -SCICOL cao::a IT SC300L - 60 03 093 PULASKI PULASKI CTY SPECIAL ADS Fora I 11a 09-00-010 11'2 r.., 10  tJSC 1221\u0026amp;,-1 CRSTAL HILL ELEME.i.''l'AFY GFADES PAN PK-06 11.s. Da\". of Uneet1 1.\u0026amp;nl 1192 C~ad Toe.al. ln-1Dd~ ~~1!:.:. :(] ... - ~Oft\u0026amp;Y le79 Gk.ta 13 J l_A l,~1 N,-.11 .... \"--'4-.sa ~ Cfzl.a 16 I 12 j.\n:l 8 .. --,~ a,,-..,. -MM :.,s.- Ia~ / .1.1,w- .. _ ... ,..\n4,u ~\nu!.t a.,. cut. r J. I I I I 50?.1 I ~- A.1'. I ~~::._(!i\"f\" '\"- 1-- -4----4-1 --if~t----+tJ-f~- JtJ--t -----, .... ., a- 3 Z1z1Mq\u0026amp;ft1'-~. ~~1\n~c::l: ~'-~-1.. .J.~F1== -.s:=_ -+lf=_-.:=.:1~:.E. -:1-- ~:--t--1. :-r--f_.\n:--J: _ k1l Da,. \"1.J ~~1\n:. 101 .L.1 2 _s...1.1_._24...1.f__22_92_...!J.f.l._ ::_:1_. ....t,.r[._ .f ...I. ~- .J .__._ __ \".\"\"!\"\"\"_ ~ .1 5 G:ue 1 . .. . ~~1!:.L.o,.._\nf::\nP\n...i.j-3\n+..l\n-\n1.1:..-.+....J.\n.-t. t.-.-..+.\n:.{\n._-' -.t.-.: .r .fl:-: --~1{r ---\"'r--:--t ,_ .4r I I 1-.-. . f. I I [:~:,.4.-. I :  I 5 [ 1 4 I 4 ~~~=,-,1\n:.=-t--tll 1 39 r ==r : 1f 2 : , 1 i :r 1 1 f I 4 -\n!!={I. [',I .I I 1 I J f I .r ... , I: 3 ~:: 14\"11\"=t-:.{_ ----i_ J f I :1 1 I :1 ==I I I I ~ ~!:=E-~ t LI,I l [ I l I t j f:\n::XOtll,-) =~uE\n. 1 L.:.f_ f9_1_-9Ja-1fft ....1-_6191.._10.,./. L..f. ...if2~ 1_[L...---J.[_2. .,.Jf_ I. .f_ _30 ... ,._ He-- - ..... \u0026amp;U ...._. .-w.a. la ..... ,~ ~ ~ ..-.. ,. ..... _.,. lia - ,.. - a- - Marilyn Nowlin is- ot pena aiWIC ::llU .. ,..n tei._.., _______ _ NOV 09 '95 14:02 P.4 ANNU~ scaooL REPOR:r- Pm'II. ENROLI..'!ENn'I ' SCBOOLF ORM OC'!OBER1., _1\n:.::9:_.._\n9_5_ SC!DOL CROICEB Y SCKOOL- 60 03 lOO PULASKI PULASKCIO UNTSYP EC FULLER-ELEMENTARY GRADSEP AN PK-06 Ci:ade Toi:al. he-Ea4qanei:i !nroll* 35 ~oii:a .... 11,l ~ lloc ~o.41,a ~~$11 u..- s..,ra Cub ao,. C:~lJ . a..,. cac-b 6 I 6 10 I 13 t I i:J- l.\n23 ,~, 7. Al\u0026gt;E Fom I fin 09--0().oOlQ l/91 Will 20 - QSC 12lU-l 11.s. De~u. of Uucaei P.41D6l/ 92 -w-%Mi.a ...... MMa d he~:l,o t l,o.r.-,lar / AM,lia. kd,,,,e ci..- \"\"1 Gula '1 G.t:1.a I I I I 2 f l t f I I: l I I l:1Z2ilqu,:-. , .~ ~~1\n:~_L f l l I I --I I -1 f f I Gnda 1 Gn.da .S t.rada 6 El.cm. T1is1.:r : S_ped.\u0026amp;1 Eel. Enroll* Cbo.1.ca119 Et1:ooll* Cbcica,.,. Enroll\" Choi~ Enroll* Qioic~ !nrau Cho.1.ea\"' !\nroll* Cbc:Lca\"' !:11r0ll Cbou- !iu~ou  Cho:Lc.- I-:'.-! 6~4!-=-=--21_~120-4--l-+l~-Jr--t--lt -!---r-3---,-l 8 56 j.1.5.l-l-l4 -[..w.J..1 .4i4o1 ~12 \"+-{ --r-l--+-1-+ 1-----\n-t---if l 2 [ f -.I f I I t I - I I [II If If I I l I LI I I l l ~ t~ - lad .... all -ca ~d .. ct., I.a Scllool 01111.co, ~ ..i, .~ .. ~:l.\"1,-ciq la CMl.ca lo,: !:lie Une u-. Marilyn Nowlirl ii- ol ~- MkiAS ellia r,eporc !alo\n,boaa, _______ _ ~ov 09 '95 14:03 P.s ADNU~ SCHOOLR EPOR:r - PUPll BNlWU..\"\\IENBTY SCBcOt. FORK - OCTOBER1 , 1995 -sc::aooL CHOICE BY SCHOOL - ----- 60 03 108 PULASKI PULASKCI OUNTSYP EC OAKG ROVEL EMENTARY GR~DES PAN PK-06 - .. c 1.1.M.11 .... AJ:\u0026gt;C1' ora I 11A 0~10 1/91 1.\u0026amp;v 20  use 122is-1 IJ.s. Dai,11. oi ldw:atioa. l'.\u0026amp;PD16/ 92 ...... u.-\"\" M\u0026amp;.M ff JL:~ --ta,,148 ., ~~ ~\"'I\u0026amp; i..-  J .u..- '4d.- c:r.u- Jo~ C:u-h \"17 l.it.:1, :S.01 l.iL:-!:\u0026amp; ..,,,, l.ibu ,.,,..~ :.. 28 I l9 1..:: l 11 ~ l I I I.J/7 1..::)3 I I .3\n)7- I I 4 } f f I t I I I [ l I f [ f  I l X  7ull tl~y 01il.y ~::ou 68 I 32 I . 2~ I 6 I Cl2cica\"\" I 3.E l f I I 1 1. 4 21 6{ . I l Gude 1 f 241 20 i. l I~ l 2.5 Guel 2 !a:-oll* f 25 I 24 t 31 10 I Clioiu*\" [ I f l i 2.s. \u0026lt;il:'ada3 !a:-oll* f ~9 l 16 l 5 I 4 f I Cl:.oica I f I 2 f 161 t 61 6 f I l Gtade 4 !crot!. 22 Cho:!.c t I I I 2 I 16 l l 5 f 8 l l I C:rad .5 !nroll 20 Qoica~ I t 3 2 t 9 l I I C:r:\u0026amp;4 6 Enroll* t 231 16 7 I O.Oic f { t 2 E I .J I f I : I Gl:'ada. 7 !nroli Choica.,, I I . [ l ~ I C:rade 8 !:i~ll l I I Cb.oic.,. I I f l I ::i I I !.lem. trcs=. !nrotl* I ' t I 1 } S_pecial Ed.  C:~ic.,. l l I 'tO,t:.U. ~  Zni:oU* eg pss 1144 f 341 46 f ~, (~ H oa.ly) Oioic..., t f 17 ..,...,,_c ftc- - .I.KL..., U t,....c,, ...,,1.c1,um1 1a Sc.bool Qol.o,. \"tuu.\u0026amp;a 0\u0026amp;17 c- pudd.-Ca I.a .-.,. f tu Unoc u... Marilyn NCMlin ?11..- at jMra\u0026lt;\u0026gt;II ..iu.a. i:Jl1a NPoft. TeJApao,1_4_1_, ___ _ ---- ---...- OCTOBER 1, ENROLLMENT. 1995-96 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BLACK BLACK% WHITE WHITE% TOTAL Adkins 125 36 218 64 343 Arnold Drive 93 24 287 76 380 Baker 85 27 233 73 318 Bates 273 56 212 44 485 / Bayou Meto 10 2 625 98 635 Cato 119 22 433 78 552 Clinton 329 50 332 50 661 College Station 128 41 181 59 3Q_9_ Crystal Hill ? b~6 ) 46 1- J r425 ) 54 I f/ 77 91 ,_ ,'/ ~ ~ Dupree 119 26 343 74 462 Fuller 216 57 165 43 381 Harris 1 61 50 164 50 325 Jacksonville 311 41 441 59 752 Landmark 200 41 284 59 484 Lawson 60 19 248. 81 308 Oak Grove 103 23 348 77 451 Oakbrooke 104 23 351 77 455 Pine Forest 102 20 396 80 498 Pinewood 177 31 402 69 579 Robinson 96 25 291 75 387 Scott 49 36 87 64 136 Sherwood 126 27 337 73 463 Sylvan Hillls 109 25 335 75 444 Taylor 149 35 271 65 420 Tolleson 115 21 429 79 544 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 3,725 32 7,838 68 1/ff,563- /0~\nu - OCT 1'3 \"35 14: 04 r P,4/4 OCTOBER 1, ENROLLMENT 1995-96 SECONDARY SCHOOLS BLACK BLACK% WHITE WHITE% TOTAL Alternative Learning Center 17 36 30 64 47 Fuller Junior High 430 49 449 51 879 Jacksonville Jr. North 198 31 433 69 631 Jacksonville Jr. South 179 35 329 65 508 Jacksonville High 367 37 629 63 996 Mills 358 48. 393 52 751 North Pulaski 206 25 609 75 815 Northwood 232 24 748 76 980 Oak Grove High 243 27 649 73 892 Robinson Jr. High 109 23 355 77 464 Robinson High 90 25 268 75 358' Sylvan Hills Jr. High 251 30 597  70 848 Sylvan Hills High 225 28 578 72 803 TOTAL SECONDARY 2,905 32 6,067 68 8,972 DISTRICT TOT AL 6,630 32 13,905 68 (zo,53~  2 - OCT 19 '95 14:03 MEDIA TIP SHEET Pulaski County Special School District PO Box 8601/925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72216 (501) 490-2000 October 19, 1995 Thursday, October 19: Officiale nrollmentf iguresf or the 1995-1996s chooly ears how an increaseo f 118 students in the Pulaski County Special School District over the official count for the 1994- 1995 school year. Figures released today by the PCSSD Pupil Personnel Department show an official October1 , 1995e nrollmento f 20,535s tudents. PCSSO'so fficiale nrollmentf igure last year was 20,417 students. (Enrollmenfti gures attached.) (Contact Marilyn Nowlin, pupil personnel, 490-2000.) -30- . ' ' .. OCT 19 '95 14:02 DATE: TO: FROM: Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/ P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-490-2000 FAX 4900483 October 19, 1995 Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette North Pulaski Leader Arnold Smith, Arkansas State Press North Little Rock Times Stephen Steed, Little Rock Free Press Our Neighborhood Judy Gallman-Arkansas Times Maumelle Monitor Jacksonville Patriot KAAK-TV-Channel 4 KATV-TV-Channel 7 KTHV-TV-Channel 11 KARN Radio Associated Press Office of Desegregation Monitoring PACT Ron Standridge, Information Services Specialist 490-2000 NUMBER OF PAGES: e ( including transmittal page) P.1/4 .. . .... SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT October 1 7, 1 995 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 5~~ /2 99~.~ SCHOOL CAPACITY 94S 73'7 '727 1014 514 _, 1 2~ Aq~1 s2y4, SCHOOL CAPACITY 420 420 328 768 664 600 800 340 820 465 526 S25 785 599 365 478 555 440 656 500 280 492 S19 444 570 --t'IOV 08 '95 11:41 .... 4 ... P.1 PULASKI CouNn SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr OlxON ROAD l.rrn.ER OCI\u0026lt;A,R KANSAS7 2206 (501) 4902000 Date: Time: To: - r. -- . From: 73\n/ Iv 'btw\u0026gt;i ll 7 Number of Pages (including cover sheet): ____ _  / / Message 5,CJR,Ry_ , POST OFFICE Box 8601  Lrm..ER OCKA, lu\u0026lt;ANSA7S2 216 FAX(501)490--0483 I iulc Rock - - -- --- FORM NO. FAPD-3B 77-01 .l!lL.l1fil .LILJ.Ofil 1 _ UA Number - --~ Qlbnu Ending Date Dale Submitted Quarter Number 1\\1 to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This n:poni s due withia fifteen( JS) days aftert he C:Dodf the quarter( Ari::C. odeA nn. 6-IS-213, Supp. I 991). Sendo ne copy to the office of LocalF isal Services.#, 4 CapitolM all, Room 202-A. LittleI t.ad:A. ri::an.su72 201 and one copy 10 the CountyB oardo f Education.E achq uarteris to be no les.i than f01ty (40) and no more than fifty (SO) days. I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I ' RECEi~fF.D ----------------- SEP 11 19Lv .. OA:icEOt DESEGREMGOAlTllITOONR IUG 10 II ,, Supcnn1mdcn(sS ignarure Phone# ~ 13 .. KINDERGARTEN GRADES 1 -12 COMBINED TOTAL DAYS IN A TIENDANCE DAYS ADM DAYS IN A TIENDANCE DAYS GRADESK 12 DAYS ABSENT' TOTAL TOTAL ABSDff TOTAL ADT ADA AD~i Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the IN TOTAL COL TOTAL T COL  -+S TOTAL , T+NT COL 9 10 /COL COL 2+7 lCOL COL 4+9 /COL COL. 4S,. nearest whole number QTR. T' NT\" 2+3 +NT /COLI T NT COLUMNS 7+8 I I I !HO/COL I C. Resident pupils sent to other dist{sl under '\"M to M\" transfers list Districts LfA NO. Pulaski County 40 //3.Z Pulaski County P4 40 North Little Rock 40 7422 7422 393 195 186 186 195 D. Total Cot columns 12.13, 14. These will be used for MFP/T\"ransp. Aid purposes E. Non-resident pupils received from other district(sl under \"M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County 40 1327 1327 20 34 11534 11534 426 299 322 333 North Little Rock 40 78 78 2 2 2420 2420 104 63 62 65 Pulaski County  P4 40 1609 1609 61 42 40 42 G. Total E 40 1405 1405 22 36 13954 13954 530 362 424 440 H. Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 50 Full-time: Half-time: Additionailn structionos n back. FIN--O\u0026lt;J=ssm W/P4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: To: From: Subject: October 12, 1995 Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor PCSSD Capacity Figures 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 I am currently working on our annual racial balance report. This year we are adding a chart to the report that compares each school's capacity to its total enrollment. In order to complete this report I will need the capacity figures your district is currently using for each PCSSD building. Please forward this information to me by October 20, 1995. Thank you for your help. SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT October 1 7, 1 995 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HICH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 737 727 1014 514 125 92S SCHOOL CAPACITY 420 420 328 768 664 600 800 340 820 465 526 525 785 599 365 478 555 440 6S6 500 280 492 519 444 570\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1209","title":"Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995-09-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","School management and organization","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1209"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["143 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLittle Rock School District Management Services Agreement With ServiceMaster September 20, 1995 tjc3/~5 ~ kv (14-' c~~ daiv ~w\nJku t1J ~~ ~ ve11 i~ ~ ~ ~rU#~ ( CJl_ II II II -\u0026lt;.-t?r..-t./~I -~ J ~ ~JV-S//1 ~~ ~ 11/. l:2 ~ 1:. ISTRICT GREEMENT TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' . . .   1 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 N ..... . . . .     . 2 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .. .. .. .. .            .  . . 3 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .. .. .. .. . . . .   4 . . . . ....   4 . . . . ....   4 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . .   4 peratio~               5 I. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :\n,t .. . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 66 .... rage In~\ne~~             6 e in Services            6 ......... : : : : : : : : : : : ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Nature and Scope of Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Information Provided by School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. SERVICES 2.1 Management Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.2 Related Administrative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3 Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.4 Permits and Licenses\nCompliance with Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.5 Costs To Be Absorbed by ServiceMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. PERSONNEL 3. 1 ServiceMaster Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2 School Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4 .1 Scope of this Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 Custodial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3 Plant Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.4 Grounds . . . ... . ... . .. .................. .. ... .. .. . 4 5. EQUIPMENT 5 .1 Equipment Provided by ServiceMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2 Equipment Provided by School: Custodial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3 Equipment Provided by the School: Plant Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.4 Equipment Provided by the School: Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 School's Agreement to Pay Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2 Contract Amount ......... ... ..... . ... .... .. .. ....... 6 6.3 Payments of the Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.4 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Base Wage Increase . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. INDEMNIFICATION 7. 1 Insurance and Indemnification of the School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. 2 Indemnification of ServiceMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. 3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2 Remedies for Breach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. TERM 9.1 Initial Term: Renewals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11.1 Joint Review Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance\nGrace Period\nTermination . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the School's Failure to Pay the Net Amount Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13. NOTICES 13 .1 Form of Notice and Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 14.2 Severability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 14.3 Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.4 Entire Agreement ......................... : . . . . . . . . 12 14.5 Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.6 Management Service (Exhibit D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14. 7 Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.9 Attorney's Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.10 Non-Waiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.11 Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.12 Pending Litigation .................................... 12 Agreement Page 2 MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of ________ , 199 _, by and between SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (\"ServiceMaster\") and Little Rock School District, (the \"School\") W I T N E S S E T H: RECITALS: A. B. C. D. The School operates various departments which provide services in support of the School's principal function\nThe School recognizes that it is important to its overall operations that the employees of its support services departments be well trained and managed to provide a clean, safe environment for students, staff and public and that the materials, supplies and equipment used by such employees in the discharge of their responsibilities be of the proper quality and quantity\nServiceMaster has represented to the School that ServiceMaster has extensive experience in providing management services to support departments of education facilities and in providing certain of the materials and supplies needed by such departments\nThe School wishes to obtain the management services of ServiceMaster for certain of its support departments and ServiceMaster desires to provide such management services for the School. NOW, TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set fo,:11 ,{ ,f. below the parties agree as follows: ~ ~. 1. INTRODUCTION ~~~ 1.1 Nature and Scope of Employment. The School hereby retains ServiceMaster as the sole, exclusive provider of management services as set forth in section 2 and to make available certain materials, supplies and equipment for the efficient performance of such management services as set forth in sections 4 and 5, and the School agrees to pay the consideration therefor as provided in section 6\nand ServiceMaster accepts such employment and responsibilities and agrees to provide such services and to make available to the School such materials, supplies and equipment, all as set forth herein. 1.2 Information Provided by School and Acquired by ServiceMaster. The program of  l, management services which ServiceMaster is to provide hereunder has been developed based on ~ information provided by the School and upon an independent on-site survey and investigation by ServiceMaster, an inspection of building, equipment and grounds and interviews with administrators, principals and staff of school. 2. SERVICES 2.1 Management Services. (a) ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct the School's employees in the support service departments of School which are identified in section Agreement Page 1 3.2 below (the \"Service Employees\"). Such training, management and direction together with the administrative services related thereto (the \"Management Services\") shall be provided by ServiceMaster in the context of the statements and descriptions of the physical areas, the job descriptions and duties of the Service Employees and the elaborations of ServiceMaster's duties as are set forth in the Exhibits attached hereto and hereby incorporated in this Agreement by reference. (b) The Management Services shall be provided to those departments for which an Exhibit number appears in the following table: Department Support Services Function Custodial Plant Operations and Maintenance Grounds Exhibit A A AB \\ Grounds Equipment . J' 2.2 Related Administrative Services. ServiceMaster agrees that it will perform all~~ administrative responsibilities which relate to the employment of the Service Employees by the School as directed by the School, including maintenance of time records and furnishing to the \\ School the data from which the School can formulate its regular payroll for the Service t Employees should the School so desire. 2.3 Training Materials. ServiceMaster will, at its sole expense, provide and maintain all Management Service related training equipment, films, slides, literature, daily work and project schedules, indices, standard operational procedures, and training manuals used to train the Service Employees. Such materials shall at all times remain the property of ServiceMaster. 2.4 Permits and Licenses\nCompliance with Law. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, procure all licenses and permits which are required for the lawful rendering of the Management Services and ServiceMaster agrees to comply with all statutes, ordinances and regulations which are applicable to the conduct of its services and sales hereunder. 2.5 Costs To Be Absorbed by ServiceMaster. (a) ServiceMaster shall pay all direct operating costs incurred in connection with the Management Services. The term \"direct operating costs\" as used in the preceding sentence means all costs directly attributable to the provision of the Management Services hereunder except that the term does not include those items listed in paragraph (b) below. The term includes (but is not limited to) the following costs: (i) salaries, taxes, benefits and employment-related costs or contributions (i.e., worker's compensation, unemployment, retirement, etc., if any) of ServiceMaster personnel, (ii) all taxes and fees currently imposed by federal, state or local authorities in connection with the provision of the Management Services, and (iii) training materials described in section 2.3. (b) The following costs are not \"direct operating costs\" and are not costs which are to be paid by ServiceMaster as provided in paragraph (a) above: (i) wages and all related payroll taxes of Service Employees and all other employment-related costs or contributions (including all items listed in section 3.2(d))\n(ii) cost of uniforms or other special clothing currently provided to Service Employees\n(iii) maintenance expenses for equipment owned by the School Agreement Page 2 which is made available to ServiceMaster as provided in Section 5\n(iv) repair and maintenance of the space provided to ServiceMaster pursuant to Section 10\n(v) materials and supplies pursuant to Section 4.2(d)\nand, (vi) payroll and employment forms and documents (such as time cards, time sheets, application forms, evaluation forms, etc). 3. PERSONNEL 3 .1 ServiceMaster Personnel. (a) ServiceMaster agrees to furnish no less than five (5) coordinating management personnel which, in ServiceMaster's judgment, are required for the f proper performance of the Management Services as elaborated in the Exhibits attached hereto~ _,A One of such persons shall be a coordinating manager, who shall be ServiceMaster's chie ( \\ representative in connection with the performance of ServiceMaster' s powers and duties under this Agreement. (b) In addition to the management personnel, ServiceMaster will furnish all necessary supervisory, training and technical personnel and special projects personnel as required for the efficient performance of the Management Services. (c) All of the personnel described in paragraphs (a) and (b) will be employees of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will pay all of their salaries and all payroll and other taxes, fees, workers ' compensation insurance and other charges or insurance levied or required by any federal , state or local statute in connection with their employment. ( d) If any ServiceMaster management, supervisory, training, technical or special projects personnel are not acceptable to the Superintendent of the School or his or her designee, such person may request, in writing, the removal of such personnel. Upon the receipt by ServiceMaster of such a request, ServiceMaster will provide within a reasonable time a replacement reasonably acceptable to the Superintendent. j 3.2 School Personnel. (a) All persons who were Service Employees on the date of this Agreement shall continue to be employees of the School as opposed to becoming employees of ServiceMaster and all persons employed by School as Service Employees after the date of this Agreement shall be employees of the School. All such persons are subject to discipline, job action and discharge by the School pursuant to applicable practices, polices, procedures, statutes and other laws. (b) ServiceMaster shall not be regarded as a party to any collective bargaining agreement or agreements to which the School was or becomes a party. ServiceMaster will, upon request by the School, make recommendations in connection with wage and wage-related matters, but ServiceMaster shall not make any decisions with respect to wages, hours or other working conditions for Service Employees. ServiceMaster agrees to comply with all collective bargaining agreements, school policies and procedures, and state, local and federal laws. (c) The School shall have the sole responsibility to hire, discipline and discharge Service , Employees. The School states that such matters will be handled in accordance with its established policies and procedures. _ \\ (d) The School shall pay all wages and salaries of the Service Employees and the School V shall pay all payroll and other taxes, fees, and other charges or insurance levied or required by lJ federal, state or local statutes relating to the employment of the Service Employees. The School J ,shall pay all workers compensation insurance. Any claims for the Service Employees injured '\\ 111J,\n/~,w.,:_ ,,A ~reema ee nt ( t~ while working under the direction and supervision of ServiceMaster shall be handled by the ., School. ( e) The School agrees to furnish to ServiceMaster, upon request, certificates of insurance as evidence of the proper employee insurance coverage for the Service Employees and ServiceMaster agrees to furnish to School certificates of insurance as evidence of proper employee insurance coverage for the employees of ServiceMaster, including, but not limited to, workers compensation insurance. 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4.1 Scope of this Section. This Section 4 allocates the responsibilities of the parties for the furnishing of the materials and supplies which are required in connection with the performance of the Management Services. If any sub-section in this Section 4 is not applicable because the condition set forth in paragraph (a) thereof is not satisfied, the sub-section shall be considered as deleted from this Agreement. 4.2 Custodial. (a) This Section 4.2 shall be applicable only if the Management Services y to be provided hereunder include services with respect to the School's custodial department. ~ (b) The cost of the materials and supplies (excluding the expendable supplies referred . to in paragraph (d)) which are needed in connection with the performance of the Management~ Services applicable to the Custodial Department is included in the Contract Amount. The materials and supplies purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant to this paragraph (b) are owned as ~ of the date of Purchase by School and upon termination of this Agreement any inventory of unused materials and supplies shall be delivered to School. d(. (c) If the School is an organization which is exempt from state and local sales and use taxes, the School shall furnish to ServiceMaster a Certificate of Tax Exemption upon the commencement of the Management Services. (d) School agrees to provide, at its own expense, the expendable supplies, as such may be defined by agreement of ServiceMaster and School, required in connection with the operation of the School's Custodial department. Such expendable supplies include (but are not limited to) toilet tissue, paper towels, deodorants, washroom soap, plastic container liners, and paint. 4.3 Plant Operations and Maintenance. (a) This section 4.3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to School's plant operations and maintenance. (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, all plant operations and maintenance supp lies, materials, repair parts, purchased services and utilities. 4.4 Grounds. (a) This section 4.4 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to the School's grounds department. (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, all grounds supplies, materials, repair parts, and purchased services. 5. EQUIPMENT 5. 1 Equipment Provided by ServiceMaster. All equipment now owned by ServiceMaster and used in connection with the rendering of the Management Services (including computer hardware and software) shall remain the property of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall be Agreement Page 4 responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of such equipment, at no additional cost to the School. 5.2 Equipment Provided by the School: Custodial. (a) This section 5.2 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to the School's custodial department. (b) The School shall make available for use by ServiceMaster the equipment owned by the School and used in the custodial department at the date of this Agreement. Such equipment shall remain the property of the School, and ServiceMaster shall be responsible for the maintenance of the equipment. Additional or replacement equipment needed for the Management Services which are provided to the custodial department shall be provided and maintained by ServiceMaster. The cost of such additional or replacement equipment has been included in the Contract Amount. Equipment purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant to this paragraph (b) is owned by the School. The only additional amounts to be paid to ServiceMaster at the termination of this Agreement being the unamortized book value of said equipment. Equipment purchased hereunder shall be amortized by ServiceMaster over its useful life, not to exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay to ServiceMaster the unamortized book value of any equipment School does not desire to retain. In such an event, title to any equipment not desired by School shall be transferred to ServiceMaster. In the event ServiceMaster has not paid the complete amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 5.3 Equipment Provided By the School: Plant Operations and Maintenance. (a) This section 5. 3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to the School's plant operations and maintenance. (b) The School agrees to permit ServiceMaster to utilize the present plant operations and maintenance service equipment. The School agrees to maintain such equipment in an operative, workable and safe condition. The School shall be responsible, at its expense, for the repair of such equipment (including replacement parts) and the provision of additional or replacement maintenance service equipment. 5.4 Equipment Provided by the School: Grounds. (a) This section 5.4 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to the School's grounds department. (b) The School agrees to permit ServiceMaster to utilize the present grounds equipment. The School shall maintain such equipment, at its expense, in an operable, workable and safe condition. The School shall be responsible, at its expense, for the repair of such equipment (including replacement parts). ServiceMaster shall purchase, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Agreement, grounds equipment, the purchase price of which has been paid in full, described in Exhibit B. The equipment so described shall be owned by School as of the date of its purchase. The only additional amounts to be paid to ServiceMaster at the termination of this Agreement being the unamortized book value of said equipment. Equipment purchased hereunder shall be amortized by ServiceMaster over its useful life, not to exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay to ServiceMaster the unamortized book value of any equipment School does not desire to retain. In such an event, title to any equipment not desired by School shall be transferred to ServiceMaster. In the event ServiceMaster has not paid the complete Agreement Page 5 amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 School's Agreement to Pay Contract Amount. In consideration of the performance by ServiceMaster of the Management Services and in consideration of the transfer of the materials and supplies by ServiceMaster to the School in connection with the performance of the ..-Q Management Services, the School agrees to pay to ServiceMaster, at the times set forth inGJJtl C,~ 1 section 6.3, the Contract Amount as set forth in section 6.2. c11' \\~ 6.2 Contract Amount. Subject to adjustment as provided in subsequent sections of this f'(\"' Section 6, the Contract Amount shall be $98,659.00 per month. If the Management Services commence on a day other than the first day of a month, or if the Management Services terminate on a day other than the last day of a month, the Contract Amount for the first or the last month shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days within such first or last month on which Management Services were provided. It is agreed that of the $1 ,183,908 to be paid annually f p to ServiceMaster pursuant to this Agreement, ServiceMaster will incur not less than an average of $329,347 expense per year for materials, supplies and equipment to be used in its performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and title to such material, supplies and equipment will be solely in the name of School. On or before each annual anniversary date of this Agreement, ServiceMaster shall provide invoices, contracts or other written documentation satisfactory to School evidencing that at least an average of $329,347 has been expensed by ServiceMaster toward the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. 6.3 Payments of the Contract Amount . (a) Commencing on October 15, 1995, and on the fifteenth of each month thereafter, the School shall pay to ServiceMaster the Contract Amount. (b) If any payment of the Contract Amount is not paid in full within fifteen days of the due date, the unpaid portion shall bear interest at the highest rate allowed by the laws of the State of Arkansas . Further, School shall pay all costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by ServiceMaster (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded) in collecting amounts due to ServiceMaster from the School. I 1~/3 'f. I 6- 6 .4 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Base Wage Increase. On each anniversary of the commencement of services hereunder, the Contract Amount (excluding custodial and grounds capital equipment, computerization and vehicles) ~all be increased by the percentage increase that the ba wa e rate of the Service Em lo es of Sctiool have mere sect for the previous twelve 12 month enod not to excee 2.5%in an given ear. Base wage rate 1s e med as e rate of compensation pa1 to service employees w c s al include the annual raise approved or authorized for the Service Employees of School. This amount does not include any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services. The Contract Amount has been established on the basis of the area, job descriptions and specific duties described in the Exhibits. If the total amount of area or the job descriptions or the duties to be performed by ServiceMaster or the Service Employees is enlarged, reduced or altered in any manner, there shall be an increase or decrease, as the case may be, in the Contract Amount. Such adjustment Agreement Page 6 shall be effective with the first payment to be made immediately following such increase, reduction or alteration. In connection therewith, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any enlargement, reduction or alteration of the contract amount. _ 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee. ServiceMaster guarantees that the School's costs to perform services for the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, including ServiceMaster annual fees, during each year of this agreement, shall not exceed the amount reflected in the applicable portions of the School's 1995-96 fiscal year /\\. budget for such period as reflected in Exhibit C. Should any payment to ServiceMaster for \\~f services provided cause School to exceed the budget as adjusted for fiscal year 1995-96, . ~ ServiceMaster agrees that the School shall not be obligated to make any payment(s) to 1 ServiceMaster which would cause the School to exceed the amount reflected in the applicable \\ portions of the School's 1995-96 fiscal year budget. Rather, the school's liability to ServiceMaster for any remaining amounts owed pursuant to Section 6 would terminate, except to the extent hereinafter provided. As such, the School would not be obligated to pay ~ l ServiceMaster the total annual amount reflected in paragraph 6.2. However, should the School realize sufficient savings in the applicable portions of the School's budget such that the amounts for the 1995-96 school year is less than or equal to the applicable portions of the adjusted budget, 'i .f for the 1995-96 fiscal year, including the amount owed to ServiceMaster, the School shall pay ~ ~ ServiceMaster any remaining amounts owed under paragraph 6.2. It being the intent of the parties that the School shall not incur costs and expenses, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster, in the applicable portions of the School's budget relating to maintenance and plant operations which would cause the School to exceed the amount budgeted for that area during the 1995-96 fiscal year. For instance, the School's 1995-96 budget for custodians, maintenance and related matters is $10,779,986.00. The ServiceMaster projection for 1995-96 for these same areas, including the annual amount in paragraph 6.2, total $10,621,136.00. If those projections are achieved, ServiceMaster would receive the compensation as provided by this Agreement, assuming all other terms and conditions are met. Should the projections not be achieved, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payment(s) would cause the School to exceed the $10,779,986.00 budgeted amount for the 1995-96 fiscal year as pro-rated for the nine (9) months of the shortened initial year. In subsequent years, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payments would cause the School to exceed the baseline amount as adjusted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. To get the pro-rated baseline and actual amounts for the 1995-96 fiscal year, ServiceMaster and the School shall negotiate and mutually agree in writing within forty (40) calendar days after the October 2, 1995 commencement date. Management fees and amounts to be expended by ServiceMaster on equipment and supplies during the initial year will also need to be pro-rated, as necessary. Likewise, if the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster, exceed $9,596,086.00 ($10,779,986.00 minus $1,183,908.00), ServiceMaster must refund to the School, dollar for dollar, all such amounts already paid to Service Master which would cause the School to exceed the 1995-96 budgeted amount ($10,779,986.00). However, in no event would ServiceMaster be obligated to refund more than the management fee for the particular year (i.e., $854,561, which will be subject to proration during the initial year.) For example, Agreement Page 7 should the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster reach $10,300,000 during the school year and the School has already paid ServiceMaster $640,917 ($71,213 x 9), the total in this category so far would be $10,940,917. This exceeds the budgeted amount by $160,931.00. As such, ServiceMaster would be required to refund $160,931.00 to the School and not receive any payments remaining ($71,213 x 3 = $213,639), to honor its guarantee to the School. This same guarantee would apply for each year of this agreement, using the school's 1995-96 budgeted amount as the baseline. However, following the 1995-96 fiscal year, the wage and benefit portion of the baseline will increase each year by the base wage rate as defined in paragraph 6 .4 plus any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. Likewise, the remaining portion including supplies, purchased services and utilities will increase each year by 1.5 % . The amounts not paid from year-to-year, for which the School is not liable, may be determined by the School and ServiceMaster and recorded in a log. Thereafter, should the operational costs for the applicable portions of the School's budget, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster for the year in consideration, achieve sufficient savings (after all required services, supplies, equipment and other school needs for the year in question have been met), the School may pay ServiceMaster a portion of the amounts reflected in the log, but only to the extent such payment(s) (after determining the actual expenditures for the year in question, including payments to ServiceMaster for the year in question) would not cause the School to exceed the applicable portions of the baseline. Should such savings never be achieved during the term of this Agreement, the School would have no liability whatsoever to ServiceMaster for the amounts reflected in the log. Should ServiceMaster deem it necessary to request that certain expenditures be removed or adjusted to arrive at the actual expenditures for a particular year of this Agreement, upon request by ServiceMaster, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any such adjustments. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, including the possibility that ServiceMaster may either receive less than full payment of the amounts reflected in paragraph 6.2 during one or more years of this Agreement or that ServiceMaster may have to refund monies to the School should sufficient savings not be achieved, ServiceMaster's obligation to perform management services shall not be reduced, abated or otherwise relieved as such constitutes a portion of the guarantee made by ServiceMaster to the School. No party shall have any liability to the other hereunder by reason of any delay or failure to perform any obligation or covenant including ServiceMaster guarantee if the delay or failure to perform is occasioned by force majeure, meaning any act of God, storm, fire, casualty, work stoppage, strike, lockout, civil disturbance, riot, war, national emergency, act of government, act of public enemy, or other cause of similar or dissimilar natu,r,e beyond its control. 7. INDEMNIFICATION Ii. 7 .1 Insurance and Indemnification of the School. ServiceMaster agrees to indemnify and hold the School and its School board members, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against the School by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its employees. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance Agreement Page 8 insuring ServiceMaster and School against any liability arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its agents, representatives or employees. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $20,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall further insure ServiceMaster and the School against liability for property damage of at least $20,000,000.00. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of ServiceMaster hereunder. If ServiceMaster shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance School may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of ServiceMaster. 7. 2 Indemnification of ServiceMaster. The School shall indemnify and hold ServiceMaster and its partners, directors, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of the School or its employees to the extent that the School is covered by insurance and to the extent that such is permitted by applicable law. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $3,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Further, the school does not, by so agreeing, intend to waive any immunity or other defense to which it may be entitled. Therefore, to the extent such an agreement would jeopardize or otherwise interfere with the School's immunity and other defenses, such indemnity provision becomes null and void. 7 .3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos. The School acknowledges its obligation to identify the presence, if any, of asbestos material on the School's premises and its responsibility to appoint the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) \"Designated Person.\" ServiceMaster agrees to provide assistance to the School in the form of: (i) support service employee education and training material when ServiceMaster is responsible to train, manage and direct said employees\n(ii) guidance in the fonn of Standard Operating Procedures for smallscale, short-duration operation and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA\nand (iii) other support as determined by ServiceMaster to aid the School in its AHERA-related activities. School agrees that under no circumstance shall a ServiceMaster employee be or act in the capacity of the \"Designated Person.\" School also acknowledges that ServiceMaster has no obligation hereunder to identify or take corrective action by removing or containing asbestos fibers for other than small-scale, short-duration operations and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA, nor does ServiceMaster have any duty to mitigate the hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers. The School agrees to indemnify and hold ServiceMaster harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster, including costs and reasonable attorney's fees (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded), by reason of the presence of asbestos material on the School's premises or for any actions done or failed to be done by ServiceMaster while acting on School's behalf related to AHERA. (This indemnity agreement is subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations in paragraph 7. 2.) 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements. At no time during the tenn of this Agreement and for a period of one year thereafter will either of the parties call upon any employee of the other party or persons who were employees of the other within the then previous twelve months, to employ, hire or Agreement Page 9 otherwise interfere with the contractual relationships of such employees, without the prior written approval of the other party\nnor will either party directly or indirectly, for itself or on behalf of or in connection with, any other person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or School, solicit, hire, employ or take away any such employee from the other party. The parties agree that this provision is for the protection of their respective legitimate business interests and is not intended to restrict the employment rights of individuals. 8.2 Remedies for Breach. If either party breaches the above covenant, the offended party shall have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain the offending party from employing such employee and for an order to enforce the terms of this section so breached, and the offending party shall be liable to the offended party for all reasonable attorneys' fees , costs and expenses incurred by it to enforce the covenant. 9. TERM 9.1 Terms. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 2, 1995. 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities. The School shall provide ServiceMaster with reasonable offices, storage space and facilities on the School's premises from which ServiceMaster will conduct the Management Services. Such offices and storage space shall be under the operational control of ServiceMaster. The provision of such space shall include all utilities (including water, sewer, electricity and local telephone service). Such space, local facilities and utilities shall be provided without cost to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will insure its interest in any property owned by it located on or about the office and storage space provided to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall vacate the office and storage space upon termination of this Agreement. 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11 .1 Joint Review Committee. The parties shall form a Joint Review Committee consisting of at least two persons from the School and two persons from ServiceMaster. The Joint Review Committee will meet on a monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing ServiceMaster' s performance with respect to the Management Services and generally to review the results of operations under this Agreement in comparison with the expectations of the parties. 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance: Grace Period: Termination. If one party (the \"Offended Party\") considers the other party (the \"Offending Party\") to have not performed one or more of its obligations hereunder, the Offended Party shall give the Offending Party a written notice which shall specify the nature of the alleged non-performance. The Offending Party shall then have sixty days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the alleged non-performance. If, at the end of such sixty-day period, the Offended Party considers the alleged non performance not to have been cured, the Offended Party may thereupon terminate this Agreement by giving the Offending Party a written notice of termination and, at the expiration of the thirtieth day following the delivery of such notice, the Offended Party shall be relieved from the further performance of its obligations hereunder. The parties understand and agree that the foregoing Agreement Page 10 30-day period is to allow for an orderly transition from the Management Services as provided hereunder to an alternative service mechanism. 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the School's Failure to Pay the Net Amount Due. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 6.3(b), ServiceMaster may terminate this Agreement upon ten days prior written notice if the School fails or refuses to pay ServiceMaster in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3(a) or 6.6. 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2. This Section 12 shall not affect the covenants and remedies for breach thereof which are set forth in Section 8. 13. NOTICES 13 .1 Form of Notice and Delivery. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified or registered mail, with proper postage prepaid If to ServiceMaster, to: ServiceMaster Management Services L. P. ServiceMaster Education Management Services One ServiceMaster Way Downers Grove, IL 60515 Attn: President If to the School, to: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Superintendent In the event the date of actual receipt of any notice is not recorded, notices shall be deemed to have been received on the third day after post. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds. In the event sufficient funds shall not be appropriated or made available for the funding of operations of the School and School has no funds legally available for the payments due hereunder from other sources, School and ServiceMaster shall review the services provided hereunder and the Contract Amount, in keeping with the then proportionate amount of appropriated funds for the services hereunder, and determine the level of services which can be performed and the method of delivery of such services to School within the level of appropriated funds. In the event ServiceMaster is not able to modify its program to meet the funds appropriated, either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving to the other thirty days prior written notice. 14.2 Severability. If a court holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision. Agreement Page 11 14.3 Headings. The headings which appear in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They are not intended to, and shall not be deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of any provision hereof. 14.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including Exhibits A, B, C and Das well as the School's Business Case dated August 24, 1995, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as if included word-for-word) has been negotiated and prepared by and for the parties equally and shall not be construed as having been drafted by one party. When fully executed, it shall supersede any and all prior and existing.Agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. 14.5 Amendments. Other than for amendments as provided in Section 6.4, any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties. 14.6 Management Service (Exhibit D). A proposal detailing ServiceMaster Management Services has been submitted. The said proposal becomes a part of this agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14. 7 Assignments. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 1Y 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts within th~~ State of Arkansas. 14.9 Attorney 's Fees. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, in any action '~ brought in law or in equity based on this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its ow ~ ,J costs and attorneys fees .  ..4\n,y,- 14.10 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any default will be construed to be or constitute arr' waiver of any subsequent defaults. 14.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be a separate document but all of which constitute one and the same instrument. 14.12 Pending Litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. Service Master does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Agreement Page 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Limited Partnership ServiceMaster Management Services, Inc., General Partner Education Management Services, General Partner ATTEST By: By: Kevin L. Creasman, President Assistant Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST By: By: Title: Title: Agreement Page 13 Exhibit \"A\" General Contract Work Specifications I. Buildings, Plant Facilities, and Areas to be serviced: Custodial, Plant Operations and Maintenance, and Grounds. Buildings Central High Hall High Parkview High J. A. Fair High McClellan High Metropolitan Vo Tech Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Henderson Jr. High Mabelvale Jr. High Mann Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary David 0. Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fullbright Elementary Garland Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary Oakhurst/Chicot Elementary Jefferson Elementary McDermott Elementary Mabelville Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Elementary Gross Square Feet 262,626 153,916 166,477 133,116 128,203 129,546 81,894 99,397 113,034 103,212 66,673 113,013 76,240 86,064 25,612 36,688 50,455 74,530 38,419 61,695 0 33,263 46,712 31,075 33,450 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 38,677 31,955 48,490 48,020 55,568 37,651 39,968 Exhibit \"A\" Page 1 Buildings Otter Creek Elementary Puliski Heights Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Romine Elementary Ish Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Elementary Watson Elementary W estem Hills Elementary Williams Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary ALC Elementary Martin L. King Elementary Administration Admin. Annex Plant Services Transportation IRC Procurement Food Service Safety Security Quigley Stadium Adult Ed. Scott Stadium Cashin Building Total Square Footage Total Acreage: 634 II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Gross Square Feet 37,319 59,652 39,166 64,561 45,098 31,802 46,080 39,699 89,800 55,934 41,991 50,956 38,539 38,000 37,360 76,000 26,790 26,273 22,644 20,414 24,000 20,914 38,456 6,000 30,905 89,133 4,401 6,418 3,769,748 SERVICEMASTER shall provide administration and technical direction in the management of the plant operations and maintenance organiz.ation of the School. In the discharge of its responsibilities, SERVICEMASTER will be guided by the highest professional and technical standards in order to accomplish the following services: A. Professionalized Mana~ement 1. The company resources of SERVICEMASTER shall be applied to serve the custodial and plant operations and maintenance management needs of the School. Counsel shall be made available to the School in Exhibit \"A\" Page 2 B. recommendation and appraisal of functions and services associated with custodial, maintenance and grounds departments. SERVICEMASTER shall seek to enhance interdepartmental coordination and cooperation. 2. SERVICEMASTER shall provide professionally qualified resident and resource management for the direction of custodial, maintenance, and grounds administrative functions. 3. SERVICEMASTER shall make initial and continuing recommendations for the custodial, maintenance, and grounds organizational structure, procedures implementation and resource application. The recommendations will be acted upon only with School concurrence. 4. SERVICEMASTER shall provide the leadership necessary for the effective coordination of custodial, maintenance, and grounds efforts and skills. Personnel Selection and Development 1. SERVICEMASTER and School recognize that the most important element of a ~uccessful custodial, maintenance, and grounds program is people. SERVICEMASTER shall make recommendations in the recruitment, selection and assignment of people for positions in the custodial, maintenance, and grounds department, subject always to the control of School as sole employer of such employees. Concern for the individual shall extend to one-on-one training directed to a sense of professionalism, personal worth, and dignity. 2. Direction - SERVICEMASTER shall encourage employee self-development by establishing clearly defined objectives and uniformity of efforts. All custodial, maintenance and grounds employees will be provided orientation in support of the School and its staff. There shall be a current, written policy and an organization structure approved by School, for coordination within the department and with the other departments of the School. Job descriptions, organizational diagrams, lines of communications, and policies and procedures shall be provided to contribute to employee understanding and teamwork. 3. Training - SERVICEMASTER will offer each employee the individual attention necessary to personal and occupational growth. The program shall include resource material available in multimedia form: the determination of employee qualifications and experience, on-the-job training, educational counseling, and School orientation. A series of self-paced study courses shall be made available to the custodial and Exhibit \"A\" Page 3 c. maintenance employees. Resource material in multimedia form shall be provided by SERVICEMASTER. 4. Administration - SERVICEMASTER shall establish and/or maintain personnel records in accordance with the requirements of the facility and will facilitate the measurement of individual progress and the preparation of required reports. 5. Organizational Level - SERVICEMASTER shall supervise the School employees as shown in the proposed custodial, maintenance, and grounds organization and as reflected in the corresponding contract amount. Standard Operational Procedures 1. Objectives - SERVICEMASTER shall implement, with the concurrence of School, Standard Operational Procedures. The purpose of these procedures shall be to coordinate manpower efforts, skills, and other designated resources through the establishment of clearly defined objectives. The primary objectives shall include a clean, safe 2. 3. 4. environment, conducive for learning, and the ability to provide the designated an.d appropriate levels of plant operations and grounds maintenance. Management Systems - SERVICEMASTER shall provide clearly defined routines, record requirements, tests and inspections, plant operating instructions, and administrative procedures essential to the designated custodial, maintenance, and grounds levels and programs. Research- SERVICEMASTER shall provide the research necessary to design and implement the respective plant operations and maintenance, grounds, as well as the custodial levels and programs. Direction - SERVICEMASTER shall develop and maintain a Departmental Manual containing instructions for implementation and maintenance of the program. D. Fiscal Management 1. Objectives - SERVICEMASTER shall fulfill custodial, maintenance, and grounds management responsibilities with a strong and continued attention to fiscal responsibilities. The objectives of SERVICEMASTER financial and materials management programs are: Exhibit \"A\" Page 4 E. 2. a. To strive for increased effectiveness at less cost through improved management and engineering practices. b. To provide written instructions necessary to the fiscal management of operations, maintenance, equipment and supplies. c. To comply with established School fiscal control systems and directives. Budgets - SERVICEMASTER shall provide custodial, plant operations and maintenance, and grounds financial and statistical data to assist the School in preparation of its budgets. SERVICEMASTER shall monitor expenditures as designated by the School in accordance with the chart of accounts. 3. Cost Accounting - SERVICEMASTER will structure a work order system permitting allocation to designated cost centers as may be desired by School. 4. Purchasing - SERVICEMASTER shall provide written policies and instructions based on School requirements governing the purchase of plant operations and maintenance materials, supplies, equipment and utilities. SERVICEMASTER shall make available consultation in the purchase of mechanical or electrical equipment as may be contemplated by the School. 5. Receipt, Storage and Issue of Materials - SERVICEMASTER shall provide procedures, in accordance with School directives and guidance, necessary for the implementation of programs for the proper inspection, charges, storage, inventory, security and issue of custodial, maintenance, and grounds supplies and equipment. Quality Control of SeCTice The following quality performance reviews will be initiated to insure a high standard of service for the School: I. Weekly inspections will be made by the ServiceMaster Manager in the company of the Superintendent or appointed designee. 2. Daily Journal will be maintained for the use of the Director of Facilities Services and the review by the Superintendent. 3. Preventive Maintenance schedules with notation of performance will be maintained for management control, control inspection, and administrative review. Exhibit \"A\" Page 5 F. 4. Corrective Maintenance Requisition actions will be tabulated by category, resource requirement (cost/time), originator and cost center. 5. A Joint Executive Committee meeting will be held monthly, with at least two representatives from the School and an equal number from SERVICEMASTER. In addition, a monthly summary of custodial, maintenance, and grounds functions, accomplishments and objectives will be prepared and presented for comments, additions, and concurrence of the Superintendent. 6. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to the Superintendent. This report will summarize the activities of the ServiceMaster Managed Departments for the fiscal year. This report includes financial information, training and other areas that are under the responsibility of ServiceMaster. Iechpical Support 1. SERVICEMASTER shall provide professional services and technical resources in support of its field management to: a. Perform research in determination of School custodial, plant operations and grounds management needs, resources, utilization, programs, procedures and systems. b. Implement technical support programs for system implementation, training, control inspection and consultant services relating to School custodial, plant operations and maintenance, and grounds management. 2. It is understood that SERVICEMASTER personnel will provide counsel concerning applicable codes including Life Safety and National Electric Codes, but that official interpretation shall only be made by those authorities having jurisdiction. a. Consult and make recommendations concerning the plant operations and maintenance aspects of architectural and engineering proposals. b. Provide program to follow progress of major modernization and new construction projects as an option available requiring amendment to this Agreement. Exhibit \"A\" Page 6 G. H. Authorized Personnel Structure 1. SERVICEMASTER shall propose the number of personnel necessary to carry out the custodial, maintenance, and grounds program. After initial agreement, any revision to the number of personnel required to carry out the custodial, maintenance, and grounds program will be made in the form of a written amendment, approved and signed by SERVICEMASTER and School. 2. School and SERVICEMASTER recognize that the proposed personnel structure is subject to revision as may be necessary to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules and regulations that are now or may in the future become applicable to the School and its personnel engaged in custodial, maintenance, and grounds services. School Information 1. The School, after consideration and at discretion, has requested SERVICEMASTER to perform the duties and frequencies as set forth in this Exhibit. To the best of 'sERVICEMASTER's knowledge, the duties and frequenci~s are in compliance with applicable standards or regulations presently in force unless SERVICEMASTER has otherwise advised School. If in the future SERVICEMASTER becomes aware that the School is not in compliance with a standard or regulation, SERVICEMASTER shall notify School of its noncompliance, but will not change the duties or frequencies unless directed to do so by School. School retains the responsibility for any liability arising from noncompliance and agrees to indemnify and hold SERVICEMASTER harmless from any liability imposed on SERVICEMASTER due to the failure of School to comply with applicable standards or regulations. 2. SERVICEMASTER shall provide advice to School regarding School's obligations to comply with applicable federal, state or local building or construction code requirements where known to SERVICEMASTER. Advice in such matters is understood to be supplementary to architects and engineers of School\ntherefore, School agrees to indemnify and hold SERVICEMASTER harmless from any liability imposed on SERVICEMASTER due to any noncompliance or violation of such requirements by School. Exhibit \"A\" Page 7 III. MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT DUTIES A. B. Responsibilities 1. Preventive Maintenance: Pre-scheduled maintenance designed to maintain equipment and structure in normal operating condition. 2. Corrective Maintenance: Program designed to return equipment or structure to normal operating condition. 3. Casualty Prevention and Control : Safety inspections and tasks designed to minimize and control casualties to structure, equipment and personnel. 4. Minor Construction : Minor changes or additions to facility. 5. Plant Operations : Routine day-to-day operation of environmental systems to include careful control, adjustment, monitoring and recording of equipment functions. 6. Operational Energy Management (OEM): Program designed to minimize energy consumption through personnel education and proper equipment operation, maintenance and control. 7. Computerized Maintenance Management System : ServiceMaster computerized system for maintenance management with 24-hour on-site computer access to complete plant equipment records, personnel records, cost and hours records and energy management information. Resource Management SERVICEMASTER shall advise School of maintenance resource requirements. Maintenance actions shall respond to the School's current designation of priorities for the completion of preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and minor construction (additions, alterations, modifications) in consideration of SERVICEMASTER recommendations. SERVICEMASTER shall advise School should priorities require reduced standards of preventive maintenance. SERVICEMASTER shall administer Plant Operations and Maintenance purchased services to include: I. Recommendation of services 2. Control of services for timely completion, satisfactory performance, proper materials, and agreed costs. Exhibit \"A\" Page 8 C. Formalized Maintenance Program SERVICEMASTER shall develop, implement and maintain effective programs for the standardization of maintenance. These programs shall be based on the SERVICEMASTER computer-assisted maintenance scheduling, control and documentation system for maximizing cost and management effectiveness. These programs shall be designed to promote the longevity of equipment and structure, reduce costly breakdowns, control costs and meet emergency requirements. 1. Preventive Maintenance SERVICEMASTER shall implement and manage an ongoing system of periodic maintenance on structures and electromechanical equipment. Preventive maintenance procedures and frequencies shall be based on the Computerized Maintenance Management system and shall meet or exceed minimum regulatory agency and manufacturers' requirements. 2. Corrective Maintenance SERVICEMASTER shall implement a corrective maintenance program to both initiate corrective maintenance and to respond to user initiated maintenance requests. This program shall include a formalized maintenance request system with provisions for prioritization of requests and feedback to the initiator in regard to scheduled repair time. Equipment and structure deficiencies which threaten the safety of building occupants or the primary academic mission of the School shall be responded to on an emergency basis. 3. Casualty Prevention and Control (a) The resident SERVICEMASTER manager will be available to serve as a member of the safety committee if directed by School administration. (b) SERVICEMASTER shall advise and implement to the extent requested and authorized by School, casualty prevention and control programs and measures for custodial and maintenance in contribution to a structurally and functionally safe facility. SERVICEMASTER shall recommend and assist in the administration of casualty prevention and control programs to include: (1) Assistance with written fire programs (2) Assistance with instruction of School staff in emergency responsibilities Exhibit \"A\" Page 9 (3) Assistance in developing the format and content of inspections and tests (4) Liaison with insurance and regulatory organizations (5) Reduction of safety hazards (mechanical and electrical) ( 6) Assistance with the preparation of School's external and internal disaster plan (7) Provisions for emergency services and utilities 4. Minor Construction Minor construction projects are a specifically limited part of the plant operations and maintenance program. Where individual projects exceed 10% of the allocated hours, they shall be considered Facility Improvement Maintenance and will be subject to negotiation to determine the feasibility of accomplishing the project in-house or inviting bids and awarding a contract for accomplishment. It is understood that any authorized expenditure of man-hours over the above agreed upon figure will be at the expense of other programs. SERVICEMASTER personnel shall supervise minor building alterations in accordance with designs originated by others and approved by authorities having jurisdiction. Minor construction requirements .shall be approved by the School. All requisitions requiring the expenditure of materials shall also be approved by School. 5. Plant Operations 6. SERVICEMASTER shall develop, implement and maintain a plant operations program designed to insure an environment conducive to the learning process. School employees shall be trained in the efficient and safe operation of environmental systems Operational Energy Management (OEM) SERVICEMASTER shall design, implement and maintain an operational energy management program. Energy consumption shall be controlled through the proper operation and maintenance of School's environmental systems. D. Property Identification The following Plant Operations and Maintenance materials shall become the property of School. POM02M POM0ID Work Order Summary Sheet and Additional Work Order Sheets and Corrective Maintenance Summary Inventory Edit List Exhibit \"A\" Page JO 73001 Daily Journal 73015 Maintenance and Repair Requisitions 73012 Service Request/f rouble Call Log 73008 Roof Inspection Sheet 73006 Fire Extinguisher Inspection Log 73023 Emergency Generator Log 73029 Automatic Heat, Smoke Detector and Fire Alarm Test Record 73031 Sprinkler Valve Inspection, Fire Drill Log and Sprinkler Drop Test 73018 Filter System Log 73013 Inventory Control Sheet 73017 Water Test Control Log 73055 Contractor Service Log Purchase Order Records (locally reproduced), Valve Schedules and Charts Transportation Log (locally reproduced) All other materials will remain the property of ServiceMaster Management Services Corporation. IV. CUSTODIAL DUTIES TO BE PERFORMED A. GENERAL - Monday through Friday - First/Second/Third Shift 1. Work Schedules The custodial and maintenance employees will be instructed and their schedules will be written so as to be as flexible as possible to meet the many and various requests or needs of the Administration. 2. Outside Grounds Outside grounds of all entrances will be policed daily, five times per week. B. CLASSROOMS AND OFFICES - Monday through Friday - First/Second/Third Shifts 3. Main cleaning of floors - Daily, five days per week Thoroughly clean all traffic areas using a chemically treated dust mop or vacuum where appropriate. 4. Wet cleaning of floors - Weekly, one time per week Wet clean hard surface floors with an appropriate floor chemical designed to extend the life of the floor finish. Provide a schedule to Administration showing which rooms and areas are to be done. The wet cleaning of floors Exhibit \"A\" Page 11 will be provided one time per week, month. Shampoo carpeted floors on a project basis. 5. Spot cleaning of floors Remove spots from spillage on hard surface and carpeted floors as needed. 6. Check and spot clean - Daily, five days per week Spot clean walls, doors and electric switch plates. Clean interior of glass doors and glass partitions. Remove graffiti. Adjust shades or blinds to a uniform height throughout the buildings. 7. Trash Receptacles - Daily, five days per week Empty and clean wastepaper baskets and ashtrays. Wet wipe with an odor controlling solution as needed. Reline wastebaskets where necessary. (Liners to be provided by SCHOOL.) 8. Wet wipe - Weekly/On a Project Basis All office and classroom desks will be dusted and/or wet cleaned once per week when cleared. All desks, including student desks, will be cleaned on a project basis annually. 9. Chalkboards, Chalktrays, Slate Blackboards and Pencil Sharpeners - Weekly Dust and wet clean chalktrays and slate blackboards, empty pencil sharpeners, and erase chalkboards weekly. 10. Laboratories - Biology, Chemistry, (Earth) Science, Physics - Daily, five days per week and/or project Perform points 1 through 7 Equipment, chemical sinks, hoods, shelves and countertops will be cleaned by students or other SCHOOL personnel. 11. Art Rooms - Daily, five days per week and/or project Perform points 1 through 7 Kilns, ovens, countertops and sinks will be cleaned by students or other SCHOOL personnel. 12. Library Daily, Weekly, five times per week Exhibit \"A\" Page 12 Perform points 1 through 7. All book cleaning to be done by students or SCHOOL personnel. 13. Auditoriums, Stages, Music Rooms - Daily and Project Perform points 1 through 7 Cleaning of equipment will be performed by students or other SCHOOL personnel. Refinishing of the stage floor will be the responsibility of the custodial staff. 14. Industrial Arts Department Perform points 1 through 7 in the Industrial Arts classrooms. Students and instructors will perform all shop cleaning. C. NON-CLASSROOM AREAS 1 5. Custodial and Maintenance Closets as required Clean and maintain all custodial and maintenance closets. 16. Metal work-As required/weekly Clean, polish and maintain all bright metal work. 17. Drinking fountain - Daily, five days per week Wet clean and disinfect drinking fountains with a germicidal solution. 18. Public telephones - Daily, five days per week Wet clean and disinfect public telephones with a germicidal solution. 19. Stairways - Daily, five days per week Dust down, dry mop and spot wet mop once per day, five days per week. 20. Corridors - Daily, five days per week Thoroughly dry mop with a chemically treated mop daily, five times per week, and spot wet mop as needed. Wet clean all hard surface corridors thoroughly once per week. Thoroughly vacuum all carpeted corridors five times per week. Remove spots as necessary. Exhibit \"A\" Page 13 21. Public entrances - Daily, five days per week Spot clean glass doors and clean entrance floor area as needed. Vacuum walk off mats. Sweep exterior steps and sidewalk in front of main entrances. Entrance steps and sidewalks will be cleaned by custodial. 22. Kitchen and kitchen storerooms - Daily, five days per week All cleaning of kitchen areas will be by Food Service personnel. Cleaning of floors and equipment will be by Food Service personnel. 23. Cafeteria - Daily, five times per week Thoroughly wet clean floor area once daily, five times per week. Wet wipe all tables and chairs on a project basis. Cleaning of cafeteria floors will be performed by custodial personnel, one time per day. Cleaning of tables and chairs will be by Food Service personnel. Spot cleaning of floors will be done throughout feeding periods. 24. Kitchen - Annually The kitchen floors, walls, vents, hoods, ovens, equipment, and refrigerators will be thoroughly cleaned by food service personnel. All cleaning of food preparation equipment will be the responsibility of Food Service personnel. 25. Bathrooms - Daily, five times per week Completely clean and disinfect washrooms including: a. Wet wipe fixtures, shelves and ledges with a germicidal solution. b. Clean and disinfect both the inside and outside of urinals, toilet bowls and sinks. c. Replenish the supply of dispenser items such as toilet tissue, soap and paper towels. (These items provided by SCHOOL.) d. Wet clean and disinfect floors with a germicidal solution. e. Clean and polish mirrors. f. Provide daily spot checking and cleaning as needed. Exhibit \"A\" Page 14 26. Locker rooms and shower - Daily, five days per week Police areas. Wet clean floor with a gennicidal solution. Daily maintenance of lockers to be done by students or district personnel. Cleaning of inside of lockers to be done annually by custodial personnel. 27. Conditioning area - Weekly Dry and wet mop floors with a germicidal solution. Vacuum carpets and sanitize mats on a scheduled basis. 28. Athletic Program - Daily, five days per week a. Gymnasium, Field House Perform dry mopping and/or sweeping of floors one time per day and prior to as well as following all interscholastic sporting events. Clean bleachers and grandstand areas after use and as needed. Prepare floor surfaces with proven finishes and cleaners on a project basis. b. Wrestling, Gymnastic and Dancing Rooms Dry mop floor daily one time per day and prior to and as well as following all interscholastic sporting events. Clean matting on a weekly basis. Prepare floor surface with specified cleaners as needed. D. OTHER CUSTODIAL/MAINTENANCE DUTIES 29. Cleaning and relamping oflight fixtures - as needed Light fixtures will be cleaned once per year. Some relamping will be provided as needed. 30. Window cleaning - Annually All cleaning of the interior and exterior of all windows up to the second level will be done annually by custodial personnel. 31. Security - As needed The custodial and maintenance employees will have the responsibility of opening buildings per administration's direction. Tum off all lights and Exhibit \"A\" Page I 5 lock all doors and windows at the completion of cleaning each room. Lock all doors after extracurricular activities and provide weekend supervision over community events when assigned by administration. 32. Trash removal - Daily, five times per week Remove trash from all areas of the SCHOOL and take to incinerator, dumpster, compactor area. 33. Floor finishing Follow a carefully planned program of applying correct finishes and maintaining the floor surfaces throughout SCHOOL. Refinish floors on a scheduled program that will take into account the different use conditions, traffic, types of floors and activities in each area of SCHOOL. A floor buffing program one time per week will be established and coordinated with each building administrator. 34. Carpet/furniture cleaning Service carpe~ and furniture on a scheduled program that will take into consideration the different use conditions, traffic, types of floors and activities in each area of SCHOOL. All of these programs will utilize the unique SERVICEMASTER method of carpet care developed by ServiceMaster laboratories. 35. Grounds care and snow removal Scheduled grounds care and snow removal will be provided for the lawns, trees, shrubs, sidewalks, and roadways to provide a safe and attractive environment. This includes cutting grass, trimming and fertilizing of grass and shrubbery. In addition, we will handle the policing of roads, walks, leaves, trimming trees and supervision of contract snow removal. Staffing and expense for these programs will be in line with the SCHOOL's budgets. 36. Transportation and grounds vehicles - As needed All vehicle maintenance cleaning and refueling will be the responsibility of district SCHOOL personnel. 37. Other miscellaneous projects of a cleaning nature will be done such as: a. Removal of graffiti Exhibit \"A\" Page 16 b. Cleaning of grills and vents c. Delivery of general custodial supplies from central warehouse to other FACILITIES. d. Machine scrubbing of all ceramic tile floors in showers and lavatories to remove odors, grease and reduce the possibility of bacterial and fungal growth. e. Minor ceiling repair and replacement will be. done on an as needed basis by maintenance personnel. f. Minor repairs of doors will be the responsibility of the Maintenance Department. g. Minor electrical and plumbing repairs will be the responsibility of the Maintenance Department. h. Minor repair of audiovisual equipment will be coordinated through the Maintenance Department. 1. Custodial service will be provided for community and extracurricular activities on SCHOOL premises as approved by SCHOOL administration. J. Custodians will be responsible to aid in the setting up of chairs and tables for activities on SCHOOL property. 38. Summer Program All facilities used for any approved summer or week-end/after school program will be maintained within the schedule of items A - D and paid for from custodial accounts as per existing practice. V. GROUNDSCARE SERVICEMASTER shall develop, implement and maintain an effective program of grounds maintenance. The program shall be designed to promote the safe and enjoyable use of recreational facilities as well as the overall attractiveness of the School. All equipment and supplies necessary to perform these services, including but not limited to tractors, lawn mowers, edgers, trucks, hand tools, seed, fertilizer, lime, herbicides, mulch, plant material, hoses and sprinklers is the responsibility of the School. Exhibit \"A\" Page I 7 The following services will be perfonned: I. General Turf Maintenance 2. The levels and frequency of turf-care for each site shall be established by mutual agreement between SERVICEMASTER and School and will be based on specific site use, relative impact on overall site appearance and safety factors. Mowing Mowing will be done at regular intervals to conf onn to good turf care practices. Rate of growth, level of care and cultural practices will all influence frequency of mowing. Frequencies in rapid growth seasons will be increased to keep up with needs, conditions pennitting. Frequency will be reduced during dry periods. Mowing height will be detennined by the type of grass present and use of the turf areas. 3. Aeration 4. Core aeration. will be done at least once a year on all lawn and athletic . field areas provided that equipment is supplied by School. Areas of heavy use will receive additional aeration to help promote a soil structure favorable to plant growth. Soil Sampling Within six months of the commencement of this contract, soil samples will be taken from appropriate areas to determine soil nutrient levels. Results of soil sample analysis will be used to determine a proper liming and fertilization program. Expense for the sample analysis will be paid by the School. 5. Liming Application of liming materials will be made based on soil sample results. Materials and equipment necessary to apply liming materials will be supplied by the School. 6. Fertilization Areas to be fertilized will receive treatments based on level of care and soil sample results. Timing and frequency will be based on good turf Exhibit \"A\" Page 18 management practices. Fertilizer and application equipment will be supplied by the School. 7. Turf Repair Seeding or sodding in established turf areas will be performed as needed on damaged areas. Seed or sod best suitable to the climate and use of the turf area will be used. Athletic fields will be overseeded if necessary at the end of the season or in early spring. Seeding will be done with a verticut seeder if available .. Materials and equipment to complete repairs will be supplied by the School. 8. Irrigation Watering of areas of primary concern will be carried out as needed and as equipment permits. Frequency will be based on climatic and turf conditions. A supply of water and equipment for application will be supplied by the School. 9. Weed Control Weeds in turf, paved areas, and along fences, walls and curbs will be controlled as permissible under herbicide application licensing regulations. Materials and equipment for weed control will be supplied by the School. 10. Field Lining 11. 12. 13. Field lining will be done by members of the School Athletic Department, and grounds personnel. Playground Equipment Playground equipment will be inspected annually and repaired as needed during the year. Supplies and parts for repair will be supplied by the School. Shrubs Pruning and shaping will be performed at the appropriate time based on plant growth. Dead, diseased and damaged limbs within easy access of ground will be removed. Appropriate equipment and disposal sites will be supplied by the School. Mulching of Beds Exhibit \"A\" Page 19 Beds to be mulched will be weeded prior to placement of mulch. Application of pre-emergent herbicide will be done in compliance with local herbicide licensing regulations. Mulched areas shall be edged and mulch maintained to an average depth of two inches. Materials and equipment necessary for bed maintenance will be supplied by the School. Exhibit \"A\" Page 20 Exhibit \"B\" The grounds equipment listed below is to be provided by ServiceMaster. Type of Size/ Cost Equip. Equipment M2!!d ~ Q!l:\u0026amp; Eah. ~ Mower Outfront 4x4 72\" 4 $16,000 $64,000 Mower Walk-behind 36\" 5 3,800 19,000 Edger Stickedger 5 300 1,500 Trimmer String 5 300 1,500 Blower Backpack 5 300 1,500 Trimmer Hedge 3 350 1,050 Exhibit \"C\" BUDGET 95/96 SALARIES 2539-120 VO TECH 85,149.00 1199-140 SUBS 200,000.00 FUND 12-2542-120 MAGNET 372,934.00 2542-120 CUST 2,561,168.75 SUBTOTAL 3,219,251.75 2542-121 MAINT 1,109,338.00 2541-120 SER AREA 175,750.00 2548-120 ASB 55,115.43 SUBTOTAL 1,340,203.43 TOTAL SAL 4,559,455.18 210+240 ABOVE FUNCTIONS BENEFITS 720,591.26 TOTAL LABOR 5,280,046.44 SUPPLIES CUST 400,500,600 OBJECTS 2541,2,4,5,8 MAINT 198,641.00 FUND 12 MAGNET 15,000.00 TOTAL 213,641.00 300 OBJECTS 2541,2,4,5 EXCEPT 321-323 PURCH SER 1,035,999.00 UTILITIES FUND 12 MAGNET 576,335.00 2542-322 ELECT 2,791,665.00 2542-321 GAS 698,200.00 2542-323 WATER 184,100.00 TOTAL 4,250,300.00 GRAND TOTAL 10,779,986.44 Executive Overview for Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas ServiceMASTER,  Table of Contents Custodial Services Maintenance Services Grounds Services Technical Support and Resources ServiceMaster, the Company Partial Reference List ServiceMASTER,  Custodial Management Services ServiceMaster manages the cleaning of over 200 million square feet of floors daily. The Objective: ServiceMaster's innovative custodial management programs are designed to work in partnership with you. We specialize in creating and sustaining an attractive, clean and safe environment. Our programs have successfully provided measurable results by improving quality, containing costs, training and motivating support employees and minimizing risks. Our goal is to work with you to provide a customized program which meets your objectives. This is achieved through effective, professional on-site management, combined with proven resources adds up to a program you can depend upon. The primary concern is to enhance the overall quality of your learning environment, while relentlessly seeking cost containment measures. Proven experience has helped us implement quality custodial management programs which have met the demands of over 500 education customers nationwide. A Partnership Designed For Results  Improves Quality  Contains Costs  Trains and Motivates Employees  Minimizes Risks The Value: You can depend on the ServiceMaster Custodial Management Program to: g Provide professional, on-site management. g Improve overall efficiency. g Improve the quality of employee contributions. g Control costs. g Reduce tension and strife among workers caused by uneven work schedules. g Maintain a consistent and high level of quality. g Create a cleaner, more pleasing environment for learning. g Provide a sense of ownership and responsibility for all employees. g Implement training and motivational programs for all support employees. ~ Provide proven expertise in cleaning products and systems for dependable and effective results. g Provide methods to improve response time by accurately assessing tasks accomplished and tasks in need of being completed. ~ Extend the life and improve the appearance of all carpet, hard floors and walls. ~ Provide solutions to your custodial challenges through an extensive technical support network of specialists and systems engineers. IS!r' Provide accurate and timely information on costs for both long-term and short-term budget projections. 1S!r' Provide proven methods and systems to make well-informed decisions regarding costs, people, special projects and day-to-day custodial care. -2- The Specifics: In addition to providing a professionally trained on-site manager, ServiceMaster brings a wealth of proven systems, procedures and equipment. For over a decade we have helped administrators implement comprehensive custodial partnerships. These successful partnerships can be attributed to the specifics of our program including the state-of-the-art systems and procedures ServiceMaster has developed. The following briefly highlights the specifics of the Custodial Management Program that ServiceMaster will provide for your education facility.  Equipment - ServiceMaster provides effective, labor saving equipment, designed specifically to meet the demands of an education environment.  Cleaning Systems - Special cleaning agents, germicides, and floor care products are carefully formulated by ServiceMaster to ensure consistent quality and compatibility with each other.  Effective Procedures - ServiceMaster's laborsaving procedures have been developed by our research experts, field tested and refined to ensure product compatibility, effectiveness and quality control.  Custodial Management Information System  Production Scheduling  Personnel Management  Financial Management  Quality Control  Inventory Management  Employee Work Schedules  Integrated Work Processes for Each Employee  Proven Carpet Cleaning Program  Floor Finishing Program  Wall Cleaning Program -3- The Specifics (continued):  Comprehensive Technical Library including:  Product Safety  Hard Surface Floors  Carpets  Walls  Gymnasium  General Cleaning  Swimming Pool Care  High Dusting Program  Comprehensive Gymnasium Floor Program  Daily Hard Surface Dry Mopping Program  Regular Cleaning of Bathrooms and Lockers  Routine Damp Cleaning of All Window Ledges and Furniture  AHERA Asbestos Training  Public Bathroom Monitoring to Prevent Vandalism  Standard Operating Procedures and Policies Developed to Adhere to State and Federal Regulatory Agencies At ServiceMaster, we believe that your support, commitment and objectives are crucial to a successful program. Our programs are designed to work in collaboration with you to provide results on which yoi.: can depend. -4- Maintenance Management Programs ServiceMaster Plant Operations and Maintenance managers are responsible for over 135 million square feet of structures. The Objective: What separates the ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program from other programs? Focus. ServiceMaster provides technically trained, on-site managers, tools and supportive resources to focus your maintenance program on achieving planned, quantified results. You can rely on the ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program to: 1) reduce daily disruptions caused by equipment failure, 2) extend the life of electro-mechanical equipment, 3) minimize risks and liability, 4) improve average response time to mechanical concerns, and 5) control costs in all areas. ServiceMaster offers a proactive solution to managing your physical plant. Our goal is to deliver a program which demonstrates value, effectiveness and cost containment. By implementing effective procedures, resources and management tools, we are confident that together we can provide a program designed for results. A Partnership Designed For Results  Extends Equipment and Building Life  Improves Response Time  Reduces Liability  Controls Costs The Specifics: In addition to providing a professionally trained on-site manager, ServiceMaster brings a wealth of proven systems, procedures and equipment. For over a decade we have helped administrators implement comprehensive custodial partnerships. These successful partnerships can be attributed to the specifics of our program including the state-of-the-art systems and procedures ServiceMaster has developed. The following briefly highlights the specifics of the Custodial Management Program that ServiceMaster will provide for your education facility.  Equipment - ServiceMaster provides effective, labor saving equipment, designed specifically to meet the demands of an education environment.  Cleaning Systems - Special cleaning agents, germicides, and floor care products are carefully formulated by ServiceMaster to ensure consistent quality and compatibility with each other.  Effective Procedures - ServiceMaster's laborsaving procedures have been developed by our research experts, field tested and refined to ensure product compatibility, effectiveness and quality control.  Custodial Management Information System  Production Scheduling  Personnel Management  Financial Management  Quality Control  Inventory Management  Employee Work Schedules  Integrated Work Processes for Each Employee  Proven Carpet Cleaning Program  Floor Finishing Program  Wall Cleaning Program -3- The Specifics (continued):  Comprehensive Technical Library including:  Product Safety  Hard Surface Floors  Carpets  Walls  Gymnasium  General Cleaning  Swimming Pool Care  High Dusting Program  Comprehensive Gymnasium Floor Program  Daily Hard Surface Dry Mopping Program  Regular Cleaning of Bathrooms and Lockers  Routine Damp Cleaning of All Window Ledges and Furniture  AHERA Asbestos Training  Public Bathroom Monitoring to Prevent Vandalism  Standard Operating Procedures and Policies Developed to Adhere to State and Federal Regulatory Agencies At ServiceMaster, we believe that your support, commitment and objectives are crucial to a successfu. program. Our programs are designed to work in collaboration with you to provide results on which yot can depend. -4- Maintenance Management Programs ServiceMaster Plant Operations and Maintenance managers are responsible for over 13 5 million square feet of structures. The Objective: What separates the ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program from other programs? Focus. ServiceMaster provides technically trained, on-site managers, tools and supportive resources to focus your maintenance program on achieving planned, quantified results. You can rely on the ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program to: 1) reduce daily disruptions caused by equipment failure, 2) extend the life of electro-mechanical equipment, 3) minimize risks and liability, 4) improve average response time to mechanical concerns, and 5) control costs in all areas. ServiceMaster offers a proactive solution to managing your physical plant. Our goal is to deliver a program which demonstrates value, effectiveness and cost containment. By implementing effective procedures, resources and management tools, we are confident that together we can provide a program designed for results. A Partnership Designed For Results  Extends Equipment and Building Life  Improves Response Time  Reduces Liability  Controls Costs The Value: You can rely on the ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program to: ~ Provide professional, on-site management. lir Focus on proactive solutions. lir Provide measurable results. lir Give administration accurate, detailed financial information for projecting capital expenditure and replacement. lir Provide proven one-on-one training resources in specific technical areas for all maintenance support employees and supervisors. lir Give administration a clear understanding of the results which have been achieved. lir Reduce the likelihood of emergency breakdowns and repairs. lir Include a complete Technical Resource Library and Manufacturer's Instruction Library for quick access to answers for specific maintenance challenges. 1ir Provide solutions for your maintenance concerns through an extensive network of technical experts and professionals. lir Provide a single source ofresponsibility. [jf' Ensure administrator comfort and peace of mind. The Specifics: Your ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program is designed to keep your physical plant operating smoothly and efficiently. We have created a program which targets and brings balance to these specific areas of maintenance:  World's Largest Maintenance Data Base  Local Technical Support  Preventive Maintenance  Corrective Maintenance  Casualty Prevention  Minor Construction  Plant Operations  Energy Management  Personnel Information Management A vital component of your ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program is a computer assisted maintenance information system, developed to improve management control and effectiveness. This ~\"1mputerized system handles: FACT ServiceMaster Manages a Data Base of Over 22 Million Pieces of Electro-Mechanical Equipment Every Day.  Standard operating procedures and life expectancy data  Comprehensive schedules for preventive maintenance tasks  Productivity information for each employee  Specific cost accounting information for labor, parts and service for each building  Up-to-date safety information  Current work order status The Specifics (continued): The ServiceMaster Maintenance Management Program will also take on the following responsibilities and provide you with the comfort of knowing that they are being properly maintained.  Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems  All boilers  Hot water systems, portable and other waste systems  Refrigeration  Electrical power and lighting distribution  Local, state, federal code compliance In addition to our management services and on-site comprehensive training programs, ServiceMaster will provide your staff with a variety of technical resources. FACT The ServiceMaster Program Guarantees Total Quality Services for Your Facility -4-  A Technical Resource Library including detailed infonnation on such topics as:  Steam Generation  Electrical Plant Components  Piping, Compressors, Pumps and Lubricants  Refrigeration and Air Conditioning  Steam Power Fundamentals  Structures  Painting and Grounds  Plant Operations Manual  AHERA Asbestos Training The Specifics (continued):  A Manufacturer's Instruction Library will be established and maintained for all equipment. Information will include:  Standard Operating Procedures  Maintenance Programs  Casualty Prevention and Control  Financial and Materials Management  Maintenance and Repair Requisition System  Personnel Selection and Development  Logs documenting locations and work performed will be provided including:  Filter Logs  Electrical Safety  Fire Alarm Systems  Daily Journal of Rounds  Boiler \u0026amp; Chiller Logs FACT ServiceMaster has a 95% Customer RetentionRate Exceptional in the Service Industry ServiceMaster continues to dedicate significant resources each year to develop additional systems, methods and procedures of handling maintenance requirements for you. ServiceMaster is committed to providing you with a program that will meet your needs today, and one that will continue to grow and evolve to meet your needs in the future. Grounds Management Services ServiceMast.er manages over 45,000 acres of grounds for customers throughout the United States. The Objective: In most cases, less than seventy percent of the community will never have the opportunity to walk through your doors to see first-hand the quality educational programs that you are providing. Therefore, Grounds could be one of the most influential fa~tors in determining public image. A strong, positive message is sent to students, parents and community through well maintained grounds and athletic fields. ServiceMaster will help you implement a comprehensive grounds program. We will provide training, motivational programs, technical specialists, cost controlling procedures, and strong leadership. By working in partnership with you, we will deliver measurable results that meet both your long-term and short-term objectives. A Partnership Designed For Results  Enhances Campus Appearance  Trains and Motivates People  Adheres to All Safety Regulations  Controls Costs The Value You can rely on the ServiceMaster Grounds Management Program to: lir' Provide professionally trained, on-site leadership. lir' Enhance the appearance of your campus. lir' Focus on results. g Motivate and train your support employees to work more effectively and conscientiously. g Resolve safety and regulatory challenges. lif\" Utilize environmentally safe procedures and chemicals. g Implement proactive methods and procedures to handle all details. !ir' Respond to your specific needs. lir' Control costs. lir' Provide additional technical resources to address grounds management challenges. g Maintain a consistently high level of quality. -2- The Specifics The ServiceMaster Grounds Management Program concentrates on five important concerns to create an effective and well-balanced program:  Appearance  People Development  Safety + Cost Effectiveness + Environmental Stewardship FACT ServiceMaster Manages Over 45,000 Acres of School Grounds Every Day By providing the following technical resources and procedures, we can provide you with the highest possible quality while operating within your budgetary limits:  Proven System for Grounds Management Based On  Professional departmental operations  Planning and scheduling standards  Technical Expertise  Experienced On-Site Manager  Regional Grounds Specialists  Continuous corporate research and development  Grounds Management Program Materials  Proven Training \u0026amp; Motivational Materials  Department Meetjngs  Self-Development Manual  Audio Visual Library  Winter Seminars  Field Days  One-on-One Training The Specifics (continued):  National Purchasing Agreements  Equipment  Supplies and Materials  Soil Testing  Other Grounds Related Needs ServiceMaster is also able to assist you with your landscape conceptual needs through a variety of methods.  Landscape Design One of our Grounds Management Specialists will visit your site to determine your unique needs. You will then receive a written plan, photos and sketches to assist you in successfully upgrading your existing landscape.  Video-Imaging Through a new process called video-imaging, we can use computer images to transform a photograph of an existing landscape. The resulting picture will show you how the completed landscape project will appear. ServiceMaster has successfully provided grounds management programs to customers for many years. We currently manage over 45,000 acres of grounds for over 500 customers throughout the United States. By providing proactive solutions and measurable results, we have helped our customers enhance their public image, train and motivate their employees, and operate within their budgetary constraints. -4- Operational Energy Management The Objective ServiceMaster is pleased to present to you an Operational Energy Management Program. This unique program is structured to protect your school from unnecessary energy consumption resulting in excessive expenditures. The Operational Energy Management Program provides additional value when combined with the Plant Operations and Maintenance Program offered by ServiceMaster. Through these two programs, the daily operations of your physical plant are ensured to be in harmony with your goals for a comprehensive energy conservation program. Both programs will focus on comfort requirements, operational management, energy conservation, and cost reductions. This provides for a highly coordinated and sophisticated approach for managing the physical assets of your plant. ServiceMaster will provide you with a dependable, single source of responsibility, along with the peace of mind that the job will be handled properly and efficiently. A Partnership Designed For Results  Reduces Consumption  Reduces Costs  Integrates Operations  Assures Comfort The Value You can depend on the ServiceMaster Operational Energy Management Technology Program to: lit\" Operate a more efficient plant system that reduces energy consumption. ~ Provide documented cost information for each unit of energy consumed. lit\" Provide necessary information for developing budgets on projected energy use and costs. lit\" Provide additional engineering and training support over the term of the agreement. lit\" Provide easy-to-read, understandable reports regarding overall energy consumption. ~ Provide historical records of energy consumption and costs. lit\" Provide on-going documentation regarding the success and progress of the program. -?.- The Specifics The ServiceMaster Operational Energy Management Program is a concept intended to help management analyze the energy usage in their facility and gain involvement of all facility personnel in conserving energy. Designed to work in conjW1ction with our computerized maintenance system, this energy program will help you target specific areas and methods of conserving energy, thus reducing your overall costs. At the beginning of the program, all preventive maintenance actions that have a direct bearing on energy conservation and management are coded into the computer system through the use of a special \"E\" symbol. This coding alerts the director and maintenance service partners to the special significance of these energy related tasks. Each task results in a specific conservation step, method to increase equipment efficiency, or plan to increase the equipment's life cycle. All measures are directed at being cost effective. ServiceMaster Has Provided Energy Savings of Over $75,000,000 ServiceMaster is the Only Sole Source Provider of Energy and Operational Management Programs In addition, the ServiceMaster program provides a set of specific monthly assignments created to improve overall energy management. These assignments cover a ten month period. which allows two months for internal flexibility, seasonal shut down, and operational requirements. ServiceMaster provides comprehensive resource and reference materials which cover a wide range of energy conservation and related functions. ServiceMaster will seek to implement all appropriate low cost/no cost measures. The program also includes a complete analysis of energy consumption and cost in comparison to actual results over three years of energy history for a facility. By normalizing for weather and square footage changes from year to year, actual results of energy conservation efforts can be measured, and new programs for operation and equipment change can be introduced. -3- Additional Resources ServiceMaster is currently the only management services company with an entire division dedicated to energy management. Over the past fifteen years, ServiceMaster Energy Management (SEM) has completed over 3,000 energy management programs ranging from simple energy audits to large, long-term performance based programs where SEM assumed financial liability. SEM currently has over $20 million invested in facilities throughout the United States and is generating over $5 million of utility savings each year. On a portfolio basis, the actual annual energy savings achieved has been ten percent greater than projected during the initial estimate. SEM programs include a variety of flexible financing options. Customers are not required to use dollars provided by SEM. In fact, customers are encouraged to use owner funds in order to talce advantage oflower interest rates. SEM will then provide customers with risk protection from owner funds through debt service or equivalent guarantees. SEM engineers specialize in producing cost-effective capital investment programs for customers across the United States. Since SEM does not manufacture equipment or represent specific vendors, designs are typically completed generically and then bid competitively with local contractors. -4- The ServiceMaster Difference ... Technical Support and Resources As the leading provider of management support programs, ServiceMaster has committed a substantial amount of resources to providing local, regional and national technical support and expertise to our customers. These resources, along with a commitment to technical excellence, allow ServiceMaster to provide a consistent quality of service unmatched by our competitors. The following are some of the support programs and resources available to ServiceMaster customers: [) Quality Assurance Prop-am The ServiceMaster Quality Assurance Program is designed to motivate and encourage all members of the support team to strive for continuous quality improvement. Through recognition and praise for a job well done, support team members learn the value of their individual contributions and take pride in a job done right the first time. The Quality Assurance Program also encourages feedback and participation from school administration and faculty. This teamwork and mutual cooperation provides a framework for fostering an environment dedicated to both quality and productivity. [) Customer Support Center {1-800-SM-KNOWS) The Customer Support Center provides your ServiceMaster on-site manager with additional technical support to solve your facilities management challenges quickly and efficiently. By dialing 1-800-SM-KNOWS, managers can immediately access the right person to gain powerful insights on regulations, finances, personnel, purchasing decisions and a host of other topics. @J National Discount Proeram Customer Supoort Center (continued) The ServiceMaster Customer Support Center specialists take pride in:  Providing immediate support.  Handling all calls to the satisfaction of the caller.  Providing immediate access to experts.  Providing proactive solutions.  Giving consistent, authoritative answers designed for results. As a result of providing facilities management to over 1600 education, healthcare and industrial facilities, ServiceMaster is able to take advantage of national discount agreements based on volume buying. This enables ServiceMaster education customers to realize savings on products and equipment that they would otherwise be unable to achieve. [!} Local Vendor Partnenhips Supporting your community is central to your mission as a school. ServiceMaster understands and supports your desire to give business to local vendors. As a result, for many of our customers, partnerships have been developed with local vendors to continue providing specific products and services. -.., - @J Minority Partnerships As an Equal Opportunity Employer, ServiceMaster continues to support and work in partnership with qualified minority service providers and vendors. @] Quality Assurance and Research Development ServiceMaster is dedicated to providing the highest quality systems and procedures to all of our customers. As a result, we continue to invest in state-of-the-art research and development practices. In addition to product and system development and testing, the ServiceMaster research and development department supports our on-site managers with technical updates and new federal, state and local mandate information. The Research and Development Department also assists on-site managers with any needs related to special problem solving. For example, additional research can be done on specific stain removal, cleaning processes or fabric analysis. This support is provided at no additional cost and is available only through ServiceMaster. To keep up with the growing needs of our customers, ServiceMaster recently opened four new quality assurance and research labs at our training and development center. 12] Prouam \u0026amp; Service Development Departments In addition to the Research and Development Department, ServiceMaster employs specific teams of specialists whose sole function is to update and expand our current level of support programs in each discipline of facilities management. From our plant operations and management development team, to people services development. to market development, ServiceMaster has committed the resources and time to provide you with state-of-the-art programs and services in all areas. -3- [TI Recycline Prouam [!) Nonna \u0026amp; Ken Wessner Leamine Center The new Leaming Center provides expanded facilities for manager training classes. This new center focuses on providing additional opportunities for growth and development. The Leaming Center is equipped with the latest in video and communication technology and further enhances our current programs. In addition to our standard programs, ServiceMaster has developed and implemented a comprehensive recycling program which is available to all of our customers. This recycling program is based on cost-effective and efficiency measures and has been successful in schools throughout the country. [I} Leeal Resources ~ Extensive Electro-Mechanical Equipment Database ServiceMaster maintains historical, maintenance and warranty information on over 22 million pieces of electro- mechanical equipment. Access to this database provides your ServiceMaster on-site manager with crucial technical information needed to make decisions regarding proper preventive and corrective maintenance procedures, warranty protections and replacement assessments. ServiceMaster legal counsel provides support to customers in the areas of labor relations, risk management and other liability issues. These attorneys do not represent the school, but can offer valuable advice and counsel in a variety of matters. -4- [!I) Relocation Program [!I} Unif onn Program ServiceMaster can provide a flexible uniform program to meet your needs. A complete program can be offered including shirts, pants, lightweight and heavyweight jackets. In addition, uniforms can be customized to include your school's name. Because ServiceMaster provides uniforms to customers throughout the country, we can provide valuable savings by qualifying for volume discounts. ServiceMaster provides a comprehensive relocation program for our managers and your requested educational administrators. This program makes relocation simple and efficient. ServiceMaster takes care of many of the administrative details such as selecting a moving carrier, arranging packing and moving dates and unpacking upon arrival. This allows managers more time to concentrate on your goals and objectives and provides minimal disruption. -5- Training \u0026amp; People Development ServiceMaster firmly believes that people are an organization's most valuable resource. As a result, it is our commitment to provide the very finest education and development programs for both ServiceMaster managers and support employees. Support Employees: Service Partners The attitudes and performance of support employees are crucial to the overall success of a facilities management program. It is the support employees, or Service Partners, who will make the most significant difference . in the quality of your learning environment. For that reason, we have created the ServiceMaster Partner Development Program designed to provide orientation, training, personal development and continuing education opportunities for each Service Partner we have the privilege to lead. g g g g g g g g g g g You can depend on the ServiceMaster Partner Development Program to: Motivate \u0026amp; Encourage Your Service Partners Provide Personal Growth Increase Productivity Reduce Absenteeism Improve Morale Increase Quality of Performance Provide a Team Environment Reduce Employee Turnover Build Employee Confidence Demonstrate the High Value of Service Partners Give Well-Earned Recognition L Orientation \u0026amp; Initial Trair.i1ig One-on-one orientation training is the cornerstone of your quality performance effort. With ServiceMaster, both the learner and the instructor gain the benefit of immediate feedback\nand thus, experience the rewards oflearning, growing and contributing to their work environment. Experience has shown, in many cases, one of the major obstacles to learning and incorporating new procedures is a poor self-image. By recognizing worth and performance, ServiceMaster is able to help Service Partners feel good about themselves and their contributions. Our program is unique. It is based on a holistic approach which concentrates on the total person rather than just the \"work\" person. We raise a person's self-image by teaching them to always strive for excellence and making quality a habit ServiceMaster is able to instill values that will enhance the Service Partner's whole life. It is our commitment to people, their dignity and growth. Step 1. Step 2. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. One-on-One Training TELL THEM. Explain the process to be learned. Use \"keys\" - the essential points of the content that will form a memory structure for future reference. SHOW THEM. Actually demonstrate the process stressing the procedure keys. Emphasize the main points and answer questions. Stress the benefits ofusing the \"best way\" to get things done. This builds credibility for you, the process and the total system. HA VE THEM SHOW BACK. Have the employee demonstrate the process. This provides the opportunity for innnediate feedback. HAVE THEM TEACH BACK. Have the employee repeat the process and actually teach it back to you. This provides assurances that they understand the \"what\" and \"why\" of the process and builds commitment to properly execute the task. We learn best by teaching. As the employee teaches you, it further locks the learning into his or her mind. TEACH THEM HOW TO EVALUATE FOR QUALITY. Show the employee what results are expected and checked. Encourage the employee to do his/her own quality evaluation and be accountable for his/her own work. Use this opportunity to be a \"coach\" and praise those parts of the task which were done well. Let them know we want to catch them doing things the right way. ') - IL Personal Development By directly focusing on the Service Partner, Personal Development will open new doors of information, concern and help. Central to this strategy are monthly Team Meetings. One out of three Team Meetings each quarter will be dedicated to a specific topic such as benefits, self-development, personal finance or total health. In addition, ServiceMaster will also coordinate a week long celebration called Partners Week to recognize Service Partners. This week will focus on creatively recognizing individuals for their specific accomplishments, special service contributions, length of service, attendance, and improved safety records. It promises to be a time of fun, inspiration and reinforcement for developing quality work attitudes. Service Partners Ill Continuing Education Training and Development Program Modules Sharpening individual skills is essential to achieving excellence. Continuing education supplements one-on-one training and is designed to improve both productivity and performance through learning. ServiceMaster offers a comprehensive Leadership Development Program which includes interaction, media and teaching resources. It provides even greater flexibility in teaching Service Partners who desire more responsibility as well as continuing to bring added value.             Service Partner Perceiver Testing Technical Skills Assessment New Employee Orientation and Training Safety Techniques and Procedures On-Going Retraining Monthly Employee Inscrvices Individual and Group Technical Training Cros.s Training Recognition and Motivational Programs Basic Leadership Training Supervisory Development Management Development In addition, Job Skill Videos provide Service Partners the additional opportunity for postskill review and procedure reinforcement. ServiceMaster Management Development ServiceMaster is committed to the growth and development of your on-site manager. We provide our managers with continuous learning experiences beginning with our New Manager Orientation seminar, and continuing with special Management Development seminars held at various points throughout the manager's career. The ServiceMaster New Manager Orientation seminar is a vital component of our training and development program. This seminar helps new managers focus on specific leadership principles, as well as giving them the framework for understanding ServiceMaster culture, resources and various business segments. ServiceMaster strives to help our managers achieve their highest career and personal goals. By providing education resources and development tools, we encourage all of our managers to continually deliver the highest level of service quality, pursue excellence and continue to challenge themselves and those they lead. Manager Training and Development Modules  Orientation Day  Training Academy  Field Training Program  New Manager Orientation  Management Review Program  Management Development Seminar II - Management Styles  Management Development Seminar ill - Excellence  Management Development Seminar IV - Career Planning  Effective Public Speaking and Presentatiom  Courtesy Ambassador Program Implementation  Reauitment Strategies Training  Management Skills Program  Financial Skills Seminar  Leadership Development Program Certification  Annual Fall Conferences  Grounds Care Seminar  Plant Operations and Maintenance Seminar  Tune Management Seminar  Computer Training Program  Technical Specialists Seminars  Partnership Video Series  Plant Operations and Maintenance Career Development Program  Award of Excellence Program Why ServiceMaster? ServiceMaster is the: Only company successfully providing management services for over a quarter of a century. Only management services company to be named by Fortune Magazine as THE top service company in America. Only company that develops chemicals and equipment exclusively for education environments. Only company that provides its customers the advantages of research and development laboratories rather than relying solely on consultants. Only company that offers a total program to provide support in the areas of asbestos, lead in drinking water, roofs, hazardous waste, radon, fiberglass, AHERA and ADA. Only company that has built a sizeable base of custodial, maintenance and grounds management customers through performance rather than through acquisition. Only company offering regional skills certification programs. Only company with a specific division dedicated to energy management. Only company offering staff college credit for on-site work. Only company working in partnership with SRI Gallup to implement the service worker perceivers. Only company employing full-time grounds horticulturists. ServiceMaster The Company Pursuing quality and excellence ... Treating people with dignity and pride ... Being driven by service to our customers ... Growing profitably ... these are all part of the goals and objectives of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster continues to expand our technical resources and customer base in an atmosphere that fosters innovation, creativity and development. Long before the concept of \"total quality management\" was fervently discussed among businesses and learning institutions, ServiceMaster had committed itself to the objective of \"Pursuing Excellence.\" In the early 1970's, Kenneth T. Wessner, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, wrote: \"Our company accepts the responsibility to continually seek better methods to render current and new services to its' customers at a better value. Our trademarks and service marks stand for excellence ... The pursuit of excellence is a never-ending process, the continuing search for a better way. It requires a strong commitment and an understanding that a job, a career - life itself- is never completed, but is in a continual stage of change and growth.\" It is this philosophy that has continued to guide management and support employees. By listening to customers' needs and remaining focused on the business of providing quality services, ServiceMaster has grown from a small mothproofing business in the early 1940's to a $3.0 billion international company that provides a network of services to consumers, businesses, health care systems and education customers. In 1962, at the request of hospital administrators, the first Housekeeping Management Support Program was introduced. Based on findings from the American Hospital Association, health care professionals and additional research, ServiceMaster designed a program to improve overall cleanliness while reducing costs and management burdens. In 1971, through a series of discussions with school administrators, the company learned of the unique demands and challenges encountered in maintaining school buildings and grounds. As a result, a separate division of the company was started in order to better focus on the specific concerns of educators. Now. over 20 years later, ServiceMaster education resources include four specific divisions nationwide, staffed with operations, sales and support professionals dedicated to handle all aspects of school and college facilities management. In addition, corporate resources are committed to technical research and development. management and support employee training, motivational program development, and hiring professional~ with expertise in the education market. ServiceMaster The Company (continued): Today, as the world's leading provider of support management services to education customers, ServiceMaster continues to serve our first education customer as well as 500 additional colleges, universities and school districts. ServiceMaster is the only company in the world that can provide maintenance, custodial, grounds, energy management, food service, pest control, capital retrofit and asbestos programs all through a single source provider. ServiceMaster Sponsored Programs ServiceMaster continues to demonstrate our education commitment by providing corporate sponsorship and leadership support to a number of different education organizations and programs including:  The AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program - ServiceMaster is proud to have initiated, funded and developed, along with the American Association of School Administrators, this prestigious program. The National Superintendent of the Year recognizes and honors the important contribution that superintendents of America's public schools make to our youth and the preservation of our society.  Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) - ERDI is a unique organization whose goal is to bring together innovative leadership in education and business from around the country. Initiated, funded and developed by ServiceMaster, ERDI provides a \"think tank\" atmosphere for Fortune 500 companies .... a forum for progressive educators to share and exchange ideas, and funding for education research and development.  Flag of Learning and Liberty -The Flag of Learning and Liberty, developed in 1985 by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), symbolizes the link between education and the American democratic way of life. ServiceMaster continues to provide funding and support to promote this important educa-tion symbol.  ASBO International Eagle Service Award Program - The Eagle Service Award was developed by ServiceMaster and the Association of School Business Officials International to recognize business officials who demonstrate outstanding service to their school, community and the profession. In addition, ServiceMaster was named as one of President Bush's 1,000 Points of Light for providing the opportunity and funding for over 200 ServiceMaster employees to mentor elementary students. ServiceMaster also provides funding and support for the Council of Great City Schools and sponsors over 100 student scholarships nationwide. REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Richardson Independent School District Location: Richardson, Texas Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, Technology Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: October 1990 Total Square Feet/Sites: 5,008,318 sq. ft./63 Buildings Students: 33,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Mr. Vernon Johnson, Superintendent Mr. Jack Huffman*, Director of Physical Plant Services 214/301-3333 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER~.  REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Polk County Schools Location: Bartow, Florida Services Provided: Custodial Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: November 1986 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,828,000 sq. ft./109 Buildings Students: 68,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. John A. Stewart, Superintendent * Reference Contact Mr. Denny Dunn*, Deputy Superintendent 813/534-0500 ServiceMASTER~.  Name of Client: Location: Services Provided: REFERENCE School District Memphis City Schools Memphis, Tennessee Custodial, Maintenance, Grounds Management, Energy Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: June 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites: 16,000,000 sq. ftJl,884 Acres Students: 106,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Geny House, Superintendent 901/325-5444 ServiceMASTER, ..  REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Kansas City Missouri School District Location: Kansas City, Missouri Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: August 1991 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,629,101 sq. ft./102 Buildings Students: 35,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Walter Marks, Superintendent Mr. William M. Threatt*, Associate Superintendent 816/871-7814 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER~.  REFERENCE School District Name of Client: District of Colwnbia Public Schools Location: Washington, D.C. Services Provided: Custodial, Preventive Maintenance Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: January 1993 To\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_2","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1995-09/1995-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/2"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_772","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School attendance","School enrollment","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/772"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026gt;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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; 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\u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026lt;6 (4 14 64 65 65 60 16.2(2 10.36\u0026gt; \u0026gt;.M7 3M 282 16,717 9,010 2 16,6S6 8,868 6, MS 332 357 16,726 \u0026gt;,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 \u0026lt;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\nLittle 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- \u0026gt; 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. \u0026amp;\u0026gt; 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 \u0026lt;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\u0026gt; o O \u0026lt;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\nthese 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\u0026gt; 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\nthe 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. \u0026gt; \"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\nby 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\nnearly 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\u0026gt; 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\n92 percent of these children were white, 6 percent were Black, and other races made up only 2 percent. \u0026gt; 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\u0026gt;2 | ll.t?? | 8.03\u0026gt; 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\nFigures in this table may vary slighly from those in text and charts due to differences between Census Bureau source tables. Source: 1980 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026gt; 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\u0026gt; ::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 \u0026gt;  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\u0026gt; M xipuaddv suoipajojd Gain 2% Gain 5% Gain 15% or More a (B :3D O o X\" ay o o o D cz\u0026gt;' o -n a\u0026gt; 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 \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;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 \u0026lt;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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; I 5W I 7 I 1 I 4 I MS I 7 I M I I I ns I \u0026lt;72 I 3M I 74 J37|13|1.173[ 773 | 777 | 7\u0026lt; | 434 | 71 |l.in4|l jw] Little Sack PttlJMfcl Co. ~ Little Rock + Pulaski Co. The Grier Partnership I Source: Metroplan 5 o \u0026lt;D O o 3 W \u0026gt; 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. \u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; 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\u0026lt;.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 \u0026gt; 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. \u0026gt; 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\none 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\nbut 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026lt;  7300 a 6300 3300 4300 5300 MM W t.m ack (.m \nN* I M I .( I I (,r I M\u0026gt;* 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\u0026gt; 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\u0026lt; 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\nOJOJOttO 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; I- o 73 56 21 7 26 21 15 17 19 19 5 7 23 34 42 385 o q: z LU___ 474 O \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; _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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; -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 \u0026lt; _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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; _l  \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; o in a + z \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; 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\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; 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\u0026gt; o in Q + Z \u0026lt; 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 \u0026lt; Q Z UI t Of UI z I- o a t z A O\u0026gt; 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 \u0026gt; O in U + z \u0026lt; 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\u0026gt; O) z UJ s -I o X z UJ 432 f^ftAKikLlKi \u0026lt;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 \u0026lt; 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\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_762","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/762"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary Introduction, Recommendations, Cost Factors Demographic Study Summary Tabulations Educational Facility Study, Attendance Zone Options Facility Perceptions Summaries and Public August 30,1995 Volume No 1 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026amp; Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership DemographersCOPY 18 OF 30 I B II II II P P D  H B Ba II RECESV^ //J i' BOARD OF DIRECTORS A SEP 4 7 1995 41? ' S'/? oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation Monitoring A 1994/1995 A A Linda Pondexter President Fuller Junior High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501)490-1503 ii i| 39) Oo 3 3 3 o 3 W A Patricia Gee Vice President 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-0571 oo aft) 3I A A Judy Magness Secretary 708 Hall Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 666-0923 I I 3 A Stephanie Johnson 8701 130, Apartment 206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)340-6681 I I A Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501)374-6305 ) laio* A T. Kevin OMalley Arkansas Board of Review Tower Building - Suite 700 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-9038 O  II\nA 1 John A. Riggs J. A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501) 570-3528 A ?I Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 I 1 a 11 a FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY TEAM II oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II 1995 a 33 o o 3 o3 3 S' o3 a ti 3D/lnternational Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026amp; Interior Architecture 112 East Pecan Suite 2350 San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 227-2500 oo n ao 3 n II Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants TASA Building 406 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2617 (512) 477-6361 y aa The Grier Partnership Demographers 6532 East Halbert Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (301)229-4454 ' m - a /.I c s*o  0 1n Cromwell Architects Engineers Facility Sunzey Manager 101 South Spring Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)372-2900 II a Matrix IV Architects, Incorporated Facility Survey Manager 100 South Main Street Suite 408 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 376-7326 n!?  James Mitchell Architects Facility Survey Manager 5117 Sherwood Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72225-1364 (501)661-9322 ?I A FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY RESOURCE TEAM 3 O Q. C O o 1994/1995 tai Little Rock School District  Dr. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton Director of Facilities 3D s o 3 o3 a3 (U O3 W / Charles Neal Director of Procurement a Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent o o 21 os 3 a Mark Millholen Comptroller a Suellen Vann Public Information c 4 ifl Lucy Lyon Media 5 J Dennis Glasgow PTA Representative a Marie A. McNeal Learning Resource Center d iDr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Children m a o 39 d Susan Chapman Exceptional Children d Gene Parker, Jr. English Community Resources d Chris Heller Attorney for the District Debbie Glasgow President PTA Council Tim Polk Neighborhoods and Planning Mark McBryde Senior Vice President iNf 1: ? I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 3 a Table of Contents Executive Summary 8 CL I O a H Facilities Master Plan Study Little Rock School District 30 O o o 3 3 Q 3 3* o 3 W a a Tabs Introduction Introduction Pages 1-5 a -3 1 a Recommendations Basis Conditions of Existing Buildings Financial Condition of District Demographics Survey Findings School Attendance Zones Closures of Facilities Initiatives Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 a a a a a Cost Factors General Cost Estimates By District Cost Priorities Inflation Options Funding Tables: Cost Summaries by Groups and Priorities Unit Cost of Renovation Cost Options Option M Option T Option C Analysis of Discontinued Use Demographics Executive Summary Page 1 Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 ' if ri I ' o o sa n fi) a o 5 4 e 4 m a c s 0 3 9 Educational Study Education and Facility Evaluations Capacity Utilization Page 1 CST-1, Pages 1-3 CST-2, Pages 1-2 CST-3, Pages 1-5 CST-4, Pages 1-4 CST-5, Pages 1-3 CST-6, Pages 1-3 CST-7, Page 1 Pages 1-4 Pages 1-2 Pages 2-3 Page 3 sit \u0026lt; i? Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  a   School Size School Assignment Impact of Middle School Organization Tables: Projections Value Scores Closures The Middle School- Planning For Young Adolescents Tables: Ranking Evaluation Capacity Utilization Ratios Distribution of M to M Building and Site Areas Pages 4-6 Page 6 Page 6 Tables 1-4, Pages 7-10 Tables 5-6, Page 11-12 Table 7, Page 12 Pages 1-5 Table ES-1, Pages 1-2 Table ES-2, Pages 1-2 Table ES-3. Pages 1-2 Table ES-4, Pages 1-2 Table ES-5, Page 1 Table ES-6, Pages 1-2 a Attendance Zones General Table AZ-1 Maps: Pages 1-2 Pages 1-9 a a a Option M, Elementary Schools Option M, Exhibit Option M, Junior High Schools Option M, Senior High School Option T, Elementary Schools Option C, Elementary Schools Option C, Junior High Schools A A A A Facility Summaries Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Elementary Cloverdale Elementary David 0. Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Incentive Elementary Fulbright Elementary Garland Incentive Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary Ish Incentive Elementary Jefferson Elementary M.L. King Magnet Elementary Mablevale Elementary McDermott Elementary Page 01 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 2 3 8 Q. C O o a 0 O o 3 3 o 3 a. 0 5 3 (0 o o a 0 a q S' m a I 1111 S' ,, I 3 0 i\nILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I If a If a fl fl dddd Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Incentive Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Incentive Elementary Rockefeller Incentive Elementary Romine Interdistrict Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Magnet Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Henderson Junior High Mablevale Jr. High Mann Magnet Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Junior High Alternative Learning Center Metropolitan Vocational Technical Center Central High School J. A. Fair High School Hall High School McClellan High School Parkview School Administration Building Administration Building Annex Cashion Building Plant Services Purchasing Safety and Security Transportation Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 38 Page 40 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 46 Page 48 Page 50 Page 52 Page 56 Page 58 Page 60 Page 62 Page 65 Page 67 Page 69 Page 71 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 O a c o 6 33 (0 o o 3 3 Q 3 Q. O 3 M oo a ttn oS S F  i m ' a 0 o T, 03 2r Il N d Public Perception Survey Strategy Results Table: Page 1 Page 2 fl Survey Graph Exhibits I Page 3 i 1 Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors '*~?9rnhtc Study Educational g^aa\u0026amp;ieoAMfc SI Zones 1^9 BBI  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI INTRODUCTION:   In February 1995, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) engaged the services of 3D/lntemational to perform a facilities assessment of approximately 50 school buildings including high schools, jr. high schools, and elementary schools.  The scope of services was later expanded to include a facilities survey of the Districts administrative buildings. (30) oo 3 A3 3 tt  w )  To accomplish the survey goals, 3D/lntemational engaged the services of five team members: K Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership provided demographic studies and information. oo a tt o\u0026amp; 3  Ben Graves of Educational Planning Consultants contributed the educational facility ratings along with studies and information on school sizes and the middle school concept. ? B To assist in gathering survey information on individual school sites, three local architectural firms joined the 3D/I team: Cromwell Architects Engineers Matrix IV Architects, Inc. James Mitchell, Architect 9 ^3 B Assessment Goals: Goals of the Project were: am If: C s o I  Survey Existing District Facilities I II n On-site facilities surveys were conducted for all the school sites and the administrative buildings as listed in the RFP and as later added to the project scope. Original survey sheets, with annotations, reflect the general conditions encountered and list deficiencies, including life safety and code compliance issues. These surveys are included in a series of volumes identified by school or administrative building. Summaries of this information are included in this volume. * i: I The survey reports established a priority listing relating to time of implementation for the improvement of all deficiencies including HVAC, grounds, mechanical/electrical, and athletic facilities. An evaluation of each building was conducted and a scoring system established to provide ranking of facilities based on the condition of the facility and its site. This ranking is presented along with a separate evaluation result performed by the educational consultant, Ben Graves. Each evaluation and ranking has been based on a 1000 point scoring system. pI Page 1 u I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H  Determine Educational Capacity n Each building has been analyzed and evaluated not only the building, but also the to determine the capacity of spaces within the building based on their who^'iTb^ number of studen'ts I n Pf*''  summary of current adjusted operating capacity detailed information is provided under each school tab.  Survey Demographic Data 33 s O 3 3 ( 3 Q\u0026gt; fl  i (A I \u0026lt; 11 The demographic study focused on trends since 1987 to the current oeriod with projections include populatioS k? V changes in school attendance zones and birth rates In addition, the economic factors, growth of the Pblaski CounVv construction trends, and national economic trends werp economic trends were considered. area, o o a Tl fil I 3 If ^ \"^ster plan study was provided as a basis for the development of recommendations ......... and additions. zone options. of building improvements new construction, and school consolidations and attendance J si a  Recommend Overall Capital Improvements a This report includes a projected cost of El th/fpriNtip a projected cost of capital improvement needs based on the facilities survey, school capacities, and demographic analysis. Included is a recommendation structured for implementation includes estimated costs to bring the schools with the educational mission of the District. over a period of 10 years. This to a level of quality consistent m I a i\nS d I Consistent with the scope of this include estimates provided by the District'for hazardous material abatement, and ADA compliance. These cost estimaVpQ were previously provided to the District by others. project,^ projected costs used in this report 'oof replacements, asbestos and  Provide an Executive Summary and Recommendation N If i: I Options and recommendations relate to meet the changing needs of the city and have Desegregation rio,,. ,c ,epon aiso includes scS elementary, middle or junior highs, and high general courses of action for LRSD to considered the impact of the Plan. The report also includes I I Recommendations are included for: new facilities, renovation and/or expansion of existing facilities, school consolidations student population General recommendations are also included for existinq Dislnct (ac,l,l,es with regard to their capabilities of providing for smairTroup and redistribution of I Page 2 Ia B Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI B instruction, large group requirements, special educational services, physical education, general administrative requirements, and community needs. BB The analyses have considered: current educational programs offered by the District, its desegregation initiatives, the directions in which the school system is moving, the use of alternative learning settings, the development of new educational programs, desired staffing ratios, new technology, and federally-funded programs as these issues impact upon utilization of building space within the District. fl Assessment Process: \u0026lt;393 OO 33 (9 3 fi) O 3 M I The approach to assessing Little Rock schools has been in three phases: fl  Phase 1 - Organization and Planning fl 1J Following the award of contract in February, 3D/I initiated a fact-finding meeting with representatives of the Little Rock School District to ascertain the parameters of the overall master plan study. During this meeting an approach was selected, contacts were established, and the general logistics of the survey were developed utilizing both 3D/I and LRSD resources. oo % w s o5 I 4 Cl fl At this meeting, plans for the charrette were established and attendees were selected to represent all aspects of the District's education program: population, census, and objectives. II 1 fl It was also determined that community involvement would be through the auspices of PTA councils, community town meetings, and public input surveys. Resources were established to interface with these activities. I' m rt Program Definition Charrette On March 10 the one-day Program Definition Charrette was held in the Administrative Board Room at District offices with the following attendance. fl fl fl 3D/I Core Team: Gene Rutherford, Program Manager Glenna Peterson. Project Resource Barbara Trammell, Project Administrator and Communications Ben Graves, Educational Consultant Eunice Grier, Demographer Joe Johnson, Survey Coordinator and Planner Bill Woodsmall, Mechanical Engineer Ron Ross, Survey Team Leader N *  i! fl LRSD Administrative Representatives: Dr. Russel Mayo, Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities Charles Neal, Director of Procurement Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent I a I I i I Page 3 I I p I II n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a Mark Millhollen, Comptroller Suellen Vann, Public Information Chris Heller, Attorney for the District II I II LRSD Educational Program Representatives: Lucy Lyon, Media Dennis Glasgow, PTA Representative Marie A McNeal, Learning Resource Center Dr. Patty Kohler, Exceptional Children Susan Chapman, Exceptional Children Gene Parker, Jr., English 3) S O 3 3 \u0026lt;0 3 Q. 0) o 3 W M n II a City of Little Rock Tim Polk, Neighborhoods and Planning The charrette included discussion to identify programs, build constructive communication, determine methods and procedures, establish logistics, and anticipate problems and solutions. This all-day meeting provided the initial opportunity for client-consultant team building. The agenda included a thorough description of the process being implemented and provided a forum for dialogue among staff and core team members. In addition, presentations and discussions were held on: the City of Little Rocks long-range plan and desegregation issues\nconstruction trends\nand legal ramifications/expectancies of LRSDs court order. It also included assignment of LRSD resources for the core team, established points of contact, and definition of communication goals. [ EM EM The charrette provided several hours of direct interface among core team members and LRSD personnel to better understand conditions in Little Rock as well as available resource centers of information pertinent to the study. Milestone dates were confirmed and the general housekeeping issues to effect an orderly start of the survey was accomplished. I I I IM  Phase 2 - Inspections and Surveys: EM The core team met prior to the charrette to develop a definitive understanding of each participant's role. Following the meeting a general critique of the d charrette process was held, dates were established for team training and the model survey exercise, and participants set goals and deadlines for each phase of their responsibilities. d Team Preparation: Model Survey Exercise Following the charrette, the survey teams were formed and on March 20, a presurvey workshop that included LRSD staff was held. The session, led by 3D/I project resource, Glenna Peterson, was held to familiarize team members with forms and procedures, and to provide general information regarding the survey process. Page 4 o o a n tt S o 5 I t II J m a 3 fit si ( I: h 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl Following the workshop, the two teams conducted a complete walk-through and facilities survey of the Bale Elementary School. This effort served as a laboratory project and was critiqued following its completion to allow for any fine-tuning of the forms or process before proceeding to other school locations. fl fl Facility Site Survey During the period from March 20 through May 4, the two survey teams completed the facilities survey at all school locations. The resulting forms are included in this report as a part of each school summary. 33 A O O 3 3i fl fl Educational Facility Survey During the same time period (March 20 through May 2), core team member, Ben Graves, (EPC) conducted similar educational evaluations of each school building. This survey establishes the condition of the space, its present use, and other pertinent data required to render an opinion of adequacy, capacity, and utilization. Q. a\u0026gt;o 3 W  4 fl The facility survey instrument used on this project has been tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States. Its scoring is based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I fl Scores from the educational survey provide three areas of comparison\n1) within an individual school, each feature can be compared with established norms or minimal standards\n2) for the entire district, schools have been sorted according to characteristic features, and 3) a graphic profile is included for each facility as a summary reference. I fl fl Capacity and Utilization: Analysis of Facilities During the educational facility survey process, information was gathered to provide the following evaluation criteria\n1. Educational adequacy of facility. ,'l fl 2. Current use of space. 3. Current operational capacity. fl 4. Current utilization fl The work described above has been completed and is included under the appropriate school tab. Demoqraphic Survey 3D/I team member, Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership, has completed the demographic survey of the LRSD area and her analysis is provided with this report. fl The study considers the impact of recreation\nzoning\ncity planning: highway construction\neconomic projections, and the effect of residential, commercial, and industrial developments on public school facilities. h i\nh I Page 5 oo a ! ttn   I Iih J1 ma I I o. I 3  Mi I d d Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d Since the basis of the demographic study is district-wide and is the predicate for projections with suggested realignment options, it has been included in its entirety in this volume. d d d Community Involvement 3D/I core team member Barbara Trammell worked closely with LRSD staff member Suellen Vann to develop a survey that would allow input from parents, neighbors, and employees. This form was distributed through the school system via students and made available to the general public at town meetings and through a mailing to neighborhood groups. A summary of the district-wide data gathered is included with this executive summary and the responses and comments particular to the individual schools are located with the site-specific information. 3D o o o 3 3 o 3 Q O 3 W d  Phase 3 Analysis and Reporting d Review and Consistency of Survey Data During this final phase, core team members reviewed the findings of each task area to ensure accuracy, consistency, and completeness. Trends were d reviewed, \"what-if scenarios were examined for the purpose of providing recommendations and/or options that would best serve the students in the Little Rock School District. d This process was employed to integrate the facility, education, and demographic survey data to provide continuity. d d District-wide Summary Report This volume summarizes the findings and evaluations of schools and administrative facilities, the cost to correct deficiencies, construction costs for new facilities, school and administrative consolidations, and options for realignment of school attendance zones. I 1 d The following Page 7, of this section, entitled \"ORGANIZATION OF REPORT, HOW TO READ IT' is included as a tool to help the reader move through the various sections and better understand the logic of the text, tables and maps. The index also locates topics for convenience. d d Page 6 o o a w a o S / ^3 m i! LI n a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a ORGANIZATION OF REPORT HOW TO HEAD IT a ORGANIZATION The Demographic Survey, Educational Survey, and Facility Survey, each are investigatory endeavors that lead to recommendations and options. The cost factors are estimates of the cost to renovate and repair existing facilities and provide additions a or new construction based on the options considered. Recommendations are the M resulting conclusions of investigation of population and enrollment trends, the condition of existing facilities, costs to the district, and other factors observed during the facility master plan process. 33 S O 3 3 Q 3 Q. fi) O 3 W The Executive Summary of this report has been organized in the following manner: II Tab_____________ Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors Demographic Study Educational Study Attendance Zones Facility Summaries Public Perception Surveys Description_______________________________ A brief introduction of the process Recommendations for action Cost of Implementing recommendations Summary of demographic study materials Study of school size, capacity, impact of middle schools and the number of required facilities Zone configuration options with maps and tables Summaries of each facility with itemized cost priorities Summary results of public opinions o o a S' a g 3 fl n a a d m - c a Demographic details are provided in Volume 2. Facility details are provided in Volumes 3 through 13. f !  ' fl d d TIPS School Sizes and Number Required Are located under the Educational Study tab in the Executive Summary These include the trends of population and student enrollment forecasts with the resulting quantity of schools required displayed on three bracketed size ranges as set out on tables 1-3.  ! I: d d Attendance Zone Options The attendance zone options are located under the Attendance Zone tab in the Executive Summary and describe the sizes of existing schools and their present capacity. These include recommendations for additions to increase their capacities, based on a projected enrollment capability of the area. These options have been illustrated by the Summary table AZ-1, Option M, T, and C maps. This information is located in the Attendance Zone section, as well as Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 in the Cost Factor section. i Page 1a a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I II a School Closures and Other Uses The attendance zone options, illustrated on the maps described above, indicate schools recommended for closure, which have been based on condition, location, size, and cost to renovate or repair the facility. These factors were a part of the evaluation^ score and ultimate ranking of the facilities which are found under the Educational Summary tab in tables ES-1 and ES-2 and illustrated on Table CST-7 under the Cost Factors tab. a a Facilities available for other uses, are schools that are recommended for functions other than their initial purpose, generally because of the surplus of facilities in a particular attendance zone area. Table CST-7, under the Cost Factors tab illustrates these facilities and recommendation No 5, under the Recommendations tab elaborates on these buildings. 3) o o o 3 3 \u0026lt;0 3 fi\u0026gt; O 3 \u0026gt; a a a a d Cost Factors Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 show ethnic composition for each school in each option studied with resulting total enrollment capability used. The operating capacity of each school is subtracted from the enrollment capability to produce a difference (delta) in capacity which is shown. A negative number indicates additional capacity is required, and a positive number indicates that sufficient capacity is available. The negative capacity numbers are then multiplied by the factor of 107 (square feet required per student) and result in a deficit area expressed as a negative number in square feet required. These space requirements are multiplied by a assumed cost factor of $65 per square foot for additions to buildings or $55 per square foot for new building construction. Totals of costs for each option for renovation additions and for new school construction are carried forward to the summary sheets Table CST-3 under the appropriate option. I d Cost Factors Table CST-3 indicates the cost of renovating each facility, except those recommended for closure which appear as a gray line with costs removed. d d This data comes from Table CST-1 and is summarized near the bottom of (CST-3 Page 2) at the line labeled TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT. The amount under each column, totals and priorities, is then added to the cost of each option, including escalation, from table CST-3, Pages 3, 4, and 5 to obtain the total projected cost of each option by totals and priorities. d Cost Factors Table CST-1 indicates the cost of renovating every facility currently in the Little Rock School District, whether recommended for closure or not. This cost summary has been organized by type of schools and includes the seven administrative facilities within the district. This is the basis of the data used to develop the total cost under each of the three options (Options M, T, and C) presented within Table CST-3. Page 8 o o fa a o w I'rt' m a c s I 3 ' ii n 3 * J?a a II Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I The line total entitled SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN on page 2 represents total costs as a whole and priorities 1-5, in their respective columns. To this number is added those estimates of costs, provided by the district, for ADA, Roof Replacement, and Asbestos Abatement, by facility, which produces non-escalated costs in each column. H a H A A A Escalation Impact is summarized at the bottom of Page 2, is developed in depth on Page 3, and projects the total program costs (renovations of existing facilities) from one through ten+ years by whole and by priority. These numbers do not include new construction cost estimates or options, which are developed in CST-3. Implementation of the Plan The Facilities Master Plan Study has been approached as a study of the facts and data available regarding the Little Rock School Districts facilities, projected enrollments, and needs, over the next 10 years. This information has been summarized with options and priorities for consideration and implementation by the Board and its Administration. The logistics of the implementation, are therefore dependent on policy decisions of the Board and were not a part of the study. The plan, however, considered implementation in the development of its options and recommendations and is viable, if executed in a careful systematic manner following an implementation schedule. This schedule is dependent on four undetermined factors: 33 ( O o 3 3 \u0026lt; 3 a w o' 3 (A o o \u0026amp; m S o s 1. A 2. 3. A 4. Approval of available options {which could involve adjustment of the selected option to meet boa nd policy.) Acceptance by the Court (the plan and the selected option). Acquisition of Financing (adequate to support the plan or meaningful components of the plan). Selection of an implementor (Skilled in development of capital schedules and programs along with district counterpart) ^4 4 I m I : a . A I '/I I .It I ' I AT A *\u0026lt;10 3 'i I 1*1 A A \u0026lt;1 N A 5? 3 7 Page 9Cost Factors .1 r . X 6 f-' I I I I a  -\u0026gt; -  I  I  J  I* .1 ' e  Recommendations  t . . a fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl RECOMMENDATIONS Basis of Recommendations The 3D/I team approached the facilities master plan task with four specific targets: 1) assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation, 2) assessment of  a demographics and changes in population and enrollments, 3) analysis of all school capacities with their current and projected utilization, and 4) alignment of the study with the desegregation court order components. Each step of the survey was undertaken with attention to these factors. 2' 9 fl Therefore, conclusions have been thoroughly considered, reconsidered, and evaluated with the resulting recommendations and options being in harmony with and influenced by the four specific targets outlined above. An implied directive, and perhaps the most important, influencing recommendations is What is in the best interests of the children being served.\" o o Ji w I By Conditions of Existing Buildings I fl As the 3D/I teams visited and noted the conditions of over 50 individual buildings, it became very obvious that the District is in need of a substantial preventive maintenance plan, endorsed and supported by the Board of Directors. The I 7^ 4 40 fl d consequences of failing to implement such a plan, are a cycle of never-ending unchecked damage and deterioration. Lack of a substantial preventive maintenance does not serve the public, and creates the appearance of frequent calls on funds with no visible results. I I 4 fl d Experience has shown that institutions that consider their facility improvement requirements too costly to be accomplished, continue to allow the depreciation of their assets by lack of action. On the other hand, institutions that have addressed their capital needs in a manner that the public could support and at the same time have established a preventive maintenance program are able to manage the facility issues and maintain their assets. I I I 1 jni ' a 4 C 'iBL  0 1  i  I ri fl The secret to this success is the establishment of an escrow funding account where the unspent dollars remaining from the annual maintenance budget accrue to the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund without penalty to the next years budget negotiation process. This eliminates the historical urgency of spending to justify the budget, typical of most institutional and government entities. The annual contribution to this fund is established by the Board of Directors as a sinking fund with sufficient policy directives to protect it from any other non related uses and pet programs. Where this is an established procedure, the system works. Major capital replacement cost can be dealt with without affecting operating budgets as well as unexpected costs such as storm damage etc. it *  N Si g I, An important element of preventive maintenance is an effective housekeeping system. Whether out-sourced or in-house, custodial services should be directed by the physical plant department, but accountable to the school principal. The teams observed that I Page 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl where the principal took an active role in ownership of his or her facility custodian and maintenance functions were improved and the facility presented a more appealing environment to students, staff, and the public. fl fl  Recommendation Number 1 is the establishment of a preventive maintenance program with a policy-protected escrow funding account that is incrementally funded each year, as a part of the annual budget process, but not used for normal day to day maintenance items. Disbursements from this account could have board oversight to insure its designed purpose. fl Financial Condition of the District During the course of the public meetings and subsequent meetings with the Districts fl financial representatives, the revenue shortfall was thoroughly discussed. The fl presumable reason for this shortfall is tied to the simple axiom of too much cost, too little income. This apparently results from a low utilization of the Districts physical plants and a high cost of education due to the various special programs established as a result of the current desegregation plan and the high cost of administering that program. other considerations may be the traditional concern of the ratio of fl administrators to the number schools and students. Since District budgeting of operations was not one of the tasks of the 3D/I team, no detailed analysis has been made as a part of this facilities master plan. However, it is important to note that the recommended closure and alternate use of certain facilities, based on condition and enrollment factors, could have a positive affect in reducing the operating costs of the school district while improving the quality of the basic facilities. z' 3 o o a \"n 0) I 3 a ) \u0026lt; m a c  Recommendation Number 2 is the establishment of a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by an adjusted millage program that accomplishes, in the shortest period practical, the renovation, repair, and proposed new construction of the Districts schools and administrative facilities. (Five years is the optimum building period for a project of this nature.) Refer to the cost projections set out under the Cost Factors tab. o I I 3 I I  i / Based on the recent opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General, it would appear that a capital improvement millage issue could be accomplished on its own merits. Notwithstanding this opinion, it is recommended that any millage brought before the public should include a major capital improvement package as an element as well as the seed for the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund. Demographics During the course of examining the population changes and the influences of economic factors operating in the Little Rock area and their affect upon the families living in the LRSDs enrollment area, it became evident that sufficient information for projection was not readily available. Due to the lack of established reporting zones, (District enrollment blocks and federal census tracts do not align.) it is difficult to measure the migration and school attendance of potential students living within District boundaries. Page 2 J S iiLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I \"!* =.? \"f on the day o, school enrollment each year. Historical detailed records of this \u0026amp;., for past years, thus making detailed projections by attendance blocks enrollment were not available difficult. . Recommendation Number 3 is the formation of a database, maintained by nictnrt ___. .............. the district, consisting of a survey of school-aged children residing in the a vanous areas of the district and updated on an annual basis. This database should also include specific details of those children who attendance block as well schools. are students by as those leaving the district to attend other 2 9  An additional record to facilitate using this information is an annual a accounting of students entering LRSD on the M to M program. The magnet shadow-zone attendance should also be recorded and tracked. While this recommendation involves personnel and effort on an annual o o \u0026amp; tt I t a basis, its benefit would be invaluable in budgeting, long-range planning, and the resultant capital decisions. I i a Survey Findings and Desegregation Plan a At the beginning of the facilities master plan study, the importance of the court order for desegregation was emphasized and has remained as a key factor in planning and ha s master plan study. The components of the court^order are basically summarized as follows\na A. Basis of Facility Needs: Trends in student population Trends in staffing Impact of trends on demographics geographies student assignment zones B, Analysis of Facility Resources: Capacities Location Campus size Special features Limitations c. Additional Factors For Proposed Facilities Use: (five to ten year plan) District goals and objectives Desegregation requirements (includes interdistiict obligations) Decisions criteria for facility actions Identification and analysis of options Proposed facility changes Page 3 I u 3 4 , m o % t'r I 'H o JI ' h'- 5? n IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan study 3D/I  M Impact of programmatic changes (i.e. middle schools) Reassignment of students (' (impact on enrollment and racial I 1 I I Burden of busing on students Impact on financial stability D. Includes\nbalance at receiving schools) ^amination of buildings used for administrative Requisite plan modification Community involvement All of the applicable aspects of the this master plan assessment process space court order have been considered and addressed programs, double funding, and other incentives plan, were proposals of the district '-UI laiueieu ano aooressed as nT understand that many of the special currently a part of the desegregation approved by the court in years past. Current the population shifts and the continuing decrease i --------- in enrollment of white In Also, the burden of bussing and disruption of the \u0026lt;.......... childs home environment created by to these problems, options unitary status for Little Rock School District based of education currently being offered an appeal to the court for program to systematically complete on continuing the quality to students, a capital improvement renovation, upgrading, and the constmction of new sohccis in the areas reoommentied by ms Sport as the preventive maintenance plan to adequately on a continuing basis. as well maintain these facilities Itudenirfn^^V'J provided for all attendance areas along with a unified available to every student with sufficient flexibility gifted and talented, accelerated and program of education and opportunities through magnet school programs. School Attendance Zones As a part of the master plan study, zones, closure of schools, and and capital program analysis, the school attendance recommended construction of new facilities were given Page 4 I 1 I 2 Q o o a \u0026amp; g 4 g ^4 ft 0 I m \u0026amp; I fig 3 \u0026amp; 3 M If II fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl thorough consideration. One common element that emerged was the recommended closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school, over a period of time, with additions and new construction resulting in the consolidated attendance zones.  fl Three options were developed to examine the effective linkage of elementary to junior and senior high schools. This process also considered the effect of middle schools when the sixth grade is moved from elementary school and the ninth grade is shifted to the high school. Attendance zone options considered were\n2 fl  Option M where the recommended closure of elementary and junior high school distributed students to existing facilities with the least disruption to the district. Under this option, the current split attendance zone system would remain. I 2 ' 9   Option T considered the effect of trying to align the current attendance blocks and schools, both existing and new, into a zoning system aligning with the federal census tracts. This option was found to be difficult and of questionable value based on the current census tract configurations. o o 21 w S o S fl  Option C considered the corridor approach where the major highways, railroad tracks, river, and other physical barriers created natural divisions of the city. This approach largely developed a method of attendance zones that allowed students to attend an elementary school within reasonable I o J I L fl distance from their home. This option provides a more cohesive school/home environment although enrollment ethnic ratios under this plan 8 1 reflect the makeup of the area surrounding the school. To offset this fl imbalance, however, the burden of bussing is reduced and the magnet shadow zones are utilized. I m a c SI fri o 3 fl As the system progresses from elementary through junior high or middle school to senior high, the number of options decline and are less distinctive. However, tracking from elementary to senior high can be clearly defined. 'I fl fl fl In addition to the eight schools recommended for closure, four additional elementary schools are not used, generally because of a surplus of schools in a particular attendance zone. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the districts inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools.  Recommendation Number 5 is the closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school along with four additional elementary schools to be slated for alternate uses by the district and the community. These closures and reassignment of functions are predicated on the premise that the alterations, additions and construction of new school or schools is accomplished as a part of the plan. Savings resulting renovation expenses and reduced, if not eliminated, operating expenses can significantly reduce the cost of new construction. Reduced operating expenses, even with Page 5 ii hi o li IS 3 7 iffl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i  inflation, can retire the capital debt on paper, assuming these savings are not spent elsewhere. fl  Recommendation Number 6 is the consultants opinion, that of the options considered, Option C is preferred. The preference is based on fl considerations of the school experience for the children, a more- favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities, diminished burden of bussing, comparable cost to the district, and the more effective value to the public. 2* Q  Recommendation Number 7 notwithstanding, the consultants  Recommendation Number 5, is the formation of a representative committee of the board of directors, the administration, the court, and the public, to consider each of the options, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each and effect a conclusion that best serves the children of the Little Rock school system in their pursuit of the learning experience. o o a w \u0026amp; o S  b  fl Initiatives \u0026lt;G 'll a J I fl In every dynamic community, city, and state the importance of education is placed high on the list of priority considerations. Decisions of businesses considering localities for establishing their home or branch office is always influenced by the available school system serving the area and the level of education offered. This is true of elementary schools through colleges. 5 1'^ 1 m a fl Little Rock has suffered in this area due to the unfortunate political decisions of the past and the fact that it remains under the courts desegregation management. While the level of education has substantially improved in all schools (the outstanding reputation of Central High School is a good example), the stigma of operating without unitary status tends to cast a shadow over the quality of the school system, whether it is deserved or not. I ' A I 11 B 2  S. I* I N During the course of the survey, the 3D/I team found a positive attitude among most of the faculty and patrons which was demonstrated by the public opinion survey responses representing almost 20 percent of parents and employees of the district. Considerations yet to be developed are alternate uses of facilities recommended for closure. Possible uses include: neighborhood library and learning center sites. community centers, and neighborhood alert centers. Since these types of uses require city and citizen support, both actively and financially, two initiatives are recommended for consideration.  Recommendation Number 8 is that initiatives be taken to reverse decreasing enrollment patterns by active, visible involvement of a task force to promote and support the Little Rock School District, its academic program, its capital needs, the possibility of adult continuing education programs for the community, the support of preventive maintenance, and Page 6 8, I Ffl fl fl fl fli Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I support of unitary status. A part of this recommendation is the formation of a representative committee of the city, board of directors, district administration, and patrons to actively pursue a feasible plan for the alternative use of those facilities recommended for closure and other uses. This plan should provide for a use that benefits the community, is supported by the taxpayers, and does not become a burden to either the district or the city. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the district's inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools.  Recommendation Number 9 is a deliberate effort, on the part of the Board of Directors, of the Little Rock School District, to cultivate and encourage a representative group of leaders and professional men and women in the Little Rock community to become interested and involved in the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies. This would include important committee assignments, PTA offices, and, if elected, service on the Board. In addition to the dedicated board members of today, this effort would continue the development of community awareness and respect of the school system and be a positive building block for the boards of tomorrow. These recommendations are offered with the sincere thought that their implementation will enhance the stature and improve the operation of the Little Rock School District as well as improve the credibility of the district as perceived by the public. I fl Page 7 2 Q -I o o a 9 \u0026amp; o 9 r '1 R fl If fl I I ni 1 a 'll 3 9 N O I 9* i\nn 3 7 JCost Factors Study Zones oauvnniHrwv   * . 11 k r II ' (T h h I hP'  r rI I i r 11 1 J J  * Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H COST FACTORS N General  a a a The facilities survey conducted at fifty schools and seven administration buildings was limited to a period ranging from a partial day to two days per facility, depending on its size and condition. The projected estimate of cost, therefore, becomes an order of magnitude estimate that deals with broad base cost allowances to correct deficiencies described in broad terms. Detailed specificity and quantification was not permitted within the scope and time allowed, however, it is believed that the estimates portray an accurate allowance of cost that the district should expect in executing corrections and updates to the conditions found. In some cases, conditions found warranted further study or detailed structural solutions and these were so noted in the field notes and summarized under the tab Facility Summaries. Cost Estimates Provided by LRSD 2| 3 S y I 8 a a H  8 8 a a a 8 While the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, roofing repair and replacement, and ADA compliance were provided to the district as a result of studies that preceded this contract, allowances have been included in the estimated costs tables, as provided by LRSD. to more clearly define the scope and magnitude of capital cost requirements. With the exception of the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, these costs have been removed, along with other estimated costs, provided by 3D/I, in the following studies showing the affect of school closures. It was assumed that abatement would be the responsibility of the district regardless of disposition of the facility. Cost Priorities Facility surveyors approached the examination of each building with a pre-established priority index, district wide: Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 5 m ! I 11 I \u0026amp; I ^8 0 Included life safety issues, serious code compliance issues and those critical items and others that need to be accomplished during the first year. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1995 and 1997. Brackets that work that needs to occur in the second and third years Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur in 1998. Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be done in a 3 to 5 year period. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1998 and 2001. Page 1 N tf i i! i: a n 3 I 9 * fi \u0026amp; I-? rLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan fl Study 3D/I fl Priority #4 Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be 521?JCST.1 assumes this win occur between 2001 and 2006. fl Priority #5 Includes all technology updates. -- This basically provides conduit communication outlets, cable racks, cabling   t coaxial wiring, and associated items, except equipment, to provide communication and interactive teaching system a state-of-the-art dHu interactive teaching system. TABLE CST-1 \"O 2011\nhowever, ih 2 fl todays information explosion, it is likely that these earlier installation. needs will dictate an 0 Inflation fl iltXl^c'sriTav^:^'^'??! loearing in the summary set out fl during each priority phase.  such as adding or removing schools from total should be adjusted to reflect those changes. project totals If the order presented in those priority phases is changed consideration, then the inflation factor Additions and New Construction 1 ii J ^'13 I I Xm7MdinL*''a7?''  'I''\"\" 1\" d^dhlished far both additions to cron  construction. The unit costs used for thP S P\" ^or new construction and structures. Both amounts are bX on 95 dollar values, and the inflation formula should be applied as may be appropriate. construction. I Table CST-2 provides  a *  summary of unit costs for each of the 50 schools   - ' '\"rt ^0'\"19 redUiring renovation and replacement work These unit co'sts can be indicators of when new constniction Is preferred to renovation 0^ and 7 I 'I t'il is i 1 3 J s. A Options Funding While it was not within the presented under this tab in Tables CST-3 CST-4 and CST scope of this report to establish a detailed funding program ft nhta nod Xi________ri* ... .  Stai'lmDr^ve??' feasibill^^f'TecimmZ^^ahOT capital improvement program approaches. , along with the District financial officer, available within a realistic millage rate. 3D/I consulted with the Stevens Company to explore and examine realistic possibilities Using prelirninary broad-based estimating assumptions, $1 514 M per mil oer vear for s to 7 years have bean considered as a workabte c^p,isf base Lm which mis Page 2 f I 11 \" .1 N 1 'Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I program can be executed. While it is our understanding that the property values and taxing base has been relatively flat in the Little Rock area while inflation has risen, the District feels the need to request millage increases to offset the increased costs of operations. I This report recommends that either a capital improvement millage request and resulting bond issue or a dual-purpose millage request covering both capital and operating costs be effected. Operating cost increases without improvement of physical facilities, would be less likely to receive enthusiastic support from taxpayers. The most effective approach to the improvement schedule set out in this report would be a single bond issue approval for renovation, improvements, and new construction that could be accomplished within a 5-year period with the sale of bonds occurring in stages during that same period. I 4 It is also important that a capital program, when executed, unilaterally covers work in all attendance zones throughout the District. To have the least impact on the operation of schools, new school construction and major renovations to buildings temporarily taken out of service should occur prior to general renovation work throughout the District. Those schools slated for closure could serve as temporary facilities during the building program. e i Careful attention and prioritization should be exercised if the district elects to undertake a project of less magnitude than is set out in this report to avoid new work that must be destroyed to later accomplish delayed priorities. The detailed programming of projects and the resultant cost estimating, accomplished by architects and program managers, during the course of the Districts capital program is the first step that needs to be taken before design is completed or construction contacts are awarded. ' a Professional management of the capital endeavor should be considered to provide economy in contracting, less disruptive scheduling, and in come cases pre-purchasing and value engineering options available to the school district. nI? 3 S' i\nr \u0026gt; s  4 Page 3H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EM ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL EM EM IM iM I HI NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central TOTAL BASE COST Idas $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 2 3 4 5 McClellan J.A.FAIR HALL PARKVIE\\A/ (Building 1) _______ (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HlOH SCHOOLS $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,987,995 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN Total VTS $3,488,387 $3,488,387 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2008-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $6,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $412,381 $412,381 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 $505,588 $605,688 $172,319 $7,328 $3,616 $162,128 $345,393 $1,076,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $0 $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 $18,586 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $996,969 $998,969 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,716 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,067 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 1 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 4 1 'Jl \u0026lt;1 CLOVERDALE_________________ DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET ( Building #1) __________________(Building tf2) PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) __________________ (Building #2) __________________ (Building #3) SOUTHWEST________ ________Total Junior High Schools ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC Total ALC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS t 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BADGETT BALE ^SELINE booker MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK_______ forest PARK franklin________ FULBRIGHT $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666.504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $461.989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $277,011 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,453,981 $415,614 $415,614 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,026 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $35,836 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $819,091 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $3,565,459 $474,524 $474,524 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $170,862 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 $538,790 $373,162 $626,040 $43,096 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $944,741 $326,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $4,701,777 $133,401 $133,401 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $68,787 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $47,995 $190,839 $650,595 I $129,202 $0 $86,423 $6,415 $0 $24,526 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $790,338 $40,658 $40,658 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $197,872 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,669 $2,068,798 $119,074 $118,074 $74,594 $107,175 $193,869 $237,544 $108,027 $205,943 $0 $139,166 $156,315 $92,005 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $687,369 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 14,680,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $347,917 $376,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 Table CST-1 Page 1 15 7 9 13 16 3 am 10 11 14 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 f'o 3 ( J N J{?f i: 2 2* - h I 'll r l 'N 3s r3- J  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL  fl fl fl NO 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NAME GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MABELVALE McDermott_______ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_________ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON__________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON___________ WOODRUFF ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS Total Etementary TOTAL BASE COST 1996 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660.421 $498.742 $1.238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $650,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $63,502 $36,657 $5,446 $10,800 $953,937 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71.174 $139,245 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $126,957 $7,607 $308,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 $37,892 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $620,356 $96,646 $12,684 $328,091 $601,600 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $258,663 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $734,402 $7,206 $252,213 $304.581 $294,576 $440,444 $11,315 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $431,070 $51,671 $39,627 $216,525 $120.203 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $37,943 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,765 $60,406 $253,058 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $38,301 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $26,034 $2,588 $38,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $4,489 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $3,476 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $230,695 $133,255 $116,662 $101,360 $138,791 $239,042 $197,964 $154,481 $117,706 $143,666 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $119,186 $266,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $121,114 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $4,621,163 $10,449,353 $6,482,514 $1,383,323 $6,205,997 $29,142,350 ) DIST SITE NO 26 37 27 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 \u0026lt; rj r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING TRANSPORTATION PLANT SERVICES PURCHASING SAFETY/SECURITY _____________Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $66,182,630 $274,848 $54,724 $17,576 $47,649 $53,716 $41,951 $20,563 $511,026 $14,091,965 $110,770 $54,714 $19,625 $47,959 $126,004 $24,594 $313,590 $697,256 $19,657,383 $128,376 $172,268 $32,380 $113,938 $215,840 $115,296 $34,671 $812,769 $15,982,850 $1,981 $187,670 $27,469 $12,736 $39,574 $26,403 $759 $296,693 $2,644,228 $81,673 $70,339 $20,280 $25,425 $63,760 $63,760 $18,292 $343,530 $12,677,090 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,173 $66,063,629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : I a II03 district estimates_________ ADA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT ______ total SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN N2 Sn escalation impact COST escalation e 4%/ YEAR L $6,386,000 $3,462,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,630 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,587,000 $17,738,965 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,500,000 $22,418,383 $1,000,000 $406,000 $17,388,850 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5.069,228 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $14,363,090 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,087,000 $76,978,529 I? 3 2 $77,206,530 1 Year 1995 $3,088,221 $80.293,751 $17,738,966 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,447,500 $19,186,464 $22,418,383 3 Years 1998 $2,799,249 $26,217,632 $17,388,860 3-5 Years 2000 $3,767,345 $21,166.195 $5,069,228 5-10 Years 2005 $2,434,468 $7,603,696 $14,363,090 10-15 Years 2010 $11.504,023 $25,867,113 $76,978,629 $21,952,685 $98,931,113 Table CST-1 Page 2\n1 I i\nI u Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Table CST-1 fl Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl [fl fl NO NAME ESCALATION DETAIL 4- 1 1 1996 ___ 2 1997 3 1998 ____4 1999 ____5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 ____8 2003 9 2004 ___10 2005 11 2006 ___ 12 2007 ___ 13 2008 14 2009 15 2010 i TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3*5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 6-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-16 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $3,088,221 $80,293,751 $709,669 $18,448,523 $737,941 $19,186,464 $767,459 $19,953,923 $798,157 $20,752,080 $830,083 $21,582,163 $863,287 $22,445,449 $897,818 $23,343,267 $933,731 $24,276,998 $971,080 $25,248,078 $1,009,923 $26,258,001 $1,050,320 $27,308,321 $1,092,333 $28,400,654 $1,136,026 $29,536,680 $1,181,467 $30,718,147 $1,228,726 $31,946,873 $896,736 $23,315,118 $932,605 $24,247,723 $969,909 $25,217,632 $1,008,705 $26,226,337 $1,049,053 $27,275,391 $1,091,016 $28,366,406 $1,134,656 $29,501,063 $1,180,043 $30,681,105 $1,227,244 $31,908,349 $1,276,334 $33,184,683 $1,327,387 $34,512,071 $1,380,483 $35,892,554 $1,435,702 $37,328,256 $1,493,130 $38,821,386 $1,552,855 $40,374,241 $695,664 $18,084,404 $723,376 $18,807,780 $752,311 $19,660,092 $782,404 $20,342,495 $813,700 $21,156,196 $846,248 $22,002,443 $880,098 $22,882,541 $915,302 $23,797,842 $951,914 $24,749,756 $989,990 $25,739,746 $1,029,590 $26,769,336 $1,070,773 $27,840,109 $1,113,604 $28,953,714 $1,158,149 $30,111,862 $1,204,474 $31,316,337 $202,769 $5,271,997 $210,880 $5,482,877 $219,315 $6,702,192 $228,088 $5,930,280 $237,211 $6,167,491 $246,700 $6,414,191 $256,568 $6,670,758 $266,830 $6,937,589 $277,604 $7,215,092 $288,604 $7,503,696 $300,148 $7,803,844 $312,154 $8,115,998 $324,640 $8,440,638 $337,626 $8,778,263 $351,131 $9,129,394 $674,624 $14,937,613 $597,505 $15,535,118 $621,405 $16,166,523 $646,261 $16,802,783 $672,111 $17,474,895 $698,996 $18,173,891 $726,956 $18,900,846 $756,034 $19,656,880 $786,276 $20,443,155 $817,726 $21,260,881 $850,435 $22,111,317 $884,453 $22,995,769 $919,831 $23,915,600 $956,624 $24,872,224 $994,889 $26,867,113 i DIST SITE NO r Table CST-1 Page 3 J '! 2' a :1 e-3 5J ac o 5) N O 3  ( fl II I If j I J?Ha fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI fl UNIT COST OF RENOVATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-2 TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET fl NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME CLASSRMS AREA TOTAL COST COST $/SF fl fl  fl 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL_____________________ HALL___________________________ PARKVIEW______________________ J.A.FAIR_________________ _______ McCLELL^_____________________ TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 111 59 61 49 48 328 55 55 266,823 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 835,693 129,546 129,546 $5,763,718 $2,182,064 $837,872 $1,725,309 $3,489,032 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $21.60 $14.32 $5.03 $13.11 $29.46 $26.93 2* 3ml CLOVERDALE___________________ DUNBAR________________________ FOREST HEIGHTS_______________ HENDERSON____________________ MABELVALE_____________________ MANN___________________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS_______________ SOUTHWEST____________________ TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 322 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 683,818 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $1,414,500 $1,620,183 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $8.39 $38.79 $34.37 $8.19 $37.73 $12.52 $22.13 $17.88 a ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC 27 37,360 $1,183,270 $17.88 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 BADGETT________ BALE____________ BASELINE________ BOOKER_________ BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_______ FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 14 21 open space 38 24 31 open space 18 open space 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,530 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0.00 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $28.48 $35.70 $22.04 $11.98 $13.15 $6.14 $0.00 $14.49 $20.43 $24.76 $23.58 $26.94 $7.24 $35.56 $7.68 $5.77 $20.65 $41.67 $3.19 i TABLE-2 Page 1 i m ac  \u0026amp; 3 ii !  iU NIT COST OF RENOVATION little rock school district TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET NO NAME fl fl 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ' ROCKEFELLER ROMINE_________ TERRY__________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON ' WATSON________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS_______ WILSON_________ WOODRUFF CLASSRMS 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 AREA 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 774 1,693,447 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION________________ ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING______________ TRANSPORTATION______________ PLANT SERVICES_______________ PURCHASING___________________ SAFETY/SECURITY Total Administration 1,479 3,342,504 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 126,809 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI Table- CST-2 TOTAL COST $689,136 $1,568,674 $1,138,095 $579,516 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,032,310 $61,099,046 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 COST $/SF $14.35 $28.23 $30.82 $14.78 $18.45 $23.85 $17.16 $6.19 $39.24 $11.01 $33.11 $3.49 $17.41 $20.24 $15.34 $25.18 $5.58 $22.31 $20.54 $18.28 $11.84 $23.85 $45.33 $19.89 TABLE-2 Page 2 zl  i 4 a 51 1 c :il \u0026amp; o C a Ji !r 5o 3 B N Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ri ri  COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 (CENTRAL NAME I (Mam Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central 2_ 3 I McCLELWN iJ,A.FAIR 4 (HALL 5 (PARKVIEW T T 1 TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2008 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 S153.Q17 ! $922.092 t $172,597 I $10,158 ! $69,536 I 53.224,4fl0 I $1,174,383 | $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 I T I I SO $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 I $753,466 SO $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 1 Q (Building 1) (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 I metropolitan T 1 Total VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS____________ 7 (CLOVERDALE_________________ 8 (DUNBAR______________________ 9 (FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ 10 (HENDERSON__________________ 11 IMABELVALE__________________ 12 'MANN MAGNET ( Building#!) I__________________(Building #2) 13\nPULASKI HEIGHTS (Building#!) ' _________________( Building #2) (Building #3) ! 14 I SOUTHWEST__________________ Total Junior High Schools i ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER I 15 lALC Total ALCI $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 I $3.488.367 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $12,317,113 I $1.183.270 $1,183,270 $579,059 $411,771 5453,800 58,690 $0 SO 58.690 $4.6n.800 i T I I i T $1,397,303 $235,246 $600,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 I $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $18,588 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 I T T 5415,286 $545,629 5523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 I $412.381 $412,381 I $505.588 ( $505,588 J___________ i 1 i J S228.836 I T $1,476,235 I $822,810 $219,472 i $99,054 521,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 518.690 $3,176,970 1 t $1.567,873 I $1,567,873 ! $3,567 $3,567 $996,969 $998,969 $3.488.387 $3,488,387 I 4 TQ\nI 5415,614 $415,614 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $70,719 $348,274 $379.467 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $2,746,368 $474.524 $474,524 ! $228,017 1 $1,442,690 +i I 1 $722,897 $191,157 $328,736 537.185 $211,865 $11.088 $35,202 $548.199 I $3.757.036 $133,401 $133,401 i 1 so $86,423 $8,415 $0 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 I 5220,540 $182,264 $765,812 $40,658 $40,658 I7 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 J. I $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $1,870,926 I $119,074 $119,074 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 12.317.113 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14 m I a Pl N O a  M 12^* i  I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 :badgett 17 :BALE 18 IBASELiNE 19 BOOKER MAGNET 20 iBRADY___________ 21 'CARVER MAGNET 22 iCHlCOT 23 CLOVERDALE 24 DAVID O DODD 25 iPAIR PARK________ 26 I FOREST PARK 27 FRANKLIN 28 I FULBRIGHT_______ 29 1 GARLAND_________ 30 (GEYER SPRINGS 31 'GIBBS MAGNET $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 S481.989 $954,119 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $321,017 $215,003 I St i\n5145,216 5341.296 5156,719 5154.780 $220 55.028 so $45,062 $12,275 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 SO $481,989 $954,119 $74,594 $107,175 $193,889 $237,544 $136,713 $205,943 so S139.186 $156,315 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 51,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,074 $45,033 SO $241,614 $474,315 5145,305 ( $423,784 S351.026 $25,820 j $263,912 $121,554 $0 $56,127 I $183,633 I I?, 3 21 s .4M $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 I $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 I SO $136,192 $71,761 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 I $36,857 $5.446 $96,646 $12.684 $51,671 $39 827 $2,588 $38,364 $133,255 $116,682 $321,017 $215,003 Table CST-3 Page 1  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI  COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO 32 33 34 NAME ISH___________ JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 35 ! MABELVALE 36 i McDermott 37 38 39 40 41 42 MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_______ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL 43 [ROCKEFELLER 44 I ROM INE 45 ItERRY 46 [WAKEFIELD 47 iWASHINGTON 48 [WATSON__________ Tg [western hills 50 [WILLIAMS MAGNET 51 iWILSON IWOODRU^ ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS_______ Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS NoEscalition DIST SITE $239,042 $1,568.674 5689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 51.660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 5933.698 Total Elementaryi $22,682,055 ' $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $0 $48,281 5302,995 561.724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $7,807 $308,388 $89,413 5211,937 $23,358 $3.252,993 $511,026 $12,446,784 I I7 T IT $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 so $422.872 5429.235 I $264.764\n$11,695 : 5499,837 [ $194,583 I I TI $7,206 $252,213 5304.581 5294.576 S440.444 $7.449.167 $697,256 $15,838,106 t T so $561,070 i $231,863 IT i i $27,798 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89.785 $60,406 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $5.344.706 $812,769 $13,900,301 T T I X $0 $0 so so ITI $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $239,042 $1,568,674 5689,136 $1,138,095 DISTRICT ESTIMATES__________ ADA COSTS :ROOF REPLACEMENT__________ ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN I I OPTIONS OPTION M escalation Deduct District Costs TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT option t escalation option c escalation $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 I $12,821,275 TOTAL PROJ, COSTI TOTAL PROJ, COSTI S3.198.051 $83,149,317 $24,259,575 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 __________________ ' 519,317.245 __________________ ' 53,457,869 total PROJ, COST! $89.905.125 51,386.000 5674.000 51,685.000 $16,191,784 51.000,000 $261,000 $1,500,010 $18,599,116 $1,000,000 $406,000 I $15.306.301 ($1,223,000)  $14,968,784\nso ' 51.270,373 ! $16,239,157 SO 51,541.862 $18,599.116 $15.306.301 ~S12.821.275~r 52.877,060 ' $34.297.451 I $13,412.985 $3.602.387 $16.510,646 i $35.614,489 i so ! $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $12,584,805 i $4,526.826 $35,710,748 SO 53.316,155 $18.622,456 58,537,530 54.816,234 $28,660,065 $6,732,440 56.317,360 $28,356,101 I $0 SO $0 so so $650,913 $2,540 $0 SO $5,537 SO $101,260 $1,347.324 $296,593 $2,583,704 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,008.704 $5.008.704 $0 52.405.401 $7,414,105 $2,309,060 $3.434,366 $10,752.150 SO 54,564,758 $9,593,462 I [ T t I $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260.247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $286,212 $171,619 5133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $5.287,865 $343.530 $11,561.085 $1,000,000 5686,000 SO $13,247,085 $13.247.085 $0 S10.610 167 $23.857.252 SO $14.713,150 $27.960.235 so 520.328.367 $33,575,452 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399.444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 ,682.055 $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,010 $68,352,991 S12.821.275 520.479,155 $100,430,421 I NO 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 1 ! $24,259,575 | I $28.108.019 i T $119.497.585 [i $19,317,245 $37.670.724 $124,117,960  + il_ p- Table CST-3 Page 2 2l J .J 11 1 ma ' 2. Jo I? 3 I \u0026lt; 1 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl   fl I COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO______________ OPTION M NAME I ADDITIONS____________________ I NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION :total option cost ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $5,417,945 $7.403.330 $12,821,275 i PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-201i PRIORITY TOTALS Ho Escalation SO I 55.417,945 I $7,403,330 1 $12,821,275 I 1T 1 r SO SO $0 $5,417,945 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 ! DIST SITE NO J 1 $79,951,266 1 Year 1995 53,196,051 $83,149,317 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,270.373 $16,239,157 $31,420,391 3 Years 1996 52.877,060 $34,297,451 I_____________ ! 11 $3,198,051 19961 $71,551,042 ___ Z 1997 31 19981 4| 19991 ___ 5I_ 20001 if 20011 zzr 20021 81 20031 ol 20041 101 20051 ___11l_ 2006 i M. 20071 13l 20081 141 20091 ___1^ 20101 t I I $15,306,301 I i 3-5 Years S 2000 ' 53.316,155 ! I $18,622,456 | $5,008,704 5-10 Years 2005 52,405.401 $7,414,105 !I $13,247,0'35\" ! 10-15 Years I 2010 i 510,610.167 I $23,857,252' $79,951,266 $20,479,155 $100,430,421 I nl $598,751 , $16,790,536 $671,621 $1,256,816 $612,252 $19,855,932 I $15,918,553 I $794,237 I $636,742 $17,462,157 : $20,650,169  $698,486 i $18,160,643 ! $726.426 I $826,007 : $21,476,176 I $859.047 I $18,887,069 I $22,335,223 I $755,463 $893,409 i $19,642,552 j $23,226.632 $785,702 I $929,145 $16,555,296 I $662,212 $17,217,507 $688,700 $17,906,208 $716,248 $18,622,456 $744,898 I\n$20,426,254 j $24,157,777 ! $19,367,354 $817,130 $966,311 $774,694 1 S21.245.364 I 525,124,086 3849,815 51,004,964 522,095,199  526,129,052 : 520,142.048 I I 5805,682 i\n520,947.730 5883,808 i 522,979,007 1 5919,160 , $1,045,162 j 527,174,214\n$1,086,969 I 5837,909\n521.785.640 5871,426 523,896.166 528,261,163\n522,657,065 $955,927 524,854.094 5994,164 ' 525.848,258 : $1,033,930 i 526.882,189  51.075,286 527,957.476 $1,118,299 529.075.775 51.130.447 i 529.391.630 $1,175,665 5906,263\n523.563,348 5942,534 ' $30,567,295 I $24,505,882 j $1.222.692  531.769.967 51,271.599 $33,061,586 51.322.463 534.384,050 5980.235 : 525.486.117 I 51.019,445 526.505.562 . 51.060,222 527.565.784 $200,348 $5,209,052 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $296.564 57.710.670 $308,427 $8,019,096 5320,764 58.339.860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 59.020.393 $529,883 $13,776,968 $551,079 $14,328,047 $573,122 $14,901,169 $596,047 $15,497,216 I I t 1 MF $619,889 $16,117,104 $644,684 $16,761,789 $670,472 $17,432,260 $697,290 $18,129,551 $725,182 $18,854,733 $754,189 $19,608,922 $784,357 $20,393,279 $815,731 $21,209,010 $848,360 $22,057,370 $882,295 $22,939,665 $917,587 $23,857,252 Table CST-3 Page 3 h m 4 I Q N O 2* :i\n5? I 1 II 1   COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 fl By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl  TOTAL BASE COST NO OPTION T NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DiST SITE NO lADDITIONS !NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION total option cost $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 $8,116,485 $5,296,500 T 1 ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I t ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL I I L $0 I $13,412,985 ! $3,241,030 $5,296,500 $8,537,530 i $2,309,060 I $2,309,060 $0 $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 i I I i 1 1996 2 1997 ___ 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 I T T T IT T iT iT iT 6l 2001 7 20021 ___ 8I_ 20031 ___ 9 2004 __ 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 i| TT __ 13[ 20081 __ 14 2009 J. T tsi 20101 BASE COST $91,389,566 1 Year 1995 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 $3,655,583 $3,655,583 PRIORITY 1 I PRIORITY 2 i PRIORITY 3 I PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 $14,968,784 1-2 years I $32,012,101 I 1995-1997 I $1,541,862 i 3 Years 1998 $3,602,387 I i T $23,843,831 3-5 Years 2000 $4,816,234 I $7,317,764 5-10 Years 2005 I $13,247,085 TOTAL 1-5 $91,389,566 2I fl $16,510.646 I $35,614,489 | $28,660,065 i $3,434,386 I $10.752.15'0 I 10-15 Years 2010 $14,713,150 I $27,960.235 $28,108,019 $119,497,585 I i $598,751 $1,280,484 $23,577,759 i $28,454,698 $943,110 $24,520,869 I $980,835 ! $1,138,188 $29,592,886 i $1,183,715 I $25,501,704 ! $30,776,601 $1,020.066 $1,231,064 I $953,753 I $22,739,393 $909,576 $23,648,969 $945,959 I $24,594,927\n$983,797 I I $26,521,772 i $32,007,666  $25,578,724 1 $1,060,871 I $1,280,307 $1,023,149 $27,582.643 j $33,287.972 i $26,601,873 ' ! $1,103,306\n$28,685,949 ' $1,147,438 i $29,833,387 I $1,193,335 $1,331,519 $1,064,075 ! $34.619,491 ] $27.665.948^ ~ ! $1,384,780 i $1,106,638 ' $36,004,271 $1,440,171 I $31,026,722 ! $37,444,441 i $1,241,069 $32,267,791 ' $1,290,712 I $33,558,503 $1,342,340 $1,497,778 I I $26.772.566 I $1,150,903 ! $29,923,490 1 I $1,196,940\n$38,942,219 1 $31,120,429 $1,557,689 $40,499,908 $1,619,996 : $1,244,817 i $32,365,246\n$1,294,610 $292,711 $7,421,658 $296,866 $7,718,524 $308,741 $8,027,265 $321,091 $8,348,356 $333,934 $8,682,290 $347,292 $9,029,582 $361,183 $9,390,765 $375,631 $9,766,396 $390,656 $10,157,052 $406,282 $10,563,334 $422,533 I $34,900,843  $42,119,904 1 $33,659,856\n$10,965,867 $1,396,034 $1,684.796 I $1,346,394 I $36,296,876 | $43,804,700  $35,006,250 $1,451,875 $37,748,751 $1.509.950 $39,258.702 $1,570,348 $1,752,188 $1,400,250 $439.435 $11,425,302 $457,012 : $45,556,868 I $36,406,500 $1.822.276 T $1,456,260 i $47,379,164 ! $37,862,761 $1,895,167 $1,514,510 $40,829,050 I $49,274,330 I $39,377,271 I $11 882,314 $475,293 1 $12,357,606 $494,304 i $12,851,911 $529,883 $19,384,616 $775,385 $20,160,001 $806,400 $20,966,401 $838,656 $21,805,057 $872,202 $22,677,259 $907,090 $23,584,349 $943,374 $24,527,723 $981,109 $25,508,832 $1,020,353 $26,529,186 $1,061,167 $27,590,353 $1,103,614 $28,693,967 $1,147,759 $29,841,726 $1,193,669 $31,035,395 $1,241,416 $32,276,811 $1,291,072 $33,567,883 1ir III II ma I T I Table CST-3 Page 4 I' 3 \u0026amp; s i:}t i: I r 1 I.   a  a a a a a COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock SchooL District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO OPTION C NAME jADDITIQNS____________________ (NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ! total option cost I ESCALATION IMPACT I t IcOST lESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 19961 21 19971 19981 4? 19991 20001 6 2001 7 20021 ___8|_ 20031 91 20041 101 2005) 11( 20061 I2I 20071 131 20081 __ 2QQ9| __1^ 2010\nTOTAL BASE COST 1995 I i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 BASE COST $86,447,236 1 Year 1995 $3,457,889 $89,905,125 $3,457,889 $3,457,889 i I PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 SYears 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-1OYaars 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $0 PRIORITY 1 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $598,751 $32,866,542 : $1,314,662 ' $34,181,204 I 51.367,248 DIST SITE NO I $8,394,685 I $4,190,120 f i $12,584,805 I I PRIORITY 2 i P$31,183,921 I I 3 Years 1998 $4,526,826 1 T $6,732,440 1 $6,732,440 PRIORIPr 3 $22,038,741 3-5 Years 2000 $6,317,360 $35,710,748 I $28,356,101 $1,247,357 i $40,189,576 ! $1,607,583 ( $41,797,159 ! $1,671,886 [ T $881,550 I i I SO $0 i PRIORITY 4 1 PRIORITY S I S5.008.704 I 5-10 Years 2005 $4,584,758 $9,593,462 I i $13,247,085 10-15 Years 2010 $20,328,367 I T $200,348 ! $32,001,979 I $10,357,400 $1,280,079 $414,296 $33,282,058 I $10,771,696 $1,331,282 1 $430,868\n$35,548,452 | $43,469,045  $34,613,340 [ $11,202,564 S1.421.938 I $1,738,762 $1,384,534 $448,103 I $33,575,^ i I $36.970.390 I $45.207.807 j $35,997,874 j $11,650,666 I i S1.478.816 i S1.808.312 $1,439,915 ' $38,449,206 | 547,016.119 j $37,437,789 I S1.537.968 ! $39,987,174 I S1.599,487  541,586,661 i $1,663,466 I $1,880,645 $1,497,512 i $48,896,764 | $38,935,300 i I $1,955,871 I $50,852,635 ! $2,034,105 $1,557,412 $40,492,712 $1,619,708 i $43.250,128\n$52,886.740 i $42,112,421 $1,730,005 I $2,115,470 $1,684,497 ! $44 980.133 i $55.002.210 I $43,796,918 i $1,799,205 : $46,779.338 : $1,871,174 i S48.650.511 ' $1,946,020 I $50,596,532  52.023,861 ! $52.620,393 $2,104,816 554,725.209 ! S2.189.008 $2,200,088\n557,202,298 ' $2,288,092 $1,751,877 $45,546.795 $1,821,952  $59.490,390  $47,370,746 $2,379,616 I $1,894,830 $61,870,006 I $49,265.576 I $2,474,800\n$64,344,806 ' $2,573,792  $66.916,596 S2.676.744 I $56,914,217 : $69,595,342 $1,970,623\n$51,236,199 $2,049,448 $53.285.647 ! $2,131,426 ! $55,417,073 I $466,027 $12,116,693 $484,668 $12,601,360 $504,054 $13,105,415 $524,217 $13,629,631 $545,185 $14,174,817 $566,993 $14,741,809 $589,672 $15,331,482 $613,259 $15.944.741 $637,790 j $16.582,531 I $663,301 ! S17.245.832  $669,833 ! $17,935.665 $529,883 $27,059,069 $1,082,363 $28,141,432 $1,125,657 $29.267,089 $1,170,684 $30,437,773 $1,217,511 $31,655,283 $1,266,211 $32,921,495 $1,316,860 $34,238,355 $1,369,534 $35,607,889 $1,424,316 $37,032,204 $1,481,288 $38,513,493 $1,540,540 $40,054,032 $1,602,161 $41,656,193 $1,666,248 $43,322,441 $1,732,898 $45,055,339 $1,802,214 $46,857,552 I $15.127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 I I TOTAL 1-5 $86,447,236 $37,670,724 $124,117,960 ...... I II i! Table CST-3 Page S 1 7 I ir *1 m a 3 \u0026amp; I. Io ' b* S\n3 f \u0026gt; Iia  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a a a ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 Bi ui X I- 9 UI X  X o 3 m _J o X u 3 m z UJ o x UJ Q. in 3 _l X X 3 tn O \u0026lt; X \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; X UJ X o u iZ UJ Q \u0026lt; I- _t UJ Q z o m X UJ X X a\u0026gt; o \u0026lt; UJ X \u0026lt; X S? o (O tn O o O z UJ X X S? io o CO o u X m z o o 5 UJ z Elementary z\u0026lt; 9 ffl 56 49 138 129 101 143 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 179 118 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 379 270 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 47% 44% 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 418 418 A12 472 584 584 297 331 331 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 500 13 45 -Al -16 36 65 -6 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 44 -152 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 9,844 21,507 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $159,965 $1,189,305 $111,280 $236,470 $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 5 J !( y m o. Ps  o 1 h. }\u0026gt; N J? 2 =' S i\n* :i s? 3 3  ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) Table CST-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   SCHOOL OPTION \"M GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) a: UJ X o iu X S u 3 m O 340 7 4 231 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 250 590 u 3 m 2 lU U UI Q. 42% J: o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; U o z \u0026lt; O' LU Q. o 351 351 459 Ui 3 -I Q. X 3 Ui + u iZ UJ o \u0026lt; LU a -131 u. io IO Z O Ui EC UJ a iu Ui o \u0026lt; UJ O' \u0026lt; -14,017 2 u. \u0026lt;2 IO IO 5 (0 O u O 2 LU K m O U O' m z o u g z Q ni Elementary y J 5- J 1  I 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 148 148 58 -54 19 74 -23 30 -45 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 subtotal $375,570 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 $2,225,600 I $0 ! I m a c ^9 3 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 l i it ! S' ! t I J n 3 \" ri ST aLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M\" WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL Table CST-4 09 3 _l Q. It 3 09 O' UJ z I-o tu Z g u 3 m o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z o uiZi Q it u3 m _i \u0026lt; I-o z UI u It UI Q. UI a. O \u0026lt; 1- ui o Z o m a: UI Q. IL mo  \u0026lt; UI It \u0026lt; U. IS m \u0026lt;o @) O o O z UI O' U. io5 IO (0 o u It 09 z o o g UJ z 16 15 110 107 122 119 202 199 60 28 449 666 574 i,21 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 Elementary $111,280 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 59% 515 426 426 328 515 -63 A,7 183 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 $326,885 614 642 96% 0 -642 -68,694 $3,778,170 167 616 27% 0 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 3 ?  1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 J n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H    fl  fl fl * I p ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST OPTION \"M CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan II II (CLOSED) Table CST-4 loU\nX o ui X 2 o 3 m O X o 3 m z LU U X LU X X \u0026lt; o o z LU Q. o m _i Q. X 3 W + u lZ LU a \u0026lt; I-LU Q zo X LU a. iZ co \u0026lt; IU X \u0026lt; u. co IcOo @ co O u o z LU Of u. CO IO IO IO \u0026lt;) co o o a: co z o u2 LU Z 2l ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 1^% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 59 322 400 561 A12 289 470 174 ^1 a 7 I ir I... m a I C ' Fsi u^-51 B3 314 295 281 313 416 378 591 535 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 935 935 935 971 971 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $oT $0 High School if  S'if \"i\n575 496 251 2M 404 333 211 212 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 64% 70% 69% 67% 51% 56% 81% 74% 2255 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 I? 3 * I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4 11 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 M la  SCHOOL OPTION \"MII PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS q: tu z I-O UJ sZ 365 u 3 m ie. o3 m 435 -1 O H 800 z lU u lU Q. 54% \u0026lt;0 3 Q. z 3 (0 O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; z UJ Q. O g Z UJ Q 4 H UJ Q Z o 0) oe UJ Q. Z to o i) \u0026lt; UI z U. J2 o (O @ (0 o o o z lU q: u. to IUO) too u z 0) z O o  UJ Z 3fl 991 191 total high schools High School $oT $0 i I I ADDITION $5,417,945 SO ________ $0 $5,417,945 NEW $7,403,330 $0 _______ $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 IT , ma 0'sir \nM  'I S' P1 1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 H fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl  fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"WI BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 q: UJ I o UJ H X 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; I-O O \u0026lt; m z lU o b: tu Q. 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 179 118 379 270 47% 44% \u0026gt; O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; a: UJ Q. O 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 Ui 3 a. q: 3 Ui g UuJ. a 4 UJ Q z o co q: UJ 0. LL mo \u0026lt; UJ er \u0026lt; u. tuo\u0026gt; O oO z IB q: u. io2 () o u a: I- (0 z o o 5 UJ z zl 3ffl Elementary 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 $159,965 $1,189,305 S 9,844 21,507 !i I m fl 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 500 13 45 -47 -16 36 65 -6 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 $111,280 bl 3\u0026gt; j 2s S' * :i: I' 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 418 418 472 472 584 584 231 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 $236,470 J? 91 n 331 331 44 -152 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 1  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table CST-4 fl fl fl q: UJ X i- O UJ isC O \u0026lt; _l m fl SCHOOL OPTION \"M X 5 lx: o m \u0026lt; I- o z UJ o O' UJ Q. a \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; a: UJ Q. O II fl GIBBS MAGNET ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON 340 250 590 42% (CLOSED) martin l king McDermott (REVISED) MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) rockefeller ROMINE terry (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) 351 351 459 CO Z) 0. q: X tn o u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q Z' o m a: UJ Q. uZ Oi o \u0026lt; UJ Q \u0026lt; u. 52 u3 co O o o Z UJ Qi -131 -14,017 U. 55 U) () \u0026lt;n O o q: (D Z o o 5 UJ z z n Elementary 7 f S 7 __4 2n 27^ 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 21 26 34 32 557 408 106 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 nz 317 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 148 148 58 -54 19 74. -23 30 -45 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 $375,570 m a Fl 0 3 It 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 32% 31% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 subtotal $2,225,600 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 o :\u0026gt; 8*' ii 5?  3 f IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a: lU I 1- O UJ o \u0026lt; _i m \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z Table CST-4  SCHOOL OPTION \"M I s o 3 CD \u0026lt; O Z. UJ o UJ Q. \u0026lt; O' UJ Q. O II  WASHINGTON WATSON fl WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) 16 15 110 107 122 119 666 574 427 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 5Q% 515 426 426 328 (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL 28 449 614 642 96% 0 167 616 27% 0 co 3 Q. O' 3 OJ + o u. UJ Q lU Q 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 515 -63 47 183 z O co O' UJ iL co o \u0026lt; UJ a: \u0026lt; u. to h-m O o O z UJ O' 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 -642 -68,694 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools u. \u0026gt;o lo  co O O O' la z. O CJ 5 UJ z Elementary $111,280 $326,885 $3,778,170 I 21 I I 3 3 J i S' m  I I .  ( $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 9 :i !  ws S' '  I? 3 I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 15   Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  d 1  d d d ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A rrEND4NCe zone MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET Pyi^SKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST II (CLOSED) tn Table CST-4 OPTION \"M II CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan O' LU X I- o iu X s O \u0026lt; _1 m \u0026gt; O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z X _l Q. q: X tn o iu Q z Q tn O' LU LU tn o' u. io O o- o \u0026lt; _i m \u0026lt; O z LU O K LU 0. \u0026lt; a: LU OL o \u0026lt; ui Q \u0026lt; LU Q \u0026lt; LU \u0026lt;2  o o o z LU a: tn o o q: tn z o o  LU z ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 416 378 591 535 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 730 673 872 848 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 57% 56% 68% 63% 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 935 935 935 971 971 216 59 322 400 561 472 289 470 174 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $o7 $0 High School IT I I m a fl -\"o 3 a )  S!)  I 2256 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 5 n I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4  ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fl fl fl fl fl fl fl (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M II PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 o: UJ X o LU X 5 3 m _1 \u0026lt; o 365 435 800 o 3 ffl z LU O LU Q. 54% \u0026gt; o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; CH LU Q. o 991 m 3 Q. X 3 (0 u. 52 in m O LU Q \u0026lt; _i UJ Q 191 Z O (0 Q LU Q. LU \u0026lt;n o \u0026lt; LU Of \u0026lt; u. to io (D l) to o o O z UJ K VJ O o q: ta z o o 5 LU Z High School 1 total high schools ADDITION $5,417,945 $0 $0 $5,417,945 $0 1 5- 3 I 1 NEW $7,403,330 $0 $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 IF i m J O' ' II* I *^1 a ' r- M l1 bl J 5?  3 f I fl 'I  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d ri ri ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"C BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK franklin FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) Table- CST-6 m UJ z O uj z  CJ \u0026lt; -I m \u0026lt; I- O o \u0026lt; m I- z lU o tn UJ 0. \u0026gt; o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z I \u0026lt;  UJ O. O 3 U O. or 3 CO O iZ UJ o \u0026lt; ui Q z o co z UI 0.  tn o \u0026lt; UJ tn 4 u. 2 to co O \u0026lt;J O z LU O' X lA 1 co O o O' CO z O o 5 UI Z: 0 1 fll Elementary 66 66 138 137 101 145 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 56% 200 300 152 90 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 358 386 510 476 70% 81% 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 2Z1 48 313 226 548 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 471 471 613 523 523 Tas' 448 350 350 350 53 -135 -50 -39 45 83 -14,445 -4,173 8,881 $938,925 $271,245 92 116 12,412 13 47 -79 36 -98 5,029 -8,453 -10,486 $549,445 $681,590 9 * a S m a F a s S'  o  S. I f 3? ot! i\n* : J 418 418 472 472 584 584 297 13 -300 -2 -187 -56 156 -42 1,391 -32,100 -214 -20,009 -5,992 16,692 -4,494 $2,086,500 $1,300,585 s? 3 ? II I 331 331 44 -369 4,708 -39,483 $2,566,395 TABLE CST-6 Pagel  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING OPTION \"C II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) \u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 -I . Qi 3 VI Table- CST-6 TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) Qi UJ I I- O ul z 5 ii o \u0026lt; _l tn \u0026lt; O st- o 5 (D Z UJ O Z UI 0. o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; Qi UJ a. O 351 2 u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q__ 351 340 250 590 42% 459 -131 7 147 462 459 469 606 99% 76% 617 617 148 11 297 419 167 187 170 11 336 304 254 18 20 21 88 34 94 557 399 106 169 83 356 217 316 317 160 66  92 316 531 777 587 390 536 229 87 394 466 502 523 404 486 328 496 370 346 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 36% 524 58 17% 68% 54% 65% 97% 32% 18% ^21% 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 18% 79% 524 542 542 463 22 19 138 -23 283 376 376 -45 -120 6 394 48- 264 -70 Z o Oi Qi UJ a. iL (O e\u0026gt;: \u0026lt; UJ i subtotal 6,206 2,354 2,033 14,766 -2,461 -4,815 -12,840 642 5,136 -7,490 264 -287 -30,709 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 All -249 0 -206 -241 59 39 18,939 -26,643 0 -22,042 -25,787 6,313 4,173 u- co S3 (O (O O o O z lU Q $8,394,685 | u. io IO M- I/} O o O' to z o o S UJ z^ $0 Elementary $1,996,085 $1,731,795 $1,432,730 TABLE CST-6 Page 2 2 in 1 r } i !! m a Pb o 3 a i\nff )  st yji s I? 3 ?fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-6 fl co 3 _1 a tn 3: tn fl fl SCHOOL WASHINGTON fl WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"C fl CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS q: LU z 1- o I S 16 98 110 22 122 182 o \u0026lt; m 666 667 6,21 419 193 394 \u0026lt; I O 002 765 031 441 315 576 202 287 489 60 83 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 314 110 281 85 145 635 718 Je:: o r 5 o Z: lU o : tu Q. 98% ilV 80% 95% 61% 68% 59% 59% 88% 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 126, IZZ 101 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 416 473 591 730 583 872 57% 81% 68% o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; a (3 Z\n\u0026lt; o: lU 0. o 801 801 505 505 350 350 515 426 328 o Z LU o \u0026lt; lU Q___ 119 36 -32 64 35 -226 -63 183 712 z O co a: LU Q. Z o @ \u0026lt; LU q: \u0026lt; 12,733 3,852 -3,424 6,848 -24,182 76,184 subtotal total elementary 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 203 322 281 561 197 289 614 174 23,112 21,721 34,454 30,067 60'.027  21,079 30,923 65,698 18,618 u. 52 io IO IO 500 955 955 971 225 372 99 24,075 39,804 10,593 u. 52 lO (O w @ CO O o o z LU q: co O o O' t- co z o o S lU Z\n$1,571,830 $6,732,440 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 Jr.High School TABLE CST-6 Page 3 2 9 ni J I I m a ag W o S o 3 n I .r yl! I? I ? Mi 1I  fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL SOUTHWEST K in z g in H Z 5 264 ic:: o tn 582 O ? \u0026gt;- 846 Z' o 3 ffl z LU O z UJ z 69% \u0026gt; n 3 _1\u0026lt; n. z \u0026lt;0 Table- CST-6 \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O O z 2 E tu Q z O co Of tu iL u\u0026gt; o \u0026lt; q: lU 0, o 971 \u0026lt; H- -I lU Q__ 125 \u0026lt; lU z 13,375 z w io o @ to O o O z lU z u. 52 io o O o Z: or Z' O o 5 tu Z: total jr. high schools $0 $0 7 I rl SUMMARY OPTION C COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Uses same as Option M) TOTALS ADDITION $15,127,125 $0 ________$0 $15,127,125 NEW $4,190,120 SO _______$0 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 TABLE CST-6 Page 4 ft J I I m I ft n c B r c r l1 \"I ts 5? 3 J r, a  Little Rock school District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I ANALYSIS OF DISCONTINUED USE OF Mr - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES Table CST-7 Bl FACILITY NAME OPTION M OPTION T OPTION c COST or RENOVATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDED FOR CLOSURE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY GARLAND ELEMENTARY ISH ELEMENTARY JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY $714,626 $1,373,658 $656,776 $1,814,531 ri MITCHELL ELEMENTARY WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY $579,516 $1,238,092 8* e e e s i a J 1 1 i WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY $212,098 MABLEVALE JR. HIGH SCHOOL $2,263,241 total reno costs $8,852,538 m a 1 c 1 o * tt 0 0 FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES * WILSON ELEMENTARY $933,698 s \"X MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY $1,138,095 II MABELVALE ELEMENTARY PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY $1,389,146 RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY $645,652 i\ntotal reno costs $4,106,591 The four facilities listed as \"not used \" on tables following the revised attendance zone maps are available for alternate uses such as administrative functions, special programs, community uses, and lastly, closure if no other purpose is found. I? These schools initially provide , temporary locations for students from schools where extensive renovation or additions occur during the capital improvement process. Table CST-7 PagelWOTE^ StuW Educational ' AZ*\u0026lt;iuaMvw Zones ,^f^ '^MN^flMe-' ItLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 30/1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY The demographic study focuses on trends since 1987, when the Little Rock School District absorbed 7,000-plus pupils and several schools formerly in the Pulaski County Special School District. At that time or thereafter numerous other changes were made, including altering attendance zones, designating magnet and incentive schools, and adding pre-kindergarten classes. A 1988 study, which was based on 1987 data and lacked reliable data on recent enrollment trends in the newly added territory, nonetheless projected 1990 enrollments within -0.8 percent and 1994 enrollments within -1.5 percent. The projections made this year are based on better data with fewer uncertainties. The new projections indicate a continued slow decline, bringing a loss of about 3,600 pupils or 14.3 percent by the 2005-06 school year. All three school levels will lose, with the high schools having the highest percentage drop (21.7 percent or 1,121 pupils), and the junior highs the second highest (18.6 percent or 1,090 pupils). The elementary schools will have the smallest percentage drop, 9.7 percent. However, because the elementary enrollments exceed those in the junior and senior highs combined, the numerical decline at this level is projected to be 1,379. i Among the 35 elementary schools, 19 are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollment by 2005, among which eight will lose 50 percent or more. A total of 23 schools, two-thirds of the total, will lose to some degree. The remaining 12 will gain, six by 25 percent or more, and three of these by 50 percent or more.  I m ' o Three of the eight junior highs will lose 25 percent or more of their pupils, with one dropping by 54 percent. None will gain, but two will lose by only fractions of one percent. Similarly, no high school will gain. Two of the five will lose by over 25 percent, with one of these dropping by 51 percent. One will lose by only four percent. 3 V r f The racial composition of the District as a whole will remain close to its present level at 67 percent Black. However, assuming no change in policies or in the current attendance zone boundaries, the racial makeup of many individual schools will change much more. N K s if \"i: J All projections are fallible, since none comes from a crystal ball. All assume the continuation of current or presently foreseeable trends and policies. The longer the time period involved, the greater the likelihood that unforeseeable events may alter the outcome. The smaller the area for which they are made, the more likely that unpredictable localized changes may invalidate them. The success of past projections does not guarantee similar results in the future. Our projections are offered with these caveats. 3 ? ! i These projections reflect recent history. Like most school systems in established 1 central cities, the Little Rock School District has been watching its enrollments Page 1 ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI decrease. As recently as 1980 it had more than 20,000 pupils in a land area about two-thirds of the present District. After the 1987 gYain, enrollments returned at once to a slow decline ~ losing more than 1,600 pupils or 6.1 percent in the next seven years. Both white and Black pupils have decreased in most years since 1987. While Blacks made a small gain of 103 pupils over the seven-year period, this increase would not have occurred without the addition of pre-kindergarten in 1991. Whites declined by 2,096. Pupils of other races have increased, but still are less than 3 percent of the total. Although the Black proportion has increased slightly, it has remained between 64 and 65 percent for the past six years. The losses have been especially large in the high schools, where enrollments have dropped by 19.9 percent or about 1,300. Most of the decrease was before 1991, however. Recent years have seen less change and even some small transitory gains. Junior highs have lost by 5 percent or 306 pupils over the entire seven years, but this reflects an initial loss of nearly 1,000 followed by some recovery. The elementary schools have lost the fewest pupils, only 98, but were helped by the addition of prekindergarten in some schools and by growth in kindergarten enrollments. Grades 1 to 6 have lost. 1 r I Individual schools have varied widely in the extent and direction of enrollment change. In general, the gainers have been those that drew their pupils predominantly from neighborhoods in the west and northwest of the city, while the losers have more often drawn from the central and eastern sections. Four of the five high schools have lost, the sole exception being Fair. Five of the eight junior highs have lost, while the remaining three have gained - one, Mann, growing by 29 percent, but the other two increasing only slightly. 1 m I t A total of 20 elementary schools have lost enrollments, including two that were closed. The remaining 17 have gained. Both King and Washington have more than doubled in size, while Carver has increased by 62 percent and Rockefeller by 39 percent. Most of the other gains were modest. I I r What impact have these changes had on the basic objectives of the desegregation plan? The evidence suggests that the District, despite strenuous efforts, may be even farther from achieving its goals than in 1987. In three of the five high schools, both Blacks and whites have declined in number\nin the other two. Blacks have increased while whites decreased. The span between the highest and lowest Black percentage has grown from 17.6 percent points to 21.9. 1 N if si' ii g The eight junior highs were close to meeting the criteria for racial balance in 1987. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black was 17.8 points. Four of the eight were less than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the District-wide figure. li while four more were within seven points. Since then, both racial groups have j? increased at two schools, both races have fallen at one, Black enrollments have gained while whites have fallen at three schools, and the reverse has occurred at one. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black is now 26.5 points. 1j I Page 2 f ( Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   The elementary schools, with their smaller attendance areas, have proven even more difficult to keep in balance. In 1987 only a dozen were able to meet the criterion of no more than 60 percent of one race or the other. All four magnet schools met the even more demanding requirement of 45 to 55 percent Black, but none of the incentive or interdistrict schools met the plans requirement and only eight of the rest met the 60 percent requirement. The latest figures show all four magnet schools still in compliance, and a few of the rest have improved. But the span from lowest to highest percent Black has increased from 44.6 to 56.4 percentage points.  ii Many people believe that the private schools have drawn off many of the white children whose presence would help to maintain racial balance. This view is difficult to confirm or to counter with hard numbers, since current data on private schools are hard to come by. Data from the 1990 Census, however, indicate that at that time about 7,900 children in the City of Little Rock attended private schools, an increase of about 900 since 1980. During the same period, the public schools lost about 3,100 pupils. Census data prepared especially for the US Department of Education show that among children enrolled in any school, either public or private, in the Little Rock School District, about one-fourth were attending private school in 1990 and nearly nine out of ten were white. n I I ri The highest rates of private school attendance are found in areas to the northwest of the city center, where population growth, especially white growth, has been most rapid and incomes are often high enough to afford private tuition. So while the increase in private school attendance can account for only a fraction of the public schools recent loss, it is also true that many white parents who might otherwise have sent their children to the public schools may have enrolled them in private schools instead. A number of factors influence the course of school enrollments. One of the most important is overall population change. The city of Little Rock whose boundaries are now nearly contiguous with those of the Little Rock School District, has grown throughout the 20th century. Without annexations, however, the 11 percent gain of the 1980s would have turned into a small loss. In addition, this gain was made up almost entirely of adults. m ril 'u ,4 The number of children of school and preschool age remained almost constant during the 1980s, making it highly unlikely that enrollments could grow during the 1990s unless there is a fairly large influx of new young families to the city. So far, this does not seem to be materializing. The City government expects Little Rock to grow slowly if at all over the next few years, with a continuing shift in balance from east to west. N P I Metroplans projections bear this out, indicating continued losses in the east and the central core, with new growth mainly to the west and northwest. The School District seems unlikely to benefit unless its boundaries are further enlarged. University of Arkansas projections indicate that if recent migration patterns continue, Pulaski Countys total child population will decline, with the loss occurring mainly among white children and the racial balance shifting somewhat as a result. A disproportionate share of the losses will be suffered by the city. i? 3 n Page 3H M Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI H The Little Rock economy, with a solid backbone of government, medical facilities, and educational institutions, has proven highly resistant to economic downturns, but seldom grows rapidly. Continued slow growth is likely for the foreseeable future. Residential construction within the city has been down recently, but in any event does not seem likely to bring in many young families in the foreseeable future. fl fl fl fl 3 ( I fl '1 fl m a t? 0  jl 1 r JI N 2 s  Page 4 if i\ng 3 r i 7n an * ------ Educational AStcriuoitCv Zonas p\" r h' I h h r I I . J ... ) . r- I 1 \"1 r Ifl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. I Education and Facility Evaluations fl The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I I : t Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. c ri' I A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. III\" o ii ii 4 i I 3 1* While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. 1 J i Page 1 .p 1'  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  Mechanical Features\nAir conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities\nToilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services\nPower installation and control\ncommunication and ll - Signal system\nalarms-and jexit lights\ngeneral and special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination\nNumber and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features\nadministrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand 1 I Operational Features\nSuitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. I Site\nAdequacy and development\ndrainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. xn r. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are\nregulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. -4 ! 2 ! ( if i 5 21 I 3 H A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_758","title":"''Little Rock School District 1994-95 Fourth Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs,'' Volume I, exhibit 1","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["''Little Rock School District 1994-95 Fourth Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs,'' Volume I, exhibit 1"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/758"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["401 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nVOLUME I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET DOCUMENT FOR DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT August 17, 1995 EXHIBm TABLE OF CONTENTS SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# Preface 1 SCHOOL OPERATIONS CLUSTER (BUFF) 09A,l - 18,2 Mission 4 Goals 5 District Financial Summary 6 Definitions 8 Organization of the Report 10 Cluster Budget Documents 12 09A 09B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 School Operations (Principals) School Operations (Central Off. Adm.) Extracurricular Participation Student Hearing Officer In-School Suspension New Futures Academic Incentive Grants/Focused Activities McClellan Community School Unassigned Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Job Fair 09A, 1-162 09B,l-87 10,1-37 11,1-4 12,1-122 13,1-5 14,1-6 15,1-89 17,1-5 18,1-2 CURRICULUM CLUSTER (PINK) 01,1 -08,28 SCHOOL SUPPORT CLUSTER (BLUE) 20,1 - 36,9 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 HIPPY 4 Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Academic Support Program (PAL) Multicultural Curriculum Special Education Gifted Education Federal Programs Vocational Education 01,1-7 02,1-9 03,1-12 04,1-29 05,1-58 06,1-9 07,1-7 08,1-28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Unassigned Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Staff Development Library/Media Computerized Transportation Data Processing Unassigned Minority Teacher Recruitment Educational Equity Monitoring Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership Summer School (Interdistrict) Summer Learning Program - JTPA 20,1-15 21,1-21 22,1-8 23,1-4 24,1-12 26,1-9 27,1-4 28,1-9 29,1-9 30,1-9 1 .z SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# 31 32 33 34 35 36 Unassigned Unassigned Facilities Guidance/Counseling Program Leadership Employment Practices Unassigned 33,1-5 34,1-11 35,1-3 RECRUITMENT CLUSTER (PURPLE) 37,1 - 39,10 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 37 38 39 40 Parent Involvement - Recruitment VIPS - Recruitment Public Relations Unassigned 37,1-26 38,1-22 39,1-11 INCENTIVE SCHQQLS CLUSTER (YELLQW) 41,1 - 72,11 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Qffice of Incentive Schools Writing to Read Science Labs Unassigned Foreign Language Program Unassigned Extended Day/Week Field Trips Unassigned Tranportation Unassigned Unassigned Instructional Aides Extended Year Recognition Program 41,1-10 42,1-3 43,1-3 45,1-5 47,1-11 48,1-5 50,1-2 53,1-4 54,1-4 55,1-4 ii Camp Pfeifer Monitoring Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Staffing Required Staff Development Teacher Stipends/Inservice Qther Incentive Schools Academic Programs  Peer Tutors/Retired Teacher Mentors  Themes  Kindergarten - Reading Across the Curriculum  Qral Expression Across Curriculum  Learning Styles Inventory  Semi-Departmental  Instructional Tech ~ Study/Test-Taking  Parent Home Study  Computer Managed Instruction  Student Education Plans  Specialized Programs  Incentive Programs  Homework  Criterion-Referenced Test ~ Heterogeneous Grouping  Effective Schools  African/American History 56,1-3 57,1-12 61,1-12 62,1-24 63,1-3 64,1-29SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# 65 Social Skills  Family Folklore ~ Positive Imaging  Interpersonal Skills - Rites of Passage  Mentoring Program 65,1-7 71 Counseling/Social Work I Community Services Access - College/Post Graduate Awareness  Study Skills  Home/Neighborhood Meet - Wellness Program 71,1-19 66 Special Activities ~ Peer Tutoring Program  Academic Reinforcement Clubs  Special Interest Clubs 66,1-7 72 13 1^ School Policies and Procedures - Other Unassigned Unassigned 72,1-11 fn 69 Latin Enrichment Program Unassigned Career Skills Development 67,1-8 69,1-3 70 Incentive Schools Operations - Support Services 70,1-6  Community Access/Field Trip ~ Community Involvement - Special Skills Program  Special Training - Parental Involvement  Learning Time Schedule - Home/School Community  Extracurricular Program  Attendance and Behavior - Subject Related Extracurriculum iii STUDENT CHQICES/QPTIQNS CLUSTER (GREEN) 75,1 - 82,3 15 16 11 16 79 80 81 82 Student Choices/Options King Interdistrict School Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Original Magnets Unassigned M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central, Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) QRGANIZATIQNAL CHART 75,1-2 leS-l 80,1-10 82,1-3 Wlo -PREFACE The mission statement and goals for Little Rock School District are the guides for all decision-making. The information gained from the Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs provides additional direction for quality, interim and/or summative decision-making for the district. Specifically, programs with poor performance or expenditure problems will have been addressed with corrective action continuously during .the year rather than after the year is completed. The report enhances the district s ability to monitor and report achievements and expenditures relative to the programs identified in the Desegregation Plan for the most efficient and functional program planning on a quarterly basis. Several reporting practices should be noted as follows: First, the fourth quarters report requires an additional volume for desegregation program reporting so that the growth and accumulation of the many achievements reported by schools and programs during the fiscal year of 1994-95 are accommodated. Consequently, the fourth quarters report for desegregation programs consists of Volume I (Seq #s 1-18) and Volume 11 (Seq#s 19-82). Principals and Central Office Administrators have reported achievements in the fourth quarters report. 09A is the designated sequence number for reporting by Principals, and 09B is the sequence number relative to Central Office Administrators reporting. The first desegregation audit was completed during the fourth quarter of the 1993-94 fiscal year. These additional desegregation obligations continue to be reflected in the program budget documents of the fourth quarter report for fiscal year 1994-95. These additional obligations come from the desegregation audit which includes Court orders, ODM monitoring reports ordered by the Court, and Court Hearing transcripts. (Underlined print denotes this additional desegregation obligations language.) A continued refinement and adjustment period throughout the fiscal year 1994-95 will be necessary for language clarification and reference documentation of the additional desegregation obligations. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The document reference appears in the first column of the PBD with an  after it. A portion of these obligations were inserted in the Second Quarter PBD, and remaining obligations have been inserted in the Third Quarter PBD. 1 Propram Budget Document (PBD) Rermement Procedure: When the PBD was first compiled, many non-obligation items were mcluded^ i held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. At the time, we were uncertain about the praise definition Extensive discussions were held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. At the time, we were uncertain about the precise uetm on of an obligation. We knew then that some \"cleanup\" would be necessary. Working with the document this past year has helped. The distinction between obligations and observations or procedures is clearer. This copy of the document reflects an effort to refine the document. We began the refinement process in November. Program mangers were their sections of the PBD and mark items they believed were not appropriate for the document. Two types were identified. y time obligations and 2) items that were not obligations but normal procedure within the program area ot simply  _ - - - Tk__________ Iniart^r l*KI\u0026gt; Willi 9 asked to review were: 1) completed, one observations. Their responses were gallUlld Bitu iitiiio umi TTWAv aivF* - --------- c  - nork .!, returned to the LRSD Office of Desegregation. Responses were reflected in the Second Quarter PBD with a boldly stamped word or words beside them. An explanation of the stamped words appear in the table below: STAMP COMPLETED JOB DESCRIPTION NOT OBLIGATION PROCEDURAL TOOL EXPLANATION This item is a one time obligation that has been completed _____________________________________ This item will be moved to the program managers* job description as a routine function of that position This item is not an obligation___________________________________________________________________ This item is or will be included in departmental procedure as a routine function of that department This item will be or already is reflected in the LRSD Management Tool The stamped items noted in the Second Quarter PBD were dropped from the Third Quarter PBD. A paper trail has been established for each item dropped. None of the ongoing obligations will be dropped. This procedure applies only to the PBD. It does not effect the LRSD Desegregation Plan or Uw!standing obligations of the District. Likewise, the stamped items indicated in the Third Quarter PBD have been dropped from the Fourth Quarter PBD. Where handwritten numbers appeared in the PBD, they were references to the 2nd Quarter PBD (2-24-95) pages where similar items may be found. These items have been deleted from this publication of the PBD. 2exhaustive search for legal references for the Safety and Security (sequence number 25) section of the desegregation volume of the PBD, .......  ____I____C non CnFAfir anH After an exhaustive search for legal references for the Safety and Security (sequence numoer seciion oi me it was determined that this particular program would be more appropriately placed in the non-desegregation volume of the PBD^ The Safety and Security (sequence number 25) section has been moved to the non-desegregation PBD volume and reported with Safety and Security Services (sequence number 225) in this publication of the PBD. Some obligations or strategies have been deleted from the following programs: Four Year Old, Multicultural Curriculum, doine uuiiuauuiu ui iiaicgic9 imv wwu .........................e IB--------------- Library/Media, Educational Equity Monitoring, Commitment to Desegregation Leadership, VIPS Recruiting, Public Relations, Office of Incentive Schools, Incentive Schools Staffing, Office of Incentive School Academic Activities, Counseling and Social Work, School Policy Student Choices \u0026amp; Options, Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment, School Operations 9A, Tri-District Summer and Procedures, Student Choices \u0026amp; Options, Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment, scnooi uperauui :r, School, Facilities, Parent Involvement, Original Magnets, HIPPY and M-to-M Magnets. Programs that have been removed bwause ^1 their objectives and strategies were dropped from the PBD include: Bidding Practices, Rockefeller Early Childhood, Romine Interdistrict School, Computer Loan Program, Computer Lab Program, King Interdistrict School and Contingencies. Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs contains the following: (1) The Mission Statement of Little Rock School District\n(2) The Goals of Little Rock School District\n0) LRSD Quarterly Desegregation\u0026gt; Ex^^s The IVllbSlUIl OUllCIllCIIl Ul I\\W1V AaFlOUIWI., ~ al /1\\ 'TUak Summary\n(4) Definitions and Data Elements\n(5) Organization of the Report\n(6) Program Budget Documents Grouped by Clusters\nand, (7) t he LRSD Organizational Chart. 3 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their A IlV llllOOiMII Vt UIV .w g--------------- --------- kp  , optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethmc * ..... ... . . .    _____t....:__________1 J_______zxf tka *e rim'tml1lim and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District s curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS I 1. The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 2. 3. 4. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. The Little Rock Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, stoff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 6. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 5Program Coda Program Nam* Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 1 of 2 01 02 05 06 07 08 09 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 HIPPY________________________________ 4-YEAR OLD PROGRAM_______________ STUDENT HEARING OFFICER___________ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION EXTRA-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION TEACHER RECRUITER STAFF DEVELOPMENT________________ ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS ACADEMIC INC GRANTS/FOCUSED ACT ORIGINAL MAGNETS SPECIAL EDUCATION @ WASHINGTON SECURITY D/P SYSTEM STUDENT INFORMATION M-TO-M MAGNET SCHOOLS ' KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL  EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING ' COMPUTERIZED TRANSP SYSTEM ' ROMINE INTERDISTRICT THEME ' McClellan community school ' IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION ' JOB FAIR____________________________  TESTING ASSISTANCE_______________ ' LIBRARY SERVICES__________________ ~ PARENT RECRUITING________________ ' VIPS RECRUITING____________________ ' PREJUDICE REDUCTION______________ Bridget 326,723.78 1,943,683.64 96,144.76 511,645.41 7,000.00 45,592.16 352,932.12 1,615,303.00 259,837.33 320,000.00 4,501,756.00 56,853.51 761,286.72 712,289.22 374,496.22 1,333,107.64 421,787.43 8,000.00 69,631.59 170,000.00 794,173.67 ______1,092.82 5,066.96 427,230.43 40,000.00 40,680.19 5,000.00 22.0 89.5 2.0 13.0 1.0 6.0 48.0 1.0 38.0 4.0 5.0 68.6 4.0 2.0 24.3 30.0 2.0 YTD Expenee 303,500.24 2,108,061.00 88,184.58 473,908.54 __________0.00 53,554.32 305,297.05 1,491,150.15 187,092.39 199,254.80 4,237,311.17 52,667.28 921,004.64 709,935.19 348,803.48 1,487,992.78 405,659.60 __________0.00 58,915.95 170,000.00 669,072.20 1,132.89 1,395.74 341,666.84 37,703.26 31,216.18 0.00 1at Quarter 61,678.75 292,010.10 22,243.00 108,505.23 ________0.00 13,998.89 71,968.88 209,511.74 45,936.67 11,939.29 ________0.00 10,223.45 117,300.43 606,929.33 49,630.60 210,448.33 179,438.34 ________0.00 52,813.00 45,764.00 107,224.23 452.34 1,395.74 49,509.88 27,755.74 2,418.93 0.00 2nd Quarter 61,286.76 480,415.35 18,663.59 106,196.97 _________0.00 11,393.85 77,801.97 357,000.40 29,434.99 3,638.41 1,393,556.50 10,660.80 241,696.90 29,838.55 63,555.79 309,259.55 137,411.56 0.00 0.00 36,724.01 169,444.44 _______235.29 0.00 80,466.34 2,364.22 6,382.85 0.00 3rd Quarter 75,281.71 607,059.76 27,166.90 140,638.23 ________0.00 15,015.40 85,041.69 579,493.61 62,392.39 65,906.26 1,393,556.50 16,944.47 331,727.49 38,002.49 97,025.16 432,695.81 214,676.62 0.00 _______113.94 87,511.99 181,116.47 _______155.54 0.00 96,747.26 ' 5,151.25 9,843.29 0.00 4th Quartet 105,253.02 728,575.79 20,111.09 118,568.11 ________0.00 13,146.18 70,484.51 345,144.40 49,328.34 117,770.84 1,450,198.17 14,838.56 230,279.82 35,164.82 138,591.93 535,589.09 (125,866.92) 0.00 5,989.01 (0.00) 211,287.06 _______289.72 0.00 114,943.36 2,432.05 12,571.11 0.00 % Budget Spent 92.89% 108.46% 91.72% 92.62% 0.00% 117.46% 86.50% 92.31% 72.00% 62.27% 94.13% 92.64% 120.98% 99.67% 93.14% 111.62% 96.18% 0.00% 84.61% 100.00% 84.25% 103.67% 27.55% 79.97% 94.26% 76.74% 0.00% 6Program ,Cf^\u0026gt; , Program Nema Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 2 of 2 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 59 61 64 65 66 72 73 74 75 CONTINGENCY FUND OFFICE OF INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WRITING TO READ SCIENCE LABS COMPUTER LABS COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM__________ EXTENDED DAY FIELD TRIPS TRANSPORTATION (ADD'LI INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES EXTENDED YEAR INCENTIVE/RECOGNITION RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIRED STAFF DEVELOPMENT TEACHER STIPENDS/INSERVICE OTHER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACTIVITIES TOTAL. Budget 94-95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 493,723.62 25,550.00 15,000.00 399,532.68 61,568.93 11,524.35 742,246.94 46,882.67 62,349.90 83,971.87 iT,i43.ee6^s FTSa 42.0 31.0 433.4 VTO Expanse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 564,222.48 29,183.23 0.00 388,427.63 110,550.11 5,109.52 666,490.95 8,611.74 2,284.52 24,997.81 ie.4S4.3Ba.2e let Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,353.68 436.00 0.00 45,398.54 51,617.91 0.00 82,516.30 4,284.01 625.00 1,403.78 2,493,732.11 2tKl Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,757.74 6,995.18 0.00 69,779.34 0.00 2,593.30 141,833.90 3,574.13 772.83 8,432.28 3\u0026gt;994iie7/?9 3rd Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 133,114.69 7,868.37 0.00 108,697.75 0.00 2,946.81 194,418.17 197.60 627.60 11,471.09 5,022,606.31 4th Quarter 0.00 __________0^ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 289,996.37 13,883.68 0.00 164,552.00 58,932.20 (430.59) 247,722.58 556.00 259.09 3,690.66 4,673,652.05 % Budget Spent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 114.28% 114.22% 0.00% 97.22% 179.56% 44.34% 89.79% 18.37% 3.66% 29.77% 96\n1S96 7 _-r^ - 1DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS The following are definitions of terms and data elements used in the Program Budget Documents. Program: A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. Program Description: A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participants/beneficiaries related to the respective program. Program Goal: A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. Objectives: Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. Strategies: Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. Achievements: Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy and establish measurable and observable levels of performance of the product. Page: Each Program Budget Document uses one of two formatted pages. Program Sequence # (Seq. #): The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. Revision Date: This date is the actual date the program document was first documented or last changed. Program Name: To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. Program Code: This is a unique accounting code assigned by Finailcial Services which links budget and expenditure information to the associated program. 8Definitions and Data Elements (cont.) Primary Leader: The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. Secondary Leader: The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e. the Program Manager or the Principal). District Goal Support: Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. Plan Reference: Specific plan and page references will directly cite one of the following desegregation documents\nL(LR) = LRSD Desegregation Plan\nI(ID) = Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\nS = Settlement Agreement\nC(CO)= Court Orders\nT (HT) = Hearing Transcripts\nP(CP) = Court Pleadings\nM(MR) Monitoring Reports. The format should be L23 or 113-20, for example. This element has been left blank if the program is not directly cited in one of the desegregation documents. Plan Reference Page Number: Source references listed for each objective and strategy have been used. If the objective or strategy is desegregation document related, the specific desegregation document and page upon which this objective or strategy has been found should be listed. If the objective or strategy is not related to a desegregation document, then whatever source was used has been listed. This element is contained on page 2 and succeeding pages. Beginning Date\nThis is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following manner\nMM/DD/YY, (09/30/94). Completion Date. This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/94). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (for example, 75%) should be entered. Responsibility: This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. 9 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This section provides guiding information about the text of the Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs. Pagination. Pages in the text are numbered using Arabic numerals. Pages are consecutively numbered at the bottom of the page beginning with the \"Preface.\" The \"Table of Contents\" is on page i, page ii, and page iii. Program areas are numbered according to their sequence number followed by the page number within that program (e.g., 02,5 refers to page 5 of the program with a sequence number of 02). Print. The report employs two kinds of print density. Bold Print denotes original language of the desegregation document(s). Lighter print enclosed in parentheses (parenthetical statements) identifies language that is not literal in the desegregation document(s). The parenthetical statements of lighter print have been integrated throughout the program budget documents for clarification of original language in the desegregation document(s) and/or for providing information generalized from the original language of the desegregation document(s). Parenthetical information should not be construed to mean new legal obligations nor expansion of the obligations under the desegregation document(s). Underlined Print. Underlined Print denotes additional desegregation obligations language which was inserted verbatim in the third quarter report of FY 93-94 as a result of the desegregation audit. Stamped Words. Denotes items identified for \"cleanup.\" See Program Budget Document (PBD) Refinement Procedures above. Clusters. Programs have been sorted into broad categories called clusters. Clusters include programs or schools grouped together because of similar and related operational functions. For convenience and management of the report, similar programs have been grouped into six separating color-coded clusters. To locate a program, determine the relative cluster of the program by using the \"Table of Contents\" and then refer to the program sequence number (Seq #) or page number for facilitating program reference in the report. School Operations Program (09A and 09B). The School Operations program description warrants that both Principals and Central Office Administrators provide quality planning for students. Therefore, the School Operations Program is divided into two sections for reporting achievements by both Principals and Central Office Administrators. The sequence number for reporting by Principals (i.e., schools) is 09A, and the sequence number for reporting by Central Office Administrators is 09B. For the first repotting period, the inclusionary dates cited in the \"Beginning Date\" column and \"Completion Date 10column are 07/01/94 and 06/30/95, respectively. These inclusionaty dates represent the boundaries for the first quarter. The generic dates of 07/01/94 and 06/30/95 are used to uniform and conform reporting in the School Operations program budget documents. Specific date information relative to the achievements of Central Office Administrators follows each documented achievement. Organization of the Report (continued) As a final note, the School Operations Program (09A) classifies the area, interdistrict, and magnet schools into three organizational levels: elementary, junior high, and .senior high. Incentive Schools. The Incentive Schools cluster.provides program reporting information for the following schools: Franklin, Garland, Rockefeller, Mitchell and Rightsell. Non-Monetary Tracking. No entry on page one in the fiscal year program budget field and/or the quarter expenditure field of a Program Budget Document means desegregation money has not been tracked to the respective program. Organizational Chart. An organizational chart is provided. 11CLUSTER BUDGET DOCUMENTS 12Curriculum Cluster *  * HIPPY 4-Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Academic Support Program Multicultural Curriculum Special Education Gifted Programs Federal Programs Vocational Education LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET E\u0026gt;OCUMENT Program Seq f: 01 Page: 1 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY (Home instruction Program For Preschool Youngsters) Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: HIPPY is a home based developmental program which recognizes de mother as the fint significant teacher of die child. HIPPY assists the mother in preparing die child to be successful in kindergarten, therefore assisting tn the reduction of the disparity gap between black and white students. HIPPY'S major focus is in the shadow areas of major incentive schools and in the Southwest Litde Rock area. HIPPY serves primarily economical artd educationa] disadvantaged families. Implement integrated educationa] programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing dispanties in achievement. To prepare economically disadvantaged children to enter kiiKlergarten with the necessary skills to be successful: and to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievenwnt disparity between black and white students. [ Plan References: Page L-5. L-14, IS. 16 ] FY Program Budget: $326,723.78 1st Qtr Expend: $61,678.75 9rd Qtr Expend: $75,281.71 YTD Expenditures: $303,500.24 2nd Qtr Expend: $61,286.76 4th Qtr Expend: $105,253.02 I FTE 22.0 [ Related Function Codes:  01, 1Program Seq f: 01 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Program Goal: To prepare L14 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Marian Shead August II, 1995 ecm,mically disadvantaged chMren  enter kWemanen with the neeessaty skdls to be success\nand to itnpmve the educahonai outcomes of students, pathcularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. Plan Reference Page Ntunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L14 L14 I. To promote the HIPPY program 2. To select HIPPY aides 3. Initial training of aides and staff 4. To enroll families into program. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Staff Mailed letten (Documentation of PSA) 1.1 To compose and mail Public Service Announcement for local radio stations and Channels 14 and 16 A distribute flyers A. Distributed flyen to Watershed Community Development B. Mailed PSA to LRSD Communication Department C. Distributed flyen to day care centers, health department, and local businesses 2.1 A. B. C. 07/01/94 08/08/94 08/18/94 08/25/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 08/08/94 08/18/94 08/31/94 06/30/95 Staff Interview and select nine (9) Home Visitors Interview \u0026amp; select Home Visitors Printed and mailed flyere to area churches Ran classified ad in two local newspapen 3.1 Arrange logistics with State Regional Office for the initial training 4.1 Conduct home interview and enroll families into program. 01, 2 07/01/94 07/25/94 08/05/94 08/07/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 10/03/94 08/05/94 08/17/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Staff Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Pay the bill (requisition paid) Pay the bill (Documentation of family enrollment)Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goat: LI4 L14 L14 L14 LI4 L14 01 HIPPY 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 3 RerisloD Date: Marian Shead August 11. 1995 To prepare economically disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve die educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5. To recruit families 6. To determine service of coordinators 7. To assign families to be serviced by aides. 8. To organize instructional material. 9. To familiarize aides of the HIPPY implementation in LRSD. 10. Obtain material for program A. Mail registration aimouncements to 315 prospective families io LRSD B. Conduct registration for interested parents S.l Compose aixl mail correspondence to community churches to recruit families and instructional aide trainees. 6.1 Identify families to be served by each coordinator 7.1 Identify families to be served by each aide 8.1 Print curriculum material. A. Ordered printed curriculum from Dushkin Publishing 9.1 Conduct three (3) day workshop 01, 3 08/16/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/12/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 08/23/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/12/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Staff Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Coordinators Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordiiutors Certification of aides (position of aides filled) Assignment of families to aides Page: 4 Program Seq /: 01 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Goal: To prepare economically disadvantaged children lo enter kindergarten with the necessary skill, to be niece,,\nand to improve disparity between black and white students. the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria LI4 11. To orientate enrolled families m the HIPPY program. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisor Coordinators Families enrolled in program (documentation of patent orientation) L15 LIS L15 11.1 Conduct orientation meeting. A. Secured space for orientation(Adult Education Auditorium) from Paulette Martin, Adult Education Director B. C. D. 07/01/94 09/19/94 06/30/95 09/19/94 Invited LRSD personnel to Orientation Prepared program agenda for orientation Orientation conducted 09/21/94 WI23I9^ 09/26/94 09/21/94 09/26/94 12. Identic meeting sites of group meetings. 13. To schfate anplemenation of HIPPY curriculum. 14. To provide parents with information that will assist them with their children. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Coordinators Confirmation of site (documentation of letters) 12.1 Secure meeting sites for group meeting, (mailed letten to building principals) 12.2 Mail out notification of meeting sites. 13.1 To schedule aides weekly home visits 13.2 To schedule area group meetiruts - print flyers 13.3 To schedule weekly Inservice Training for aides 13.4 Schedule aides first teaching (with own child). 01, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Coordinators Coordinaton Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Received materialsProgram Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: L15 L6 L16 01 HIPPY 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 5 Revision Dote: Marian Shead August 11. 1995 To prepare economically disadvantaged children w enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to die achievement disparity between black and white students. I Plan Reference Page Ntmber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Comfrfetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 16. To determine program success 19. Provide parents with information to be successful with their children 14.1 Schedule workshop for patents and aides, mail out and print matorials. 14.2 Include enrichments for parents at monthly Group Meetings 16.1 Conduct survey of parents - print materials 16.2 Telephone survey conducted 19.1 Obtain a sitt and speaker and schedule a lecture for patents 01. 5 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 01/18/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordiiutors Coordinators Supervisor Supervisor Completion of survey Evaluation using the Early Prevention of School Failure or a similar model which is comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding, will be conducted on the HIPPY participants as they enter and exit the kindergarten. A standardized achievement test will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. Consultant fee paid Page: 6 Program Seq f: 01 Rerlsion Date: August II. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian. Shead Program Goal: To prepare economKilly disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. L16 L16 Plan Reference Page Nianber L16 LI6 L16 Objectives Strategies lUginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 20. Build die aides children self esteem. 21. Graduation of HIPPY cbildten and aides reception 23. Suff in place. 24. Maintain regular staff. 19.2 Hold Parent Appreciation/Motivational Program 20.1 Activities throughout program year with involvement for children\ni.e. fall carnival, holiday party, black history program, group meetings, graduation A recognition ceremony A. Held Fall Carnival for parents and children Ocmber 24. 1994 at Adult Education Auditorium B. Held Holiday Party for parents and children December 20, 1994 at Adult Education Auditorium C. D. E. F. 04/20/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 10/24/94 12/20/94 04/20/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 10/24/94 12/20/94 Staff Staff Staff Staff Consultant fee paid Completion of program Held Black History Program February 28, 1995 Held Parent Appreciatkm/Motivatjonal Program Held Graduation Ceremony May 21, 1995 Held Recognition Ceremony for Aides 05/25/95 21.1 Staff will organize 23.1 To begin inq)Ieinentation of HIPPY program. 24.1 Secretary 01, 6 02/28/95 04/20/95 05/21/95 05/25/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 02/28/95 04/20/95 06/30/95 05/21/95 05/25/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Coordinator Coordinator Supervisor Staff began implementation of program To assist in die implementation of programPage: 7 Program Seq f: 01 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Prhnary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Goal: To prepare economically disadvanuged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. L16 L6 L6 Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 25. To assist in traveling expense. 25.1 Aides made borne visit. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Aides Pay stipend 07/01/94 06/30/95 26, The home-based program and die four-vear-old school-based program will collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. 27, The Little Rock School and Pulaski County School Districts will collaborate and coordinate the on-goina implementation of the HIPPY Program. 01, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95Program Seq f: 02 Program Name: Program Code: Program Description: Distrkt Goal Support: Program Giud: Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Four-Year Old Program/City-Wide Early Childhood Program 02 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Pike Page: I Revision Date: August II. 1995 The purpose of die program is  meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the Elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas - physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students and in schools that are diffkult to desegregate. The Disnkts preschool curriculum model will be implemented in all incentive schools and other selected schools in the Little Rock School Distrkt. Effective the 1990-91 school year, this model will be an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economkallv disadvantaged children and to attract white students to the schools. A loiut-range (four-vear-otd) plan will address deinogriphk. instructional, and structural needs. LRSD will continue to use the four-vear-old program as a means to meet the needs of-disadvantaged students and desegregate schools that are difficult to desegregate. L8 Goal FI - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on bask skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal F2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal F3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each diversity among students, staff and the comiminity as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for die 21st Century. Goal F4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal F5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal F6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all fdiases of school activities and operatkiu. The District will implement the Four-Year-Old Program by the 1994-95 school year according to the provisions of a long-ranee implementation plan developed for additional four-year-old classes and approved by the Court f72O seats). L7, LIO. L17, 18. 19 ] $1,943,683.64 $2,108,061.00 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $292,010.10 $480,415.35 02, 1 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: $607,059.76 $728,575.79 FTE 89.5 1Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Number L17 L17 L17 L17 L17 L17 02 Four-Year Old Program LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: To Implement the Four-Year-Old Program In selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult m desegregate.) Objectives Strategies 2. Recruit teachers and aides as needed. 3. Obtain curricuhan materials, supplies, and furniture as needed. 4. Train teachers and aides in the Implementation of E.C.E. currlctdum.) Page: 2 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Secondary Leader: Pat Price Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors, Human Resources Director, Principals 2. (A list of qualified applicants.) 2.1 Interview intererted teachers and aides as needed. A. Teachers and aides hired for every classroom. 3.1 Complete and send orders to vendors. A. Materials, supplies and equipment available in al) new classrooRU. 4.1 Conduct orientation and Inservlces. A. Principals training July 18 and 19. 1994\nOctober 13, 20, 1994 and November 15. 1994\nFebruary 23. 1995 and March 29. 30. 31. 1995 B. Teachers training August 16. 1994 and September 20, 1994\nOctober 12, 13. 20 and November 10, 15, 18. 1994\nFebruary 21. 23. 1995 and March 3. 6. 10. 29. 30. 31. 1995\nApril 11. 12. 13. 19. 1995 02, 2 07/01/94 07/08/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/18/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 08/12/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/20/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/06/95 Supervisors, Human Resources Director, Principab (Purchasing Dept. Supervisors) Principals Supervisors Supv/Staff Dev Supv/Staff Dev 2.1 A list of qualified applicants. (Employment of teachers and aides for new and open positions.) 3. (Confirmation of purchase orders.) 3.1 Materials available 4. (Documentation of inservice evaluations.) 4.1 Agenda (Documentation of inservice evaluations) Page: 3 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To Implement the Four*Year-Old Program tn selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) I Flan Reference Page Nianber L17 L17 L17 L18 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5. Familiarize pareida with Four-Year Old Program. 5.1 Conduct paretd orientation meeting and pareid conference. A. Parent Orientation: August 30, 1994 - Romine and Elementary Magnet Schools: September I, 1994 - Elementary Area Schools\nSeptember 8, 1994 - Incentive Schools\nParent Conference Day - September 23. 1994\nNovember 12, 1994 - Brady Parent Woritshop\nOctober 4. 1994 - HIPPY\nMarch 17, 1995 - Parent Conference Day\nApril 13, 20 and May 10. 1995 - Rockefeller Parent Workshops 5.2 Include four-year old children In Master Schedule - students receive service* of counselors, musk teachers, school nurses, librarian*, physical education and art teachers. A. Master schedules reflect services children receive. 5.3 Ensure key experiences occurring far the classroom. A. One hundred and six (106) classroom visitations. B. Forty (40) programs had licensing site visits. 02, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 09/13/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 06/01/75 06/06/95 Classroom teachers Classroom teachers Principab Principals Classroom Teachers Supervisors 5. (Documentation of meetings artd evaluations.) 5.1 Number of parents attending Parent/Teacher Conferences 5.2 Master schedules 5.3 Curriculum checklistPage: 4 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To implement the Four-Year-Old Program in selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L18 L18 L18 L18 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6. Evaluate effectiveness of Four-Year Old Program. 6.1 Aihnlnister appropriate evaluation to four-year-olds. 6.1 (Maintaining portfolio assessments on four-year-olds.) A. Portfolio assessments began on all children. 6.2 Analyze student assessment test data and prepare report for LRSD Board of Directors. 6.3 Utilize results for program fanprovemeid. 02, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 (Principals Classroom Teachers Supervisors Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Assoc. Supt.) Classroom teachers (Classroom teachers) Assoc Supt Supervisor Plnnnlfig, Evaluation, and Testing (Assoc Supt Supervisor) 6. (Annual review of assessment data beginning at die end of the kindergarten year of each child participating in the program. EPSF Post Assessments) o(Comparisons of the progress of children who did and did iMt participate in the program.) (Standardize achievement tests will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the Early Childhood Program as an intervention strategy.) 6.1 Evaluation results 6.1 (Documentation of portfolios recording the work which children do and what they krtow.) 6.2 Evaluation report 6.3 (Areas targeted for improvement.) Page\n5 Program Seq *: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Prinarj Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To iinpleinent the Four-Year-Old Program in selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) i Flan Reference Page Nimber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 7, Support the continued work of the LRSD Early Childhood Task Force as a valuable avenue for parent, teacher, and conununitv input. 07/01/94 06/30/95 7.1 Conduct monthly Task Force meetings A. Schedule meetings and plan agenda. 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 05/31/95 02, 5Program Seq 9: 02 Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Nianber L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET EXX:UMENT Four-Year Old Program Primaiy Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 6 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Pat Price To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D.. P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D.. Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvaritage students in the city of Little Rock. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. To develop a plan for planning a city-wide early childhood program. 3. To initiate the planning for the Implementation of a dty wide early childbood program. 1.4 To receive a letter of support from each agency desiring to participate. 2.1 To establish planning procedures and Identify key committees and chairpersons needed for the planning process. 2.2 To Identify appropriate additional representatives from each participating for each committee. agency 2 J To deUneate the goals to be addressed and the tasks to be acc\u0026lt;ai|41shed by each committee, including appropriate timelines to be met. 3.1 To conduct periodic meetings to review progress of each committee. 3.2 To idemify resources needed by identified by each committee, including monetary. 02, 6 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for ELducational Programs File record letters Structured plan for planning on file. Record of committee members Record of committee members Minutes of meetings Identification of committeeProgram Seq f: 02 Page: 7 Revision Date: August II, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program G\u0026lt;m1: To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D., P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. L19 LI9 Ptan Reference Page Number L7(N) LI0(N) LIO (N) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.3 To review the flrst draft of the ctunprebensive plan and to make recommendations for refinement. 3.4 To submit the final draft for approval to aD partldpanl Boards of Directors (where appUcaUe). 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Assoc Supt for EducatioiuU Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Submission of first draft Draft submitted to Board I. (To collaborate with HIPPY, P.C.S.S.C., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start, and other entities in order to fulfill the district's expectations for a quality Early Childhood Education Program.) (N) 1.1 (To establish a schedule of regular meetings of representatives of the various entities.) (N) 1.2 (Supervisors meet to discuss irtdividual program needs and to determine if resources can be shared.XN) A. manning meeting held August 10. 1994\nSeptember 28. 1994\nSeptember 29. 1994\nOctober 18, 1994\nNovember 8. 1994\nApril 10, 1995\nMay 15, 1995 02, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/10/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 05/31/95 (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) 1.1 (Schedule and minutes of all meetings) 1.2 (Roster of participants arxi minutes of meetings)Page: 8 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 199S Program Name: Four-Year OW Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D.. P.C.S.S.D.. N.L.R.S.D.. Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. Plan Reference Page Nianber LIO (N) LIO (N) L10 (N) L11 Objectives Strategies T Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.3 (To plan joint inservices for administrators, teachen and instructional assistants.XN) 1.4 (To plan joint parent involvement activities.XN) 1.5 (To use a student referral system allowing parents on a waiting list to know about vacarK:les.)(N} 1.6 A representative from the Little Rock School District Student Assiaranent Office will meet each year with parents from both programs to review the kindergarten assianwent oroceaa The annual sessions on kindergarten registration will also be used to provide information on magnet school opportimltles. 02, 8 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSO/MLRSD and Headstart Stgrervlsors of ECE programs) 1.3 (Roster of participants and evaluations of inservices) 1.4 (Roster of participants and evaluations of Inservlces) 1.5 (List of vacancies each entity has.) --1Page: 9 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To combine the efforts of die L.R.S.D., P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. L11 Ran Reference Page Nunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.7 Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, a list will be conpiled of all graduates from the three early childhood programs. These students will be identified in the Little Rock School District mainframe cowouter system according to their respective programs. A. Requested list of graduates from the ECE programs at Headstart and the city of Little Rock*s East Cosmunity Complex 02, 9 07/01/94 08/22/94 06/30/95 06/06/95 1.7 At the end of each year for grades K-3, these students will be monitored on the basis of standardited tests, criterion-reference tests. EPSF screening, or ony other academic measures that are available and applicebie, The entities will review these results on an annual basis, prior to the beginning of the following school year, and make prograwnatic changes, individually and collectively, as needed. These students will be cowoared to a control group in order to isolate the effectiveness and/or deficiencies of the various early childhood programs.LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq f: 03 Page: 1 Revlsioii Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: 10 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parfcer/Glasgow Program Description: Name and Location of Academic Support Programs - The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Techiuca] Education Center. Purpose - The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and nuthematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support will be provided by certified reading specialists, English and mathematics teachers in the regular classrooms, additional classes, and labs. Scope and Content - The Academic Support Program offen a variety of options to die individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes. or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pull-out at the elementary level. Partldpnnts/Benefldarlea - Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the annual studcot asscssinent. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population tn participate in the Academic Support Program. District Goal Support: \u0026lt;1) Implement integrated educational programs dial will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. (3) Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary m fully support our schools, including our desegregation ptan. (4) Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. (5) The Litde Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. (6) Ensure that equity occurs in all (riuses of school activities and ofurations. Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students tn the mainstream setting by supporting diem with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the teaming disparity. Flan References: LP 1-20 Program Budget: $1,615,303.00 let Qtr Expend: $209,511.74 3rd Qtr Expend: $579,493.61 FTE 48.0 YTD Expenditures: $1,491,150.15 2nd Qtr Expend: $357,000.40 4(h Qtr Expend: $345,144.40 Related Function Codes: 03, 1 Isogram Seq f: 03 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Program Goal: Flao Reference Page Nunber March 19, 1993 Revised Academic Support Program P 1 p4,13 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Adams/Parkcr/Glasgow The goal of die Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting diem with die instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. (Mijectives Strategies Beginning Date Ctnnpletion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To Identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Local school teams 1. (Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students.) 1.1 Explain the Academic Support Program options to local school administrators. A. Language Arts Plus and Madi Plus and traditional in-class support. 1.2 Provide an overview of bow all the individual Academic Support Programs will be coordinated for continuiQr of services to children and efficient use of resources. -All schools will implement die Board-approved uniform curriculum. 03, 2 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/95 06/30/95 Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assocbte Supt. for Curriculum, Director of Federal Programs, Cuiriculm Supervisors 1.1 (Schedule of meeting.) 1.2 (Observation reports and staff development activities records are on file.)Page: 3 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1993 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Pa rkcr/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equiable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Plan Reference Page Number p7,W pl3 p 11.13 p 12.13 Objectivea Strateglea Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Crlterta -The established critical attributes of the Academic Support Program will be evident in each school. -The revised curricutum (K-i2) has been sequentially developed and die objectives have been correlated to the skills in Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, Stanford Achievement Test-Eighth Edition, and existing computer-assisted instructional software. -To provide for continuous improvement of teachers, records will be maintained on staff development activities. -New staff members will be targeted for appropriate staff development activities as well as participation in the district's \"New Teacher Initiative.* U Select the local schools appro|Hiate Academic Support Program. (Indtrect/dlrect/cxtended aervices) A. Support program identified 1.4 Ideidl^ students selected for partldpotlon tn each program by achool/grade level. A. Students identified and selected. 1.5 Select staff (Identify by position) responsible for delivering Academic Su|qwrt Program. A. Staff selected for 1994-95 school year. 03, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 Local school administrators Local school teams PriiKipai 1.3 (Selection on file at buildinglevel aiKl in office of Director of Federal Programs.) 1.4 (Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students.) 1.5 (Staff assignments are determined at die building level and assignments filed at the Office of Federal Programs.)Page: 4 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parfcer/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstrearned setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Plan Reference Page Number p12,13 p 13 p 7,8,20 pl Objectives Strategies Rfinning Date Comjdetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria l.d Schedule the academic teams staff. A. Teacher schedules on file at Office of Federal Programs B. Schedules posted in classrooms 1.7 Implemeid selected school options at local levd. A. Program options implemented 1.8 Utilize resources Invested In PAL remediation approach by reallocating staff positions, computer hardware, software programs, and other equipment and materials toward the itew approach to remediation. A. JoW Year School Improvemerd Plans developed tanplemeoted. B. First Year School improvement plan* developed/implemented. 07/01/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/07/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/28/94 Principal Principal and staff (PriiKipal, Coordinator of Media Services. Director of Federal Programs, and Curriculum Supervisors) 2. To prescribe a personalized intervention plan for eligible students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principal and staff 03. 4 1.6 (Schedules are developed listing teams contact time, number of students served, and other variables associated with the teams responsibilities.) 1.7 (Schedules of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s).) 1.8 (Tecimology Department's inventory and schedules of stafFing reflect reallocations of resources.) 2. (Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s).)Page: 5 Program Seq 9: 03 RevisioD Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is lo provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with (he instructional and technical assistarx\ne needed to reduce die learning disparity. Flan Relercnce Page Number Objectives Strategiea Beginning Dale Completion Dale Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. (To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students.) pl4 pM 2.1 Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for curriculum clusters. 2 J Begin training staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupervisors of Language Arts and Mathematics Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupervisors of Language Arts, Mathematics and IRC Specialists, Director of Federal Programs 2.1 (Staff development schedule on file.) 2.2 (Staff training for participants will include program administration (student selection process, recordkeeping. progress reports) instructional strategies, parental involvement, and others.) A. Workshops -Applied Madi I and n  State training 08/02/94 08/04/94 -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Principals 08/03/94 08/03/94 -Pre-School Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Inservice -Pre-School Elementary Classroom Teacher Harcourt Brace Inservice -Pre-School Secondary English and Language Arts Plus Inservice Pre-School Elementary Pre-School Secondary Math Plus Inservke 03. 5 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 J.'Page: 6 Program Seq *: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Giasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and matfienutics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting diem with die instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -Chapter 1 Record Keeping -Harcourt Brace Reading Department Inservice -Secondary Math Council -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Grade 4, 5. and 6 Teachers -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Grade 1. 2. and 3 Teachers -Secondary Academic Support Madi Teachers Inservice - Math Plus -Harcourt Brace l^ementary Cluster Inservices for New Reading Series Grades 2-6 -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -First Grade Academic Support Math Teacher Inservice (Part I) -Chapter I Mid-Winter Conference (Hot Springs) -Academic Support Program Planning Meeting -Academic Support Elementary Counselors Meeting -Academic Support Secondary Counselors' Meeting -Secortdary English Council Inservice -First Grade Academic Support Math Teacher Inservice (Part 2) 03, 6 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 09/13/94 09/19/94 09/20/94 09/27/94 10/10/94 11/16/94 11/19/94 12/06/94 01/26/95 02/02/95 02/07/95 02/07/95 02/20/95 02/20/95 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 11/22/94 09/19/94 09/20/94 09/29/94 11/14/94 11/16/94 11/19/94 01/30/95 01/27/95 02/02/95 02/07/95 02/07/95 02/20/95 03/13/95Page: 7 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: pTfanary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: Hk goal of the Academic Support Progiam is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Ran Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria pM -Secondary Chapter I \u0026amp; Language Arts Plus Teacher Inservice \"Instructional Strategies* 2.3 Monitor the implementation of above. 2.3 (Monitor the implementation of the Academic Support Program options. These programs may vary from year-to-year.) A. On site visits made to elementary and secondary schools by staff 2.4 Monitor instruction and learning in Academic Support Program settings on a regular basis and observe to determine: -Teachers involving students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity. 03, 7 03/09/95 03/10/95 07/01/94 08/23/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Principals, districtwide staff development team, and computer specialista (PritKipals. districtwide staff development team, curriculum supervisors. IRC specialists. Director of Federal Programs) Principals 2.3 (School visits/observations are made to provide feedback (oral/written) to trained staff.) Teacher observations and evaluations on record. Page: 8 Program Seq f: 03 Revtsion Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of die Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in die mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. 1 Plan Reference Page Nimber Objectives Strategies Bcghmlng Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria p 7,9,10,19 -Teachers selecting methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences. -Teachers danonstratlng creativity and resourcefulness in deliveiing instruction. -Teachen utilizing effective classroom strategics, such as tutors, smaO-group Instruction, and extended day/weck programs, to maintain the gains students have made. Teachers interacting with students In a caring manner. -Teachers recording of students data that shows increased student achievement and social skills (letter and citizenship grades, standardized test scores, attendance). p7,15 2.5 Provide technical assistance and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development areas. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals, district- wide staff development team, and computer specialists 2.4 (Requests for technical assistance are documented and evaluated. Feedback related to improvement or change is recorded.) A. Technical assistance has been provided to eleiTKntary and secondary schools. 08/23/94 Q6I3QI95 (PritKipals, districtwide staff development team, curriculum supervisors, IRC specialists) 03, 8Page: 9 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Suppon Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader\nAdams/Parker/Glasgow Program Croal: The goal of (he Academic Support Program is assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. IO provide equitable language am and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical } Flan Reference Page Nianber p 7,10,15 p10,15 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.6 Schedule school based meetings to assess program effectiveness. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principal 2.5 (Records of dates of meetings and participants, minutes of meetings, and issues related to program effectiveness are maintained.) 3. To reduce or eUminate pull-out academic support programs. 07/01/94 06/30/95 3.1 Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, xampks of student work, and pareid/teacber/student recommendations. 3.2 Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness In meeting Its particular programmatic goab and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction of disparity between Mack and white students. A. Chapter 1 Sustained Effects Reports 1995 03. 9 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/01/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/15/95 Principal and staff\nDir. of Federal Programs Associate Supt. for Curriculum, Assistant Supts., Curriculum Supervisors, and Principab 3.1 (Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress.) 3.2 Academic Support Programs win be successfully operating in all district schools as evidettced by: Increased student achievement. Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving to the next quartile. Increased number of students moving above the 50th percentile. Page: 10 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts aixl mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and techrucal assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. nan Reference Page Number p 10,15,19^0 pl5 p5 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Stanford Achievement Test Results 3.3 Identic modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94. A. Math Plus initiated in regular math, pre-algebra. algebra: FY 95 - 10 schools participated 3.4 Support and extend learning opportunities for studeids by maidng available to targeted students before-scboot, at hmch, after-scbool, and periodic extended weeks computer lab instruction. 03, 10 06/01/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 Associate Supt. for Curriculum, Assistant Supts., Curriculum Supervisors and Principals Director of Federal Programs, Principals -Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student. -Grade distribution reports (by semester) by class and grade level reflecting an increase in attainment of letter grades of \"C\" or better In the core areas. -Improved attendaiKe for targeted students. 3.3 (The 1993-94 school year will reflect modifications.) 3.4 (Schedules will reflect additional instructional services.)Page: 11 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: - Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Progmm is  piovide equiable language arta and malhemadcs learning eaperiencea for all students in the nutinstreatned setting by supporting them with the instntctional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. I Pbn Reference Page Nunber P Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skllla needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. A. Announcement of Extended E\u0026gt;ay Program to begin 1-4-95 B. Identified studenu of participating schools submitted to Office of Federal Programs. C. Extenday Day proposals to Office of Federal Programs D. Extended Day Programs begin (1500 participants} 4.1 Assist parents in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to prorfote the education of their children at home and at school through: Providing timely information regarding students achievement and behavior. Involving them in Informative and effective conferences concerning their childs education. Involving parents as partners in their childs educationa) process. A. Provided parent/teacher support at five (5) schools\nconducted twelve (12) parent meetings B. Parent Involvement meetings with Key Facilitators and/or Executive Council C. Parent training sessions (29) 03. 11 07/01/94 06/30/95 (Principal and staff. Director of Federal Programs, Curriculum Supervisors) 4. Parental involvement will show an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. 11/18/94 11/18/94 12/20/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/05/94 07/11/94 09/27/94 11/18/94 12/08/94 12/20/94 90% 06/30/95 12/21/95 06/30/95 06/29/95 r (Principal and staff, Director of Federal Programs, Curriculum Supervisors) 4.1 (Records of parental involvement activities on file.) Page: 12 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting fliem with the instructional and technical assistartce needed to reduce the learning disparity. Flan Reference Page Nianbcr Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. District-wide PAC Meeting 10/22/94 10/22/94 E. Homeless Conference 11/02/94 11/04/94 F. Mid-Winter Conference (30 parents) 01/25/95 01/27/95 O. Kindergarten Parent Inservice 'Getting Your Child Ready for First Grade Reading* 02/07/09 02/07/09 H. Family Day Celebration (250 participants) I. National Parent Meeting (8 parents) J. Tri District Parent Meeting (200 parents) K. Awards Picnic (300 parents) L. Chapter 1 Parent Involventent Day 03, 12 03/12/95 10/04/94 02/15/95 04/17/95 07/01/95 03/12/95 10/08/94 04/01/95 06/03/95 03/12/95Program Seq #: 04 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculuin Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Flan References: I FY Program Budget: Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Page: I Revision Date: August tl. 1995 1 The Mulriculaiiil Curriculum Program i, designed to provide equity and excellence in ,11 curricullt and program ireas in the Little Rock School Disiricl. (,6 ), The program is further designend tnoi reduce the disparity that exists between black and white students in academic performances and the low representation of black students in ^vanc^ plac^nt ^u^as development in the r?\n:! p:\u0026lt;^rcoS X* -mra,. cdmlc backgroumls wdl be affected dm the cultural, academic and social needs of all children. (1,3,6) To supplement greatest by activities oudined in the Multicultural Curriculum Program. 4, Students will be provided opportunities to develop better self-esteem,. -5-.- ---S--o--i-r-i-e nts will have opportunities to eaamine the artistic. nwiiiol acientific. literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethruc groups. Goal No. I. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure dut III students grow icademically. sociilly and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities m achievement. Goal No. 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Goal No. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal No. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our dewgregaaon plan. -Artrfi-rtnr m cncietv and view cultural diversity Goal No. 3. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural di ty among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. To ensure educational equity in die elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76 objectives 1,2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) L66  80 $259,837.33 $187,092.39 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $45,936.67 $29,434.99 04. 1 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: $62,392.39 $49,328.34 FTE  Program Seq f: 04 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Program Goal: Ftan Reference Page Number L66 L66 L66 L76 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Marie McNeal To ensure educational equity in the clcmenury and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility August 11, 1995 Evaluation Crtterb 1. To provide teacher learning opportunities through formal course training 1.1 Contact local colleges and universities to obtain Information on proposed course offerings related to ethnic studies for the simmer and faD, 1991 1.1 (LRSD will receive aimoutKements from local colleges/universities on proposed multicultural courses) A. Letters written, mailed to all 4 year state colleges and universities requesting catalogue listings of multicuitural course offerings. B. Catalogues listing proposed courses for the 1994-95 terms received. 1.2 Receive and advertise course offerings to aD certified staff, Inchiding opportunities for tuition rehnbursement and/or salary credit A. Course offerings advertised. 04, 2 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/11/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 07/01/94 09/09/94 (06/30/95) 05/02/95 (Director of Staff Development, Subject Area Supervisors, Principals) Assoc Supt.-Educ. Programs Dean of Grad. Seb. Academic Deans (Director of Staff Development) (Supervisor of Social Studies) Assoc Supt - Educ Programs Office of Human Resources 1. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1.1 List of college offerings 1.1 (The number of teachers who have received multicultural training will increase.) 1.2 Copy of information IH-ovldedPage: 3 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date\nAugust II, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page'76. objectives I, 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the N. . LRSD to promott multicultu ral activiti.e s an.d .cu rric.u lum.. d_e_v_e_l_o pm, ekn_t_. :(_A_p__pltie.. s_ o_n_l_y_ _t_o_ p_a_g__e_ 7_6__. _o_b_i_ecI ov1e s 1I . a2 .\\ 3. 4.) I Plan Reference Page Ntmber Objectives Strategies Begiiinlng Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L66 L66 L66 L66 2. To develop a district-wide multicultural audto/visual resource catalogue 2. (To maintain district-wide multiculiural audio/visual resource catalogue) B. Opportunities for tuition reimbursement/salaiy credit outlined/identified in die LRSDs office of Human Resources and the Staff Development Department. U Identify participants in stanmer and fall courses 2.1 Review and catalogue present audio/vlsual materials related to multicultural curriculiHn 2.2 Purchase additional audio/visual materials from the 1988-89 budget A. Activity complettd/obligadon met 04, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/30/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Employees (Director of Human Resources) (Subject area supervisors) Supv of Media Services (Subject area supervisors) Supv of Media Services (Subject area supervisors, principals) 1.3 Co|7 of academic course completion on ffle In Personnel office (Office of Human Resources) 2. (Multicultural resources will be used for classroom instruction) 2.1 Current catalogue listing 2.1 (Copies of updated multicultural audio/visual catalogue will be distributed) 2.1 (Multicultural materials will be checked out and used by instructional staff in the schools) 2.2 Requisition material 2.2 (Materials ordered, received, arxl catalogued for distribution/use) Program Seq *: 04 Page: Revistoo Date: 4 August II. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Siecondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies Io entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. objectives I. 2. 3. 4.) L66 Ran Reference Page Number L66 L66 L67 L67 L67 Objectives Strategies Begtamliig Date CompktioQ Date Responsibility EvahiatioD Criteria 2.3 Ideitiify and catalogue other resources for multicultural aurtto/vlsual materials, i.e., AR Dept . of Education, LR Public Library, AR Library Commission 2.4 Revise, print and distribute multicultural audio/vlsua) resource catalogue for the LRSD A. Activity coinpleted/obligation met 2.5 Place initial suppiemental order for multicultural audio/visual materiab from the 1989- 90 budget A. Activity compIeted/obligatioQ met 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Supv of Media Services Superv of Media Services Media Specialists 2.3 2.4 2.4 Completed catalogue Distribution of catalogue (Multicultural materials will be checked out by schools) 2.5 Requisitions submitted 2.5 (Materials are available for check-out/use) 3. To plan and hnplcmeia the Instructional Materiab Fair (Multicultural) 3. (To supply information about multicultural materials for purchase to teachers, parents and the community) 3.1 Involve a team of parents, community resources, and teachers In detailed planning for the Fair-spedfk dates, tfanc, place and format-to be held as a component of 1988-59 pre-scbool conference 3.1 (To plan and implement the Instructional Multicultural Materials Fair for current term) 3.2 Identify national and local vendors of multicultural Instructional materials 04, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (Assoc Supt for Educational Programs) (Supv of Media Services) Assoc Supt for Educatiorul Programs (Supv of Media Services) Assoc Supt for Educatiorul Programs 3. (Multicultural materials will be used by instructional staff in all schools) 3. (Evaluate the effectiveness of the Multicultural Fair) 3.1 Implementation Plan 3.1 (Involved input from parents, cotrununity, and teachers) 3.2 Comidetlon of mailing list 3.2 (Major suppliers of multicultural materials will be invited to exhibit at the Fair) - - Page: 5 Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Number L67 L67 L67 L67 L67 L68 L68 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Multicultural Curriculum 12 Primary Leader: Secondar\nLeader: Marie McNeal To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document excejrt for page 76. objectives 1. 2. 3, 4.) lU eiOUIC tUUVlUUIHU UI wiw..ii..iaua.7 -------------------------,---------------- , ..  .1 i \\ To collaboratE wiUi Bie PCSSD ind the NLRSD to promote mulncultunl activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiecnves I, 2. 3, 4.J 4. To develop adoptbn Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria q crtterb for textbook review and 3.3 Establish pre-school conference dates and extend Invitation to vendors 3.3 (Establish date for Fair) A. Fair date established as 12/01/94 3.4 Confirm Fair participants 3.5 Acquaint principals and ceittral office staff with plam and Fair rebtlonsfaip to desegregation efforts 3.6 Conduct medb campaign for Fair to sbff and parents 3.7 Host trl-district \"Instructional Materials Fair\" 3.7 (Host the Multicultural Fair rotating the site among the diree districts) A. LRSD will host die Fair for the 1994-95 term B. Fair hosted by LRSD at M.L. King School on December 1, 1994. 4.1 Revise Board policy for textbook adoption 04, 5 Mil  07/01/94 09/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07-01-94 09/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 09/30/94 06/30/95 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 09/30/94 12/01/94 (06/30/95) Executive Staff Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Supv of Medb Services Assoc Supt for Deseg and Seboob Supv of Medb Services, Dir of Communications Assoc Supt of Educational Programs working with conunittee (Assoc Supt for Curriculum, Subject Area Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educationa) Programs 3.3 Conference scheduled 3.3 (Fair date placed on District master calendar) 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 Confirmation (List of participating vendors) Staff agenda (Staff can relate Fair to die District's desegregation efforts) 3.6 Publicity 3.6 (Fair is advertised to the public) 3.7 Validate Fair participation 3.7 (Materials ordered/purchased) 4. (Criteria checklist implemented by textbook committees) 4.1 Approved criteriaPage: 6 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and die NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) nan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Cmnpletion Date Responsibility EvahutioD Criteria Ld8 L 68 L68 L68 L68 A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.2 Ideirtify an ad hoc committee to review criteria presently being used in LRSD and other districts for textbook adoptions (10 members) A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.3 Conduct staff development training on avoiding sex and race bias and stereotyping in textbooks 4.3 (Textbooks on tbe approved Arkansas State Department of Educations textbook list arc free of sex/race bias) A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.4 Submit revised policy and criteria to the Board of Directors for Rrst reading A. Activity completed/obligation met 4 J Adopt policy on textbooks A. Activity co(i^\u0026gt;leted/obligation met 4.6 UtiUzc a local consultant to train staff on \"Avoiding Sex and Race Stereotyping in Textbooks\" A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 6 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Arkansas State Dept, of Education) Superintendent Assoc Supt for Ed Progs LRSD Board of Directors Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) 4.2 Roster of committee members 4.3 Schedule of meeting and agenda 4.3 (Textbooks selected will be free of sex/race bias) 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 Board agenda Board agenda Monitoring (Textbooks are free of sex/race stereotypes)Page: 7 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1993 Program Name: Multkultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. ob^tives 1. 2, 3 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) L6S Flan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L69 L69 L69 4.7 Select and recommend to Board for adoption of textbooks (elemeidary and secondary) based on criteria for adoption A. Based on criteria for adoption, elementary science textbooks were selected and approved by the Board 12/15/94. B. Secondary science textbooks will be recommended to die Board for adoption at the April Board meeting: secondary science texdxwks were approved. 07/01/94 07/01/94 01-04-95 (06/30/95) 12-22-94 04/27/95 5. To develop and Implement a multicultural curriculum for pre-ldndergarten through grade 6 5. (To implement the LRSD curriculum. K-6. which is multicultural) 5.1 Flan and host at least three (3) public meetings to receive suggestions from patrons on areas to be Included in a multicultural curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.2 Identify and retain the services of a national expert in multicultural currlculiBn development (IohI consultant for two (2) year contract). A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curricutum Specialists) (Principals. Teachers, Asst. Supts., Curriculum Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educ Prog Assoc Supt for Desegregation Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 4.7 Board approval 4.7 (Criteria checklist was used for texdMX)k selection) 5. (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits/teacher conferences) 5. (Improvement in student performance and assessment of attitude regarding learning) 5.1 Transcript of suggestions 5.2 Contractual commitment for the 1988-89 school year (Dr. James A. Banks was used)Program Seq f: 04 Page: 8 Revision Date: Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum August II. 1995 Program Code: 12 Primai7 Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) L69 L69 L69 Plan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies 5.3 In cooperation with the lead ctmsultant, the Division of Educational Programs will issue a detailed currtcuhan development timeline for the year, including a cbecldist for task completion A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.4 Develop expectations for members partiri paring on muttkulturBl curriculum committee A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.5 Identify ctirriculinn committee members and contract for services: 8  Heakh/Science 5  Musk 14  Reading/Language Arts 3 * Art 4 * Social Studies 4  Libraries 38 5.5 (All core curricuhim areas were involved in the development of guides) 5.5 (Curriculum areas revised were: Reading. Language Arts. Social Studies. Math, and Science) A. Activity completed/obligation met B. Mathematics curriculum was revised according to state mathematics framework 04, 8 Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteiia 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for Educationa] Programs 5.3 TimeUne/cbecklist (Timeline included in diis document 5.5 - 5.17) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 09/15/94 Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for ELduc Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 5.4 Expectations 5.4 (Contractual agreements with curriculum writers) 5.5 Identification of committee members 1Page: 9 Program Seq #: 04 Revlsioii Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multkultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) L69 L70 Flan Reference Page Number L70 L70 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.6 Obtain multicultural currlculinn units from modeb used in other dtlcs A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.7 Develop expectations for use of local resource consultant in multicultural curricuhmi development A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.8 Secure the services of six (6) local resource consuHanta to serve on the district wide curriculum development committee A. Activi^ completed/obligation met 5.9 Conduct inservice session on \"Methods for Developing Multicultural Teaching Strategiea\" to include (a) understanding the rationale, trends, and goab multlcnltural curriculum, (b) developing a conceptual framework for multicultural curricultmi, and (c) establishing procedures for developing a muhlcultura] curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 9 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-93 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) 5.6 Copies of multicultural materials distributed to committee members 5.7 List of expectations 5.8 Contract services of consultants 5.9 Participants written evaluation 5.9 (Original inservice completed\nongoing inservice wilt be documented and evaluated by participants)Page: 10 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 199S Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Mark McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity io the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1. 2, 3. 4.) To colhborate with the PCSSD and (he NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) i L70 L70 L70 Flan Reference Page Nunber L70 Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Crnnfriction Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.10 Conduct task completion monitoring as identified In timeline A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.11 Operatiottalize tbe curriculum development timeline (monthly meetings with specific dates developed In cooperation with committee memhef) A. Activity complettd/obligation met 5.12 Review and edit tbe comprebensive guides in each content area at each grade level A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.13 Type and print all guides A. Activity completed/obligation met B. Revised Math, Language Arts and Foreign Language curriculum guide typed and printed 04, 10 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 08/12/94 Div of Educational Programs (Assoc Supt for Educational Programs) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 5.10 Implementation of monitoring instrument 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.13 Agenda of each meeting Implementation of guides Guides completed (Guides delivered to schools)Page: 11 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure teuduuvc^autivomnaul equity in the elementary and secondary c--u--r--r-i-c--u--l-u--m-  and program areas. (A,p,p lies to entire document -e-x--c--e--p--t for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1. 2. 3, 4.) Plan Reference Page Number L70 L70 L 70 L70 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.14 Conduct inservice for all elementary principals and teachen A. Inservice provided to all K-6 teachers during Preschool Conference Cluster Meetings for revised Language Arts, Math and Reading Curriculum 5.15 Involve prindpah and teachers in ordering multicultural mateiiab from local building budgets: a. Make avaOaMe materials catalogues to buUtUng level principals b. Order and acquire materials based on currkulinn to be taught 5.16 Extend inservice through scheduled district levd regular elemeidary cluster meetings (reading, language arts, sodal studies, art, and musk) A. Curriculum inservice extended in all curriculum areas and programs 5.17 Host three (3) lectings for parents of elementary children to provide an overview of the comprebensire multkultural curriculum 04, 11 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 08/18/94 (06/30/95) 04/04/95 04/19/95 (06/30/95) 06/23/95 (06/30/95) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educational Prog Elem Teachers Principals Principals Assoc Supt for Educatioiul Programs Division of Educatioiul Programs 5.14 Agenda 5.14 (Curriculum implementation) 5.14 (Inservice on revised curriculum is ongoing) 5.15 Acquisition of materials 5.15 (Instructional materials representing diverse groups will be present in all schools) 5.16 (Inservice on revised curriculum is being offered through minicourses and building meetings during the 1993-94 school year) 5.17 Program and roster of participants 5.17 (Assessment of multicultural education during parent conferences) I 1 Page: 12 Program Seq 9: 04 Revistoo Date: Program Name: August 11. 1995 Multicultural Curricuhim Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Mark McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Appiks to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and tire NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Appiks only to page 76, objectives I, 2. 3, 4^) I L72 L74 L74 Flan Reference Page Nunber Objectivet Strategies Beginning Date Cmnpktion Date RespoiuIbiUty Evaluation Criteria A. Activity completed/obligation met See 1993-94 PBD 6. To develop and fanplcment a multicultural curriculum for grades 7*12 (To implement the revised curriculum 7-12. which is imjiticultural) 6.16 Involve principals and teachers hi ordering muHlcuHural materiab from local building budgets: (a) Make available materiab catalogues to building bvel principab (b) Order and acquire materiab based on curricuhan to be taught 6.17 Monitor the use of cinrkiihon guides A. Periodic curriculum monitoring being implemented in all content areas B. Eisenhower math and science specialists and the math/science supervisory staff monitored schools for the use of the mathematics and scknce curriculum guides. 04, 12 07/01/94 (07/01/90) 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 06/02/95 06/07/95 (Principals. Teachers. Asst. Supts.. Subject Area Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Principals Area Supervisors 6. (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits/teacher conferences) 6. (Improvement in student academic performance and assessment of attitude regarding learning) 6.16 Materials purchased 6.16 (Instructional materials representing diverse groups will be present in all secondary schools) 6.17 Scbedule/Documentation 6.17 (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits and teacher conferences) 6.17 (Improvement in student achievement and attitude toward self and learning)Page: 13 Program Seq #: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curncutum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) To cotllborate with die PCSSD ind die NLRSD to promote multicultunl icovities and curriculum development, (Applies only to wee 76. objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) L75 Plan Reference Page Nimiber L75 L76 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Dale Responsibility Evaluatiott Criteria 1. To provide staff development in tbe area of muhicidtural education 6.18 Extend inservice through Kbeduled district level reguhr council meetings (reading, English, social studies, science, art, and musk for tbe secondary level) A. Curriculum inservice extended in all curricuhim areas and programs 6.19 Host three (3) education meetings for parents of secondary children to provide an overview of tbe comprebensive multicultural curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 13 07/01/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 05/31/95 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) Assoc Supt and Staff for Educational Programs Assoc. Supt. for Educational Progranu (Content Area Supervisor, Principals) (Director of Staff Development, Subject Area Supervisors, Principals) 6.18 Agenda of meetings, roster of participants 6.18 Additiotul inservice will occur through minicourses arxl council meetings during 1993-94) 6.19 Program and roster of participants 1. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1. (Academic achievement of students will improve as evidenced by report cards and standardized tests)Program Seq P: 04 Page: 14 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum RevisioD Date: August II. 1995 Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in die elementary aixl secondary curriculum and Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives I, 2, 3, 4.) . ...  __  ------------------------- vnppiiva lu ciiuic uucumeni excetx ror paac /o. obiecnves i 2 3 To collibome wifli die PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multiciiltiinl activities and curriculum development. (Aimlies only lo pane 16. objectives 1. 2, 3. 4,1 Phn Reference Page Number Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L76 1.1 Jolidly negotiate for consultants to provide Inservice for the districts 1.1 (Conduct staff development in the area of multicultural education) A. Tri-District multicultural course \"Children and Youth of African-American Literature and Musk for die Contemporary Child' is currently being implemented. B. Tri-district Multicultural Curriculum completed for first semester. C. Multicultural activities inservices and teaching styles provided to schools during early release, cluster, and department meetings. D. Cultural Diversity - Dr. A. Guero Pulaski Heights Elementary E. Cultural Diversity - J. A. Fair L76 2. To provide access to and information about multicultural materials lo teachers, rents, community 04. 14 07/01/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/16/94 02-08-95 02-08-95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 06/02/95 12/08/94 06/30/95 03/01/95 03/01/95 (06/30/95) LRSD Assoc. Supt for Educ Programs (Director of Staff Development) (PCSSD - Coor for Multicultural Curr Dev Dir of Library Serv LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educ Programs. Supv of Media Serv NLRSD - Coor of Instructiomd Materials) 1.1 l.I 1.1 Contractual agreement (Roster of participants) (Multicuitural strategies will be implemented in LRSD classrooms as determined by classroom observations and teacher conferences) 2. (Teachers, parents, community will have the opportunity to attend Multicuitural Materials Fair)Page: 15 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August II. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: educational eouity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) To ensure tUUIUUIiai ui un. Hkun-nt_a_i_j M IU ......~. .r-~ o-----.- --_-_--_--- - ..\u0026gt; _ J __ \u0026gt;_____ _ 11 ... in- I *\u0026gt; -aJ 4a \\r To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76\nobiecoves 1, 2, 3, 4.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L76 L76 L76 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date ResponsiblUty Evaluation Crfterb 2.1 Share responsibility for Multicultural Materials Fair to be held annually A. Media directors of die three districts planned fair. LRSD will host for 1994-95 school term. 07/01/94 08/25/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 3. To provide information to staff members on the availability of graduate course work in muklcultura] education B. Fair hosted by LRS District at M.L. King school. 3.1 Write letters to Institutions of higher education in the area concerning the need for such courses A. Activity conq)Ieted/obligation met 04, 15 07/01/94 12/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD PCSSD - Coor for Multicultural Curr Dev Dir of Library Serv LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educ Programs \u0026amp;ipv of Media Serv NLRSD - Coor of Instructional Materials (Director of Staff Development. Subject Area Supervisors. Principals) PCSSD - Coor of Instructional Materials LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educational Programs NLRSDCoor of Instructioiuil Materials 2.1 Schedule of vendors 2.1 (The Multicultural Fair will be joindy planned by LRSD. NLRSD and PCSSD) 3. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 3.1 Letters on (Ue 3.1 (The number of teachers enrolled in multicultural courses will increase) Page: 16 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marte McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives I. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curricuhjni development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) i Plan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L76 L76 L76 3.1 Promote such courses to the staffs of each school district 3.2 (Duplication of lumber) A. Activity completed/obligation met 07/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 4. To Investigate the possibilities of cooperating on strategies to acquaird staff and communities with multicultural education 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 4.1 Meet to dlscua possibilities of seminars, symposiusu, or other activitlea to promote midtkuttural education among the three districts 4.1 (Plan, schedule, advertise arxl implement strategies) 04, 16 07/01/94 (06/30/95) PCSSD Coord of Multicultund NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materiab (LRSD Director of Stair Development, Supervisor of Social Studies) (PCSSD Coor of Multicultural LRSD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materials) PCSSD Coor of Multicultural LRSD Assoc. Supt for Educational Programs NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materiab (Director of Communications, Director of Staff Development) 3.1 Promotional instruments We 3.2 (Duplication of number) 3.2 (The number of teachers eruolled in multicultural courses will increase) 4. (Multicultural education strategies will be used in LRSD classrooms as determined by classroom observations and teacher conferences) 4. (Assessment of community discussion/conferences. feedback from debriefing of multicultural education) 4.1 Minutes of meeting 4.1 (Three collaborative activities will be held to inform staff and community about multicultural activities)Page: 17 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To ensure tuuuiiuim u\u0026gt; ww,---------------- - -r  - - To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiecoves 1, 2, 3, 4.) 1 Flan Reference Page Number L77 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To educational equity in instructional methodology and teacber/student interaction A. Met, shared outline of goals for year. Wrote Tri- District grant for classroom management workshop. 2nd grant written for discipline procedures workshop. B. Staff development courses planned and listed in the 1994*95 LRSD Staff Development catalogue/calendar. C. Multicultural workshop planned and conducted during ABA Convention. D. Healing Racism workshop collaborated by the 3 districts and the city of Little Rock and is currently being conducted. Topics: 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The Onertess of Humanity Defuung Prejudice and Racism How Racism is Peipetuated Institutionalized Racism Stereotypes and How they Affect Us Unaware Racism Disempowerment of Males Internalized Oppression Reclaiming Our Heritage Cultural Racism Ally-Building as a Way to Heal Celebration/Wbere Now? 04, 17 09/13/94 07/01/94 11/10/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 10/24/94 10/07/94 11/11/94 07/10/95 (06/30/95) (Curriculum Supervisors, Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 1. (Assessment of instiuction/teacher student interaction during classroom/school observation and conference) 1. (Increase in student achievement) 3Page: 18 Program Seq #: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multkultural Curnculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum developnwnt. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) L77 Flan Reference Page Nunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L77 L77 1.1 Research and dure effective instructional strategies at regularly scheduled council and program area meetings A. Effective instructional strategies researcbed/shared at pre-school conference, council meetings arxl program area meetings. B. Mad) manipulative were presented to compensatory education math teachers from the secondary schools. 1.2 Purchase science supplies for teachers to fadlitate the hands-on science approach A. Science supplies.were ordered for the schools, bids for a larger order will be obtained during the next quarter B. Large purchase of scietrce materials was made and received for leachen in the Science Crusade and the refurbishing of elementary school science boxes. 1.3 Purchase math manipulative for teachers to facilitate hands-on math instruction 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 01-04-95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 05/31/95 09/29/94 (06/30/95) 03/01/95 06/30/95 (06/30/95) Content Area Supervisors Supvs of Specific Content Areas Supvs of Specific Content Areas 1.1 Documentation within the Division of Educational Programs 1.1 (Assessment of implementation of instructional strategies through classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1.2 Materials purchased 1.2 (Hands-on science activities used in District classrooms) 1.3 Materials purchased 1.3 (Manipulative are used in District math classrooms) A. Math manipulative were ordered and furnished to teachers who completed Math Crusade and K-4 Crusade training 07/01/94 06/30/95 L77 1.4 Purchase sets of trade books for teachers to facilitate the emphasis on literature and the wholeness of language approach 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Supvs of Specific Content Areas 1.4 Materials purchased 1.4 (Whole language is used in District classrooms) 04, 18Page: 19 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curricuhim Program Code: 12 IMmary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76\nobjectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L77 L77 L77 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.5 Provide inservice for using materials Wentl/led in 1 J, 1.3,1.4 A. Math Crusade and K-4 Crusade classes ate being held for District teachers B. Science Crusade classes include District teachers 1.6 Identify needs of teachers for improved delivery of instruction using student data, principal recommendation, sch I, and teacher questionnaires as the basis for decision making. (Resource: LRSD Resource Staff Devekipmem Guide) 1.7 Submit the Inservice needs to the Staff Development Departmeitf A. Learning styles and culoiral diversity - Wakefield Self-esteem Phonics Equity Guidelines - Baseline, McDermott. Bus drivers B. Inservice needs submitted and course offerings listed in 94-95 Staff Development catalogue. 04, 19 07/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/10/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 06/01/95 06/01/95 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 02/23/95 06/02/95 Supervisors of Specific Areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) Principals, Teachers, and Content Area Supervisors Principals 1.5 Documentation of participants 1.5 (Desired instnictional strategies are being implemented in District classrooms as assessed through classroom observations arxl teacher conferences) 1.6 Observation of instruction 1.6 Disaggregation of data 1.6 (tiMiividual Improvement Plans, HP's, reflect identified needs of teachers) 1.7 Staff development documentation (Needs identified in school improvement plans)Page: 20 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curricuhini Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) L78 Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.8 Schedule teachers as identified for the appropriate inservice 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Staff Development Department 1.8 Staff development documentation 1.8 (Inservice will be provided that addresses the needs of teachen as identified in the school improvement plan) A. Placement is based on teacher requests and administrative recommendations. (Reports sent tt\u0026gt; each school at the end of the semester.) 07\\01\\94 05/10/95 B. A total of 468 inservices were provided district wide arxl a total 6426 workshops were provided by the Staff Development Detp. for the 1994-95 school year. L78 1.9 Monitor the teachers use of effective instructional and classroom management strategies 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors of specific areas (Principals) 1.9 (Assessment of implementation of strategies through classroom observations and teacher conferences) A. Teacher use of effective instructional and classroom management strategies is monitored through classroom observations 08/15/94 06/02/95 L78 L78 2. To incorporate multicultural matertah into the instructional programs 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (Supervisors of Specific Areas, Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2. (Observe implementation of materials at teacher conferences arxl during classroom visits) 2.1 Review and assess appropriate multicultural materials 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) 2.1 (Multicultural materials used in District classrooms) A. Initial activity completed/inidal obligation met See 1993-94 PBD 04, 20Page: 21 Program Seq f: 04 Reriston Date: August II, 1995 Program Name: Mulbcuttunl Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) IO ensure cuuvauuiuu c^uii\nui uv ______ - -.---.--.--- -------.--.---.--.- r.-.- o-------a--_--_--_--- '_ __ J__ I___ ._a \u0026gt;...\n1-,-.- -t-n-  nlku- u'fjuffC iI 7 a 4 \\ To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD  promote multiculairal activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, ob|ectives I, Z, 3, 4.) I Plan Reference Page Number L78 L 78 L78 Objectives Strategies B. Periodic review of appropriate multicultural material library conducted 2 J Identify and suggest mulUcuhural material to be purchased at local school level by content imd grade A. Initial activity completed/initial obligation met B. Multicultural materials identified and suggested for purchase periodically 2.3 Schedule workshops on use of materiab (where appropriate) A. Iniriat activity completed/initial obligation met B. Appropriate workshops scheduled periodically on use of multiculiural materials 2.4 Monitor the use of appropriate multicultural materials A. Use of appropriate multicultural materials being monitored periodically through classroom observations and teacher conferences 04, 21 Beginning Date Completion Date ResponsibUity Evaluation Criteria 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 06/06/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2.2 (Titles/description of materials forwarded to schools) See 1993-94 PBD 04/19/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2.3 (Catalogue listings) 2.3 (Multicultural materials used in District classrooms) See 1993-94 PBD 06/23/95 (06/30/95) 06/02/95 Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) 2.4 (Classroom observations/ teacher conferences reflect use of multicultural materials) Page: 22 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Muldculural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculuro and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD lo promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives I, 2. 3. 4.) L78 L 78 Flan Reference Page Number L78 L78 L78 L79 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Comfdetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3. To fanplcment organizational practices that will enhance educational equity 4. To ensure Increased educational equity through tmervice training 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (Assoc. Supt., Assisi. Supt., Principals, Teachers) (3. Educational programs in LRSD have equitable participation and success by all students) 3.1 Provide teachers with training for effective in- class grouping 3 J Monitor implementation of strategies through classroom visitations and feedback in follow-up workshops 3.3 Review placement criteria for eniictanent/ honors and advanced idacemeirt classes A. Activity completed/obligation met 3.4 Provide sujpport to principals In monitoring the distribution of students in higher level courses to assess gender and race equity A. Support given lo priiKtpals through periodic staff development and conferences 04. 22 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/18/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) 06/30/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas Supervisors of specific areas Assoc Supt of Educatioiul Programs Assoc and Asst Supts 3.1 (Grouping practices are equitable in LRSD classrooms) 3.2 (Assessment of classroom observation) 3.3 (Placement practices in LRSD classrooms will increase participation of black students in GT/Honors/AP classes) 3.4 (Classroom observation of student enrollment and enrollment reports to central office will reflect equitable distribution of gender and race) 4. (Educationa] programs in LRSD have equitable participation and success by all students)Page: 23 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program G\u0026lt;ml: To ensure educational equity in die elementary and secondary curriculum arxl program areas. (Applies to entire document excegt for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with die PCSSD and die NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteiia L79 4.1 Refer to activities outlined in Hots 1.2 - 1.4 above 4.1 (Purchase science supplies, math manipulative, tradebooks) A. Hands-on science materials purchased. B. Math manipulatives purchased L79 L79 L 79 L79 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor of specific areas 4.1 (Updated multicultural materials in schools) 4.1 (Enrollment/implemen-tation of staff development courses) 5. To ensure equity in the selection and use of textbooks 5.1 Inventory and assess current textbooks for multicultural presence A. Elementary science texdNXiks inventoried and assessed during current adoption period. 5.2 Identify the defldencica existing in current textbooks A. Deficiencies identified in elementary science textiiooks. New textbooks selected that present a greater multiculoiral presence. B. Deficiencies identified in secondary science ttxdxxiks selected that present a greater multicultural presence. 5.3 Select and purchase resource materials to replace or supplement areas of deficiency 04, 23 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 12/01/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 03/31/95 (06/30/95) (Assoc Supt of Curr., Subject Area Supervisors. Teachers, Principals) Supervisor of specific areas (Curriculum supervisors. Teachers) (Curriculum supervisors) (Media specialists) (Prin\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1233","title":"Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case, Abbreviated Summary, draft","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School administrators","School employees","School integration","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case, Abbreviated Summary, draft"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1233"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nLittle Rock School District Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Abbreviated Summary August, 199 5 Previous responsibilities of Deputy Superintendent noted I Ii Little Rock School District AUG 4 1995 Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Summary Office of DeseQregation Monitoring The attached list is a summary of obligations essential to the Little Rock School District in the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. The list was excerpted from documents relating to the case. Documents reviewed include the Little Rock Desegregation Plan, The Interdistrict Plan, court orders, stipulations, transcripts, exhibits, and monitoring reports to name a few. The first audit of LRSD obligations was completed by attorneys of the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm in December 1993. After extensive review by LRSD senior management, the obligations were filed with the U. S. Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The Program Budget Document (PBD) was then developed to monitor these obligations. To keep the PBD current, an audit of new obligations is done each year. During the first six months of 1995, a study was repeated. All legal documents relating directly to LRSD obligations in the Pulaski County Desegregation Case were reviewed again to verify the accuracy of the original audit. The attached list is the result of this research. Obligations are defined generally as statements that require action. They include those that are routinely done in a school district. They are included here because they are specifically mentioned in a document relating to this case. This document includes two parts as follows: 1. Explanation of Codes for List of Obligations (Figure 1) is an explanation of headings across the top of the obligations list and the meaning of codes found in that column\nand, 2. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations is the Ii.st of obligations abbreviated for quick reference. It is a working document. We believe it includes all possible obligations including those from stipulations dating back to 1986. It includes approximately 75 redundant items that will be considered for removal after consulting with the appropriate leader. There are 2098 listed. It is still in draft form. NOTE: Under no circumstances should the abbreviated text of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations list be considered a complete statement of the obligation. The original legal reference should be read when making decisions about the implementation or meaning of the item. This list is intended for use as a quick reference. RllSs Ma.yo, Associate su1erlntendent X_PBDPUB.DOC Topic Little Rock School District Explanation of Codes for List of Obligations Primary Leader is the person primarily responsible for implementation Secondary Leader is the person who completes the PBD and oversees the implementation Original legal document from Page number of Date of the legal Abbreviated text of the which the item comes\noriginal legal document Codes arc as follows: document from which CA - Curriculum Audit the item comes CO - Court Order CS - Court Order 8th Circuit EX-Exhibit I - lnter\u0026lt;listrict Plan LR - LRSD Deseg. Plan MR - Monitoring Report SA - Settlement Agreement ST - Stipulation TR - Transcript Figure 1 obligation or recommendation. Refer to legal reference for complete version. Subject , Prl Ld APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts APIG \u0026amp; F Act. Asst Supts Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Com. to Dsg. Bd of Directors Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 1 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations l)Jllll~'I' Sec Ld\n.\n De OP Date Abbreviated Text ., ,\n' '. . t::. . : Principal LR 81 4/29/92 Implement Focused Activities in Elementary Area Schools Principal LR 83 4/29/92 Principal Appoints Activities Coordinator and Steering Staff Principal LR 83 4/29/92 Develop Activities Action Plan Principal LR 83 4/29/92 Develop Checklist to Monitor Program Principal LR 83 4/29/92 Use Checklist to Assist Activities Coordinator Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Provide Means for Area Schools to Reduce Disparity Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Identify Grant Review Committee Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Develop Clontinuation Proposal/Progress Report Format Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Distribute Continuation Proposal/Progress Report Format Principal LR 85  4/29/92 Conduct Grant-Writing lnservice Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Area Schools Submit Continuation Grants to Review Comm. Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Make Grant Awards Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Schools Submit Progress Reports Principal LR 85 4/29/92 Conduct Program Evaluation Supt co 1 7/1/91 Provide Payroll Services ODM Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Create environment encouraging academic and human growth Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Keep Citizens/Staff Informed Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Conduct self evaluations of commitment to deseg. Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Delineate LRSD Deseg Mission to Staff \u0026amp; Community Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Use Deseg Mission to Develop Policies Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Expect Adm. Staff to Provide Structured leadership Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Examine Racial Makeup of Staff Supt LR 2 4/29/92 Improve human relations climate Supt LR 3 4/29/92 Develop Budget Consistent w/Policies Supt LR 3 4/29/92 Staff Development Deseg. Needs Supt LR 3 4/29/92 Restructuring to Eliminate Discrimination Dir Transport ca 40 12/12/90 Some degree of busing burden on black students is inescapable Dir Transport ca 40 12/12/90 Black studs. not only children required to be bused for deseg. purposes Dir Transport LR I 227 4/29/92 Request resources to provide trans. for even/extended day pgrms Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Determine resource requirements Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Reduce number of runs from three to two (1990-911 Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Procure resourses to support two run system Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Progress was made in utilization of ECOTRAN MAPNET System Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Student/geographic data loaded in system Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Updating the geographic files, with the database Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Cooperative effort w/city and others to ensure accurate geo. info. LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Comp Trnspt Mng Sup Serv Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Desegregation Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 2 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllJlli'r Sec Ld De OP Data Abbreviated Taxt Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Encode School attend. areas/updated walk zones in map files Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Walk zones encoded into map for bus utilization Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Transportation policies incorp. into applicable document Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Information downloaded from mainframe media format Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 School attendance areas encoded into the geographic tables Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Walk zones estab. in accorandance with policy Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 New stop network will be generated to improve efficiency Dir Transport LR 227 4/29/92 Transp. will update and revise all routes Dir Transport LR 228 4/29/92 Transportation Safety Policies need to be reviewed and updated Dir Transport LR 228 4/29/92 Create assignment promotion population region tables Dir Transport co 17 10/24/94 File business case which explains the money on transportation. Dir Transport I 5 4/29/92 Nothing prohibits students choosing bus ride longer than 45 minutes Asst Supts LR 28 4/29/92 Monitor the Desegregation Plan Asst Supts LR 226 4/29/92 Conduct site visits Asst Supts LR 226 4/29/92 Develop and implement improvement plans Asst Supts LR 226 4/29/92 Monitor implementation of improvement plans Asst Supts LR 226 4/29/92 Identify statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. Dir PRE I 6 4/29/92 Make quarterly reports to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Dir PRE I 6 4/29/92 Parties monitor to have reasonable access to data to eval. succ. of plan Dir PRE LR 226 4/29/92 Review Program Budget Documents Dir SAO co 1 8/2/93 Motion to close lsh Incentive School granted. Dir SAO co 2 12/16/94 Eliminate position of Deseg. \u0026amp; create Director of Student Assignment Dir PRE I 6 4/29/92 Parties to deter. effect. of each dist.'s implement. of plans end of each yr. Dir PRE LR 129 4/29/92 Score, Collect, Store, and Report Test Scores Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Conduct monitoring w/Local Biracial Committees Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Establish Monitoring Schedule Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Conduct Site Visits Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Prepare/Distribute Semi-Annual Monitoring Reports Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Conduct semester visits using approved monitoring instruments Dir PRE LR 224 4/29/92 Prepare Semester Reports for Superintendent Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Design reporting forms Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Select Team Members Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Conduct qtr. monitoring visit by District-wide Biracial Committee Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Review monitoring design prior to July 1 each year Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Submit revisions to LRSD Board/Joshua lntervenors by August 15 Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Present unresolved revisions to the Court LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Assoc Supt Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Asst Supts Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Bd of Directors Eqty Mon Supt Eqty Mon Supt Eqty Mon Supt Eqty Mon Supt Eqty Mon Supt Eqty Mon Supt * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 3 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text - ~ _q:_ - Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Distribute Copies of Reports Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Improve Educational Equity in All Schools Dir PRE LR 225 4/29/92 Develop and implement corrective strategies Dir PRE co 1 8/26/93 Submit project management tool to the court each month Dir PRE co 1 9/27/93 Submit monthly Management Tool to Court Dir PRE co 1 10/7/93 Submit revised audit Principal I 6 4/29/92 Dists. \u0026amp; ADE shall eval. effectiveness of all personnel and programs Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Appoint School Based Bi-racial Comm. to monitor Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Dist. Bi-racial Will Monitor Deseg. Efforts Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Establish Reporting System Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Provide Staff lnservice on Equity Concerns Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Provide Prog. to Raise Parental Awareness as mini-seminars at PTA mtg. Principals LR 30 4/29/92 Monitor School Standards for high quality ed. w/ sch mon. visits Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Achieve Equity in Class Structure by Grade/Subject Area Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Review Class Ratios by Subject/Class/Teacher on Semester Basis Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Address Disparities with Intervention Activities Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Remove Address Barriers To Equitable Participation of Students Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Achieve Equity in Teaching Methods Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Achieve Equity in Student Instructional Practices Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Review Grade Distribution on Semester Basis Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Address Disparities With Intervention Activities Principals LR 38 4/29/92 Provide lnservice to Principals/Teachers - Varied Learn. Styles Supt co 1 6/17/93 Court requires each member of Bd. of Dir. to attend court hearings Supt co 1 9/8/93 Court not tolerate any funneling of ODM requests through LASO centr. off. Supt CA 105 12/21/90 Limit board authority to that stated in board-adopted policies Supt CA 105 12/21 /90 Set expectations for adm. behavior in public and private Supt CA 106 12/21/90 Dev. close-knit team with joint Bd-adm. planning and collaboration Supt CA 107 12/21/90 Adopt and follow a policy for improved Board governance Supt CA 108 12/21/90 Purge PN agree. of items that unduly limit bd. control of ed. prog. \u0026amp; pract. Supt co 1 9/8/93 Request from ODM not to pass through Supt. Assoc Supt LR 30 4/29/92 Ensure Organizational Structure providing equal opportunity Assoc Supt LR 30 4/29/92 Review Organizational Structure in schs. \u0026amp; centr. office Asst Supts CA 101 12/21/90 Reorg. admin. structure for effective instructional management Asst Supts CA 102 12/21/90 Do close superv. \u0026amp; tight control of sch. oper. with regional assist. supts Asst Supts CA 105 12/21/90 Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning Mng Sup Serv CA 103 12/21/90 Consolidate and restructure business services and support services LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Ex-Curr. Part. Asst Supts Facilities Assoc Supt Facilities Asst Supts Facilities Bd of Directors Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 4 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text .. Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Inform All Students/Patrons of Co-Curricular/Extra-Curr. Activities Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Use Media /Press to Inform Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Send Printed Info to Parents Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Make Clear Public Address System Announcements to Students Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Use Community Agencies to Assist with Recruitment Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Staff Recruit Students to Participate Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Staff Contact Students Individually for Involvement Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Staff Sho11ld Recruit From Students Who Do Not Normally Participate Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Increase Student Participation, Part. Minority Students Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Profile Student Involvement in Each Club/Activity (disaggregate) Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Dev. school based profiles of student part. Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Remove All Barriers to Equitable Participation Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Provide Dist. Transportation for Extracurricular Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Provide Student Access for Uniforms/Equip. Needed at Minimal Cost Principals LR 39 4/29/92 Provide and Encourage Students to Participate - Extracur. Act. Principals LR 40 4/29/92 Develop/Use School Profiles for Overview of Success/Impact on Stud. Principals LR 40 4/29/92 Profile School By: Grade Dist., Att., Dis.Action, Test Scores, Student lnvol. Principals LR 40 4/29/92 Disaggregate Data by Race Principals LR 40 4/29/92 Provide Develop./lmplementation of Intervention Strategies Dir SAO co 1 3/17/92 Seek community involvement in determining New School Sites Coord New Fut co 1 9/13/93 Court approves substitute language on New Futures Supt CA 101 12/21/90 Est. criteria for decisions on facility remodeling, replacement, and closure Dir Plant Serv co 1 3/31/93 Seek approval of const. projects at Chicot, Jefferson, Williams \u0026amp; Fair. Dir Plant Serv co 1 4/30/93 Motion granted for construction of cafeteria at Chicot Elementary Dir Plant Serv co 1 4/30/93 Provide data to court prior to approval of Williams construction project Dir Plant Serv co 1 4/30/93 Account for 1,270 sq ft difference on Fair const. project Dir Plant Serv I 5 4/29/92 Further school const. must have court approval Dir Plant Serv I 5 4/29/92 Court approval necessary for new construction Dir Plant Serv MR 15 6/5/92 Increase litirary capacity at Mitchell \u0026amp; Garland Dir Plant Serv co 2 1/22/93 Adjust Omaha Plan for Buildings w/Spec. Needs Dir Plant Serv co 2 1/22/93 Monitor and adjust Omaha Plan as necessary Dir Plant Serv co 2, 5, 46 4/5/94 Jefferson-approval of school const . Dir Plant Serv co 2, 5, 46 4/5/94 Contract w/professional planners for facilities study Dir Plant Serv TR 193 6/7/94 Request court approval for const. at Jefferson Dir Plant Serv TR 193 6/7/94 Complete long-range facilities study Dir Plant Serv co 5 4i5/94 Approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary granted LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl ld Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Se,v Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 5 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text ~ ,t Dir Plant Serv co 5 2/8/95 Court requires long-range facilities plan Dir Plant Serv co 6 2/8/95 The facilities plan decision-making process must involve the community Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Do facil. needs assess. on trends in stud. pop., staffing, demog., \u0026amp; AZ Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Distr. goals \u0026amp; Objectives Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Deseg. requirements Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: decision criteria Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: ldent. \u0026amp; analysis of options Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Proposed facilities changes Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Impact of programmatic changes, i.e., middle schs Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: reassignment of students with closings Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Burden of busing Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to consider: Impact of financial stability Dir Plant Serv co 8 2/8/95 Fae. Study to include: Examination of the buildings used for admin. space. Dir Plant Serv CA 109 12/21/90 Improve ed. facilities based upon a district-wide needs assessment Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Incorporate long-term \u0026amp; deseg goals into junior high capacity study Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Address JHS capacity Dir Plant Serv co 26 5/1 /92 Revise Jr. High Capacity Study Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Maintain all school facilities for safe/operable condition Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Process work orders from facilities for repairs Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Review Jr. High capacity prior to start of sch. \u0026amp; make adjustments Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Concrete walks/macadam drives will be in good repair Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Review Jr. High Capacities Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Projects requested/completed/1st Otr-13/9-2nd Otr 32/27 Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Plan New Jr. High Construction . Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Involve Parties in Planning for Additional Jr. High Cap. Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Involve Adm. in Jr. High Planning Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Establish Construction Timelines Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Public address/bell systems put in bldgs. if items not repair. Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Projects requested/completed/1st qtr-201 /159-2nd qtr 192/177 Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Schools w/portable bldgs. will replace w/new units or repair Dir Plant Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Projects requested/completed-1st qtr-13/8-2nd qtr 67 /60 Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Franklin-repair/replace roof on ea. level of bldg. Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Determine feasibility of Garland Remodeling Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Evaluate Condition of lsh Building Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Rightsell-eliminate moisture problem/playground improve. Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Address Repairs/Remodeling Mitchell LRSD Office of Desegregation 814195 Subject Pri Ld Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Facilities Mng Sup Serv Fed. Progs. Asst Supts Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt . Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Fed. Progs. Supt Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 6 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 Sec Ld De OP Date Abbreviated Text ... ~:. ., ... ... . ~. Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Install Rockefeller Heat/AC Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Complete Repairs/Stephens Dir Plant Serv MR 43 6/5/92 Incentive School Landscaping Dir Plant Serv MR 47 6/5/92 Incentive schools priority in district capital improvement Dir Plant Serv MR 47 6/5/92 Incentive schools high priority in capital funding Dir Plant Serv co 1 3/21 /91 Constr. proj. approved for Rightsell, Mitchell, Cloverdale Elem/JH, etc. Dir Plant Serv co 1 9/13/93 Court approves sub. language on J. A. Fair constr. Dir Plant Serv co 1 9/27/93 Old Stephens must be demolished or used for community  not left vacant Dir Plant Serv co 1 9/27/93 Court requires LASO to report to ODM plans for old Stephens's Bldg. Dir Transport I 5 4/29/92 Schs. in lower socio-econ. areas shall receive equal attention \u0026amp; resources Principal co 1 3/24/93 May delete PAL after submission of prg. that can be monitored Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Pursue Federal Magnet School Grant Dir Fed Progs LR 96 4/29/92 Develop Grants To Enhance Desegregation Dir Fed Progs LR 96 4/29/92 Identify Programs/Funding Areas Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Submit Application to USDE for Funding Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Be Placed on Mailing List for Grant Applic. Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Form Grant Devel. Committee Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Develop Grant Proposal Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Appoint Grant Development Comm. Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Conclude Grant Proposal Ready for Admission Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Provide Grant Proposal to Board for Approval Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Submit Grants to A. Supt. for Review Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Submit Grant Proposal to USDE Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Submit Grants to Board for Approval Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Submit Grants to Agencies for Approval Dir Fed Progs LR 97 4/29/92 Pursue federal magnet school grants and funds Mng Finance co 1 5/1 /95 Identify major adjust. made since 1995-96 propos. budget doc. last month. Mng Finance CB 5 7/12/95 Place pooling of M-to-M funds into a central account. Mng Finance MR 2 6/5/92 Demonstrate Invest. pd. for children before settlement money lost Mng Finance MR 47 6/5/92 Dist. is bound to keep pledge to double fund incent. school Mng Finance co 1 1/4/91 Continue double fund. after six yrs. if inc. schs. over 80% black Mng Finance co 1 8/4/92 Restore certain cuts to 92-93 budget Mng Finance co 1 11/5/92 Reinstate individuals listed for 93-94 Mng Finance co 1 12/30/92 Restore 22.8 FTE music teachers for 93-94 \u0026amp; 7th per. at Henderson  Mng Finance co 1 12/30/92 Any changes to budget must be court approved for budget 93-94 Mng Finance co 1 7/9/93 Revise budget so not so dependent on non-recurring revenue sources LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Mng Sup Serv Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Finance Supt Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 7 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'J1 Secld De ,DP Data Abbreviated Text ' .,H, Mng Finance co 3 3/16/94 LRSD reimburse PCSSD $167,113 within 60 days of order Mng Finance co 1 4/8/94 LRSD will pay an increase of $52,604.09 in the ODM Budget. Mng Finance TR 39 4/22/94 The court wants business cases for expenditures above $25,000. Mng Finance TR 115 2/25/94 The dist. must get feedback from its budg. process and pub. input Asst Supts co 2 3/3/95 Do bus. case that considers CO 12/30/92 on 7 per. day at magnets Mng Sup Serv co 3 3/16/94 Report Current Financial Position Mng Sup Serv co 3 3/17/94 Make Allocations as Approved Mng Sup Serv TR 140 2/1/93 Develop Budget Mng Sup Serv TR 144 2/1 /93 Allow eval. of adverse effects in approach to budget cuts Mng Sup Serv TR 144 2/1/93 Plan development and submission of Business Cases Mng Sup Serv co 103 6/15/93 Describe strategy to address funding shortfalls Mng Sup Serv co 1 2/23/93 Treat ODM budget person like LRSD employee for benefits, etc. Mng Sup Serv co 2 3/3/95 Budget cuts away from children and deseg. plan (See CO 12/30/92) Dir Early Child LR 171 4/29/92 Compensate tutors with coupons Dir Early Child LR 7 4/29/92 Collaborate w/HIPPY, PCSSD, NLRSD, Head Start Dir Early Child LR 8 4/29/92 Implement Program Selected Schools Dir Early Child LR 8 4/29/92 Implement Program Incentive Schools Dir Early Child LR 10 4/29/92 Schedule Mtgs. of Reps of Various Entities Dir Early Child LR 10 4/29/92 Supv. Meet to Discuss Shared Resources Dir Early Child LR 10 4/29/92 Plan Joint lnservices Dir Early Child LR 10 4/29/92 Plan Joint Parent Involvement Activities Dir Early Child LR 10 4/29/92 Inform Waiting List Parents About Vacancies Dir Early Child LR 11 4/29/92 Tag 4-yr-old Students on AS400 Dir Early Child LR 11 4/29/92 Conduct SAO/Parent Mtg. Re Kindergarten Assign. Process Dir Early Child LR 11 4/29/92 Compile List of Graduates Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Implement Program Selected Schools Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Implement Program Incentive Schools Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Provide Elem. Prin. Pre-registration lnservice Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Conduct Pre-registration Media Publicity Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Assign Students Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Recruit \u0026amp; interview teachers/aides Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Interview Teacher and Aide Applicants Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Obtain Curr. Supplies/Furniture by sending orders to vendors Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Send Orders to Vendors Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Train Teachers/Aides ECE Curriculum thru monthly orient. \u0026amp; inservice Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Conduct Orientation and lnservice LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4195 Subject Prl Ld Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Four-Yr-Old Dir Staff Dev Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 8 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'I' Sec Ld De DP Data Abbreviated Text - _,.,_r.-.\n~:r ..  .. Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Conduct Monthly lnservice Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Familiarize Parents w/4-yr-old Program Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Conduct Parent Orientation Mtg. \u0026amp; Conference Dir Early Child LR 17 4/29/92 Include 4-yr-old Children in Master Schedule Dir Early Child LR 18 4/29/92 Ensure Key Experiences Occurring in Classroom Dir Early Child LR 18 4/29/92 Evaluate 4-yr-old Program Effectiveness Dir Early Child LR 18 4/29/92 Administer 4-yr-old Evaluations Dir Early Child LR 18 4/29/92 Maintain 4-yr-old Portfolio Assessments Dir Early Child LR 18 4/29/92 Analyze Test Data for Board Report Dir Early Child LR 18 . 4/29/92 Utilize Results for Program Improvement Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Receive Letter of Support from Participating Agencies Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Develop Plan for City-wide EGE Program Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Establish Plan Procedures Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Identify Reps from Agency for Committees Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Delineate Committee Goals/Tasks /Timelines Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Initiate City-wide EGE Program Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Conduct Mtgs. to Review Progress of Committees Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Identify Resouces Needed by Committee Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Review 1st Draft of Comprehensive Plan Dir Early Child LR 19 4/29/92 Submit Final Draft to Boards of Directors Dir Early Child MR 17 6/5/92 Support Task Force As Avenue for Input Dir Early Child MR 17 6/5/92 Conduct Monthly Task Force Mtgs. Dir Early Child co 1 3/18/93 Until further order, this shall be the sched. for placement of 4-yr-old classes Dir Gifted LR 59 4/29/92 Share Research/Findings for Program Operation Dir Gifted LR 59 4/29/92 Establish Reg. Mtg. Schad. Tri-District Gifted Supv. Dir Gifted LR 59 4/29/92 Inform/Involve Other Adm. Staff of Procedures Dir Gifted LR 59 4/29/92 Establish Tri-District Model Program Dir Gifted LR 59 4/29/92 Participate in UALR Project Promise Dir Gifted LR 60 4/29/92 Share Cost of Outside Consultants Dir Gifted LR 60 4/29/92 Meet to Discuss Individual Program Needs Dir Gifted LR 60 4/29/92 Plan Tri-District lnservices Dir Gifted LR 60 4/29/92 Hold Tri-District lnservices Dir Gifted LR 61 4/29/92 Train Staff on Scope/Sequence Dir Gifted LR 61 4/29/92 Conduct Staff Meetings for New Teachers Dir Gifted LR 61 4/29/92 Complete Scope \u0026amp; Sequence Instrument Dir Gifted LR 61 4/29/92 Appoint Tri-District Curr. Committee LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Dir Except Child Gifted Prog Supt Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Guid/Cnslng Asst Supts Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Assoc Supt Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 9 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl1'J' Sec Ld\nDe DP Data . Abbreviat~ Text :.t:,. \",,, ..\n\n,,, ...   '~' 1::,:,' Dir Gifted LR 62 4/29/92 Implement Objectives Relating to Plan Dir Gifted LR 62 4/29/92 Implement Strategies/Activities to Refine Plan Mng Sup Serv TR 1 7/6/95 Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Inform Students of All Opportunities Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Publish Annual Document of Financial Aid, Higher Ed. Opportunities Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Encourage Students to Take Advantage of Opportunities Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Follow-up on Referral Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Make Parents Part. In Ed. by Keeping Them Informed Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Hold Community Ed. Mtg. Each Year During Spring Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Provide Written Info to Parents on Curriculum Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Make Students Aware of Ed./Post Ed. Opportunities Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Hold Annual Skills/Employment Fair with Business Community Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Provide Guidance/Counseling to Address Student Needs Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Create Community Linkage to Assist Students Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Provide Linkages w/Service Providers and Guidance Staff Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Provide Minicourses in Sequenced Program Gr 4-12 Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Develop Sequential Minicourses Beginning w/Gr 4 Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Provide Teacher Staff Development in Use of Curr. Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Raise Awareness of Student Career Options Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Use Resourse Volunteers in Classes/Assam. - Career Options Principals LR 37 4/29/92 Provide Guidance/Counseling making Students Aware of future Options Dir SAO HN 25 5/1/92 Require A/Z Students Submit Magnet Application Dir SAO HN 25 5/1/92 Require Non-A/Z Students Complete OERF Dir SAO HN 25 5/1/92 Use Random Selection Process for Non-A/Z Applicants Dir SAO HN 25 5/1/92 Require lnterdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Dir SAO HN 26 5/1/92 Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Only Dir SAO HN 26 5/1/92 Process Applications During Spring Each Year Principal HN 26 5/1 /92 Grant StaffTransfers According to PN Agreement Principal HN 26 5/1/92 Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements Principal co 3 2/11 /92 Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Principal co 3 2/11/92 Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Principal co 3 2/11/92 Describe Selection Criteria for Students/Teachers/Staff Principal co 3 2/11/92 Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role Principal co 3 2/11/92 Identify Necessary Resources\nIdentify Costs Principal co 4 2/11/92 Itemize Necessary Teacher Training {Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoing) Principal co 4 2/11 /92 Provide Evaluation Criteria/Timelines LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec Hender. Mag Asst Supt Sec HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 10 .., LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 Secld De OP Date Abbreviated Text \" I Principal co 4 2/11/92 Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment Principal co 4 2/11/92 Identify Community Involvement in Program Development Principal co 28 2/11/92 Address Program Implementation/Completion Timelines Principal HN 4 5/1/92 Establish 7-period Day Principal HN 26 5/1/92 Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Principal HN 26 5/1/92 Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Staff re Commitment Principal HN 26 5/1/92 Ascertain Future Applicants' Commitment to Magnet Program Principal HN 26 5/1/92 Specialist Coordinates Program and Teaches Part-Time Principal co 3 2/11/92 Do written plan for Henderson Mag. in 30 days __,.- Dir HIPPY LR 6 4/29/92 Initiate Home-based and 4-yr-old collaboration in training areas Dir HIPPY LR 6 4/29/92 Collaborate Implementation LRSD and PCSSD Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Promote the HIPPY Program with mailed flyers \u0026amp; PSA's Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Mail _PSAs/Distribute Flyers Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Select 14 HIPPY Aides Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Select 1 4 Aides Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct Initial Training Aides/Staff Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Arrange logistics w/State Regional Office for Training Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Recruit Families Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Send correspondence to Churches to Recruit Families/Aides Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Determine Service of Coordinators Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Identify Families to be Served By Each Coordinator Dir HIPPY LR 14  4/29/92 Identify \u0026amp; assign families to be serviced by aides Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Identify Families to be Served by each Aide Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Organize Instructional Material Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Print Curriculum Material Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Familiarize Aides of Implementation in LRSD Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct 3-day Workshop Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Obtain Material for Program Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct orientation meeting for enrolled families of program Dir HIPPY LR 14 4/29/92 Conduct Orientation Meeting Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Identify and secure meeting sites for groups Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Secure Meeting Sites for Group Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Mail Notification of Meeting Sites Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule Implementation of Curriculum LRSD Office of Desegregation 814195 Subject . Prt Ld HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev . HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Bd of Directors Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 11 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations l)llAl~'I' Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text ., ./: ff \" ., ' .. Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule Weekly Home Visits Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule Group Meetings/Print Flyers Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule lnservice for Aides Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule Aides Teaching Own Child Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Provide Parents w/lnfo to Assist w/Their Children thru workshop Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Schedule Workshop Parents/Aides-Mail Materials Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Evaluate Aide Trainees Mid-Point Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Evaluate IAide Trainee Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Determine Program Success by conducting survey of parents-printed mat. Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Conduct Survey of Parents-Print Materials Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Implement Second Part of HIPPY Curriculum Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Implement Second Part of HIPPY Curriculum Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Evaluate Aides Dir HIPPY LR 15 4/29/92 Evaluate Aides Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Obtain speakers \u0026amp; sched lectures to provide parents w/lnfo. for success Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Obtain Speaker-Schedule lecture for Parents Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Build the Aides' Children Self-Esteem Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Provide Activities w/lnvolvement for Children Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Oranize graduation reception Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Staff Will Organize Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Schedule Final Evaluation of Trainees Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Schedule Final Evaluation of Trainees Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Retain Staff in Place Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Begin Implementation of Program Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Maintain Regular Staff Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Identify Secretary Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Assist in Traveling Expense Dir HIPPY LR 16 4/29/92 Aides Make Home Visit Supt I 4 4/29/92 Operate the incentive schools for .at least six years Asst Supts LR 150 4/29/92 Initiate planning Asst Supts LR 151 4/29/92 Continue Incentive School Program Committee Asst Supts LR 151 4/29/92 Restructure committee as council Asst Supts LR 151 4/29/92 Place two parents on each incentive school comm. Asst Supts LR 151 4/29/92 Monitor activities related to incentive school program. Asst Supts LR 151 4/29/92 Parent Council will report to Board quarterly Asst Supts LR 152 4/29/92 Augment academic program LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject . Prl Ld Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 12 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'I' Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text .. ---.e ~ Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Promote/enhance leadership and staff understanding Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Provide an indepth pre-orientation session Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Develop process for developing Incentive School Plan. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Assist principal in presenting an in-depth pre-orientation Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Assist with orientation session for parents Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Develop Incentive School Plan for each school. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Identify Incentive School Plan teams. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Develop detailed individual Incentive School Plan. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Review and approve School Plan. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. Asst Supts LR 165 4/29/92 Identify a_reas in need of curriculum development. Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Identify teachers for curriculum teams. Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Plan orientation for curriculum development Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Review preliminary draft of revised curriculum Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Develop components for each curriculum area. Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Proof and type Incentive School Curriculum Guides. Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Print Curriculum Guides. Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Provide curriculum guides inservice Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Procure equipment and furniture Asst Supts LR 166 4/29/92 Develop bid for equipment and furniture . Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Bid for specific equipment and furniture. Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Order furniture and equipment. Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Ensure adequacy of all equipment and furniture. Asst Supts LR 16'7 4/29/92 Effect facility modifications Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Review Incentive School Plans with the Sup Svcs Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Identify modifications timeline Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Contract for service as needed/identified in the plans. Asst Supts LR 167 4/29/92 Implement the modification plan for the facilities. Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Make final inspection of facilities modification. Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Ensure availability of adequate resources Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Initiate identification of materials and textbooks Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Involve school teams in reviewing the needs Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Identify any materials or textbooks that must be ordered Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Maintain building record of requisitions Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Monitor and approve requisitions as requested Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Maintain audit for all materials received. LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Dir Staff Dev Inc Schs Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt Info. Servs. Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 13 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl.''11 Sec Ld De DP Data Abbreviated Text  . , . ! Asst Supts LR 168 4/29/92 Cross validate all orders not received. Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Select sponsors for each special program Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Complete contracts with extended day employees Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Complete Master Schedule for total school program. Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Review/Revise staff Development Plan for the fall Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Obtain requirements for all special programs. Asst Supts LR 169 4/29/92 Pay fee and order all materials for special activity. Asst Supts co 8 10/24/94 Submit by 11 /16/94, a description of the Span. prog. in the incen. sch. Asst Supts co 9 10/24/94 Submit by 11 /16/94, a descp.of theme implem. in each incent. sch. Asst Supts I 4 4/29/92 Implement the incentive school program Dir Staff Dev I 4 4/29/92 Retain Consultant w/Majority Black Educ. Experience Dir Info Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Provide support for all school and central office-based functions Dir Info Serv LR 129 4/29/92 Collect, Store, and Report Dropout Statistics Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Collect, Store, and Report Student Achievement Data Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Collect, Store, and Report Attendance Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Collect, Store, and Report Disciplinary Data Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Collect, Store, and Report Student Assignment Data Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Capacity to respond to District needs as required by District goals Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Maintain adequate computer hardware Dir Info Serv LR 130 4/29/92 Develop or acquire the software required to support the district Dir SAO I 4 4/29/92 Racially balance student pop. 60%-40% of either race Dir SAO LR 147 4/29/92 Conduct Recruitment Dir SAO LR 147 4/29/92 Monitor Enrollment Dir SAO co 1 7/9/93 Request designation of King as Magnet Dir SAO I 4 4/29/92 Monitor lnterdistrict Enrollment Dir SAO I 4 4/29/92 Monitor student assign. and enroll. at incentive schools. Dir SAO I 4 4/29/92 Recruitment to lnterdistrict Schools Dir SAO I 8 4/29/92 Advertise M-to-M transfers to students Dir SAO I 8 4/29/92 Transfer Black Students from Romine to Baker Dir SAO I 9 4/29/92 Target recruitment of black students to interdistrict schs Dir SAO I 9 4/29/92 Allow interdist. sch studs. to attend incentive school for after sch. prog. Dir SAO I 10 4/29/92 Romine to have early childhood program Dir SAO I 10 4/29/92 Romine community mtgs. on theme completed before 2/24/89 Dir SAO I 10 4/29/92 New Stephens to be built Pre-K through 6 located near 1-630 Dir SAO I 11 4/29/92 Develop recruitment plan w/PCSSD for M-to-M transfers Dir SAO I 11 4/29/92 lnterdistrict Magnet schs open to students outside Pul. Cty. LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Assoc Supt lnterdist Schs Asst Supts lnterdist Schs Asst Supts lnterdist Schs Asst Supts lnterdist Schs Asst Supts lnterdist Schs Bd of Directors lnterdist Schs Bd of Directors lnterdist Schs Bd of Directors lnterdist Schs Dir Staff Dev lnterdist Schs Dir Staff Dev lnterdist Schs Dir Staff Dev lnterdist Schs Mng Sup Serv lnterdist Schs Mng Sup Serv lnterdist Schs Mng Sup Serv lnterdist Schs Mng Sup Serv lnterdist Schs Supt lnterdist Schs Supt lnterdist Schs Supt IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 14 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations llllAPl1 Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text\no~  '\" Dir SAO LR 147 4/29/92 Recruit black students in accordance w/lnti!rdistrict plan Dir SAO LR 147 4/29/92 Develop recruitment plan w/PCSSD for M-to-M transfers Dir SAO LR 147 4/29/92 Advertise M-to-M transfers to students Dir SAO TR 80 5/29/92 Form Site Selection Committee for Clinton School Dir SAO TR 39 6/7/94 Tell how white studs. will be recruit. for new Stephens . .. ... Dir SAO TR 150 6/7/94 Court wants detail how the dist. will recruit white students for Stephens Dir SAO TR 192 6/7/94 Court wants to know who will be responsible for recruitment. Principal LR 147 4/29/92 Operate Romine Principal LR 148 4/29/92 Operate/maintain King lnterdst. School Principal LR 148 4/29/92 Establish Program Use Thematic Approach Principal co 5 6/28/94 Approved magnet status for King Supt I 3 4/29/92 Establish six thematic interdistrict schools (3 for LRSD) Supt I 3 4/29/92 Open King Supt I 3 4/29/92 Establish Romine lnterdistrict Asst Supts co 1 7/9/93 King to offer distinctive program worthy of magnet designation Dir Early Child I 10 4/29/92 New Stephens to have early childhood program Dir Early Child TR 192 6/9/93 Offer Four 4-yr-old Classes if lsh Closed Dir Plant Serv TR 193 6/7/94 Court wants a long-range facilities study Dir Plant Serv TR 227 1/26/94 Build, in addition to the King in the fall of 1993, the Stephens Inter. Sch. Dir Plant Serv co 1 6/5/92 Submit plan for new Stephens lnterd. to court with certain criteria Dir Transport TR 193 6/9/93 4-yr-old Transportation Provided to new King School Asst Supts I 8 4/29/92 Get public opinion concerning interdistrict sch. themes Asst Supts I 8 4/29/92 Sched. public meetings to get input on interdistrict sch themes Mng Sup Serv SA 12 9/28/89 Equalize interdistrict programs and pool M to M payments Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Provide Adequately Equipped Labs for Students Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Select at least one foreign language for study Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Expand computer labs. Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Make a computer loan program available Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Develop school themes to attract parents into the schools Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Augment Programs to Meet Interest/Needs of Student Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Permit laptop computer checkout Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Survey parents to determine interest for theme selection. Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Use Learning Styles Inventories in each incentive school Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Develop Parent Home Study Guides Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use the District model as the core curriculum for pre-k thru 6 Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use Learning to Read Thru Literature as primary reading prog. K-6 LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prf Ld IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 15 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use Basal textbooks to augment classics reading program K-6. Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Place strong emphasis on critical reading skills grades 4-6 Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Increase motivation/learning with oral expression through reading Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Amplify regular core curriculum if used in incentive schools Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use Writing to Read as instructional component K-2 Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use Writing Across the Curriculum to enhance writing skills Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Use Latin Program to increase vocabulary/word attack skills Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Emphasize Oral Lang Expression in reading and English/Lang arts Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Expect Lang. Modeling in oral expression, vocab. and usage skills Asst Supts LR 155 . 4/29/92 Emphasize the study of history from a subject area context Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize introductory concepts in history, geo., and civics K-3 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Teach geography through active learning strategies. Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Include multicultural curriculum in each level of social studies K-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Promote \"living social studies\" Learning strategies/activities K-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize American and Arkansas History 4-5 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize World History 6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Integrate celebrations/ceremonies into the curriculum Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize use of word or story problems 2-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Introduce basic concepts in geometry and algebra 2-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Use manipulatives extensively Pre-K-3 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Use computers to organize and utilize mathematical data 5-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize critical thinking with methodology and results K-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Use hands-on discovery/exploration to learn scientific concepts K-3 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Supplement class and textbook work with practical demonstrations Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize life sciences and physical sciences 4-6 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Show mastery of concepts with an annual project Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Include information packets with homework assignments Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Include an introduction to basic concepts in music and art Asst Supts LR I 155 4/29/92 Keep content of art and music sequential and cumulative Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize enjoyment/creation of music, painting, and crafts Pre-K-3 Asst Supts LR 155 4/29/92 Emphasize penmanship at each level Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Use total response approach as instructional methodology Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize cultural \u0026amp; historical differences \u0026amp; developments 4-6 Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Reinforce concepts with in-school performances and/or exhibits Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Select at least one foreign Lang for study at each school Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Use \"total physical response\" approach to teaching LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Acad. Act. Dir Staff Dev IS Acad. Act. Dir Staff Dev IS Acad. Act. Dir Staff Dev IS Acad. Act. Dir Staff Dev IS Ext. Day/Wk Dir Staff Dev IS Ext. Day/Wk Dir Staff Dev IS Ext. Day/Wk Dir Staff Dev IS Ext. Day/Wk Dir Staff Dev IS For. Lang. Dir Staff Dev IS Guid/Cnslng Supt IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 16 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De OP Oete Abbreviated Text Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize basic vocabulary, conversation, \u0026amp; culture for 1-6. Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Use a foreign Lang laboratory for instruction Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize transcribing and translating foreign Lang Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Provide experiences/interactions with a native Lang user. Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize vocabulary, grammar, reading, writin_g, culture 4-6 Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Include Family Ute Education in the total elem. curriculum 1-6 Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Make Nifty Nutrition available for all grades 1-6 Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize \" wellness for the young K-6 Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize understanding \u0026amp; respect for the handicapped Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Emphasize team sports and lifelong leisure skills K-6 IS Principal MR 39 6/5/92 Establish scouting membership list Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Remedial classes will be available during instructional day Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Formative criterion-referenced tests will be computer generated Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Heterogeneous grouping will be utilized at each grade level Asst Supts LR 154 4/29/92 Effective school model will be operative in incentive schools Asst Supts LR 189 4/29/92 Provide compensation to staff. Asst Supts LR 189 4/29/92 Compensate teachers/principals who work extra periods IS Principal MR 25 6/5/92 Keep statistics on the Saturday Programs IS Principal MR 25 6/5/92 Conduct study to determine most appealing activities Asst Supts LR 153 4/29/92 Operate lang labs with appropriate equipment/materials Dir Pup Serv MR 27 6/5/92 Develop Written School-Based Guidance Plans Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Make incant. sch. Principals/staff aware of Latin prog. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Present implementation plan proposal to assoc./asst. supts Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Schedule awareness mtg. with Principals of incant. schs. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Develop agenda for Principals' meeting. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Conduct awareness meeting with Principals. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Schedule awareness mtg.-5th/6th grade incant. schs. Tchs. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Conduct awareness mtg. with current 5th and 6th grade Tchs. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Identify 5th/6th grade Tchs. wishing to stay at incent. schs. Asst Supts LR 162 4/29/92 Recruit and fill vacancies. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Provide inservice to participating Teachers. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Requisition instructional materials. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Conduct above four inservice workshops . Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Duplicat!! copies of above materials. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Schedule two inservice meetings of three hours each. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Develop agenda for above two meetings. LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject - Prl Ld IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Latin Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 17 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text .. - .. , ,\n... r, .. ' ' Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Conduct above two meetings Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Contact UALR about offering college course. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Schedule above college course. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Implement above college course. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Schedule four two-hour inservice workshops Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Implement elementary Latin Program in 5th/6th grade Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Schedule time for classroom instruction. Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Purchase/duplicate/create student materials Asst Supts LR 163 4/29/92 Incorporate Latin program into district's Lang arts program. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Evaluate the elementary Latin Program. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Monitor classroom activities. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Identify student growth on standardized tests . Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Develop student, Teachers, parent assessment survey. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Disseminate above surveys. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Compile survey results. Asst Supts LR 164 4/29/92 Submit final evaluation report to assoc. supts. Asst Supts LR 206 4/29/92 Include strategies for incorporating parental involvement Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Design and administer a needs assessment Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Offer opportunites for adult community education Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Establish an lncentivewide Parent Internship Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Recruit parents from the incentive schools for teacher aides Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Establish mentorships between teachers and parents Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Implement the parent internship program Asst Supts LR 207 4/29/92 Investigate community education classes for parents Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Establish a parent center in each school Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Provide resources/staff to operate the center Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Train parent to operate the center Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Form comm. composed of parents/school personnel Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Distribution of monthly communications packet Asst Supts LR 208 4/29/92 Seek parents' recommendation for resources Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Assist parents to carry out expections of schools Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Offer mini-workshops Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Parents to pick up report cards twice a year Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Provide opportunities for counselors contact with parents Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Demonstrate the use of community resources Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Parent recogntion as a tool for community involvement LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par lnvolv Dir Staff Dev IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 18 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 Sae Ld De DP Data Abbreviated Text - _ _\n- \u0026gt;'.' \"'i', Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Recognize parents monthly Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Recognize community person for school involvement monthly Asst Supts LR 209 4/29/92 Display parent/community recognition awards Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Provide school lunch voucher for award winners Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Involve students in selection process of award winners Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Establish approach to communication between home/school Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Identify three key parent communicators Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Teach parents the system for advancing support Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Establish community resource list Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Invite community patrons of pre-school Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Encourage parent attendance at PT A meetings Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Prepare and distribute Parent Handbooks Asst Supts LR 210 4/29/92 Require parents to sign homework assignments Asst Supts LR 211 4/29/92 Require parents to call school to report absences Asst Supts LR 211 4/29/92 Require two or more home visits Asst Supts LR 211 4/29/92 Require contractual commitment from parents Asst Supts LR 211 4/29/92 Require all parents to sign contract prior to enrollment Asst Supts LR 212 4/29/92 Strengthen linkages between home/school Asst Supts LR 212 4/29/92 Parenting education classes for mothers Asst Supts LR 212 4/29/92 Evening/Saturday classes to expose children to science/math Asst Supts LR 212 4/29/92 Use school as community center Asst Supts LR 212 4/29/92 Workshops to expose students/parents to science/math Asst Supts LR 213 4/29/92 Raise trust level between school/community Asst Supts LR 213 4/29/92 lnservice courses for teachers and school Asst Supts LR 213 4/29/92 Develop speakers bureau for community Asst Supts LR 213 4/29/92 Develop calendar of events of neighborhood activities Asst Supts LR 213 4/29/92 Develop activity places high value on neighborhood pride Asst Supts LR 214 4/29/92 Formulate committee develop school improvement Asst Supts LR 214 4/29/92 Provide atmosphere where paren~s are open Asst Supts LR 214 4/29/92 Involve more people in decision making Asst Supts LR 214 4/29/92 Create sense of ownership through involvement Dir SAO LR 215 4/29/92 Information to community on Incentive school program Dir SAO LR 215 4/29/92 Mail report on Incentive schools to community groups Dir SAO LR 215 4/29/92 Conduct information sessions on pre-registration activities Dir SAO LR 215 4/29/92 Conduct information sessions with special audiences Dir SAO LR 215 4/29/92 Establish Saturday information booths LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Par Recruit Assoc Supt IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Proc Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 19 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text :A,, ' \" Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Secure special mediacoverage Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Highlight sheets to elementary parents Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Telephone hotline Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Place highlight sheet in local business Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Seek 'Special media coverage State Press/black radio stations Dir SAO LA 215 4/29/92 Brochure for each Incentive school Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Seek Spec. designation from Dept. of Ed to market Incentive sch Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Endorsements from local celebrities Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Meetings w/NLASD/PCSSD M-to-M transfers Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Hire two parent recruiters Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Public se,vice announcements for Incentive schools Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Billboards to advertise incentive schools Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Conduct Media blitz to heighten public awareness Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Produce videocassette recordings for presentation Dir SAO LR 216 4/29/92 Brochures for Incentive school distributed in Pul. County Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Open house at Incentive schools Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Geographic areas to receive info on Incentive schools Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Conduct small group tours Dir SAO LA 216 4/29/92 Establish Speakers bureau for Incentive school Dir SAO LA 217 4/29/92 Monitor/evaluate recruitment in Incentive schools Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Establish a flexible programming approach Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Allow for team teaching or other effective teaching strategy Asst Supts LR 188 4/29/92 Allow stud. to remain in class for extended time periods if needed Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Develop a plan for individualized instruction within a building Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Investigate other areas for possible inclusion. Asst Supts LR 188 4/29/92 Investigate areas for possible plan inclusion. Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Permanent Assigned Subs Incentive Schools Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Assign Half-time assistant principal Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Establish a uniform policy for students Asst Supts LR 188 4/29/92 Standardize dress for Teachers. Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Encourage PT A attendance Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Provide Student Handbooks to each student Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Provide Science Lab at each school Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Provide a computer lab at each school Asst Supts LA 18B 4/29/92 Provide a complete playground for PE purposes Asst Supts LA 188 4/29/92 Make student handbooks available to every student. LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Pol \u0026amp; Pree Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Soc Sklls Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 20 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations llllAPl1 Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text !. \"' Asst Supts LR 189 4/29/92 Provide addt'I compensation for extra periods Asst Supts LR 189 4/29/92 Investigate Community Ed. Classes for Parents Asst Supts LR 189 4/29/92 Provide Saturday Enrichment Programs IS Principal MR 20 6/5/92 Develop a comprehensive long-range strategic plan IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Involve all affected in discipline policy development. IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Define appropriate and inappropr. behavior \u0026amp; consequences IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Publicize policies and procedures IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Insist upon fair and consistent enforcement of discipline policies. IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Provide Teachers training in dealing with disruptive students. IS Principal MR 23 6/5/92 Collect discipline data and monitor the program IS Principal MR 37 6/5/92 Maintain records of volunteer participation IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Document volunteer training IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Document visits to each student's home IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Maintain documentation of all parent meetings and activities IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Routinely record meeting agenda and minutes IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Establish a mechanism to ensure that parents sign homework IS Principal MR 38 6/5/92 Have contracts ready for parents to sign when they register Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Prepare students to become independ. thinkers \u0026amp; problem solvers Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Teach social skills through the core instructional program Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Teach values and mores of students' ancestors Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Teach Structured self-esteem building lessons in small groups. Asst Supts LR 156 4/29/92 Focus on problem-solving, decision-making, peer pressure, etc. Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Create program to respond to developmental changes in students Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Use individuals presentations to provide role models for students Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Establish a mentoring program for students. Asst Supts LR 175 4/29/92 Increase opport. for services through serv. agency relationships Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Establish training for peer tutors IS Principal MR 29 6/5/92 Mount recruitment campaign IS Principal MR 29 6/5/92 Coordinate mentor program with VIPS IS Principal MR 29 6/5/92 Record/Maintain documentation on mentors, students, \u0026amp; activities Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Implement staff development activities Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Identify the staff development needs Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Develop inservice schedule Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Notify staff of inservice dates Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Plan details for inservice Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Obtain services of consultants LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 21 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DHAl~'J1 Sec Ld De OP Date Abbreviated Taxt .\n''ll:' ,\n- _. .. ...... \\ Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Implement fall training cycle. Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Evaluate staff development. activity Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Implement staff development activities Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Identify the staff development needs Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Develop inservice schedule Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Notify each school staff of proposed inservice dates Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Plan details for delivery of inservice Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Implement fall training cycle Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Evaluate staff development activity Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Promote understanding pf Incentive school concept Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Establish a process for developing each Incentive School Plan. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Assist in presenting an indepth pre-orientation session for staff Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Assist with orientation for parents in the incentive schools. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Develop curriculum specific to incentive schools. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Identify each area in need of curriculum development. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Identify Teachers for curriculum teams. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Plan orientation and format for curriculum development. Asst Supts LR 199 4/29/92 Review preliminary draft of revised curriculum Asst Supts LR 200 4/29/92 Develop additional components for each curriculum area. Asst Supts LR 200 4/29/92 Proof and type incentive school curriculum guides. Asst Supts LR 200 4/29/92 Print curriculum guides. Asst Supts LR 200 4/29/92 Distribute/provide inservice on curriculum guide implementation Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Analyze staff development needs regularly Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Establish a Staff Development Committee Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Collect and review data on needs and interests of student pop. Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Conduct a survey of staff development needs and interests Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Identify staff who have not participated in required inservice Asst Supts LR 201 4/29/92 Assess staff members needs on an ongoing basis Asst Supts LR 202 4/29/92 Plan staff development experiences on an on-going basis Asst Supts LR 202 4/29/92 Plan a min. of staff development activities for incant. sch. staff Asst Supts LR 202 4/29/92 Conduct meetings for planning of staff development Asst Supts LR 202 4/29/92 Plan staff development activities on an on-going basis Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Implement and evaluate staff development activities. Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Implement Staff Development Committee activities Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Conduct staff development activities. Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Evaluate staff development experiences. LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff. Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 22 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP ' Date Abbreviated Text C' ~_i.,\n\"'~-it~ \" Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Implement the Teachers Demonstration Program. Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Establish committee to plan a Teachers Demonstration Program Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Implement the Teachers Demonstration Program. Asst Supts LR 203 4/29/92 Monitor the Teachers Demonstration Program Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Implement a Master Teachers Program. Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Establish committee to plan a Master Teachers Program Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Implement Master Teachers Program in each incentive school. Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Maintain a pool of prospective staff members Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Monitor the Master Teachers Programs in each incentive school Asst Supts LR 204  4/29/92 Provide assistance for new Teachers or those having difficulty Asst Supts LR 204 4/29/92 Select IRC specialist to provide assistance to incentive schools Asst Supts LR 170 4/29/92 Obtain Consultant Services IS Principal co 42 5/1 /92 Identify the staff development needs IS Principal MR 7 6/5/92 Develop strategy to meet staff development requirements. IS Principal MR 7 6/5/92 Record School Profile staff development data IS Principal MR 8 6/5/92 Evaluate classroom utilization of inservice training IS Principal MR 8 6/5/92 Evaluate quality, relevance, and adequacy of staff training IS Principal MR 11 6/5/92 Promote staff awareness of heterogeneous grouping IS Principal MR 11 6/5/92 Ensure all incentive school staff participate TESA. IS Principal MR 11 6/5/92 Consider GESA training as part of staff development curriculum . IS Principal MR 14 6/5/92 Emphasize staff training that facilitates active learning at all grades. IS Principal MR 14 6/5/92 Emphasize importance of variety in teaching techniques/grouping. IS Principal MR 14 6/5/92 Use a wide range of resources and specialist Asst Supts LR 190 4/29/92 Determine staffing needs and promote staff awareness Asst Supts LR 194 4/29/92 Provide add'I inservice training prior to the start of school Asst Supts LR 194 4/29/92 Incentive school Teachers report back to work 5 days earlier Asst Supts LR 194 4/29/92 Provide separate stipends for returning to work ahead of schedule. Asst Supts LR 194 4/29/92 Use student teachers from different colleges Asst Supts LR , 195 4/29/92 Establish District Incentive Schools Staffing Committee Asst Supts LR 195 4/29/92 Identify staffing needs Asst Supts LR 195 4/29/92 Develop Staffing Criteria Asst Supts LR 195 4/29/92 Develop Job Descriptions Asst Supts LR 195 4/29/92 Advertise Vacant Positions Asst Supts LR 195 4/29/92 Provide an indepth orientation session Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Identify pool of prospective staff and administrators. Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Implement ongoing local and national recruitment LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Staffing Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev  IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Stud Achv Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 23 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 See Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text . ( . ~ ' '!'..., -, , \"\"\"\" Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Maintain files on prospective staff members. Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Select principals and provide orientation and training. Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Review criteria for principal selection Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Begin local and national recruitment Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Select racially balanced interview teams Asst Supts LR 196 4/29/92 Preliminary screening/interviews. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Conduct final interviews. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Make recommendations to Board. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Provide inservice to acquaint new principals Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Select staff. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Select racially balanced interview teams Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Interview applicants. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Make staff recommendations . Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Make staff recommendations for employment to Board. Asst Supts LR 197 4/29/92 Issue and explain one-year special contracts. Asst Supts LR 198 4/29/92 Review staff employment/ commitment/effectiveness Asst Supts LR 198 4/29/92 Review staff commitment informally Asst Supts LR 198 4/29/92 Monitor staff effectiveness Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Reinforce the core curriculum in PreK  Grade 6 Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Develop programs to improve student achievement Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Use peer tutors to assist Teachers Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Use Academic Reinforcement Clubs Asst Supts LR 157 4/29/92 Use a variety of Special Interest Clubs Asst Supts LR 158 4/29/92 Use field trips to enhance learning Asst Supts LR 158 4/29/92 Supplement local field trips with state/national trips Asst Supts LR  158 4/29/92 Determine choices by school needs/interests Asst Supts LR 158 4/29/92 Submit Plans to Board/Administration annually Asst Supts LR 158 4/29/92 Use field trips to enhance learning Asst Supts LR 171 4/29/92 Provide trans to students at the Homework Center Asst Supts LR 171 4/29/92 Provide trans. to students whose parents cannot Asst Supts LR 171 4/29/92 Provide transportation for extended day children. Asst Supts LR 171 4/29/92 Evaluate hotline/Centers/awareness relationships Asst Supts LR 171 4/29/92 Staff hotlines with teachers on a rotating basis Asst Supts LR 172 4/29/92 Develop .year round school program Asst Supts LR 172 4/29/92 Implement a career skills development program Asst Supts LR 172 4/29/92 Use a variety of means to create career awareness LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 24 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations J)llAl~'l1 Sec Ld De OP Date Abbreviated Text ,.,,, \"\n ,' Asst Supts LR 172 4/29/92 Provide appropriate number of supervision aides Asst Supts LR 172 4/29/92 Develop year round school program Asst Supts LR 173 4/29/92 Bring exhibits and performances to the schools. Asst Supts LR 173 4/29/92 Visit industrial complexes Asst Supts LR 173 4/29/92 Monitor student if activity finishes early Asst Supts LR 174 4/29/92 Seek assistance to provide services Asst Supts LR 175 4/29/92 Attendance/behavior guidelines assist studs. \u0026amp; keep them in sch. Asst Supts LR 175 4/29/92 Provide time out areas Asst Supts LR 175 4/29/92 Parents sign contractual agreement Asst Supts LR 175 4/29/92 Allow Non-Washington attendees access to ext'd act. Asst Supts LR 176 4/29/92 Develop Incentive/recognition programs Asst Supts LR 176 4/29/92 Use a variety of methods for recognition Asst Supts LR 178 4/29/92 Perm_anently assign substitutes to each incentive school. Asst Supts LR 178 4/29/92 Create school site teams Asst Supts LR 178 4/29/92 Rotate team membership on a semester basis Asst Supts LR 178 4/29/92 Double fund incentive schools Asst Supts LR 179 4/29/92 Offer field trips during extended week programs Asst Supts LR 179 4/29/92 Develop Saturday enrichment programs. Asst Supts LR 179 4/29/92 Develop Saturday programs to enhance learning Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Offer Special skills programs after school Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Provide supervision of students at the incentive schools. Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Establish offerings Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Employ instructional aides for career awareness Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Establish training for peer tutors Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Provide training for Teachers in peer tutoring Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Use retired Teachers mentors to tutor and sponsor clubs Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Mentors provide support Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Provide Homework Centers Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Set homework center schedules to meet students needs. Asst Supts LR 180 4/29/92 Provide Homework Hotlines Asst Supts LR 181 4/29/92 Arrange Community access/field trips Asst Supts LR 181 4/29/92 Visits historical\nscientific and cultural events and exhibits Asst Supts LR 181 4/29/92 Build a program of community involvement Asst Supts LR 181 4/29/92 Establish Girl/Boy Scout Programs at each school. Asst Supts LR 181 4/29/92 Offer special skills programs after school Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Provide community services access for all students LASO Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 25 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l1 Sec Ld De OP Date -Abbreviated Text Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Dev. compacts community agencies/universities for student assistance Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Establish mentoring program for students to work with role models Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Make parents aware of the options open to their children. Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Implement mentoring program Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Place special emphasis on schools recruiting minority students Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Provide student training in study/testing/listening skills. Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Provide students with exper. in testing.listening, \u0026amp; study skills Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Hold home/neighborhood meetings to increase involvement Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Meet at neighborhood sites with small groups of parents Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Meet at homes with groups of parents. Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Involve ministers. Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Increase parental involvement Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Parent assist at schools Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Parents sign homework Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Provide regular communication between school and home Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Encourage parents to provide classroom support Asst Supts LR 183 4/29/92 Establish place for designated meetings Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Establish learning time schedules for extended day. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Schedule weekly extended day programs based on needs Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Improve home/school communication. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Review children's progress regularly Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Send alert and success cards regularly to parents. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Establish meaningful elementary extracurricular activities Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Give students recognition and leadership opportunities Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Implement individual and group counseling for all students. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Include Peer facilitators Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Provide individual and group counseling . Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Teach conflict resolution Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Implement ._Incentive/recognition programs by 1 990-91 Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Create student recognition programs. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Create Good Citizen programs Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Create Community involvement recognition. Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Structure/begin wellness program for students at ea/sch Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Assign Fulltime Nurse Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Conduct Student Screening Asst Supts LR 184 4/29/92 Make presentations to parents on similar topics LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppl Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 26 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl~'l' Sac Ld De: OP Date Abbreviated Text ,.\n: \"' ~. -~- Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work community to supplement school programs Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Study access to Camp Pfiefer Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work with Campt Pfiefer Dir. to target incentive students Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work w/community to establish similar programs Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work with community programs to supplement sctiool programs Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Study success of Pfeifer program Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work with Campt Pfiefer Dir. to target incentive students Asst Supts LR 185 4/29/92 Work with community groups to undertake similar projects Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Obtain information regarding student academic growth. Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Develop valid/reliable monitoring instrument(sl Asst Supts L~ 186 4/29/92 Establish training for monitoring teams Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Track attendance/discipline/behavior/achievement. Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Monitor quarterly Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Maintan class and school profiles Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Involve parents in the development SEPs Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Develop SEP format Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Involve parents in writing plan Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Include extracurricular activities Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Plan quarterly reports/visits by monitoring team Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Develop reporting format Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Involve staff, patrons in monitoring Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Involve all staff in goal setting Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Evaluate goal achievement Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Randomly select students to participate each year Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Conduct Student \"training\" Asst Supts LR 186 4/29/92 Student generation of questionnaires Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Analyze data Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Generate conclusions Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Report survey results Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Establish computerized data access Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Install computers. Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Tie into mainframe. Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Write programs for reporting student data Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Establish School Improvement Teams Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Include representatives of all school departments Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Rotate team membership by semester LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Dir Staff Dev IS Suppt Prgs Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 27 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text - - . ,} ~' Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Plan for parent/student meetings for input. Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Plan for implementation of changes. Asst Supts LR .187 4/29/92 Make recommendations for changes . Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Implement changes. Asst Supts LR 187 4/29/92 Evaluate changes Dir Info Serv LR 177 4/29/92 Computerize data access in all incentive schools Dir Media/Tech LR 106 4/29/92 Extend/enrich the basic skills for students varied learning styles Dir Media/Tech LR 106 4/29/92 Develop Summative Evaluation Instrument Dir Media/Tech LR 106 4/29/92 3/5 tchs. will consider themselves frequent users Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Library media specialists will plan with teachers for materials Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Library media specialists will plan with staff for reading motivation Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Library media specialists will plan with teachers for library inst. Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Library media specialists will instruct students in literary skills Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Provide student access at point of need Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Increased Student Use of Library Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Increase number of tch. plan learn act. involving media activities Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Remove barriers/constraints to the program Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Increased Student Visits to Library Media Ctr. Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Increase vol. of books checked out Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Document number of students visiting library Dir Media/Tech LR 107 4/29/92 Document number of classes scheduled Dir Media/Tech LR 108 4/29/92 Annually evaluate multicultural materials Dir Media/Tech LR 108 4/29/92 Share recommendations for multicultural materials Dir Media/Tech LR 108 4/29/92 Establish 92-93 school year as baseline to determine progress. Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Implement theproposed new elementary library/media prog. Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Hire Consultant, Coord. \u0026amp; Clerical Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Review Recommendation/Outline Program Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Identify Material \u0026amp; Equipment Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Schedule films\\videos as possible Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Prepare List of Equipment Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Develop Procedures, Policies, Curr. Guides Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Supply films/videos per schedule Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Order equip./materals necessary including AV software Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Conduct inservice on curriculum develop for staff Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Receive Requests Fall '89 AV Materials Dir Media/Tech LR 109 4/29/92 Process new material including cataloging. LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt Library Media Tech Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt M-M Transfers Assoc Supt  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 28 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAPl1 Sec Ld De OP Data Abbreviated Text Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Hire full -time librarians and full -time clerks for each elem. school Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Develop a maint. proposal assuring prompt and efficient repair Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Notify teachers via librarians of the fall schedule (films/videos) Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Develop a seven to ten year AV equipment purchase plan Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Order Supplies \u0026amp; Printing Dir Media/Tech LR 110 4/29/92 Conduct inservice for librarians and library clerks. Dir Media/Tech MR 15 6/5/92 Bring parity of holdings to library resources at incent. schools Dir Media/Tech MR 15 6/5/92 Increase library capacities Mitchell/Garland Dir SAO ST 2 B/26/86 Follow M-M eligibility guidelines Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Blks. in major. at sch. \u0026amp; (dist. 50% +) may go to sch. \u0026amp; dist. where minority Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Whts. in major. at sch. \u0026amp; (dist. 50% +) may go to sch. \u0026amp; dist. where minority Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Hm. dist. to verify good standing or may go on provisional status Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Follow application procedure, limit repeated transfers, \u0026amp; refine placement Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Studs. must file application in home dist. by May 1 of preceding yr. Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Only one transfer per student during any year Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Home dist. to process appl. \u0026amp; forward copies to host dist. Dir SAO ST 2 8/26/86 Home dist. to furnish complete student file with appl. Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/86 Transf. dependent on host 's space in sch., grade, \u0026amp; compliance with ADE Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/B6 Communicate acceptance to parent Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/B6 May make better place. end of 1st sem. with tests, pert., consultation Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/86 Observe guidelines once M-M accepted by host Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/86 Commit. for duration of stud's. vol. part. (1 yr. or grad.) not revocable Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/86 Studs. do not have to annually apply once accepted Dir SAO ST 3 8/26/86 Studs. expected to follow feeder pattern of assigned school Dir SAO ST 4 8/26/86 Host has author. to disc., suspend, expel with due process Dir SAO ST 4 8/26/86 Transfrs. expected to meet same standards as host dist. students Dir SAO ST 4 8/26/86 Host must make policies, proced., \u0026amp; expect. available to transfrs Dir SAO ST 4 8/26/86 Host must ignore transfer status of stud. when responding to needs Dir SAO ST 4 8/26/86 Encourage all M-Ms to participate in all programs Dir SAO ST 5 8/26/86 Cost of M-M transport. to ADE .with ADE option about how to provide Dir SAO ST 7 8/26/86 Sp. Ed. transfers allowed based on available services in host dist. Dir SAO ST 7 8/26/86 Host can opt. to count or not count M-M for stud. assign. plan Dir SAO ST 7 8/26/86 M-M legally can impact targeted student ratios without any recourse Dir SAO ST 8 8/26/86 Depart. from ratios not require dist. to recompose stud. body of affect. sch. Dir SAO I 11 4/29/92 Parties to promote M-M transfers Dir SAO TR 241 1/26/94 lnterdistrict transfers must be done more quickly LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Pri Ld M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-M Transfers Mng Sup Serv M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt M-to-M Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Assoc Supt McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 29 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations ))llilli\"'J' Sec Ld De DP Date Abbreviated Text : ~ . 1 . :,,. Dir Transport ST 4 8/26/86 Provide transport. for extra-curr. act. (Cost to ADEi Mng Finance ST 5 8/26/86 ADE \u0026amp; Districts to follow payment procedures Mng Finance ST 5 8/26/86 ADE to pay cost of K-12 FTE students to host dist. Mng Finance ST 5 8/26/86 Current yr. payments based on previous school year Mng Finance ST 6 8/26/86 Host to report M-Ms to ADE on forms provided Mng Finance ST 6 8/26/86 Host to estimate \u0026amp; forward FTE of students to ADE in Sept. Mng Finance ST 6 8/26/86 ADE to pay monthly with correction in January Mng Finance ST 6 8/26/86 Host maylnot count M-M in number of reg . aide stud. number Mng Finance ST 6 8/26/86 ADE pays home dist .. 5 of table rate Mng Finance ST 7 . 8/26/86 Payment provisions do not apply to magnet schools \u0026amp; programs Dir SAO LR 142 4/29/92 SAO assigns students to Henderson Jr. High Magnet .. Dir SAO LR 142 4/29/92 SAO assigns students to McClellan High Magnet ~ Dir SAO LR 143 4/29/92 SAO assigns students to Central High Magnet School Dir SAO LR 143 4/29/92 SAO assigns students to Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Dir SAO LR 144 4/29/92 Obtain a 60/40 ratio of either race in interdist. magnets Dir SAO LR 144 4/29/92 SAO assigns students to Washington Magnet School Dir SAO MC 2 5/1/92 Use Program to Achieve Racial Balance Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 A/Z Students Must Submit Magnet Application Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 Non- A/Z Students Must Submit OERF Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 Use Random Selection Process for Non-A/Z Applicants Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 lnterdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Dir SAO MC 51 5/1/92 Process Applications During Spring of Each Year Dir SAO MC 60 5/1/92 Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment Principal MC 5 5/1 /92 # McClellan Class Periods . Principal co 3 2/11 /92 Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Principal co 3 2/11./92 Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Principal co 3 2/11/92 Describe and Use Selection Criteria for Students, Teachers, Staff Principal MC1 2 5/1 /92 Increase Academic Achievement/Decrease Disparity in BI/Wh Principal MC 5 5/1/92 Interweave Business Courses With Various Subject Areas Principal MC 5 5/1/92 Begin 7-period Day in 1992-93 Principal MC 51 5/1/92 McClellan Students Also Apply When Declaring Area of Study Principal MC 51 5/1/92 Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Principal MC 51 5/1/92 Familiarize Staff with Goals/Objectives of Program Principal MC 52 5/1/92 Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Staff Re Commitment Principal MC 52 5/1/92 Grant Staff Transfers According to PN Agreement LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec McClell. Mag Ast Supt Sec Multicult Curr. Assoc Supt Multicult Curr. Asst Supts Multicult Curr. Asst Supts Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Bd of Directors Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multi cult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multi cult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 30 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DUAl1'J' Sec Ld De OP Date Abbreviated Text . ~ ,\u0026gt; ' Principal MC 52 5/1/92 Ascertain Future Candidate's Commitment to Magnet Program Principal MC 52 5/1/92 Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements Principal MC 53 5/1/92 Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role Principal MC 55 5/1/92 Provide Program Implementation/Completion Timelines Principal MC 56 5/1 /92 Identify Necessary Resources \u0026amp; Costs Principal MC 57 5/1/92 Itemize Necessary Teacher Training (Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoing) Principal MC 58 5/1/92 Provide Formative/Summative Criteria/Timelines Principal co 3 2/11/92 Do written plan for McClellan Mag. in 30 days / Dir PRE CA 101 12/21/90 Est. sequntl. link among data, planng., goal dev., curr. dev. and budgeting Principals CA 101 12/21 /90 Require 1 goal in school's annual plan be related to stud. ach. Principals LR 35 4/29/92 Create Academic Intervention Strategies Supt CA 100 12/21 /90 Dev. \u0026amp; adopt a compreh. Bd. policy framework for curr. management Supt CA 100 12/21/90 Dev. policy establishing purpose for curr. \u0026amp; progs. of district Supt CA 100 12/21 /90 Dev. policy that sets min. goals and obj. for all student learning outcomes Supt CA 100 12/21/90 Require congruence among curr. objs., tching techqs, \u0026amp; dist. test asses. Supt CA 100 12/21/90 Est. policy requiring texts to align w/adopted curr. outcomes est. by Board Supt CA 100 12/21/90 Dev. policy that outlines clear procd. for curr. dev .and includes Bd adopt Supt CA 101 12/21/90 Require Bd to use achieve. data in their goal-setting process Supt CA 117 12/21 /90 Establish consistency and equity in educational programs Curr Supvs LR 64 4/29/92 Monitor Staffing Curr Supvs LR 64 4/29/92 Develop Speaker's Bureau Curr Supvs LR 65 4/29/92 Establish Curriculum Review by 9/30/91 Curr Supvs LR 65 4/29/92 Implement Curr. Review/Revision Cycle Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Provide Teachers Formal Course Training Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Obtain Info on Multi-Cultural Courses from Colleges Curr Supvs LR . 66 4/29/92 Advertise Course Offerings to Staff Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Identify Summer/Fall Course Participants Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Develop District AN Resource Catalog Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Review \u0026amp; catalogue AN materials Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Purchase Addit. A/V Materials from Budget Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Identify Other Resources for AN Materials Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Revise A/V Catalog for LRSD Curr Supvs LR 66 4/29/92 Place Initial Supp. Order for AN Materials Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Plan annual instructional materials fair (Multicultural) Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Plan Fair as Component of Pre-School Conference (more) Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Identify Vendors of Instructional Materials LRSD Office of Desegregation 814195 Subject Prf Ld Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multi cult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 31 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Sec Ld De DP Data Abbreviated Text .l\nt. Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Establish Pre-School Cont. Dates/Invite Vendors Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Confirm Fair Participants Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Acquaint Staff w/Fair Plans \u0026amp; relationship to desegregation Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Conduct Media Campaign for Fair Curr Supvs LR 67 4/29/92 Host tri-district \"Instructional Materials Fair\" Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Develop Criteria for Textbook Review/Adoption Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Revise Board Policy for Textbook Adoption Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Identify ad hoc Committee to Review Criteria for Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Conduct Staff Devel. Training on Bias in Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Submit Revised Policy to Board Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Adopt Policy on Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Utilize Consultant to Train Staff in avoiding sex \u0026amp; race stereo. in texts Curr Supvs LR 68 4/29/92 Make Recommendations to Board on Textbook Adoption Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Develop Pre K-6 Curriculum Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Host 3 Public Mtgs. for Suggestions from Patrons Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Retain Natl Curr. Dev. Expert - 2-yr. Contract Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Issue Timeline/Checklist for Task Completion Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Develop Expectations for Curr. Comm. Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Identify Curr. Comm. Members per numbers in plan Curr Supvs LR 69 4/29/92 Obtain Model Curr. Units Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Conduct Task Completion Monitoring Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Operationalize Curr. Dev. Timeline Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Review Comprehensive Guides Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Type \u0026amp; Print comprehensive guides Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Develop Expect. for Resource Consultant Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 Secure 6' Local Resource Consultants Curr Supvs LR 70 4/29/92 lnservice on Teaching Strategies Curr Supvs LR 71 4/29/92 Conduct Elem. Staff lnservice Curr Supvs LR 71 4/29/92 Order Materials from Local Bldg. Budgets Curr Supvs LR 71 4/29/92 Extend lnservice Through Cluster Mt9s. Curr Supvs LR 71 4/29/92 Host 3 Education Mtgs. for Elem. Parents for overview Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Develop Curr. for Gr. 7-12 Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Verify 2nd Year National Experts Contract Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Issue Timeline for 1989-90 Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Meet to Receive Suggestions Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Develop Expectations for Committee LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/% Subject Prl Ld Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 32 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations l)llAl~'l1 Sec Ld De OP Date Abbreviated Text \" . :t .. Curr Supvs LR 72 4/29/92 Identify secondary curr. com. members per plan numbers Curr Supvs LR 73 4/29/92 Obtain Curriculum Units Models Out of LRSD Curr Supvs LR 73 4/29/92 Conduct lnservice Sessions Curr Supvs LR 73 4/29/92 Develop Expectations for Consultants Curr Supvs LR 73 4/29/92 Identify secondary soc. stud., music, \u0026amp; art committees per numbers in plan Curr Supvs LR 73 4/29/92 Secure Consultant Services Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Conduct task completion monitoring per timeline Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Operationalize curr. dev. timeline meetings (monthly} Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Review Guide for Content at Grade level Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Print Guides Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 lnservice Secondary Adm. \u0026amp; Teachers Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Order Materials from local Bldg. Budgets Curr Supvs LR 74 4/29/92 Monitor Use of Curr. Guides Curr Supvs LR 75 4/29/92 Extend inservice through council mtgs. per named subject areas Curr Supvs LR 75 4/29/92 Host 3 education mtgs. for secondary parents Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Provide Staff Dev. Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Negotiate for Consultants to Provide lnservice Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Access Info to Teachers, Parents, Community Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Share Responsibility for Annual Materials Fair Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Provide Info to Staff on Graauate Courses Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Promote Grad Courses to Staff Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Write Institutions re Need for Grad Courses Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Investigate Strategies for Promotion to Staff Curr Supvs LR 76 4/29/92 Meet to Discuss Promotional Seminars Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Enhance Educational Equity Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Share Effective Strategies at Council Mtgs. Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Purchase Science Supplies Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Purchase Math Manipulatives Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Purchase trade books for wholeness of lang. Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Provide lnservice on science, math, and trade books Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Identify teacher needs using performance data Curr Supvs LR 77 4/29/92 Submit lnservice Needs to Staff Dev. Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Schedule Teacher lnservice Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Monitor Teachers Use of Strategies Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Incorporate Materials into Program Curr Supvs LR 7B 4/29/92 Review Appropriate Materials LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 Subject Prl Ld Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev  Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 33 LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DllAl1'1' Sec Ld De DP Data Abbreviated Text ,..._,, ~\n. Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Identify Materials to be Purchased at School Level Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Schedule Materials Workshop Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Monitor Use of Materials Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Implement Organizational Practices Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Provide Teachers with Class Group Training Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Monitor Implementation of Strategies Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Review Placement Criteria Curr Supvs LR 78 4/29/92 Support Prins in monitoring balance of students in higher level courses Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Ensure increased equity through inservice Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Base inservice on sceince, math, \u0026amp; trade books Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Ensure Equity in Use of Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Assess Current Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Identify Deficiencies in Textbooks Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Purchase Replacement Resource Materials Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Provide Training Using Supplemental Materials Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Monitor Teacher Implementation of Materials Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Select Text Free of Stereotypes Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Achieve Equity in Special Activities Curr Supvs LR 79 4/29/92 Ensure Equitable Student Participation Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Develop Course Area Guides Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Monitor Use of Curriculum Guide Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Maintain Challenging and Relevant Courses Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Review Content/Program Areas Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Assess Course Content for Changes Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Submit New Course Recommendations to A. Supt. Ed. Prog. Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Develop Currilculum Guides Approved Courses Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Provide lnservice on Implementing New Courses Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Conduct Workshops on New Courses Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Monitor Course Implementation for Assignment Equity Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Review AP Course Placement Criteria Curr Supvs LR 80 4/29/92 Monitor Course Enrollment for Equity Curr Supvs MR 13 6/5/92 Submit Policy \u0026amp; Goals to Board Curr Supvs MR 13 6/5/92 Initiate Procedure to Field-Test New Curriculum Curr Supvs CA 100 12/21 /90 Establish set of criteria for changes in the curr., include adds, deletes, etc. Curr Supvs CA 100 12/21 /90 Require equity and coord. in schools in curr. (See legal ref.) Cu\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_651","title":"Program planning and budgeting process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Program planning and budgeting process"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/651"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["112 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED AUG 3 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT______ 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 *\u0026lt;r. w.  PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS August 1995 Little Rock School District PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING August 1995 General Concept A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process (Process) improves the Districts ability to allocate its revenue rationally and, therefore, have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the District. Linking program objectives and program expenditures assures that money is being spent appropriately. This document serves as an explanation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. During the Process, the following will occur: The needs of the District, particularly legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans, will be determined. Goals and objectives will be defined. Programs to achieve those objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plans, will be defined. Performeince standards and expenditures will be established and measured. Information for corrective decision-making will be prepared. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budgeting Process 1. II. Key Players - The Superintendent leads the Process with direct support from the Cabinet. The Board is the ultimate decision-maiker for the Process. Description - The Process is led by the Superintendent with direct support from the Superintendents Cabinet. The Process is coordinated by the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) and the Manager for Support Services, who both serve on the Superintendents Cabinet. A. B. C. A Management Tool (described later in this document) serves as a Planning Budget Calendar. The Calendar allows the Board to continuously monitor progress of the Process. The Director of PRE is the lead planning person. He/she ensures that the planning process is conducted according to established time frames, provides technical assistance, coordinates the planning process, collects appropriate reports, coordinates the preparation of related documents, and advises the Superintendent and Board on the Process. In addition, the lead planning person is responsible for ensuring that all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the Process. The Director of PRE is to be assisted by a Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialist whose major responsibility is District wide planning.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 2 III. IV. Outcome - An organizational chart that displays the current lines of authority and responsibility is attached (see Attachment 1). The primary planning and budget development tasks are finalized and included on a Project Management Tool by July (for the July Court submission). Time frame - The organizational chart is reviewed/revised by August to ensure that the configuration is the most effective and efficient arrangement. Necessary revisions and adjustments are made as needed. Program Inventory Prior to the Needs Assessment period, which starts in September for the next budget year, the Program Inventory process begins in July\ncurrent desegregation and nondesegregation programs are identified. I. II. III. IV. Key Players - The Superintendent provides overall direction, and the Board reviews the findings. The lead planning person coordinates the collection of basic data and prepares the data into appropriate documents for use in goal setting and program modification eind/or development. The Cabinet and staff collect the necessary data. Description - The list of current programs and services is revised if necessary. New programs and services are identified and merged with the Program Budget Document as necessary. Likewise, programs that are no longer in place or that have met legal obligations are removed from the Program Budget Document. The desegregation plcin and court orders are reviewed to ensure all obligations related to compliance are operative. Primary and secondary responsible persons are identified for each program or service. Outcome - A Program Inventory Report is generated and used during the goals and objectives development process\nthe program addition, modification, and deletion-process\nand the budgeting process. Time frame - The Program Inventory process begins in July. A list of all desegregation and non-desegregation programs is compiled by August. The Program Inventory may be revised as needed. Program Evaluation Program evaluation provides an assessment of performance for decision-making purposes. I. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent with assistance from the Cabinet, as recipients of the extended evaluations, use the information from the evaluation of programs to guide programmatic direction and resource allocation. The lead planning person coordinates the program evaluation process. The Manager for Support Services provides assistance with supporting financial information. TheLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 3 II. III. IV. Cabinet and staff prepare all reporting documents falling within their areas of responsibility. Description - Each program is evaluated through the Districts regular program evaluation component. As programs are developed and implemented, they contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Special evaluations may be directed by the Superintendent. Programs may also be identified for fast-track evaluation on an as needed basis if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the District. Outcome - Program evaluation information enables the District to make programmatic decisions in the areas of program modifications, additions, and deletions and resource allocation, which are the result of careful planning and thoughtful analysis. Time frame - The program evaluation period for each budget year begins in July and continues through mid-November, leading up to the point of program development (i.e.. Business Cases). Program evaluations are conducted on programs that were operating during the most recently completed school year. Needs Assessment The needs assessment is a process for comparing the current situation with the desired conditions. I. II. Key Players - The Superintendent provides leadership and direction for the Needs Assessment process. The lead planning person coordinates the process. The Superintendent and the Cabinet identify the needs. The Superintendents Cabinet is responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. Description - Utilizing a combination of district wide perceptual and objective instruments, data are collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Perceptual information is collected through broad-based input sessions such as Town Hall meetings and District Dialogue sessions. A. B. At least three Town Hall meetings are conducted. One town hall meeting each for area schools, magnet schools, and incentive schools are scheduled. Every effort is made to locate strategically the sessions to encourage maximum participation. Additional Town Hall meetings may be scheduled if needed. One District Dialogue is conducted with principals, teachers, classified staff, and central office administrators. Additional District Dialogues may be scheduled if needed.LRSD . PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 4 C. D. An administrative work session is conducted to review and analyze various District wide reports and objective data. The following kinds of data are reviewed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Stanford Achievement Test Results Planning, Research, and Evaluation Monitoring Reports Desegregation Monitoring Reports Audit from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Court Orders Audit School Climate/Human Relations Survey Results District wide Facilities Study/Report Proportional Allocation Formulas Study Program Inventory A comparison between identified needs and the Program Inventory is conducted to determine whether or not programmatic gaps and areas of need exist. III. Outcome - The outcome of the administrative work session, town hall meetings, and district dialogue sessions is a list of needs. District desegregation and nondesegregation programs are also evaluated for needs information. The Superintendent and Cabinet identily program(s) in need of an extended evaluation. IV. Time frame - The Needs Assessment process begins in September with a review of the types of data that will be collected. A Needs Assessment report is generated by the end of November based upon findings from the Town Hall Meetings, District Dialogues, studies or reports, and the results of program evaluations. Broad-Based Feedback Broad-based feedback is designed to provide feedback to the various groups who participated in town hall meetings and district dialogues (as a counterpart to the Needs Assessment process). Every effort is made to include other interested groups, if appropriate. I. Key Players - The Board and the Superintendent will provide direction for broad-based feedback. The Director of Communications, with assistance from the lead planning person, will develop a plan for disseminating information. II. Description - Broad-based feedback sessions are designed to provide planning and budgeting process information to the community and LRSD employees. Target populations are the same as those at the broad-based input sessions conducted in September and October.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 5 Ill. Outcome - Positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process may be generated. fV. Time frame - Broad-based feedback sessions will be conducted the following March and April. Planning and Budget Goals The goal setting process guides all actions of the administration. The process defines the expected outcomes for a specified period of time. 1. II. Key Players - The Board and Superintendent provide leadership for identifying the mission eind goals of the district. The Cabinet provides assistance and support by defining objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. The goal setting process is coordinated by the lead planning person. Description - The Board conducts a work session. After reviewing the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report, the Board: A. B. C. Reviews and revises, if necessary, the mission statement. Establishes written goals/objectives. The goals and objectives define what the district expects to realistically accomplish for the next fiscal year. Goals and objectives that conflict with the desegregation plan are not adopted. Reviews and provides guidance related to proportional allocation formulas (materials and supplies, staffing, etc.). D. Establishes written priorities. These priorities guide staff in program E. modification, addition, or deletion, as well as help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting process. Considers strategies for funding shortfalls. The Cabinet works to ensure that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the established goals. III. Outcome - At the conclusion of the Board Work Session, the Board publishes: A. B. C. A written mission statement Written goals A list of priorities IV. The staff revises program objectives and evaluation criteria as needed for each program, and these are incorporated into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The goal setting process is dependent on the Needs Assessment and Program Inventory. The Board Work Session is conducted in mid- December. Program objectives and evaluation criteria are subsequently revised as needed by appropriate staff.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 6 Program Development If a service or program does not exist to support the needs of the District, it may be necessary to develop a program or modify an existing program. Any additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by a business case (see Attachment 2) as outlined in II, A below. 1. II. Key Players - The Superintendent will provide leadership and guidance to ensure that goals are achieved by offering the best possible progreims. The Cabinet will provide direction to staff in developing, modifying, and implementing effective and efficient programs. The lead planning person will monitor and advise the Superintendent throughout the program modification and development phase. Description - Programs may need to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may be modified to meet objectives. Some programs may be eliminated. The District establishes a framework for Program Development. The framework includes, where appropriate, the following\nA. Business Case I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Analysis of Alternatives Recommended Alternative Objective Impact Analysis Resource Aneilysis Force Field Analysis General Implementation Plan B. Appropriate changes to a Program Budget Document (see Planning Document in the Budgeting section) will be made as a result of program III. IV. additions, modifications, or deletions. Program Development - (i.e., program additions, modifications, or deletions) is conducted by staff with the appropriate Cabinet level official providing oversight to ensure that all tasks are completed in a timely manner. The Superintendent and the Cabinet review Program Development cases to ensure that commitments in the desegregation plan are not hindered by such Program Development Outcome - A business case for each program that is added, modified, or deleted is written. As with existing programs, programs that are added or modified toLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING V. Page 7 satisfy a need include all of the elements for budget development and may be directly placed into the Program Budget Document. Time frame - The Program Development phase begins in November and concludes in February. However, some programs may be identified or recommended for possible addition, modification, or deletion at an earlier or later date (or as part of an ongoing process, if appropriate). Budgeting 1. II. III. Key Players - The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget. However, the Superintendent ensures that a balanced budget is developed that meets the needs and goals of the school district. The Manager for Support Services coordinates the budget preparation process, and the lead planning person ensures that the planning and budgeting components are linked appropriately. Budget managers provide input relative to his or her area of responsibility. The Manager for Support Services will produce the budget information. Description - Funds, personnel, and facilities are allocated based on the goals and objectives of the district. Directions for budget preparation are issued by the Superintendent with assistance provided by the Manager for Support Services. These directions include the identification of all proportional formulas and exceptions. Outcome - A budget document is developed that satisfies traditional budgeting and accounting requirements with a program planning and budgeting Funding of component that links the program and budget allocations, desegregation requirements is a priority. IV. Time frame - Month November December January February March May______ July August Task Issue instructions for budget preparation at all levels___________ Budget managers begin to submit requests for next school year Begin budget development___________________________________ Continue budget development____________________\n__________ Revise financial forecast\nPrepare Proposed Budget___________ Prepare Tentative Budget_____________________________________ Prepare Final Budget________________________________________ Board review and adoption of Budget\nSubmit budget to ADELRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 8 Guidelines for Proposed, Tentative, and i The following guidelines help define t, possible, of what is included in the Propoi extent I. Proposed Budget A. B. C. The Proposed Budget should I The Proposed Budget should fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should ent level, edl additions, D. modifications, deletions, and shuuiaii strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under - consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. II. Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. E. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.) The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. III. Final Budget A. B. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level. LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 8 Guidelines for Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budget Development The following guidelines help define the format and expectations, to the extent possible, of what is included in the Proposed, Tentative, and Final Budgets. 1. Proposed Budget A. B. C. D. The Proposed Budget should be at the detailed level. The Proposed Budget should reflect a revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Proposed Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The Proposed Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under - consideration and should show the budget impact at the function and object level. II. Tentative Budget A. B. C. D. E. The format of the Tentative Budget should be similar to the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Tentative Budget should be at the detailed level. The Tentative Budget should build upon the Proposed Budget. The Tentative Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that have been approved to date. The additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. (Most items should be included at the detail level by this stage.) The Tentative Budget should reflect, in a separate listing, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that are under consideration, clearly showing the budget impact at the function and object level. Ill. Final Budget A. B. The format of the Final Budget should be similar to that of the Proposed Budget but may be modified at a later date, if necessary. The Final Budget should be at the detailed level.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 9 C. D. The Final Budget should reflect, at the detail level, all additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies that the District intends to make during the fiscal year. These additions, modifications, deletions, and shortfall strategies should be clearly identified. The Final Budget should reflect what the District intends to deliver to the State Department of Education. Monitoring and Reporting The Program Budget Document provides the means for monitoring program performance and expenditures throughout the fisccd year. 1. Key Players - The Superintendent provides guidance for the maintenance of the Program Budget Document. Program Managers provide program information for their respective areas. The Manager for Support Services provides financial information for each program. The lead planning person coordinates the II. updating of the document. The Board and Superintendent are the recipients of the reports to assist them in oversight and decision-making. The lead planning person coordinates the process and prepares the Program Budget Document. Program Mcinagers prepare all reporting documents within their areas of responsibility. Description - The Program Budget Document is the basis for monitoring and reporting and follows an established format and design. The Program Inventory provides the divisions within the Program Budget Document. Program 111. IV. managers, as primary leaders, are assigned responsibility for identified programs. Secondary leaders are assigned also. Program managers are responsible for accomplishing program objectives, for coordinating the required activities or strategies, and for the preparation and submission of the Program Budget Document. The document reflects both program performance and expenditures quarterly. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems may be addressed by corrective action during the year rather than after the year is completed. Outcome - A Program Budget Document is maintained that becomes the basis for monitoring and reporting and also serves as a guide for interim decisionmaking. The result is a quarterly composite progress report on identified programs within the District, supported with expenditure information. Time frame - Reports are generated quarterly beginning with the first quarter of the fiscal year.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 10 Reassessment of Process and Organization Planning and budgeting is a continuing process (see Attachment 3, Planning and Budgeting Cycle). As such, the Program Inventory begins in July, while the Needs Assessment begins in September. A review/revision of the Program Inventory for the future budget year is completed by August. The Reassessment of Process and Organization begins in July of the current year and concludes by August of the following year. The review process requires an examination of the Process for possible changes that prove beneficial to the Districts Program Planning and Budgeting Process. The reassessment requires a review of the Districts organizational stmcture to ensure that it is of the best configuration to meet the Districts needs. The lead planning person reviews the process and makes recommendations for changes to the Superintendent, when appropriate. The lead planning person ensures that the planning process is implemented as designed and coordinates the activities. Management Tool The Management Tool is submitted to the Court by the end of each calendar month. The Management Tool serves as an instmment by which the District may monitor established timelines which are cardinal to the Planning and Budgeting Process. The Management Tool identifies the responsible person(s), activities, and timelines required of--and also serves as--a Planning Budget Calendar. The Management Tool, in addition to the Program Budget Document, is an outgrowth of the concepts described throughout this document. Further, items of significant importance to the District, but not necessarily directly linked to Program Planning and Budgeting, may be added to the tool, at the direction of the Superintendent, to allow the District to monitor additional issues or topics. The Maneigement Tool is numbered to coincide with the Fiscal Year budget for which it is associated. The eight major components of the Management Tool include the following: 1) Program Inventory\n2) Program Evaluation\n3) Needs Assessment\n4) Planning and Budget Goals\n5) Program Development\n6) Budgeting\n7) Monitoring and Reporting\nand 8) Reassessment of Planning Process and Organization. Summary One of the primary goals of the long-range planning and budget process is to instill in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the District a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability and internal program evaluation by the District. Such tools as the Program Inventory, Needs Assessment, and quarterly reporting serve not only to strengthen the process, as outlined in the monthly calendar of critical events, but also to increase the communitys awareness of the Desegregation Plan, the commitments it contains and the Districts carefully thought-out process designed to meet those commitments. With commitment comes the responsibility of providing funds and ensuring that the funding levels are sufficient to support those programs thatLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 11 are determined by the planning and evaluation process to be effective toward achieving the desired goals. Increased use and refinement of the Districts Position Control Inventory System software yields valuable data for program evaluation and budget decision making. Quarterly monitoring reports, by way of the Program Budget Document, are provided. This process, plus the program linkages serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Board and the administration. The intent of these steps and procedures is to identify those programs which can either be modified or eliminated, thereby serving to demonstrate the level of fiscal responsibility needed to gamer community support for future requests for funding. Further, by achieving greater staffing efficiency, reducing over-use of materials and supplies (i.e., through proportional allocations, etc.) and by directing the Districts resources toward those programs which demonstrate track records of success, the District will be able to reduce or eliminate its reliance on non-recurring revenue sources. Accordingly, the long-range planning and budget process is the key component of the Districts strategy to address anticipated funding shortfalls.I LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 12 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Organizational Chart f Attachment 2: Business Case Fomiat Attachment 3: Schematic Planning and Budget CycleO Board 01 Directors 45 Little Rock School District Or C fluaiall Uaya Aiiec. Supariniarrdenl iMatMms SpUAubuniia SujA*  SuaiM Vann C amnaurrtca UoA a I Nancy Aara St uOaraAs s^nmarS Dr*.W I SaeSy Raihar O f a J^uon 3 3 Mar^ Smiwani Cwanu WrSv DAjOw kWam VoaxSvars h Pk/sm: S^uoI 3 3 imr|w ftrswJllaM AaA Sept.. Iba. Sadh Ua\u0026lt;lM AsAltfA. IbA 1 Principals 13 Sctveb Principals irScboob Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent ZI liA Assistant SuparintsrtoanI Curriculum Support Or.VkiM kn^iMn Ai A *u|t, Gm PwMr n*dln0.an9u0 j\u0026amp;OL Dannb Glaa^w SctunltAhamalla Prlndpats 13 Se\u0026gt;oob _ MarUA.UcrUal Socbl Sludlaa ttadf Oar^rvy labor Ralallona Dr. ni^fd HurUy Human Raau\u0026lt;ca Dr. PaBy KoHer Eaoart tonal Cl^i ten Jo Evalyn Elston Pup Sarvkas SlerUnf Intrant StaN OtvekfMiwrt Pal Priea 3 Earfy aiUtood Lucy Lyon ~ Taehnology/Mdla 5 InoerSbe SchorJ^ Cuti Qrsan Yacariorul Edmiion PsUsas Manin AdiJl Educalton 3 .StQffiU. Catharina OR Param Invokaman^ Martan Shaari HIPPY 0) Wlw UsnlabA AkarruShrslaarTtlna Carter AdrUtica Organizational Structure 1995-96 August 22,1995 (Subjacl Io Ravlalons) FndSmIili Mcns|ti (ar Support SsnriCM Mark Mittolan FIrundal Sarvioat ChsriU Na al Procuantari Dou0 Calon Flam SanAoai Dobby Jones SaaaVy/Mik Marufemerd 3 3 Uary Jana ChaAKam oir.m Transportatton Dbactor Food Sarvtoas Ivry $. RoberUen MthUrt SuparWandarl _ Student He\u0026lt;4^ Osvto CaasoA kttomatian Sanrioaa laoA Adama Fadaral fnautytf Qiarito Lh4a Yourtf Naw FUwas o oq P 3. n P P. O  E. n *13 ?0 o Cl I *13 z \u0026gt; H \u0026gt; Cl 2 M 2. o D co c D Cl m z Cl T) P OQ (I MLRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND B ^PTiNr. Page 14 (5j (I STCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 SHORT TERN GUIDELINESAN A UK 1. BACKGROUND A business case is a written pr features supporting the decision-making proccaa es the main facing the I. organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same ... decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale ... SELL YOUR IDEA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. II. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 14 ATTACHMENT 2 STCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 SHORT TERM PROJECT - BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE 1. BACKGROUND A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same ... decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective. . . . present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale ... SELL YOUR IDEA. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. It is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the same formatting as the actual presentation. It should not contain the detailed data to support the topic. Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. IL BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1. Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING 2. Page 15 Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition. 1. Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise 2. statement which defines and describes the problem or situation. There may be a need to convince the reader that a problem exists. Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. Considerations. What seems to be the real problem? What are the causes of the problem? To what extent are they known? Who is affected? What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primciry actors in the situation? C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1. 2. 3. Process. Provide a written description of how you generated and analyzed your alternatives. Be sure to include the participants. Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in factual terms. REMEMBER ... the do nothing alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. Analysis. Each ciltemative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on requirements, impact on legal obligations, impact on personnel, impact on finances. The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. Each analysis should be brief, but should clearly make its point. While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. D. Recommendation. 1. Action recommended. The recommendation follows from the 2. analysis of alternatives. The action recommended should be written in brief, clear, positive statements. Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. E. Objective. 1. Objective of the recommendation. Define the objective of the recommended action, not the immediate physical outputs.I LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 16 2. 3. Goal support. This section should include statements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the District. It is important to establish a direct relationship. Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. These will become a major component of your future plan. There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) b) c) d) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria going to cost more than it will yield? F. G. 4. Expected benefits. This analysis should include an explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they are expected to be realized. It should also identify the recipients of the expected benefits. Impact Analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Program. Describe the impact of the program, both positive and negative. Call in the Expected Benefits above. If you execute this recommendation, how will it impact other programs...will something fall off the tablet?! Who will be the primary actors impacted? Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan? Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? Political factors. Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. Timing. What are the major timing issues, and how will you deal with them? Resources Analysis. 1. Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? Training requirements should be included.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 17 2. Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs, including personnel and benefits, for each of the next 1-5 fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital H. 1. b) c) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Aneilysis. 1. 2. 3. Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? Forces Against. Who will be the primary detractors of the recommendation? Why will they oppose the recommendation? How can you minimize their influence or win them over? Confidentiality. You should determine if you wcint to include this section in material for public release. General Implementation Plan. 1. 2. 3. Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. This should not be a detciiled project plan. Timelines. Each milestone event should have a timeline associated with it. Tasking. Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly 4. identified. Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly or quarterly basis.LRSD - PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING Page 18 ATTACHMENT 3 Manning and Budgeting Time Une OC TOT Sff UC'T TET JAN rm TOSR- TOT mRy JDN JGL TOT 1 PROGRAM INVBITORr 2 PROGRAM EVAUMDON 3 rBSASsessiB\u0026lt;r T 4 GOALS 5 PROGRAM DB/BjCPie4T 6 BLCGERNG 7 MQMTOR1NG S RB\u0026gt;ORnNG T T T 8 REASSESSABfT OF PLAMING PROCESS \u0026amp; ORGAMZATION\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1151","title":"Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) pooling, telephone conference transcript","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-07-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) pooling, telephone conference transcript"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1151"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. North Little Rock Special School District, defendant\nbefore Honorable Susan W. Wright, United States District Judge\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPlaintiff - Repr by __________ _ Defendant Repr by __________ _ MINUT:SS JUDGE: ,iC\u0026lt;.L,._,_, t,) (,,J\"-'.u,.. .. Reporter ~ ~~\"-Clerk \u0026amp;..,, d1t ~.(y 1 DATE: 1-1'1-1S-CASE NO '-~-C-'J.J.-it..t ACTION~ C~ Time: Cour-:: convenes ~ - -----1------------- 2 4 4 .1\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1150","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1995-07-06/1995-12-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1150"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKll1M STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 6, 1995 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OCT 2 4 1995 Office of oe~.i egrega11on Morntomig The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a duly called special meeting at 6:35 p.m. on July 6, 1995 in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The roll call revealed the present of seven (7) Board members. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Mrs. Judy M,gncss Dr. Katherine 1itchell Ms. Stephanie Johnson Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs M~tBERS ABSENT!.. None 1\\1~0 PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Executive Assistant Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minu es CJ\\LL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Pre ident, Ms. Linda Pondexter. The ex-officio teacher representative to the Board for the month of July was introduced, Ms. Faye Reynolds, teacher at Rockefeller Incentive/~arly Childhood Magnet School. The following items were listed as agenda items for the Special Board Meeting: 1. 2. Bond Resolution Proposed Budget of Expenditures with Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 96-97 Special Board Meeting July 6, 1995 Page 2 3. Discussion of Building Closures 4. Budget e nd Court Events 5. Worksession on Student Rights \u0026amp; Responsibilities Handbook 6. Board Member Code of Conduct Ms. Pondexter announced the first item on the agenda: .L._ BOND RESOLUTION Mr. Mark McBryde, Senior Vice President o Stephens, Inc., explained to the Board that the bond refunding process act ually started 18 months ago. After answering questions from Board members, he stated that the bond refunding will equal a savings of $2.5 million ove r the next 24 years. Mr. Riggs moved acceptance of the Bond Resolution, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. RECESS: p.m. The Board recessed at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVEL FOR FISCAL YEAR 96-97 Mr. Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services, explained to the Board tha t State Law requires that the p r ojected budget on the amount the District thinks the millage rate will be for the next year, be published in the newspaper 60 days prior to school election date. This year that deadline is July 21, 1995. The Board was a r- ked to vote on the options. The options were a proposed tax levy of 43.9 mills\n48.9 mills\nor 53.4 mills. The 4 3. 9 mills is the amount that is currently existing for the District. The 48.9 mills would be an increase of 5 mills if the public voted for this increase. he 53.4 mills would bring in an increase of 9.5 mills if voted in by the public. After discussion by the Board, it was decided that the timing was not righ to ask the public for a millage increase. Ms. Magness moved that the administration publish the budget fo r 4 3. 9 mills at this time, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Gee asked the administration to check on past history and see what time of the year the District had the most successful millage elections. _h DISCUSSION OF BUILDING CLOSURES Ms. Pondexter administration building. asked the procedure f or closing the She felt that one group of employees was Special Board Meeting July 6, 1995 Page 3 not being treated the same as other groups. Mr. Gadberry explained that the personnel on a 12 months contract are scheduled to work 250 days and that is followed at the administration building. The Superintendent was asked to inform the Board when the administration building is going to be c l osed . .L. BUDGET AND COURT EVENTS Ms. Pondexter asked the status of the following court cases: a. The Corky Haygood Case b. The John Hickman Case c. The Karen Buchanan Case The Board was told that the Haygood case was scheduled to begin the week of July 10. Mr. Jerry Malone, Attorney, was present and he stated that they have not received any additional information on t he John Hickman case. The Superintendent is recommenc ing tha t the Karen Buchanan case be appealed si1 c e it could open a lot of cases for the District. Mr. Riggs ,ioved that the Superintendent be allowed to appeal the case, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanill\\outlY..:_ DR. MITCHELL A.ND MR. RIGGS LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES HANDBOOK Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston and two members of her committee answered many questions the Board had concerning the proposed changes in the Handbook. There was discussion concerning secret societies that is mentioned. It was suggested that this be named more specifically, such as secret societies that promote hatred, racial separation, or demon worship. It was also suggested that the sign inside the front cover showing a knife and a gun be switched to the last page and something more positive be placed on the inside page. Ms. Gee moved that thG handbook as presented and the changes suggested be approved, seconded by Ms. Magness, and it carried unanimously. It was moved that included in this motion, the committee be given a citation by the Superintendent. h BOARD MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT There was no action taken on this item at this meeting. Special Board Meeting July 6, 1995 Page 4 1\\DJC NMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Gee moved adjournment at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Ms. Magness, and it carried unanimously, APPROVED: -------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING July 20, l.995 OCT 2 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Mon1,onn9 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on July 20, 1995 i 11 the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Mrs. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Stephanie Johnson Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT_\n_ None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes .L_ CALL TO ORDER II. The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. The ex-officio teacher, Faye Reynolds from Rockefeller Incentivt School was introduced\nthe student exofficio, Cheryl Bryant was absent. READING OF MINUTES: Ms. Ponde xter, brought the Board's attention to the reading of the minutes from the Special Board Meeting on June 22, 1995\nthe Regular Board Meeting of June 22, 1995\nand the Special Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 2 Board Meeting on July 6, 1995. Mrs. Gee moved approval of the minutes, seconded by Mr. Riggs and carried unanimously . III . PRESENTATIONS: fu.. SUPERINTENDENT The Superintendent presented a citation to Mr. Barry Travis of the Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau , which is a Partner in Education with Little Rock Central High . The agency provided services to the students and staff of Central after a fire last spring destroyed the school auditorium. Mr. Travis was instrumental in securing the Old Statehouse for the Central High School senior class baccalaureate service . The Superintendent recognized the members of the rights and responsibilities handbook committee for their many hours of work in the revision of the handbook . The individuals recognized were Jo Evelyn Elston, Mona Briggs, Rudolph Howard, Victor Anderson, Cassandra Mason, Marian Lacey, Margaret Gremillion, Larry Robertson, Sharon Brooks, Carolyn Teeter, Julie Davenport , Bobby Jones, Patty Kohler, John Nowden, Willie Dav is, Judy Walker, Sheila Patterson, Valerie Alexander, Rose Williams, Pamela Tims, Dr. Rufus Thrower, Blake Rutherford, William Holiday, Elizabeth Rodriquez, Lakeisha Williams, James Annesley-DeWinter, Wayne Knight, Debra Garner, Alene Goetz, Charlie Brown, Anthony Cha e rs, Jean Rouse, Tammi Dockett-Wil~ on, Janet Buford, Cleme,.tine Kelley, Linda Bell, and Catherine Mueller . At the conclusion, the Superintendent recognized the teacher ex- fficio Board member for the month of July, Faye Reynolds from Rockefeller Incentive School, and the student ex-officio Board member, Cheryl Bryant . .!L._ CITIZENS COMMITTEE Jerry Peters, repre,enting Empower Arkansans, repo1ted on a campaign in the New Orleans Public Schools that increased voter participation in school activities and millage campaigns. He asked that our Board look to creative methods to gain community support in the Little Rock School District. One example of significance was that school elections were held on Saturdays to gain c itizen partic ipation. Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 3 ~ SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. O!!ice o! Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Gulden, representing ODM, reported that a r e port on the racial balance of school staffing for the hree districts in Pulaski County would be filed with the Court this week. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin, Executive Director, reported that contract negotiations are in progress and that he is hopeful, but not overly optimistic, that a settlement will be reached soon . He introduced Betty Mitchell, the newly elected president of the CTA, and Melinda Martin, vice-president elect. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. BOARD MEMBERS Judy Magness reported on her visit to the Principals' Institute which was conducted on July 17-18, 1995. She remarked that the LRSD was very fortunate to have the highest caliber of principals and that they were very excited and enthusiastic about the upcoming school year. She recognized Sadie Mitchell and Margaret Gremillion for doing an outstanding job of coordinating the annual Institute activities. John Riggs reported that he is very optimistic about the future of the LRSD. He i ~ convinced that we are closer than we have ever been to r eaching some of the goals of the original Desegregation Plan through the coordinated efforts of administration and the other parties to the Plan. He stated his confidence in this Board of Directors\nalthough its' members do not always agree, they vote their conscious belief in the issues and do not allow personalities to interfere . Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 4 Mr . Riggs announced his candidacy for re-election to the Zone 4 position on the Board . Stephanie Johnson announced her intention to run for the Zone 7 position. She reported that she had attended the Second Annual M. L. King Youth Assembly this past weekend at the Statehouse Convention Center. Approximately 1,200 students attended from around the nation and she congratulated these youth for their respectful and responsible behavior . Linda Pondexter reported that she had attended the Principals ' Institute as a speaker on the program. She had also attended the luncheon meeting of the parties to the desegregation suit last Monday and would be attending the next meeting on Monday, July 24, at the AEA Building. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Michael Daugherty, representing the Little Rock New Party, congratulated the Board and administration for being willing to work with the parties to come to agreement in the desegregation case. He attended tonight to express his concerns about the proposed Board Member code of conduct, and he asked the Board to reconsider the need for such a code which he feels is an infringement on the Constitution . ....Y,_ ACTION AGENDA A. School Board Member Code of Conduct Mr. Riggs had provided a revised Code of Conduct for the Board's review. He suggested that we refer to the proposed policy as a Code of Ethics to eliminate some of the misinformation that has arisen about the need for such a document. Much of the content of the Code is already a pat of district pol icy and the community has been misinformed about the initial reasons for development of the Code. Mrs. Gee made a motion for the Board to hold a review of the Code of Conduct at the August Agenda meeting\nMrs. Magness seconded and it pas f ed 6-1, with Mr. Riggs c .:1sting the no vote. Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 5 B. First Reading - Policy on Naming Facilities The Superintendent presented the policy for Naming of District Facilities for the Board's consideration and introduced Sadie Mitchell as the chairperson of the committee. Rev is ions suggested by the Board to allow considerat ion of persons who were still living had been incorporated into the policy guide ines for the first reading. Mrs. Magness requested an additional change to the section of the policy that directs the Superintendent to gain written authorization from the closest relative of the person to be honored by the naming of a facility\nsuch authorization should be secured from the individJal if tha ~ person is still living. Administration was also asked to review the suggested time limits for nominations of individuals. After a period of discussion Mrs. Gee moved for a postponement to allow additional r ~visions to the policy\nMr. Riggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. ESEA Title VI Application The superintendent recommended aprroval of the Title VI ESEA application a nd introduced Mr. Leon Adams, Director of Fede ral Programs, for r ~sponse to any que ~tions by the Board. There were no questions and Mr. O 'Malley moved approva l of the application\nMrs. Gee seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Request for Lease of Property Dr. Williams recommended approval of a lease agre ement between Pulaski Technical College, Ford Motor Company, and the LRSD for classroom, laboratory, and office space at the Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center. Carol Green was present to provide additional information to the Board. M . O'Malley made a motion to approve the lease agreement\nMs. G~e seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. First Reading - Policy for School Activities on Election Days At the Board's request a policy was developed that would prevent scheduling of school activities on election days. Mrs. Gee moved for approval of the policy\nMrs. Magness seconded the motion. Motion approving the policy on first reading passed unanimously. Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 6 F. Resolution - Voter Registration in Schools At the request of Mr. O' Malley a resolution was presented inviting authorized voter registrars to be present in our schools during the Fall Registration period, August 7-8, 1995. Mr. O'Malley resolution. an editorial Dr. Mitchell recognized Suellen Vann as the writer of the He made a motion to approve the resolution with change to eliminate specific dates and times. seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. G. lonations The Superintendent recommended approval of the following it ns for donation to the LRSD: SCHOOL McDermott Elementary Baseline Elementary Baselin Elementary Boston Paper Trimmer $500.00 cash for purchase of 40 dictionaries $200. 00 cash for purchase of food items for school closing activities Mr. Riggs moved for approval of the donations, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanirnou sl_y . H. Personnel Changes Mrs. Gee made a motion to reorder the agenda to consider Personnel changes as the last item of business after an executive session. There was no objection to the motion and the Board moved to the next item. I. 1pproval of 1995-96 Budget The Superintendent reported that there are pending collective bargaining issues that will prevent the budget from being final at this time. The Court, through ODM, was notified of the reasons for the budget's delay and is aware that the submission is a \"living document\" that will undergo further modification. Fred Smith presented information relative to the budget submission that must be filed on July 24, 1995. Mr. Riggs offered the motion to accept the final budg\u0026lt; t for submission with the stipulation that the Board begin meeting monthly to review revisions to the budget as they are made\nBoard of Directors Me eting July 20, 1995 Page 7 VI. Ms. Johnson s econded the motion and it carried 6 to l, with Mr. O'Malley casting the no vote. (Mr. O'Malley objected to the use of additional loan fund monies to balance the budget.) J. Financial Reports Financial reports for the month ending June 30, 1995, were not available due to the end-of-year closing procedures. Mr . Riggs moved that the item be tabled, Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Suspension of the Rules Mr. Riggs moved for a suspension of the rules for the purpose of rescinding a vote taken on June 22, 1995\nMrs. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6 to 1, with Mr. O'Malley voting \"no.\" Yotion to Rescind Previous Vote At a special meeting on June 22, 1995, the Boa rd approved closing Badgett and Fair Park Elementary Schools by a vote of 4-3. Mr. Riggs moved to rescind the action closing these s chools\nMrs. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6 t o 1, with Mr. O'Malley casting the \"no\" vote. REPORT l\\GENDA A. Desegregation Update Dr. Mayo was present to answer any questions on the desegregation update as printed in the agenda. B. Development of Policy - Disposition of School Buildings Mrs . l agnes s requested that the Board consider development of district policy on the disposition o t school property. Ms. Johnson made a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of moving this item from discussion to action on the agenda. Ms . Gee seconded the motion and it carried una ~mously. Ms . Johnson moved that a committee be formed to develop district policy on the disposition of school propLrty that is no longer used for the education of students\nMs. Magness seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mrs. Magness was appointed by the Board President to serve as the convener , and Ms . Johnson was app0 inted to serve on the committee. Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 8 c. Use of Cable Channel 4 for School Board Candidates Dabato Research was presented to the Board that would allow use of the district's cable channel for debate among candidates for School Board positions. It was recommended that an outside moderator be engaged for these debates. D. Millage Election: Dates of Past successful Campaigns Information was presented to Board members which included dates of past successful millage elections. Most millage election~ have been conducted every 2-4 years. II. AUDIENCES Nathan Dendy, President of International Graphics Communication for the Southern Region, spoke to the Board in opposition to outside contracting of maintenance services. EXECUTIVE SE 'SION Ms. Gee made a motion for the Board to go into executive session, Mr. Ri ggs seconded and it passed unanimously. PERSONNEL ACTION The Board returned from exec utive session at 8:57 p.m. Ms. Pondexter reported that no action was taken as a part of this session. Jerry Malone, attorney for the district was present to respond to questions regarding settlement of a lawsuit filed by Harold \"Corky\" Haygood against the district. Mr. Haygood had beE.. n terminated for insubordination and falsification of records. Mr. Malone recommended that the district settle the suit instead of pursuing further legal action. Ms. Gee made the motion to accept the settlement recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 6-1, with Mr. O'Malley casting the \"no\" vote. The superintendent recommended approval of personnel changes presented to the Board in addition to those in the printed agenda. Mr. Riggs moved acceptance of the items, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it passed 6-1 with Ms. Gee voting \"no.\" The superintendent recommended approval of the personnel changes as printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved approval, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it passed unanimously. Board of Directors Meeting July 20, 1995 Page 9 VIII. DISCIPLINARY None . .ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment at 9:15 p.m., seconded by Ms. Magness, and it carried unanimously. A ..,PROVED: 9- d- '-f - 'f. 5 Whereas, the Little Rock School District is committed to providing service to the community\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District promotes community involvement in decisions that affect its patron\nand Whereas, the Little Rock School District encourages community members to take part in civic decisions by part 1- pating in elections\nand Whereas, th(\nLittle Rock School District especially encourages participation in School Elections, N0W, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors l f the Little Rock School District e. tends an invitation to all Voter Registrars to visit any school in the Dis trict for the purpose of registering new voters for Pulaski County. Adopted this 20th day of July, 1995. 'P~ rd~ gnda Pondexter, President IJ\"ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST i\\L\\RKIIA\\l STREET LITfLE ROCK, ARKA, 'SAS i\\ll, UTES SPECIAL llOARD MEETING August l 0, 1995 OCT 2 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Morn.:m11g The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session August 10, 1995, im111ediately following the regularly scheduled agc.:nda 111ccting, in the 13oard Room of the J\\clministration Building, 810 \\Vest \\larkham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President. 1\\1 . Linda Pondexter. presided. \\IE\\lBERS PRESE. \"f: l\\1s. Linda Pondexter l\\fs. Patricia Gee Ms. Judy l\\lagness Dr. l'athcrinl' \\!itchell \\L. Stephanie fohnson ~Ir. Kc\\'in O'\\lalley l\\tr. John Riggs ALSO PRESE1 T: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell t\\layo. Associate Superintendent Is. [kverly G1 iffin. Re,ordcr of i\\!inutes CALL TO ORJl]::R The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. The roll call revealed five Board members were pre. cnt. two were absent. Also present were ex-officio members of the Board, l\\.fs. Lillie Srnll. teacher at Romine Intcrdistri cl Elementary School, and J\\usti11 Burke, student from Parkvicw !agnet School. Board of Directors Special Meeting August 10, 1995 Page:?. II. PU RPO. E OF TIIE i\\lEETING The agencb for the speci,11 meeting re\\'calecl the following items for consideration of the Board: l. Review and Approval of Desegregation Plan lodifications -, Personnel Recommendations 3. Ratification of Tentati\\'e Agreement - Teacher Cc ntract -L 1\\lcKinney l:ducational Grant Application 5. Employee I lcarings 6. Student Reinstatement I lcarings II I. .-\\CTIO:\\ ITE\\ IS Desegregation Plan i\\lodilications There was discussion regarding the proposed plan modifications that have been prepared for submission to the Court. Dr. Mayo was present to respond to questions and concerns of the Board. Mr. John Walker submitted objections to the modification process and was invited by the Bt ird Pre idcnt to participate in the Board's discussion. After detailing some of his objectit 1s he asked the Board to postpone action on approving the plan modifications. Dr. Williams defended the information presented for the Board's consideration, the process used in developing the suggested modifications, and outlined the tirneline that had been followed in preparation for the Court submission. Melinda l\\tartin, CTA vice-president, asked for a change to the proposed plan modification as it relates to transfers for employees of the district. The CTA requested that we strike \"where practical\" from the plan change to allow district employees to transfer their children to the building where they work. Board of Directors Speci,il i\\keting August 10, 199.'i Page 3 i\\ts. Johnson mack a motion to include the proposed changes to the plan on the agenda of the next joint meeting of the Parties to the Desegregation lawsuit. i\\1s. Gee seconded the motion, and it passed 3-2, with i\\1s. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, and i\\!s. Johnson voting \"yes.\" Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Magness voting \"no.\" The Board took a rece sat 6:-40 p.m. and reconvened at 6:58 p.m. Ratification of Tentative Agrcc111cnt - Teacher Contract \\tr. Gadberry advised the Board th.11 the Classroom Teachers Ass0\u0026lt;:iation had voted unanimously to ratify the proposed teacher contract for the I 995-96 school year. I\\ls. Betty i\\litchell. CTA president. agreed with Mr. G.1dberry that each team had \\\\orked hard to develop an agreement that was beneficial to all parties. t\\.ls. Pondexter thanked all of the negotiating team members for their long hours of work. Ms. Gee moved for approval of the proposed teacher contract. Dr. I\\!itchell seco11dcd the motion. a11d it passed unani11lot1slv. \\lch:inncy Ecl11,alional Grant Application The Supe1 i11te11dent reco1111111.:nded approval of the 1995-96 \\le Kinney Educational grant application. This grant. if approved, \\\\ill provide up to $25.000 to promote enrollment, attend.1nce, and succ1.:ss of homeless children. i\\ts. i\\tagness made the motion to approve sub111issio11 of the gra11t. 01. i\\!itchell seconded the 111otio11, a11 it passed 5-0. The Board recessed at 7: 10 p.m . .111d recon\\'ened at 7:20 p . 111. Employee Hearings Two trnnspo, tat ion depa1 t111ent e111ployees, Don Phillips and Debor.1h I I.1milton, requested a joint hearing before the Board. Both of these were former LRSD dispatchers and both have accepted employment with Laidlaw. They arc appealing the loss of pay a I reduction in benefits, especially retirement benefits, they will lose as Laidl.lw employees. tary Jane Cheatham presented the district's pos1t1on on the issue. Both of the employees were l011g-te1111 LRSD employees who were \"surplus\" or subject to \"RI F.\" Board of Directors Special l\\keting August I 0, 1995 Page 4 i\\lr. Gadbeny reported that the district had been holding discus ions with the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to develop a plan that would allow the district to continue paying into the employees retirement plan. The Superintendent recommended that the District negotiate with Laidlaw to make up the difference in salary and retirement benefits for Mr. Phillips and Ms. Hamilton. The Board asked that administration develop a written agreement that outlines the terms of compensating these two employees for their salary and benefit loss. i\\ls. Pondexter a ked if thne was any objection to recessing the hearing for these employees until an agreement could be drafted. There was no objection from the employees. i\\ls. i\\lagness made the motion to recess the employee's hearing. Dr. Mitchell seconded and the Board voted 5-0 to npprove the recess. Student lfcnrings Larry Robc1 tson. Student I !caring Officer. pre. entcd information and recomrnenckd reinstatement of four students. Each of these students were reinstated to the LRSD on strict probation, with the stipulation that they report to the Board at the end of the first nine-weeks with their academic, attendance and citizenship records. Other stipulations and recommendations were: Quinton Forney, expelled for possession of a firearm from Cloverdale Junior High School. Quinton's parent request ed reassignment to another junior high school. The Board asked that he co1 tinue his involvement in the Step Up Program. Ms. Gee made the motion to reinstate Quinton, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Brinn Rainey, expelled for possession of a firearm from Parkview Magnet High School. Brian was reinstated, but is to be reassigned to another high school. I le was asked to attend the Step Up Program and contact the Upward Bound program at Philander for academic assistance. Ms. Johnson moved approval of reinstatement under these conditions, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Board of Directors Special t\\kcting August 10, I 995 Page 5 Antwo11 \\\\'illialllS, expelled for verbal and physical ass\nrnlt on staff from l lcndcrso11 Junior I ligh School. Antwon was reinstated to Henderson Jr. l Iigh School. I le is to become invol\\'ecl in an after school program and apologize to the coach and the bus driver who were involved in his expulsion. t--.ls. Gee moved for reinstatement under these conditions, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. L,wrcnce Lawson, expelled for verbal assault on staff from McClellan High School. Lawrence was reinstated with the recommendation that he become involved in a counseling program. !\\ts. Gee rnc1cle the motion to reinstate Lawrence, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. EXECUTIVE SESSIO\\'. i\\!s. \\lagness moved for the Bonrd go into Executive Session nl 9:55 p.m. Dr. i\\!itchell seconded the motion and it pnssed 5-0. The meeting reconvened at 10:38 p.111. and the President reported that no action \\\\'ilS taken during the session. Personnel Reco1111nc11dations Dr. i\\litchell 1110\\cd acceptance of the Superintendent's recomm endations for personnel changes ns listed on the memorandum of August 9. 199.'i. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with i\\-ls. Pondexter casting th \"nay\" vote. ADJOURNl\\lENT With no further business before the Bo.1rd, Dr. i',.!itchell moved for adjournment at 10:-t.5 p.m., seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED:~ -J..~ -Cf 5 August 9, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: ~llia~nt S..ibject: Recommendations for Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes: TRANSFERS/PROMOTIONS Principal, Hall high School - Gayle Bradford Acting Principal, Mabelvale Junior High - James Fullerton Principal, Dunbar Junior High - Linda Brown Director of Planning, Researc and Evaluation - Dr. Ed Jackson Assistant Principal, Henderson - James Mosby Assistant Principal, Pulaski Heights - Reginald Knighten Assistarit Principal, Pulaski Heights - Deborah Berry Assistant Principal, Southwest - David Smith Principal, Brady Elementary - Ada Keown Principal, Franklin Elementary - Ethel Dunbar Principal, Garland - Lionel Ward As, istant Principal, Booker Magnet - Donna Hall Evaluation Specialist, P.R.E. - J.J.Lacey, Jr. Director, Staff Development - Sterling Ingram Title Change Only: Director, Media Services - Lucy Lyons LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICI' 810 \\\\'EST l\\lARKIL\\:\\I STREET lJ'lTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS l\\llNUTES SPECIAL BOARD l\\IEETING August 22, 1995 OCT 2 4 1995 Office of Desegregalion Mor.i orino The Bo\nml of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session August 22. 1995. in the Board Room of the Adm inistr.-ition Building, 810 West M.-irkh.-im Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, t-.ts. Linda Pondexter, presided. l\\lE:\\lBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter fs. Patrici.-i Gee Ms. Judy /1.fagncss t-.ts. Stephanie Johnson 1 tr. Kevin O'~lallcy Dr. Kath erine \\!itchell \\IE\\ IBERS ABSE. \"T: ~tr. Jo hn Ri g.gs ALSO PRESEl\\T: Dr. I Ienry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Ru ssell 1\\.hyo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed five Board members were present, Dr. i\\1itch ell arrived nt 6:40 p.m., one member was absent. II. PURPOSE OF TIIE MEETING The meeting was called at the request of the Dunbnr Alumni Association by presentation of a petition to the Bon rd . The ngencla revenled the following items for the duly called meeting: Board of Dirccto1s SpL'cial Mcl'ting August 22. 199.S Page 2 l. Dunbar Alu111ni Association presentation Student Reinstate111ent I karings III. ACTION ITE~IS Dunbar Alumni Association Six individual patrons of the district addressed the 13oard rl'garding the procedurL s used in filling staff vacancies at Dunbar for the !99.S-96 school year. Pearl Johnson stated concerns about the election process for the principal at Dunbar. I !er opinion was that the process wa. insensitive and cxclusion.1ry .1nd that one of the assist.1nt princip.1ls at Dunbar hould h.1,c been placed in the position of building principal. She questioned the colllposition of the selection committee by race\nind gender. She w.1s also concerned .1bout the selection of the mcd1\n1 speciali t. Belinda \\\\'ilson. pa1ent of a Dunbar stu,lcnt. was concerned about .111 incident that \u0026lt;Krn1rl'd la:,\nt school yc\nir RL'portedly a staff 111L'111ber shmed hn son and she did not feel there wa: a satisfactory response by .1d111inistration to that incident. She st.1ted that strong leadership was needed at Dunbar. Carl Hines. 19-tS graduate of Dunbar. is cunently in,oh ed with the lllento1 ing program at Dunbar. I le felt that he and other persons interested and .1ctive at Du11b.1r should ha\\'e had an opportunity to subn1it questions for the intervie\\\\, proce s in selecting the building leader. Sterling Rogers. 19-13 graduate of Dunb.1r, is concerned about students .1nd feels that Dunbar Illus! have a dynalllic, \"c.1n-do. ,viii-do\" leader. I k feels that the process used in selecting the principal was faulty and asked that the selection be voided and repeated. Dale Charles indicated that the assistant principal at Dunbar should have been considered for placement as building principal. I le feels that the process was not foir and that the racial composition of the in ten il'w committee was imbalanced. I le reported that the Dunbar P'I\n\\ meetings had bcl'n held at the District administration building. I !is request was that these meetings be held at Du ),lr to relieve fears in the con11llunity that the Dunbar area is unsafe. Board of Directors Special \\keting August 22. 19\u0026lt;)5 1'\n1g.c 3 John \\\\'alkcr addressed the Board in support of the speakers. I le feels that their concerns arc legitimate and asked the Board to review the process. I k asked that the interview be clone over so th:it these patrons can ha\\'C confidence in the selection process. Student Hearings Larry Rob1..rt:-.on. Student I !earing Officer, presentc.:cl information and recommended reinstatement of :i-,,: students. Each of these students was recommended fo1 reinstatement the LRSD 011 trict probation. ,,,ith thc stipulation that they report to the l3oard .11 the end of thc tirst ninc-wceks with their academic. attendance. and citizenship records. Othcr stipulations and recommendations ,,ere: Tara B11rks. cxpelkd for possession of a weapon. from Franklin Elcmentar1 Sclwnl. \\Ii. C)'\\l\nillcy made th1..' 111otio11 to reinstate Tara. \\Is. \\lagness seconded thL motion\n111d it carried G-0. Barron :\\rnolcl. was expelled for po session of a weapon. from i\\labchalc Junior I ligh. Barron wa~ asked to eek assistance and support from the program at I loover United :-,...1cthodist Church and i\\lr. Robertson is to investigate possible reassignment to Southwest Junior I ligh School. \\Ir. O'l\\.lalley moved for approval of rei11statcme11t. Dr. \\!itchcll seconded the motion and it passed G-0. Justin Caple had been expelled for possession of a firearm from McClellan lligh School. Ile was represented by Attorney 1\\lark llampton. Ms. Johnson moved for reinstatement, i\\ls. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Larnr i\\loorc was expelled for physical ass.1ult on staff from Cloverdale Junior I Iigh School. The Superintendent recommended an alternate junior high school .1ssignment and Lavar was asked to continue involvement with an after school program for assistance in handling his anger. i\\ls. Magness made the motion for reinstatement, Dr. litchcll seconded tile motion and it passed G-0. I3oard of Directors Special Meeting August 22. 1995 Page --1 Jermaine Ingram had been expelled for inciting to riot. from Mabelvale Junior I ligh School. Dr. Williams recommended that J ennaine be reassigned to another junior high school and that he seek participation in an after school support program. Or. Mitchell moved for rein tatcmcnt. Ms. Gee seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Cedric Pitts was expelled for possession of a firearn1 from Cloverdale Junior I ligh chool. The superintendent recommended reinstatement. Mr. O'i\\Ialley made the motion to reinstate Cedric. Dr. :--.titchcll seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. It i. possible that Cedric has enough credits to enter high school. and if so. will be rcco111111cndcd for assignment to ~kClcllan I ligh School. ADJOURN:\\IENT With no furthn bu siness bdorc the Board. :.Is. Gee mmcd 101 adjournment at 9:20 p.111 .. ccondcd by :.Is. :.!:ignc ss. and it carried 1111a11i111011.slv. APPROVED: q\u0026gt;-J-..?-15 L!TrI,E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRl(T 810 \\\\'EST \\L\\Rh.11.\\\n\\l ~TREET Ll'ITLE ROCK. ARKA 'SAS 1\\11'\\UTES REGULAR BOARD i\\lEETl1 'C August 2-1, 19 15 OCT 2 4 1995 Office of Des egregaticn Moniionn!J ... \"_ - The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled 111ecting at 6:00 p.111. on August 2-4, 1995, in the f3oud Room of the Administration Building, S 10 West i\\larkham Street, Littk Rock, Arkansas. The President, fs. Linda Pondexter, presided. \\JE\n\\IBERS PRESE:\\T: ~!s. Linda Pondexter \\ts. Patricia Gee \\Is. Judy i\\!\n1gness Dr. Kathe1ine \\litchcll :\\ls. Stephanie Johnson \\tr. Ke\\'ill O'\\!alky \\I E\\IBERS ,\\ BSI:. 'T: :\\l1. John Riggs ::_\\LSO PRESENT: Dr. I lcnry P. \\\\'illiams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Ru.sell, !ayo, Associate Superintendent I\\ls. Bcve1 ly Griffin, Recorder of I\\linutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondc\\ter, called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.111. Tia: roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. The ex-officio teacher, Lillie Srnll from Romine Intc:rdistrict 1 1agn\u0026lt;:t Sch\u0026lt; ol. and the ex-officio student Austin Burke from Parkvicw i\\.lagnct School were also present. I3o.-ird of Directors Meeting August 2-L 1995 Page 2 II. RE:\\DING OF \\11:'\\UTES: l\\ls. Pondexter, brought the I3o.-ird's attention to the re.-iding of the minutes from the Regubr l3oard l\\keting of July 20, 1995. 1\\ts. Gee moved for approval of the minutes, seconded by l\\fs. Magness. and carried 1111ani111011sly. Ill. PRESE1 'TATIO:\\S: ,\\. SUPERl\\\"rE:\\DE\n'\\T The Superintendent recognized Lillian Renee Kovach, e111ployec of the Instructional Resource Center. who has been awarded the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and l\\fathematics in Tcnching and a Presidential Citation. She was presented a Superintendent's Citation in recognition of this honor. A Citation was also presented to Sherry Chambers. teacher at Dodd Elc111entary School. l\\ls. Chambers was selected to recei,e the I 99:i Sallie !\\be First Class Te\n-ichcr Aw,nd for first-year teachers. Twenty tr\nrn:-,pcll'L1tiu11 lkpartment employees \"ere recognized for ,oluntcering their ti111c 10 the .-\\rkan:-,as \"I I la,e A Dream'' Youth Assembly. ,-\\ list of those i11dividu.1ls is attached. In conclusion, the Superintendent recognized the tea cher ex-officio Board member for the month of August, Lillie Scull from Romine lnterdistrict Mngnet School, and the student ex-officio Board member, Austin Burke from Parkview l\\.fognct. B. CITIZE'iS C0\\1:\\t!TrEES l\\.1s. Gee requested that Mr. Eaton provide an update on the Chicot rebuilding project and asked that the committee to rebuild Chicot be reorganized and scheduled to meet again. Mr. Eaton reported that all contracts have been awarded and the contractor is to begin roofing the building as soon as the shipment of steel is received. The cleaning of the building interior is complete and all areas that are finished arc scaled off and protected from vandals. The goal is to be finished by the first of 1996. Board of Directors r--kcting August 2-l. 1995 Page 3 C. SPECIAL PRESEi':TATIO~S 1. Office of Desegregation i\\tonitoring Melissa Gulden, was present bu, had no formal report for the Board. She emphasized that 111any of the employees of ODM have child1cn or grandchildren attending school in the Ll~SD. 2. Classroo111 Teachers Association Frank \\lartin. Excrntive Director. reported his pleasure that school opened ,, ith settlement of the contract negotiations. I le reported that a proble111 exists with placement of the pre, ious CTA President. \\Is. Coleman and that the problem may invohe the District's policy on nepoti 111. He asked that the Board investigate the circumstances su1 rounding \\Is. Coleman's placement. 3. Joshua Intencnors '.',\no report. . 111ight l11tcnc11ors Betty \\litchell, CTA representative. reported for the Knight lntcrvenors. Issues dealing with teacher transfers. ,oluntary and involuntary. are a concern and she asked that in the future the transfer process be completed earlier, before the end of the school vear. 5. JYf:\\ Council 1 'o report. D. BO\\RD \\IE,\\IBERS t-.ls. Ponclexte1 a luted tr. O'Malley for his service and dedication to the Board. I k has chosen not to seek reelection. Ms. Magness recognized and thanked LRSD administrative and support staff members, and congratulated Dr. Williams for building a strong team. Board of Directors i\\keting A11gusl 2-1. l 995 Page  !\\'. Dr. l\\litchell rl'jHlltcd that she visited the transportation depart111cnt open house. She co111me1Hkd th\u0026lt;..' llus dri\\'l'rS for their cn111111i1111en1 and cooperative spirit. l\\.ls. Johnson has ,isited some of the school in Zone 7. She\n1t1ended orientation at Cloverdale Junior I ligh School, attended a PTA meeting. and encouraged other PTA groups to include student representatives. i\\ls. Johnson also complimented the l\\1cClcllan staff for their commitment to getting 10th gr:ide students off to a good start by ,vorking 011 the Sunday before school started. l\\fs. Pondexter attended the orientation for retllrning bus dri,ers and the open house in transportation. She thanked everyone \\\\hO sent their condolences during her illness. She thanked the staff of Parkvic\\\\' for gelling th\u0026lt;..'ir Slllclcnts off to a good start.\n,,1s. Gee in\\'ited patrons to telephone her any time. She noted that it was \\'Cry irnporl:111t that Board members keep in touch with the con1munity. l\\ls. \\!agncss in\\'itcd Suellen Vann. director of rnmmllnications. to make a public service annou ncc111ent regarding a debate between school board candidates c 1 \\londay. 1\\ugust 28. 1995. at 7:30 p.n1. REi\\l:\\RKS FRO.\\! CITIZENS Robert \"Say\" i\\lclntos!J recognized Bennie Johnson as a faithful employee of the LRSD. Mr. Johnson was injured in an incident with a student. \"S\n-iy\" also volunteered to do whatever he can to make the LRSD better. Deborah Vail. parent of a Dunb,n student, compliiined that her d,rnghtcr's bus had not yet run on time. Her child is missing first period class because of late trn nsporta t ion. Thcrctha Jackson stressed that it is not al\\\\ays the drivers' f,rnlt when the buses arc late. Some of the routes arc too long, some buses are malfunctioning, and there still exists a shortage of drivers. Neddie Nichols, reported that drivers arc being subjected to mental abuse. Ms. Nichols does not feel that the transportation director is qualified for the position and she stated that Mr. Smith docs not listen to tile drivers complaints. Board of Directors l\\leeting August 24. 1995 Page 5 l\\tirhael Campbell presented a pct1t1on signl'd by 49 transportation tkpartrnl'nt L'111ployees\n1sking for the resignation of l\\!ary Janl' Chl'ath\n1111. Joh1111y Darrarntt was present in support of nallling the practice field at I !all I ligh School after Coach Raymond Peters. l\\like Daugherty. member of the Little Rock New Party and candidate for the Zone 2 position on the Board. spoke in support of the district's custodial employees. I le asked the I3oard to support the District's rnstodial employees a11d reject the proposal to privatize custodial services. Stacy Pittman. co-president of the P'L\\ at Pubski I !eights Elementary. rL'ported that a number of pare11ts have spent time O\\'er the past two \\\\L'eks clc\n111ing and preparing the school for opening day. She asked the Board to look ,ery se ri ously at privatizing custodial and mainte11anre scr:ices. The current taff and equiprne11t is inadequate for the amount of work that 11ecds to be done in that buildi11g. '.\\lclinda i\\tarti11. CTA Vice-Preside11t spoke 011 behalf of the bus dri,e rs. Prnblcms continue with managl'ment of dist1 ict transpo1 tat ion and it has caused poor morale of the dri,er.. \\\\'illic Gi,c11s ,poke in suppon of rn tod1ans a11d m\n1inten: tnre ,,01 kers and asl-.ecJ the I3oarcJ 11ot to support subcontr\n1cting of custodial and n1aintLnance sen ice. Janell Romandia is the parent of a pecial needs student whose bus has arri,ccJ at school l:ite each clay this week. Carolyn Rufus and Veola Parks are residents of St thwest Little Rock \\\\ho.-c students attend Pulaski I !eights. Transportation for these students has bl'en discontinued and they asked the Board to reinstate transportation for thl.?ir tudents. V. ACTIO 'AGEND.\\ f\\.1s. \\1agness made a motion to reorder the agenda to mo\\'e itelll \"I I\" (ServiccI\\.laster Proposal) to item \"/\\.\" i\\lr. O' talky seconded the motion . The motion passed 1111animo11 sly. The Board took a break at 7: IS p.m. and resumed the meeting at 7:35 p.m. noard or Directors i\\lL'L'ting August 2l. 1995 Page 6 A. Service\n\\laster Proposal i\\ls . .\\L1g.11ess\n1skecl that the presentation for co11tracti11g custodinl services be made by district administrators and Scrvicd\\1aster representatives. Fred Smith, LRSD J\\1anngcr or Support Services. and Ron I !ostetkr. Scrvicel\\1aster representative. presented infonnation :rnd ans\\\\cred questions from the Board. l\\lr. Smith asked the Board to authorize the administration to enter contract negotiations with Scrvic1: i\\hstcr. t-1s. Magness made a motion to table action on the Snvice\\1astcr propo. al until further clisc-ussion and study of the business c\n1sc can be conducted. \\Ir. 0'1'-1:ilky seconded the motion. and the 111otio11 to t\niblc failed by a 3-3 vote. with Ms. Pondexter. i\\ls. Gee and .\\Is. Johnson \\'Oting \"no\" and Dr. i\\litchcll, l\\.1s. i\\!agness and \\lr. O'i\\l\nil!cy voting \"yes.\" l\\ls. Gee made a motion D.Q1 to contract out cu todial ser\\ices. \\ls. Johnson seconded the motion and it failed bv a rntc of 3-3. with i\\!s. Pondexter. \\!s. Gee. and i\\!s. Johnson \\'Oting \"yes\" and .\\1s .. Magness. Dr. \\!itchell. and \\lr. O'\\!allcy voting \"no.\" i\\Is. Gee made a motion to contract out District custocl1al se rvices ,111d \\!s. Pondexter seconded. The motion failed ..i-2. The roll c\nill rcflcctecl \\Is. \\!agness. and l\\.1r. or-.,t\n1llcy voted \"yes.\" i\\ls. Pondexter. .\\Is. Gee. ,\\Is. Joh11s011 voted \"no.\" Dr. l\\litchell abstained. The agenda wc1s again reordered in considcrc11io11 of co111111u11ity members who were present to ask the Boarc!\"s c1pproval of naming the practice field ill I !all I ligh School. Ms. Magness made the motion, Ms. Gee seconded. and it passed u11ani 111ously. B. Nomination for Naming Facility /\\t Dr. Williams recommendation, Ms. Magness m,1de a motion to approve 11a111i11g the pr act ice field at Hall High School for the late Coach Raymond Peters. Mr. O'l'v1alky seconded the motion, and it passed 1111a11i111011s!y. Ms. Pondexter asked if there was any objection to postponing the remainder of the agenda until\ninother elate. Some concern and objections were noted and it was decided to move as much of the action agenda as possible before adjourning the meeting. l!o\n1rcl of Dirl'ctois \\kl'ling August 21, 1995 Page 7 C. First Reading - School Board\n\\le1111Jer Code of Co11d11cl The Superi11tc11ck11t reco111mended apprnval of the Code of Conduct on first reading. l\\1s. Magness made the motion to accept the policy on first reading, Mr. O'l\\.ialky seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. with t\\ls. Gee casting the \"no\" votl'. D. First Reading - Policy on Naming Faciliti l  The Superintendent recommenc.lec.l acceplancc of the policy 011 Naming f-acilities for f'rst reading. \\Ir. O'\n\\lalley 111ovecl for acceptance of the policy, \\Is. \\lagness seconded the motion and it passed 6-0 E. Seco11cl Reacli11g - Policy 011 Scheduling School :\\cti\\'ities 011 Election Days The policy for schLcluling school acti\\'ities 011 election da!s was appro\\'ed 011 first reading. July 20. 1995. It was rcco111mc11cled for apprn\\al on se cond reading. i\\!s. Gee mac.le the motion to accept the policy. \\Ir. O'\\lallcy st?condccl thL' motion and it pa 'i Secl 6-0 . F. Polic) IK.\\ . .\\  Rcg11latio11 \\lodilicatio11 Regulation !KA,\\ adopted by the Board in Dece111ber. I 989. regarding weighted grades for advanced placement courses, required modification in aider to bring District guic.lelines into compliance with Arkan sas Department of Education rcquir'ments. \\I s. Gee mac.le the motion to approve the recommended modifications. i\\lr. O'i\\lalley seconded the 111otio11 and it passed 6-0. G. Arkansas Public Schools \\\\'eek Arkansas Public Schools: The 1atural Plc1ce to Lec1rn is the theme for this year' Arkansas Public Schools \\\\'eek, October 1-7. 1995. The Superintendent asked the I3oc1rcl to apprme a Resolution in sup1 Jrt of this ob ervance. \\ls. Gee 111ac.le the 111 otio11 to accept the re solution, :-..tr. O'\\lallc~ seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Board of Directors i\\il'cting August 2-1, 199:'i Page S II. l11cc11tivc School i\\lonitoring lnstru111cnl The Superintendent Jsked the I3oJrd to approve the 1995-96 monitoring instrument for use in assessing the progrnms in the Inccnti\\'e Schools. Mr. O'Mallcy made the motion to accept the monitoring instrument, !\\..ts. Magness seconded the motion and it p\n-isscd 6-0. I. Proposed Refinancing of 13onds In a special meeting on February 17, 199-4, the I3oard approved refinancing of bonds dated September I, 19S9, September I, 1990, and October I. 1991. Administration recommended th\nit the I3oJrd approve the resolution authorizing the issu\n-ince\n-incl delivery of bonds to save the distri ct approximJtely $57.000. l\\ts. Magness made the motion to approve the resolution, l\\1r. O'Malley seconded the motion, and it passed 6-0. J. Donations of Property The Board was asked to appro,e acceptance or donations to the district. \\Ir. O'l\\falley made a motion to accept the item:\n, \\h. \\Ligncss seconded the motion and it ill! ed 6-0. Donated items are listed below SC!-IOOUDEPART\\IE1 T ITEM DONOR Pupil Services Dept. Drug Abuse Prevention Program Little Rock School District Sl,130 to purchase a computer Apple Ile Computer System/Software/Printer K. S11pcrinte11de11t's Evaluation No action taken. To be considered in special 1nceting. L. Developlllcllt of Due Process Procedures No action taken. To be considered in special meeting. Alltel The Vernon James Family Board or Directors Meeting August 2~. 1995 Page 9 l\\t. Personnel Changes The Superintendent 111.-ide a recommendation to .-iccept personnel changes prt'sented in the agencl.-i and additional transfers of assistant principals. considered to be \"acting\" positions. Ms. Magness moved for approval or the personnel items. Mr. O'l\\lalky seconded and the motion carried, 6-0. N. Financial Reports Dr. Williams recommended approval of the financial reports as printed in the agend.-i. Mr. O'i\\!.-illcy 1110\\'ecl for .1cccptance of the financi.1! reports. i\\f.. Johnson seconded the 111otion .-ind it passed 5-1. with l\\ls. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. 1\\t the suggestion of the Board President. l\\!r. O'l\\lallcy mack a motion to recess the meeting and postpone the remainder of the action items 011 the agenda until next Thursday. August 31, 1995, .-it 6:00 p.n1. i\\ls. Johnson seconded the motion and it \\Vas approved by a 1111anirnn11s vote. After a short break, the board reconvened at 9:20 p.rn. for the pu I pose of hearing student reinstatcrn 'Ill petitions. VIII. DISCIPLINARY Lirry Robertson, Student I !earing Officer. presented information and reco111111encled reinstatement of Brandon Hughes, J:-ickie Young, and i\\lichael Peals. At the Superintendent's recommendation, l\\ls. Johnson made a motion to reinstate these students, l\\.!s. Gee seconded the motion and the students were readmitted by a rnte of 6-0. Each of these students will remain on strict probation, with the stipulation ti at they report to the Board at the end of the first nine-weeks with their academic, attenclance and citizenship records. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Dr. Williams notified the Board that he had met with Laidlaw representatives and had asked that they reestablish the SWLR routes as soon as possibk. The arrangement would be for one year. Adding bc1ck the routes will result in an additional expense for the District. Board of Directors :\\IL'L'ting August 21. 1995 Page 10 Pat Gee made a motion to ask our attorneys to notify the court and :\\-Ir. Walker that the Boilrd hild agreed to reestilblish the routes for students in southwest Little Rock to Pulaski I !eights. Judy t-.1ilgness seconded the motion. (No vote was taken on thi motion.) Pat Gee lllilde a motion thilt we aud back the rt Ites for these students, Judy i\\fagness seconded the lllOtion. and it passed ( 0. ADJOUR. '\\IE\n\\'.T Addition:-il business of the Board is to be continued on Thursday. August 31. 1995. at 6:00 p.m. \\Is. Gee m:-iclc the motion to adjourn. :\"\\Is. Johnson seconckd the motion and it pilsscd unil11imouslv. APPRO\\'ED: 9-d._ ~ _q $ TRA\n--.\nSPORT, TION DEPART 1EN r VOLU1 TFERS :,,,,tAIU I. L. Kl 1G. JR. AllKt\\. SAS \"I IIA\\'E A DREA~1\" ASSEi'vlBLY Carol) n Williams Rirky r,...iarks Sandrn Allison Phillip Watson Jerome Price Booker T. Washington Brenda Lynum Arthur Coleman I3rrnda Bass Fr,1nk I !award James I !ayes Clifton I !ayes Reginald Walker Zina Burns Brenda Po, lc..'r Renard Littles Tonv Burse Bcttv Rob111son Flo~d Coope1 :,,,,1ary Jane Chea I ham August 24, 1995 From: Subject. ns for Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of H ,e following personnel changes: TRANSFERS/PROMOTIONS Assistant Principal, Central H. S. - Daniel Whitehorn Assistant Principal, Mann Magnet - Donna Duerr Assistant Principal, Franklin Incentive - Reba Faye Reynolds Principal, Mabelvale Elementary - Tabitha Phillips LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICI' 810 Wl:,ST i\\tARKIIAi\\1 STREET LlTfLE ROCK, ARKANSAS l\\tINUTES SPECIAL BOARD l\\lEETl'.'JG August 31, 1995 EC IV OCT 2 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Monizor,,,ll -..,\n,,.....__.---,.. The f3o\nird of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special sc sion on Augu st 31. 1995, in the l3oard Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock. Arkans\nis. The Pre sident, Ms. Linda Pondexter. presided. i\\fE:'.!BERS PRESE1 T: l\\1s. Lincl\ni Pondexter l\\fs. Patrici\ni Gee Ms. Judy \\Ligncss \\1 . Stephanie Johnson i\\!r. Kevin O'\\L1ll\\.'Y Dr. K\n1the1inc \\litchcll :--..tr. John !Zig.gs \\fE:\\IBEHS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russe ll 1\\-!ayo, Associ\n-ite Superintendent Mr. Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the me!.:'ling to order at 6:05 p.rn. The roll call revealed all I3oard 111c111bers were present. Board of Directors SpL'cial t\\keting August 31. 1995 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF TIIE :\\IEETING 111. The meeting was called for the purpose of completing the agenda of the regular meeting of August 24, 1995. The remaining agenda items were: 1. Superintendent's Evaluation Dcvelopmrnt of Due Process Procedures 3. Personnel Changes 4. Report Agenda 5 . Disciplinary - Student Reinstatement I Ic:nings . \\CTIO. rL:\\IS .\\b. Cce !lladc a 1110tion to reonki the agenda to Lonsider till! Supl!1inte1 knt\"s I:\\aluat1on .ifte1 Cl)lllpktion of other business. \\Ir. H.igg:, seconckcl the motion a,1d it passed 1111a11i111011slv. Devclop111c11t of Due Process Procedures I\\ls. Pondexter had requested development of due process procedures for involuntary transfer of cmplO) ees. Superintendent Williams asked that this topic be discussed further in executive sc sion since the item has implications related to development of board policy that would be in violation of the Superintendent's contract. I\\ls. Magness asked that Dr. Williams and t\\.ls. Pondexter meet to discu ss the matter and return to the Board at a bter date. Personnel Changes i\\fs. t\\.Iagness moved to suspend the rules to consider additio II personnel items that \\,ere not provided before the regular meeti g on August 2--L I 995. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it passed 6-1, with Is. Pondexter casting the \"no'' vote. i\\tr. O'\\lallcy made a motion to approve personnel changes, transfers, and promotions recommended by the Superintendent. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, Board of Directors Special August 31, 1995 Page 3 and it passed 6-1, with 1\\ts. Pondexter casting the \"110\" H)le. The personnel ch:rngcs are listed 011 the memorand 111 attached to these minutes. IV. REPORT AGENDA Desegregation Update Dr. Russell \\1ayo was present to nnswer questions and provide information 1n :iddition to the lkscgregation update printed in the agenda of August 24, 1995. Ms. i',.lagness asked Dr. ,\\layo to report on\n111 agreement for transporting desegregation transfer students. Students who had changed their address but had not been reassigned to their attendance zone school during the last school term will be allowed to remain at their current school .lssignment (Pulaski I !eights and Forest I !eights). Transportation will be provided for these students. Principals and parents will be informed of requirements regarding n:assign111e11t when address changes OCCU r. Chris I kllcr was prlsent to answer que'-tions n:garcling students affected by the\n1grec111e11t \\\\ilh John Walko. 1\\pproxi111atcly 15 13bck students were affected. Elc,cn of these st11drnts were already attending Pl !JI-I and three students were affectccl by the transportation issue. Ms. Magness expressed concern that some students were being denied scats in their attenclance zone school due to assignment of clesegregation transfer students. Or. Mayo reportccl that attendance zone preference would be given to stuclents and future problems in this area should be eliminated as the schools become better informed about reporting address changes. Or. \\Villiallls has asked the Communications Department to scheclule a series of meetings in the CO!llrnunity, separate fro!ll Town Hall meetings, to ensure that the public is better infor!llcd about the Desegregation Plan, the attendance zone assignment plans, transportation, and the implications of all these issues on the CO!l1111UI1ity. Ms. Pondexter asked a question about double funding of the Incentive Schools. Dr. Williams responded that we currently double funcl these schools, and that as long as the District continues to operate uncler the current Plan we are obligated to double fund them. Adjustments will be made in the projected budget as the enroll!llent in these buildings is confirmed. Board of Directors Special\n,.,keting August 31. 1995 Page ..i In response to a question by i\\ls. Johnson. Chris I kllcr stated that double funding w\n1s intended to provide integrated opportunities to those students who were racially isolated. The schools were to ha\\'e \\'ery specialized. high-quality progra111s to narrow achievement disparity and attract white students to desegregate the schools. John Walker was recognized by l\\!s. Pondexter to also respond to this question. The Incentive Schools. originally called \"major enhancement\" chools. were to be funded at a higher level in order to .1ttract white parents. The District co111111itted to provide pecial progra111s to create opportunitiL'S for students to rccci\\'e a strong basic educ.1tion and schobrships wc11.. to be pro,idcd. Dr. Williams responded that funding to support the Incentive School programs i 110 longer ,nailablc at the sa111c lc\\'el that h.1s been pro\\'ided in the past. The Court has said that money should not be an issue in pro\\'iding enhanced programs, but budget reduction strategics must be developed ,vithout reducing the quality of education. If the district docs not receive a millage increase in the next frw years. it could face bankruptcy. 1 he Board is facing serious budget decisions that ,,ill affect all schools in the District. \\Ir I lelkr addre:s,\nL'd questions regarding the pwpnsL'd plan 111odific:1tin11s that will be presented to the Court on rriday. September I. 199:'-. :\\dminrstration has rccom111e11ded areas of the Plan for 111odificatio11 and district ,11101 neys h\nl\\e assessed evidence indicating the District i in substantial compliance with Plan requirc111e11ts in these areas. Suspension of the Rules Dr. Williams recommended that the Board approve proposed Plan \\.todifications that will be presented to the Court. i\\lr. O'i\\lalley moved to suspend the rules to consider a 11,otion of support by the Board of proposed modifications to the Plan. :-Is. i\\lagness seconded the motion. The 111otion failed ..i-3 with \\Is. i\\!agness, Dr. \\.litchell. \\!r. o\n,.,1allcy and \\Ir. Riggs voting \"yes,\" and I\\ls. Pondexter. \\ls. Gee. and l\\fs. Johnson voting \"no.\" (S-2 required for a suspension of the rules.) CARE Program Fees JoEvelyn Elston. Director of Pupil Scr\\'iccs, \\\\as present to answer questions regarding increased fees for the operation of CARL Parents were notified of the increases prior to the start of school. Board members expressed concern that 110 Board action was required for approval of fee inneases. The program is self- Board of Directors SpLcial Meeting August 31. 1995 Page 5 supporting. the inncase is to co,n opcr\n1ti11g expenses. and 110 district funds an: used for the operation of CARE. Ir. Riggs suggested, and 1\\ls. Elston agreed, to use the Ct\\RE Program as a marketing or rcnuiting tool for the District. The board recessed at 7::..5 p.m. and reconvened .1t 7:35 p.m. Standardized Dress for Alternative School Stud nts A report from the P1i11cipal at the t\\LC' was included in the agenda for the Boardrcview. The Superintendent m.1de 110 recom111cntbtion for Board action regarding an ALC uniform policy. I k indicatL'd that fu1 thcr research would be clone before a recommendation would be presented to the Board. Update on Transportation Outsourcing Freddie c nith. Director of Support Ser\\'ice . presented an update 011 the outsourcing of tran portation. The presentation included specific information on the number of district employees who transferred to Laidlaw. the number who remain district employees. and the 11u111bcr \\\\ ho did nut return for e111ployment. Cl1\n11 t: were also p1esented det\n1il1ng managL'lllent nitc1 i\n1, retirL'lllent option-\n. nu111ber of dr1\\'L1s who had been employld ~incc L1idbw a:sumed opc1ations. routing and r.)uting changes. and info1 mat ion Lln courte:..y stops. T\\\\o additional buses ha\\'e been added to accom111odate desegregation transfer students in the Southwest Lillie Rock area who arc assigned to Pulaski I !eights Jr. High School. r-..ts. Pondexter expressed ,1 concern about the schedu ling of the chool day. Younger students report to school earlier in the day, junior high and high school students start the school day later. She views this as a tran ~porta tion issue. other Board members suggested that it was a school operations issue. No action \\\\'ilS requested or taken al this time. Truancy Reduction Center, 199-t-95 End-of-Year Report The report was printed in the agenda and Ms. Elston was present to respond to questions. Hoard of Directors Speci,11 l\\keting August 31. 1995 Page 6 Summer School Principals The salary report was prepared for review at the Board's request. Ms. Pondexter has concerns about placement of summer school principals in the secondary schools where 12-month principals are assigned. V. AUDIE TE \\\\'ITII l1 'D l\\'IDUALS/CRO PS ~Ir. Ray Stewart. employee of Crow-l3urlingame Company. spoke in opposition of transportation outsourcing and contracting of custodial and maintenance services. I !is concern was centered on loss of re, enue for local businesses and out of state purchases of supplies and equipment. ~Ir. Jim I3ohannan, a retired State Department of Education employee, spoke in opposition of contracting dist1 ict services. I !is concerns related to spending tax dollars with out of talc businesses. Janet Ste,ens, parent of a handicapped student \"ho attends Forest I kights. addressed concerns about transpo1 t.1tio11 sakty is_uc~ Special education buses h,1ve experienced maintenance problem:, and she i  rnnterned about the children\\\\ ho ride these buses. Betty \\litchcll. CTA president, spoke in oppos1t1on to contracting of custodial services. She requested face-to-face negoti.itions with employees to solve the mainten.1nce and custodiol problems of the Dist1 ict. Willie Givens, LRSD custodial employee. voiced concerns regarding the Serviccl\\fost r 1no1 osal to contract custodial services. I le remarked on the difficulty of doing his job without the proper equipment and supplies. \\Is. Gee made a motion to go into executive session to conduct closed studt t hearings at 8:35 p.m \\Ir. O':'\\lallcy seconded the motion, and it passed una11i111011slv. Board of Directors Special i\\kcting August 31. I 995 Page 7 tudcnl Hearings L1rry Robertson. Student I le ,ning Officer, pre ented information and recommended reinstatement of Derrick Scott who was expelled by the Board in December 199-l. for verbal abuse of staff at Cloverdale Junior I Iigh. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement on strict probation . l\\ts. Magness made a motion to rein. tale Derrick to the LRSD, the motion wa seconded by Dr. :--.titchell, and passed unanimou ly. Derrick's reins atemcnt stipulates that he will report to the 13oa1 at the end of thl' fi1st nine-weeks \\\\ith academic. attcnd\n1ncl'. and citizen. hip records. The Board took a 10 minute recess at 8:50 p.m. and recon\\'cned at 9:00 p.rn . Request for a Special l\\lceting :'\\fr. Riggs\n111d :-Ir. o fallcy had rcquc tee! (b~ 111ernorandu111) a special meeting of the Board. :incl asked that it be hclc.J imrncc.Jiatcly follm\\ing. acljournme111 of this meeting. i\\fs. Pondexter read Di trict Policies BCB and BOA relating to calling of special meetings by the President of the Board. Since the president of the Board did 1101 schedt. lc the special meeting, she denied the request for the special meeting on this date and instead suggested a meeting date of Tuesday. September 19. 1995. Reconsideration of a Previous l\\totion Dr. Mitchell had previously abstained on a vote to contract out the District's ct stoclial and maintenance services and she as. erted the right to move to reconsider the motion. Ms. Pondexter stated her opinion on the rule of abstention: that while the abstention may constitute or result in a no vote, it does not mean that the vote was counted on either side. She did not consider Dr. 1'v1itchell's vote\n1s a \"yes\" or a \"no\" but a decision not to vote on either side. Board of Directors Spcci\nd \\kcting At1gust 31, 1995 Page S !\\Ir. Riggs mmTd to appl'al thl' decision of thl' I3oard President. !\\Is. T\\.lagness seconded the motil)Il, and the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair passed 4-3. The motion to reconsider the 111otio11 as pre L'ntcd by Dr. 1\\litchell was before the I3oard and !\\Ir. Riggs seconded the motion . The motion pnsscd l y a vote of 4-3, with l\\-ls. \\bgness, D1. l'\u0026gt;litchell. i\\lr. O'\\lalley. and !\\Ir. Riggs voting \"yes,\" and !\\Is. Pondexter, !\\Is. Gee, and i\\fs. Johnson ,oting \"no.\" On the 111otion to reconsider a previous issue. \\Ir. Riggs made a 111otion that the District enter into a contract with SerYice\\laster on their proposal to manage the District's custodial and maintenance sen ices. \\1s. 1\\lagness seconded the 111otion. \\Is. \\lagness spoke in st1pport of Sen ice\\laster and the services they will provide to the District. \\Is Gee.\n,...1s. Pondexter. and \\Is. Johnson spoke in opptrition to entering into the cont1act. \\Is. Pondexter also 1ead a lclln into the 1ccord from Attorney John Walker\n1sking the C'ot1rt to cnjt)in the District from entering in10 the Scn,ice\\lastcr contract. The motion to en tL' I into thL' Sc,, icc\\!a~tL'I co ntract ca~Jj_c.:d~ a ,otc of 4-.'. ,, ith\n,...1r. Riggs. \\b. \\l\nigncss. Dr. \\litchcll. and \\Ir. O'\\lallcy \\Ot1ng \"yes.' and \\Is. Pondexter, \\I s. Gee, and :-.Is. Johnson ot1ng. \"110.\" \\Ir. Ed Ga111c1. reprc scntati\\'l' of Sen1Cc\\laster was recognized . lie thanked the Board fo1 their considl'lation and for their final decision. I le assured the employees present that they ,, ot1ld be satisfied with 1hcir working conditions under Service\\laster. l\\-ls. Pondexter accepted additional co111111c11ts fro111 custodial and /or 111aintcn.ince employees who were in attendance. (Reverend Daniels, :--.tilton Roland, Clt:velancl Love, three others -unidentified). upcri11tc11clc11t's E,aluation t\\ motion to nrn\\c into cxcrntive se ssion was made by l\\-ls.\n,...1agness. seconded by \\ts. Johnson and it passed 1111a11imo11slv. Boa1d of Direrto1s Spen,tl ~kcting t\\ugust 31. 199.'i Page 9 The Board rcturnl'd from executive session at 11 :55 p.m. reporting that no act'on h\nid been taken With no further business, l\\ls. Cee moved for adjournment, seconded by . lr. o:,..talley, and it carried 1111anilllo11sly. APPROVED: q  J_s,' .q5 August 24, 1995 '\\, From: Subject. Recommendati ns for Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes: TRANSFERS/PROMOTIONS Assistant Principal, Central H. S. - Daniel Whit\\,.\nhorn Assistant Principal, Mann Magnet - Donna Duerr Assistant Principal, Franklin Incentive - Reba Faye Reynolds Principal, Mab 1vale Elementary - Tabitha Phillips ISITU.. ROCK SCIIOOL DISTI !CT 810 WEST 1\\L\\RKll,\\\n\\I STREET lXITI..E ROCK. ARK:\\1 'S.\\S 1\\11.' TES SPECIAL BOARD 1\\lEETI:--:G September 14, 1995 OCT ? 4 1995 Office of Desegregat,oo Morn ormg The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on September 14, 1995, immediately following the agenda meeting, in the Board Room of the Administration Building. S10 \\\\'est \\larkham Street, I.ittk Rork. Arkansas. The President. \\Is. Linda Pondexter. presided. \\.is. Linda Pondcxtci /I.ls. Patricia Gee \\Is. Judy \\lagnl'ss l\\.1s. Stephanie Johnson \\Ir. Kevin O'\\.tallcy Dr Katherine \\litrhcll\n\\II. John Riggs \\IE:\\lBERS :\\BSE. 'T: None ALSO PRESE. 'T: Dr. Henry P. \\Villia111s. Superinkndcnt of Schools Dr. Russell i\\fayo, Associate Superintendent !\\Is. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of \\linuks I. CALL TO OI{DER 1 he Presidrnt, Linda Pondexter. called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m The n1ll call rc\\'ealcd all Bo,1rd members were pre. ent. r3o\nml of Directors Special i\\keting September 1-1, 1995 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF TIIE 1\\1EETJ:---\nG The !lll'eting was called for the purpose of considering the following: 1. 1 3. 4. Early Childhood Ed11catio11 Commission Grant Proposal Student Reinstatement Hearings Student Expulsion Appeal I !enrings Employee I learings Ill. ACTIO'.\\' :\\GEi\\'D:\\ Early Childhood blucation Commission Grant Proposal The Superintencknt reco111111ended Board appro\\'\nil to submit\ni grant application in the a111ount of $15,000 to the Arkans\n-is Early Childhood Education Comrnis ion. The gr.int \"ill be used to construct a new playground\nit Fulbright Element.iry School and the Fulbr_ight PTA is prO\\iding S8,200 matching funds. \\!r. Riggs mo\\ed for apprm\n1I. Dr. \\litrhcll seconded the mntion.\n\\11d it Jasscd 6-1 with '.\\Is. Pondexter cnsting the \"no\" ,ote. Suspension of tile Rules Ms. i\\!agness .iskcd for a suspension of the rules to allow .1ctio11 on a request from the Assist.1nt Superintendent of Seconcla1y Schools. !r. Riggs seconded the motion and it pnssed 7-0. Several high school athletic events had been scheduled prior to the Board's pa sing a policy to prevent school events on election clays. Dr. Williams recommended approval of Or. Anderson's request to waive the policy for one day, September 19, 1995. 1\\!r. Riggs moved in favor of approving the waiver, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. IV. DISC .\u0026gt;UNARY Without a formnl motion to reorder the agenda, an employee hearing was conducted prior to the scheduled st11de11t hearings. lloard or Directors Speci\ntl 1\\.keting SL'plelllbn 1-1. 1995 Page 3 E111ploycc Hearing 1\\ls. Zola Tyeska requested a hearing before the Bo,Hd. She was represented by Attorney John Walker. l\\tr. f3rndy Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations, presented information to the Board regarding his investigation into the circt1111stances of Ms. Tyeska's reqt1est for hearing. 1\\1r. Jerry i\\talone, attorney for the district, arrived during the hec1ring. 1\\ts. Tyeskcl is currently employed as a school nurse assigned to Southwest Junior High School c1nd Bale Elementary School. She was previously assigned to Forest I !eights Jt1nior High School as the clinic nt1rse. \\ts. Tyeska h.id been involt1nt.1rily tr\n1nsferrcd from Forest I !eights .111C.J she had requested an explanation of the reasons for the transfer. \\Ir. Gadberry hat.l lllet on Wednesday. September 13. 1995. with i\\1 . Tyeska and Joy Springer. Gwcn Efird. nurse coordinator. and Duane Benc1ge. principal of Forest I !eights Junior I [igh. That meeting had concluded ,,ith an agree111cnt to further inwstig\n1tion of the circumst.11H'es and ft1rther discu ssion or negotiation \\\\'ith i\\ls. Tveska at the conclusion of that investig.1tio11 Forest I !eights had operated a school clinic with .i grant fro111 the St\n1te l lealth Department. l\\!s. Tyeskc1's salc1ry had been partially paid from these grant funds, but she is classified\nis a District employee and the District \\\\Ould be the culpable party in any employrncnt\n1ction or gricvc1nce. i\\.lr Gadberry stated that J\\ls. Efird and \\fr. Benage reported that they had been advised by the [ lea Ith Department that the funds would 110 longer be available to fund the clinic if i\\!s. Tycska was the assigned nurse. No written statement to this effect was provided by the Health Depc1rt111e11t. In past prnctice. District school nurses are reassigned upo11 request of the nurse or the building administrator. Mr. Benage had requested Ms. Tyesk.i's transfer and \\,1s. Efird granted his request. l\\1s. Tyeska feels that her reassignment was racially motivated. Mr. Walker questioned Ms. Efird regc1rding Ms. Tyeskcl s contractua l agreement. The following responses were provided by 1\\.!s. Efird: nnard of Din.-ctors Spaial i'--.kcting Scptcmbn J.I, 199.\" Page -l , 3. -l. 5. !\\ls. Efird h:1d know11 i'--.ls. Tycsk.l si11ce i'--.larch I 99-1. whc11 she wa: a substitute 11urse for 9 \\\\eeks at !\\labelvale Ju11ior I ligh School. She became a co11tracted nurse with the District in /\\ugust 199-1. !\\is. Efird does not evaluate the pcrforma11ce of school nurses. To l\\ls. Efird's knowledge, there was 110 writte11\nigreement or co11trnct regardi11g the grant fu11di11g of the cli11ic at the begi11ning of 199-1-95 school year. Joh11 011 \u0026amp; Johnson had provided gra11t funding for three years previous to the 199-1-95 term. :'\\ls. Efird h:id no k11owledge of rnrrc11t writtcn e\\aluatio11s of the clinic's operiltions or of the illl10t1nt of funding that had been contributed by the I lea Ith Department. Reports 111ay h,we been done by the I lealth Department to docu111ent the nu111bers of students served by the clinic. Jo Gillam. the 11ursc who had operated the cli11ic prior to i\\1s. Tyeska had retired.\n-,.ts. Gillalll was White. Prior to i\\!s. Gill:1111. assignment at Forest !!eights. 1\\nita\n\\r111 ste:1d had been the nurse. \\ls. Ar111 stcad '\"1s 8lack. 6. i'--.fr. f3cn:1gc was nc,, to Forest !!eights during the 199-l-95 school year. i\\ts. Efird had met with i\\lr. !3cnage regarding clinic operations ilnd expectations of the I lcalth Department. Some of these meetings were conducted with representiltives of the Heillth Dcpartrnent. i'--.1s. Tyeska hild also ilttencled some of these meetings. None of the expectations agreed upon for operatio11 of the clinic had been in writing. 7. No remediiltio11 plan has been developed to detail corrective action for Ms. Tyeska and she was recommended for renewal with the reassignment. 8. Ms. Efird had not seen a written performance evaluation of Ms. Tyeska. 9. f\\ls. Tyeska's performance evalur1tion reported that the clinic was not functioningsatisfactorily. Ms. Tyesb's routine performil11ce as a school nurse was satisfactory. IO. Ms. Efird reported that two represe11tatives of the I kalth Department, Ms. Zenobia I li11Tis and Christy 13ri11sfield, had reported dissatisfaction with Ms. Tyeska's operiltion of the clinic and had asked for placement of another nurs'. The request was not in writing. no\nml of Dircctms SpL'ci\nd :--.kl'ting Sl'ptrn1bl'r J.l, 1995 l'agl' 5 11. Mr. Benage had requested reassignment of i\\ls. Tyeska 111 late July or early August. l lis rl'.quest was not in writing. 12. i\\!s. Efinl's response to l\\.!s. Tyeska's request for reasons for her reassign111e11t was se 11t to :-.Ir. Gaclben)' i11 late August. 13. i\\ls. Tyeska was replaced at forest I kights by Diana Kessler. who is White. J\\.lr. Jerry /\\!alone questioned i\\!s. Efird and the following respo11scs were prmickd: 1. 3. A teaching certificate is not required for employment as a school nurse. i\\1s. Tyeska was transferred, not reco1111llenckd for tn111inatio11. O\\'er the years, many transfers of :c hool nurses have been gra11tecl at the request of either the 11urse or the principal. i\\lr. Benage.: reque tcd the tra11sfcr because he felt the cli11ic was 11ot operating properly. \\Is. Efird stated that her assessment of \\Is. Tye.k\n1\\ pc1 for111a11cc ,,as strongly influenced by recolllllll'Ilclations of I kalth Dcp.11tllll'11t staff. \\Is. Ffi1d had no respo11sibility to e,aluate the clinic. Cli11ic e,\niluatinn was\nunder the juriscJiction of the I kalth Depa1 tmcnt. As \\Ir. Gaclberr1 h:1cl earlier reported. it was agreed during his pre,inus llll'l'ling with \\I.. Tyesk\n1, th.1t further re, icw of the circumstances ,,ou Id be clone and the Board hca1i11g ,,o,ild be postponed until the i11vestigatio11 was colllpletc. The acllllinistration was not aware that a hea1i11g would be conducted until the arri\\'al of \\Is. T1eska and her representati\\'eS at this Jlleeting. i\\.lr. Gadbeny further reported that in the 111eeti11g )esterday J\\.ls. T)eska had tendered an offer to resign and indicated she did not wish to work for :Vis. Efird or for Mr. Benage. I le had asked her to reco11sider and make a decision after a full assessment could be made by the District. The I lcalth Department is not funding the clinic program at Forest Heights this school year and if \\Is. Tyeska is re\nissigned to rorest I kights. it will be a thrl'e-day per week assignment. Duane Benage, principal of Forest I !eights was present and responded to Mr. Walker's questions. The following responses \\\\ere provided: nnard of Dirertms Spl'l'ial \\kl'llng. Sl'JllL'lllhl'I 11. 1995 Page 6  1. This is i\\1r. lkn\niges sccon\u0026lt;l year at Forest l leights: he was !HL'\\ iously employed in Br\ni\u0026lt;lford, Ver111ont. ., 3. I k was 1101 aware of\niny written contIacts between the I lc\nilth Dcpa11111c111 an\u0026lt;l thl' District regarding \\!s. Tyeska's e111ploy111e111. I le had rl'rn111111e11ded the transfer of \\Is. T\\'cska ba~ed upon pcrfor111a11cc. l lcr evaluation lated \"The clinic is non-functional or not co111plctcly operating as initially designed.\" . I !is rClJUCst was not based 011 a I lcalth Depa, 1111c11t reque t to transfer \\!s. Tyeska. I le stated that 110 one at the I lcalth Dcpart111c11t had tol\u0026lt;l hi111 th\nit they would discontinue funding if \\!s. Tyeska \\\\as not 111ove\u0026lt;l. \\Is. Zenobia I l\nnris. Arca \\l\ninager with the Arkansas Health Dcpart111c111. ,,\nis present .-ind rc:-.pondcd to quctions of \\!r. \\\\',ilkcr. The S1\n1te l lc\n1lth Dcpart111e11t is a partncr-in-L'duc.11ion with Forest 1 lcight . but she st,11cd that her area is not i11\\'olvcd in this p,11tnership She denied that any conditions had been placed upon the clinic regarding \\!s. Tycska's c111ploy111e11t. i\\!r. Walker asked that the tr\ninscript of this he,11ing be placed in the personnel files of :--1r. Ben\nige ,rnd :--1s. Efird. l lu111an relations and dcsegregation efforts shouhJ be considered in staff evaluations. i\\!r. i\\!alone reco111111endcd that the Board allow the administration to co111ple1c their assessment and return to the Bo\n-ird \\\\ith a reco111111cncbtio11. Ad111inistration should decide if it is appropri\n11c to place\n1ny of the i11for111.1tio11 fro111 this he.-iring in the personnel files of \\!s. Efird or Mr. Benage. Student Reinstatement Hearings Larry Robertson. Student I [caring Officer w\nis present to provide i11for111atio11 and answer questions of the Board rcg\n-irding students who were suspended or expelled from the District. Those students and the circu111stanccs urrounding their disciplinary a11ctio11s were as follows: Frank Enoch had been expelled from I lcndcrson Jr. I ligh School 011 January 26, 1995, for physical assault on a staff me111bcr. Frank's fa111ily has 111ovcd and his reinst\nite111ent would allow him to enter school in the Pubski County Special School Bn\nml of Directors Special :-,..teeting SLptl'lllhl'I' 11. l C)9S l'\nt~L' 7 * District. Thl' Supninte11dent rcco111111ended rci11statL'llll'11t. i\\!r. O'f\\lalky 111ovcd to accept the 1ecom111endation. f\\!s. Gee secondl'd the 111otion and it was appro,ccl 11nani111011sly. Allen Poole had been expelled from McClellan I ligh School on January 17, 1995. for inciting to riot. The SupcrintendL'nt reco111111ended reinstate111ent on strict probation. l\\!s. Gee 111ade the 111otion to accept the reco111111enclatio11. Dr. l\\litchell seconded the motion and it passed unani111011slv. Allen is reinstated with the stipulation that he rcpo1 t to the Board\nIt the end of the first ninc-\\\\'ecks \\\\'ith .1cadcmic. attendance and citizenship records. Student Appeal llcarings Two students had been expelled on weapons charges during the current school term. and were appealing their expulsions to thc Board. Each of these students was rei11:t\n1tecl \"ith the stipul,1tio11 th\n1t they report to the Board at the encl of the first 11ine-\\\\eeks \\\\ith ac\n1dc111ic. attendance and citi1c11ship records. Brycc \\lurnford is a 19 year old. I Ith )!Iade :tudent from \\lcClellan lligh School. Ile \\\\\n1s L' \\pellcd for possc.:ssion of a s111all \\..nik \\\\'hich \\,as found during a routinl' scan. ,\\d111inistration recommended rcinstatL'lllent.\n-,.l1. O'\\Lllley mo,ec.l to accept the rccommcnc.lation. seconded by \\Is \\!agness and nasscd u11a11i111011slv. Christopher ~cw is a 12th grade student at Central High. A swiss army knife was found in his pocket c.luring a random search on September 5, 1995. The SuperintL'ndcnt recommended reinstatement. i\\.!s. i\\.lagnl'SS 111ade a motion to accept the reco111111e11datio11.\n-,.Ir. O'f\\lallcy seconded the 111otio11 and it was appro,cd unanimously. * Executive Session l\\lr. Riggs made a motion for the Board to 1110\\'C into executive session to discuss the evaluation of the superintendent. \\ls. Johnson seconded the motion\nind it passed 11 na 11 i 111011 s Iv. The Board returned frn111 executi,e session at 9:00 p.111. reporting that 110\niction had been taken. The student hea1 ing.-. as reported ,1bo\\'e, continued at this ti111e. Bo\n1rd of Directot. Spl'ri\n1I Meeting Septemblr 1-l. 1995 Page S ADJOUR, ME1 'T With no further businc.:s . 1\\ls. Gee moved for adjournment at 9:35 p .111. The motion was seconded by Ms. Johnson. anc.l it carried u11a11imo11 l_y. q~W Li!Hl:i Pondexter. l'rl'sidcnt APPROVED: 9  J..? ,q5 OCT 3 1 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Office of Desegregation M\n.mi,w,,a MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING September 28, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held the regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on September 28, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. Prior to the call to order, Carolyn Staley, Pulaski County Circuit Clerk, administered the oath of office to Board Members John Riggs, re-elected from Zone 4, and Sue Strickland, newly elected from Zone 7. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mit~hell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs Ms. Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. The ex-officio teacher, Jo Chesser from Terry Elementary School, and the ex-officio student, Eric Johnson from McClellan High School were also present. . e Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from several meetings were presented for Board approval, including special meetings conducted on August 10, 1995, August 22, 1995, August 31, 1995, and September 14, 1995, and the regular Board meeting of August 24, 1995. Ms. Gee moved for approval of the minutes, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Williams recognized Mr. Tom Crone, representing Back Yard Burger. Back Yard Burger received a citation in appreciation for their donation of certificates for a free hamburger for each LRSD employee . A citation was also presented to Dr. Brian Hardin, physician director of Arkansas Children's Hospital Sports Medicine Clinic. Arkansas Children's Hospital has provided athletic physicals for LRSD students, free of charge, for the past five years. A Superintendent's citation was presented to Mrs. Gwen Efird, Health Services Director of the District. Mrs. Efird has been named Arkansas' School Nurse of the Year by the National Association of School Nurses. In conclusion, the Superintendent recognized the teacher ex-officio Board member for the month of September, Ms. Jo Chesser from Terry Elementary School, and the student ex-officio Board member, Eric Johnson from McClellan High School. B. PARTNERSHIPS The Superintendent recognized and introduced two new business partnerships with LRSD schools. Partnership certificates were presented to: Christian Landry, representing Kinko's, and Sharon Davis, principal of Romine Interdistrict Elementary School\nand Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 3 Bud Bailey, representing Kinko's, and Franklin Davis, principal of Wilson Elementary School. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. T. Kevin O'Malley was presented with a placque in recognition of his dedicated service to the Board and to the District. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Ms. Pondexter recognized Ms. Janet Stevens and Ms. Janelle Romandia. These parents have expressed concern about the safety of transportation of special education students. These parents participated in a demonstration at the transportation department parking lot last Monday morning. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring No report. 2. Classroom Teachers Association Ms. Betty Mitchell reported continuing concerns with the operating conditions at the transportation department. 3. Joshua Intervenors No report. 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 4 E. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Gee extended a welcome to Ms. Sue Strickland, newly elected Board member, and congratulated Mr. Riggs on his reelection to the Board. She also announced the dedication ceremony on October 1, 1995, naming the auditorium at McClellan High School for Oma G. Iacovelli, former LRSD Board member. Ms. Magness reported visiting PTA meetings and open houses at Brady Elementary, Pulaski Heights Elementary and Junior High Schools. She extended thanks to Doug Eaton and the Plant Services staff for the improvements made in the auditorium at Pulaski Heights. She also attended a creative writing exhibit at Parkview and announced a dinner theater to be held at Parkview Magnet School next Friday and Saturday night. Mr. O'Malley, who remains on the Board until the run-off election October 10, voiced a complaint with the citizens of Little Rock. Less than 3,000 people voted in the school elections. He asked all registered voters of Zone 2 to vote in the run-off election on October 10. Mr. Riggs expressed appreciation to his family and to his campaign supporters in his reelection to the Board. Dr. Mitchell reported on her recent visit to Washington, D.C. and meeting with Secretary Riley. Title I programs and programs that provide funding for safe and drug free schools are in serious trouble. She encouraged everyone to contact their representatives to ask for support for these programs. Ms. Strickland thanked her supporters for electing her to the Board. She recognized that the LRSD has problems, but none so serious that they cannot be solved. She pledged to work for a harmonious relationship on the Board. Ms. Pondexter expressed concern for the low voter turnout in the school elections. She reported that the parties to the desegregation lawsuit continue to meet weekly with the goal of resolving some of the issues out of court and reaching common ground. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 5 IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS V. Robert \"Say\" McIntosh appealed to everyone to \"stop fighting each other and get together.\" He is concerned about students throwing bricks at school buses and asked parents to get more involved with their children. He suggested that some of the District's transportation problems are caused intentionally to make the District and the Board look bad. Neddie Nichols, transportation department employee, stated that some of the buses are unsafe and that her bus does not have a properly working turn signal. She stated that transportation employees had asked for Mary Jane Cheatham's resignation and were waiting on a response from the Board. Michael Campbell reported that he had met recently with Fred Smith and Brady Gadberry, but he feels that there are communications problems between drivers and administration. He asked the Board to define what they want from the drivers. Mr. O'Malley introduced the two candidates for the Zone 2 position, Rev. Robert Willingham and Mr. Michael Daughterty. ACTION AGENDA A. Election of Officers Ms. Magness nominated Mr. Riggs for the pos1t1on of Board President. Ms. Pondexter expressed concern for electing officers before the newly elected Board is complete. Ms. Magness' motion died for lack of second. The election of officers will be conducted at the agenda meeting on October 12, 1995. B. Second Reading of Policy: School Board Member Code of Conduct The Code of Conduct was approved on first reading at the Board meeting on August 24, 1995. The Superintendent recommended approval on second reading and Mr. Riggs moved for approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and it passed by a unanimous vote. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 6 C. Second Reading of Policy: Naming of Facilities Dr. Williams recommended acceptance on second reading of the policy on Naming Facilities. The policy had been approved on first reading at the August Board meeting. Ms. Gee made the motion to approve the policy, seconded by Ms. Magness and it carried unanimously. D. First Reading - Policy on Scheduling School Activities on Wednesdays The Superintendent did not recommend Board acceptance of this policy based on a question of constitutionality. Mr. Riggs made a motion to table the question, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed 6-1 with Mr. O'Malley casting the \"no\" vote. Ms. Gee asked that administration be aware of problems caused by scheduling activities on Wednesdays and keep that in mind until the Board can develop a policy. Mr. O'Malley suggested that setting aside a specific day and making policy based on religious reasons would not be appropriate for a public school district based on separation of church and state. Ms. Magness made a motion that the item be removed from the table for further discussion at this time. Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion to remove it from the table, but the motion failed by a vote of 5-2 with Ms. Magness and Mr. O'Malley casting the \"yes\" votes. E. First Reading - Policy on Students Expelled from Other Districts Dr, Williams recommended approval of the policy on first reading. Mrs. Gee made the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. F. First Reading - Policy/Regulations Administrative Reporting Procedures Regarding Students Who Commit Felonies The Superintendent recommended approval of the policy and regulations on first reading. Mrs. Gee moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, Mr. Riggs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 7 G. Resolution - Clementine Mathis Rouse Scholarship Fund A resolution was presented for the Board's approval expressing appreciation for scholarships in memory of Clementine Mathis Rouse. The motion to approve the resolution was made by Ms. Magness and seconded by Dr. Mitchell. The motion carried unanimously. H. Annual Report, 1994-95 The Superintendent asked the Board to approve the 1994-95 annual report of the District. Mr. O'Malley moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and the motion carried unanimously. I. Technology Grant This grant was withdrawn from Board consideration. J. Mini-Grant Proposals The Superintendent recommended approval of three mini-grant proposals presented for Board review. Dr. Mitchell moved for approval of the grant applications, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. K. Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services, 1995-96 The standard application for special education funding, based on student enrollment, was recommended for approval by the Superintendent. Ms. Gee made the motion to approve the application, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. L. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of donations to the District. Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the items, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Donated items are listed in the following chart. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 8 DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Brady Elementary Sign Brady PTA Booker Arts Magnet School Two 43\" fans Booker PTA M. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to suspend the rules to allow an additional candidate for employment other than those printed in the agenda. Ms. Gee made a motion to suspend the rules, Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Superintendent recommended acceptance of the personnel changes printed in the agenda and the assignment of Katherine Snyder as the assistant principal at Washington Magnet Elementary School. Mr. Riggs moved for appr9val of the personnel items, Ms. Gee seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. N. Financial Reports Dr. Williams recommended approval of the financial reports for July and August, 1995, as printed in the agenda. Mr. Riggs moved for acceptance of the financial reports, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Dr. Russell Mayo was present to answer questions in addition to the report printed in the agenda. He responded to a questions of the Board regarding the waiting lists for magnet schools and reported that empty four-year-old program seats will be filled within the next few weeks. The Board took a recess at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 9 B. Facility Study, 3D International Mr. Gene Rutherford was present to answer questions regarding the District facilities study. Options were reported to the Board and a summary of the options and recommendations are attached to these minutes. C. Town Hall Meetings/District Dialogue Sessions A schedule of town hall and dialogue sessions was presented to the Board and Suellen Vann was present to answer questions. Ms. Magness asked Ms. Vann to investigate the possibility of having a \"call-in\" question/answer session in conjunction with the televised town hall meetings. D. Budget Update Fred Smith presented current information on the District's budget. There was discussion regarding the need to hold a budget worksession or special budget meeting. Mr. O'Malley suggested that .the meeting be scheduled after the Zone 2 . run-off election. Dr. Mitchell asked that the Board wait until appropriate recommendations are made by administration before setting ~ date for the meeting. Dr. Williams suggested that the Board make a formal request of the State Department of Education asking them to establish the school funding formula. Districts statewide are waiting for the State before making final budget projections. E. ServiceMaster Update Fred Smith answered Board questions regarding the ServiceMaster proposal, agreement, and contract. He reported that the Board's concerns were incorporated into the final agreement. F. Laidlaw/Transportation Update Mr. Smith was available to answer questions of the Board. He made a short presentation of the status of transportation problem resolution. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 10 VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. VIII. DISCIPLINARY Larry Robertson, Student Hearing Officer, presented information and recommended reinstatement of one student. In addition, four students were appealing administrative recommendations for expulsion. Troy McCollum was expelled from Henderson Jr. High School on February 8, 1995, for use of a weapon. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement on strict probation, with the stipulation that Troy report to the Board at the end of the first semester with academic, attendance and citizenship records. Mr. O'Malley made the motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Students appealing administrative recommendations of expulsion and the details surrounding their disciplinary sanctions follow. Each of these students are to return to the Board at the end of the first semester with academic, attendance and citizenship records. Carol Burton, 7th grade student at Southwest Junior High, had been involved in a fight and was found in possession of a small knife and a can of mace. Dr. Williams recommended reinstatement under the conditions noted previously. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Cynthia Henderson, 8th grade student at Henderson Junior High School, was recommended for expulsion for having an ice pick at the bus stop on September 11, 1995. The LR Police Department found the weapon when they were called to a disturbance, and have charged Cynthia with possession of a weapon and disorderly conduct. Dr. Williams recommended placement at the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of the first semester. Cynthia will be allowed to return to Henderson for the second semester if she returns with favorable academic, attendance and citizenship records. Ms. Gee made the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Ms. Magness casting the \"no\" vote. Board of Directors Meeting September 28, 1995 Page 11 Nathaniel Moore, a senior at Central High School, was charged with possession of a weapon on August 30, 1995. Nathaniel had a Swiss army knife on his key chain. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement under the terms and conditions noted previously. Mr. Riggs moved to accept the recommendation, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it passed 6-1 with Ms. Strickland casting the \"no\" vote. Darrecus Robinson, a senior at Parkview Magnet School, was charged with possession of a weapon on September 12, 1995. He was found to have a pistol in his car on the school campus. Darrecus was represented in this hearing by Attorney Marva Davis. He is also facing criminal charges for this incident. Superintendent Williams recommended upholding the expulsion recommendation for the remainder of the semester. Ms. Gee moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and carried 4-3, with Ms. Gee, Ms. Magness, Mr. O'Malley and Ms. Strickland voting in favor of the recommendation, and Ms. Pondexter, Mr. Riggs, and Dr. Mitchell casting \"no\" votes. Darrecus will return to the Board at semester for reconsideration of his petition for reinstatement. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for Board consideration, Mr. Riggs made a motion to adjourn at 11:05 p.m. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ~fjJlll lttilllllll Whereas, Mrs. Clementine Mathis Rouse committed her time, energy and knowledge of education for the improvement of students and fellow staff members in Little Rock schools\nand Whereas, Mrs. Rouse's family has generously developed the Clementine Mathis Rouse Scholarship Fund which will provide a $1,000 renewable scholarship for a student who will graduate from the Little Rock School District this Spring and continue his or her studies at an institute of higher education\nand  Whereas, Mrs. Rouse's family has established the Clementine Mathis Rouse Outstanding Teacher Award to recognize and reward an educator who provides outstanding service to our students\nand Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District recognizes and honors the valuable contributions that the Clementine Mathis Rouse Scholarship Fund ~as made to the children in our city\nand Whereas, these contributions will long be remembered by mem-bers of this community, ~, , NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District expresses its most sincere appreciation to the family of Mrs. Clementine Mathis Rouse. Adopted this 28th day of September, 1995. ~4'~il Linda Pondexter, President i1:.!.::!: RECOMMENDATIONS: To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund  Policy Protected Escrow  Annual Incremental Funding  Separate from Maintenance Budget  Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund  Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements  Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program  Five Year Building Program Preferable  Strategic Plan for Capital Program e  Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions  Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase  Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund  Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database  Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries  On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census  Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System  Include Magnet Information  Include Record of Private School Attendees  Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting) RECOMMENDATIONS: To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status  Continuing Quality of Education  Complete Capital Program .,  Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget  Reduce Burden of Bussing  Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs  Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers  Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for All Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use  Establish New Attendance Zones  Closure of Seven Elementary Schools  . Closure of One Jr. High School  One to Four Elementaries out of Service  Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction  Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option \"C\" Preference  Enhanced School Experience for Children  Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation  Development of Community Identities  Diminished Burden of Bussing  Comparable Cost to the District  Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities  More Student Value for the Dollar RECOMMENDATIONS: To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Review of Options  Representative Review Team for Options  Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses  Include the Court  Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives  Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force  Support of Educational Programs \u0026amp; Achievements  Support of Capital Programs and Bond Offering  Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD  Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core  Board Initiative  Community Representation  Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area  Include Industry and Commerce Leadership  Commuter Assignments  Encourage Board Service (subject to election) RECOMMENDATIONS: To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option \"C\" Preference - Recommendation No .7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Dev.elop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core CLOSURES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS OTHER USES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS !otTIONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS NEW SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 7 1 0 1 11 0 0 2 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I 7 1 0 4  12 0 0 2  , ............ .::: ... .:  -::::::: 7 1 0 3 11 0 0 1 .. ... ?.. ... ... ~.,..... ' .!.'. .~ .:-..: .-.:.\".. :\n~.=._:~.\u0026gt;.:1,..:.\n.:...:.:,. . .~.::. .\\ .. .J, ..._ ..\n ..... . ................ . . . . . .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::m:::::::::::mm::::~:::::::: { : : {~ .- -- - - ~:,. -  .. - -   -- --\n. ..\n -. -  ..  ------  -  Ill! -:\\ Little Rock school District Facilities Master Plan 3D/1 RECOMMENDED FOR CLOSURE Fair Park Elementary Garland Elementary lsh Elementary Jefferson Elementary Mitchell Elementary Wakefield Elementary Woodruff Elementary Mabelvale Jr. High    ''       t''ot al reno c''os ts FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES* Wilson Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Mabelvale Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Elementary      total reno costs The four facilities listed as \"not used \" on tables following the revised attendance zone maps are available for alternate uses such as administrative functions, special programs, community uses, and lastly, closure if no other purpose is found. These schools initially provide , temporary locations for students from schools where extensive renovation or additions occur during the capital improvement process. $714,626 $1,373,658 $656,776 $1,814,531 $579,516 $1,238,092 $212,098 $2,263,241 $8,852,538 $933,698 $1,138,095 $1,343,716 $1,389,146 $645,652 $5,450,307 Table CST-7 Page1 Official Oatl1 I, Su~ Stricklattb, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and that I will not be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as School Director in the littk Rock Sd1ool District, Zo~Numbcr7 of Pulaski County, Arkansas, upon which I am about to enter. ~c2rt~cMM-!)_  q l?\u0026amp;Th f ,\n9-q_ Ad City, State, ZIP 72.,,,7.-07 Sworn to and subscribed before me, Carolyn Staley, a county clerk in the county of Pulaski this the twffibi-~sh1h day of Sq,tember AD., ~ 1h014f,M1b tdt1 h1mtmet, attb t1mffii-t'iv. ~~~ Pulaski Circuit County Clerk 401 W. Markham St. Suite 133 Little Rock, AR. 7220 I Official Oatl1 I,Jolm Ri55s lV, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and that I will not be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract made by the district of which I am a director, except that said contract be for materials bought on open competitive bid and let to the lowest bidder and that I will faithfully discharge the duties as School Director in the Uttk Rock Scl1oo1 District, Z~NlMlbalf. of Pulaski County, Arkansas, upon which I am about to enter. ,L, '-t-ftr (2,g el..., to/2\u0026amp; 7 ~ io:\nCity, State, ZIP Sworn to and subscribed before me, Carolyn Staley, a county clerk in the county of Pulaski this the twfflnf-ds'11h day of Sq,tffl1ba AD., ~ thoM1.M1b t1ffl4? Jnm~t, am\u0026gt; t1metlf-ilv~. C~,~~ Carolyn Staley Pulaski Circuit County Clerk 401 W. Markham St. Suite 133 Little Rock, AR. 72201 OCT 3 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Mornt\u0026lt;mn9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 4, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on October 4, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Mr. Kevin O'Malley Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Judy Magness Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. John Riggs ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four Board members. Board of Directors Special Meeting October 4, 1995 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting student hearings. Of three students scheduled, only one was present for the Board's consideration. III. ACTION AGENDA Larry Robertson, Student Hearing Officer, presented information regarding Lakeisha Webb who was recommended for expulsion from McClellan High School. Lakeisha was charged with use of a weapon at a Friday night football game. It was reported that at least two other students were involved in the altercation. The superintendent recommended that the McClellan principal investigate the incident further and provide a report to the Board. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the superintendent's recommendation and Ms. Gee seconded the motion. After additional discussion, Ms. Gee withdrew the second to the motion. Mr. O'Malley made a motion to expel Lakeisha for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Gee moved to expel Lakeisha for the remainder of the first semester. Lakeisha could then return to the Board for reconsideration at second semester. Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion. The motion failed by 3-1 with Ms. Gee casting the only \"yes\" vote. Mr. O'Malley made a motion to reconsider the superintendent's original recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded and the motion to reconsider passed by a unanimous vote. The superintendent's original recommendation was before the Board. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the superintendent's recommendation, Mr. O'Malley seconded the motion and it carried 3-1, with Ms. Gee casting the \"no\" vote. Lakeisha will return to complete this hearing after a complete investigation is submitted by Jodie Carter, principal at McClellan. Board of Directors Special Meeting October 4, 1995 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT With no further business for Board consideration, Ms. Pondexter moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it passed 4-0. / APPROVED: /0 ... ~ J-95 OCT ~ 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Mo111.~1mg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 12, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a special session on October 12, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. Immediately prior to the call to order, Mr. Michael Daugherty was administered the oath of office by Pulaski County Clerk, Carolyn Staley. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. Michael Daugherty MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all Board members. Austin Burke, Student Ex-officio representing Parkview, was also present. Board of Directors Special Meeting October 12, 1995 Page 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting the following business: 1. Election of Officers 2. Approval of a Monetary Donation to the McClellan Community School 3. Expulsion Recommendations 4. Student Hearings III. ACTION ITEMS Election of Officers: For the office of President, Ms. Gee nominated Linda Pondexter\nDr. Mitchell nominated J_ohn Riggs. Ms. Pondexter:was re-elected by a vote of 4-3, with Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Daugherty, and Ms. Pondexter voting for Pondexter\nand Ms. Magness, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Riggs voting for Riggs. For the office of Vice-President, Mr. Daugherty nominated Pat Gee\nDr. Mitchell nominated Ms. Magness. Ms. Gee was re-elected by a vote of 4-3, with Ms. Strickland, Mr. Daugherty, Ms. Pondexter and Ms. Gee voting for Gee\nand Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Riggs, and Ms. Magness voting for Magness. For the office of Secretary, Ms. Gee nominated Sue Strickland. Mr. Riggs moved to accept Ms. Strickland's nomination by acclamation, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. McClellan Community School Monetary Donation: Dr. Williams recommended approval of a contract between McClellan Community Education and the City of Little Rock in the amount of $50,000. Ms. Gee moved acceptance of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried unanimously. - Board of Directors Special Meeting October 12, 1995 Page 3 Expulsion Recommendations: The Superintendent recommended expulsion of six students who are not appealing their expulsion to the Board. Mr. Riggs made a motion to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation, seconded by Ms. Gee. The motion to expel the students passed unanimously. The students are listed below. DATE STUDENT'S NAME SCHOOL OFFENSE 09-14-95 Angela Elie Forest Heights Possession/Weapon 09-19-95 Javier Lee Franklin Physical Assault/Staff 09-29-95 Corey Lucas Hall Verbal Abuse/Staff 09-26-95 Asmar Stewart Hall Verbal Abuse/Staff 08-21-95 Terrance Stigall Henderson Possession/Weapon 09-01-95 Deshunn Williams Dunbar Extortion The students who were scheduled for hearings had not yet arrived. Therefore, Mr. Riggs made a motion to recess the meeting to conduct the regularly scheduled Agenda meeting. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Student Hearings: The Board reconvened the Special meeting at 6:20 p.m., for the purpose of conducting student hearings. Larry Robertson, Student Hearing Officer, presented information regarding two students who had been recommended for expulsion from the District. Lakeisha Webb was recommended for expulsion from McClellan High School for possession and use of a weapon at a football game. In a special meeting on October 4, 1995, the Superintendent recommended that Jodie Carter, principal at McClellan, further investigate the circumstances surrounding Lakeisha's expulsion and provide a complete report to the Board. The October 4, disciplinary hearing had been recessed pending completion of the report. Board of Directors Special Meeting October 12, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Carter's report was presented to the Board and Lakeisha's hearing was reconvened. Keith Richardson, from the Step Up Center, was present on behalf of Lakeisha. He had been counseling Lakeisha in resolving problems and controlling anger and appealed to the Board to reinstate her. Dr. Williams recommended expulsion for the remainder of the school year. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to reinstate LaKeisha. Mr. Daugherty seconded the motion, with an amendment that any additional behavior incidents would result in expulsion for the remainder of the school year, as originally recommended by the Superintendent. Mr. Riggs seconded the amendment to the motion and it carried 6-1, with Ms. Magness casting the \"no\" vote. The amended motion to reinstate passed by a vote of 5-2, with Ms. Magness and Ms. Strickland casting \"no\" votes. Lakeisha's reinstatement carries the condition that she return at the end of the semester with satisfactory academic, attendance, and behavior records. Wardell Newsome was recommended for expulsion from Mann Magnet Junior High School. He was charged with possession and selling of marijuana. The Superintendent recommended reinstatement with alternative placement and enrollment in a drug abuse counseling and treatment program. Mr. Riggs moved to accept Dr. Williams' recommendation, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business for Board consideration, Mr. Riggs moved for adjournment, seconded by Ms. Magness and it carried unanimously. ~ APPROVED: /{)-at,~__r I I' I I I I \\ f4 14 :01 PUL. COUNTY CLERK 501 / 372-8340 I~ Mflcl l\u0026gt;A1ffMmt, do hereby solemnly IWOlt or afftrm that I will support tho Conatitution of tb, Umted States and tile Couthudoll of die SUl\u0026amp;e of Ammu. mid that 1 Will not bo tntmnated. di1CICJtly or lndhootly, in any costtrDot mada by tho district of which I am I d!reotor, IXoept 1'br ODlltraota 1br materiall bought on opm1 competitive bid and let to tho lowolt biddor and that I wm ~ diRhargo the dudes u sohool director in 1M upon which I am about to ontm, 110\\ S. MM'tln St. Lffllo Root. AJL 'TU04557a Sworn t:o at1d ll\u0026amp;bacribod before.me, Cerolyn Staley. a oounty olcrk in the Oouuty of Pulaski thlJ the ( Z.,,'f- day of oetobct A.O.,\"' ~AM\"'\"'~ Attt, ~-ftw.  Llkc~f~w  Pulaati Ctrcuft CMy Clerk 401 w., ~ It. SWte 13:J Uttle a.oct. All. 12.201 002 . . . ...... ............ ....... .. .... , ............ ......... ...... .... .............. ............ .... ..... ........ ......... .. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING October 26, 1995 REC V JAN 8 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitormg The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on October 26, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Sue Strickland Dr. Michael Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs, IV MEMBERS ABSENT: one ALSO PRESE T: Dr. Hemy P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Ms. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The President, Linda Pondexter, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six Board members. Mr. Riggs arrived at 6:16 p.m. The ex-officio student, Austin Burke, was also present. Board of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 Page 2 II. READING OF Ml UTES: Ill. Minutes from the regular board meeting of September 28, 1995, and from special meetings held on October 4, and October 12, 1995, were presented for Board approval. Ms. Magness moved for approval of the minutes, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. A. Dr. Williams introduced Mr. James Rouse and presented a Board Resolution, which was adopted on September 28, 1995. The resolution was in honor of Mrs. Clementine Mathis Rouse, who was a long-time LRSD teacher, and Rouse family members who have established a scholarship fund for teachers and students of the District. Reverend Kenpeth Hicks, representing Arkansas Friends for Better Schools, attended the meeting to make a special presentation to Mrs. Sarah Fason who was named a \"Public School Hero\" by the Arkansas Times. Dr. Williams presented certificates from the United States Information Agency to Mona Briggs, principal, and Mary Johnson, teacher, from Pulaski Heights Junior High School. Ms. Briggs and Ms. Johnson participated in the 1994-95 Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program, which sponsors international teacher exchanges. A citation was presented to Ms. Jean Smother and members of the West Little Rock Kiwanis Club. These volunteers delivered cookies to each school in the District on the first day of school. A Superintendent's citation was presented to Paula Smith and Katherine Snyder from Washington Magnet School, and Jean Whitesell from Mitchell Incentive School. These teachers were selected to implement the Arkansas K-4 Crusades for Math/Science in selected pilot schools. A citation was presented to Mr. Fred Johnson, president of the Dunbar Alumni Association. Members of the Alumni Association mentor at Dunbar, support the PTA, and perform other volunteer duties on a regular basis. Board of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 Page 3 Dr. Williams presented citations to Ravyn Miller and Jerome Strickland, students at Parkview Magnet School, who make significant contributions to their school and community by participation in numerous extracurricular and volunteer activities. This past summer, Ravyn was elected Lieutenant Governor of Girls' State and Jerome was elected Governor of Boys' State. Bonnie Eldredge, postmaster, was presented a Superintendent's citation for her participation in Red Ribbon Week activities in the LRSD. The US Postal Service sponsored a visit by John Lasne, the Red Ribbon Sto1yteller, and provided copies of his book for each elementa1y school. In conclusion, the Superintendent recognized the student ex-officio Board member, Austin Burke, who is a senior at Parkview Magnet School. In addition to Superintendent's citations, several schools were recognized for their participation in this year's United Way campaign. Ms. Stephanie Johnson, previous Board member, was presented with a placque in recognition of her dedicated service to the Board from April through August, 1995. B. PARTNERSHIPS The Superintendent recognized eleven new business partnerships with LRSD schools. Partnership certificates were presented to each of these individuals in recognition of their efforts to build stronger ties between the school and community. Frederick Fields and Djuana Dudeck, representing Cloverdale Elementary School have established partnerships with: Ola Russenberger, representing River City Gymnastics\nMary Craig, representing Longley Baptist Church\nSherry Fields and Bernice Johnson, representing Bernice's Flower Shop\nEddie Tank, representing Kentucky Fried Chicken\nRita Clizer, representing Pizza for Less\nGlenda Woods, representing St. Mark's Sanctua1y Choir\nJames McCarther, representing World Wide Services\nBoard of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 Page 4 Other partnerships included: Lloyd Brubaker, representing Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings\nBetty Raper, representing Gibbs Magnet\nDr. Emma Kelly Rhodes, representing Alpha Mu Zeta Chapter of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority\nJames Washington and Teretha Kelly representing Henderson Health Sciences Magnet School\nMonica Saunders, representing Association of Black Engineers in Arkansas\nSharon Davis representing Romine Interdistrict Elementary School\nBonnie Ladd, representing X-Site\nPat Higginbotham, representing Woodruff Elementary Ms. Gee made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES No reports. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown introduced Mr. Skip Marshall, the newest member of the ODM staff. Mr. Marshall's background is in finance, budgeting and planning. 2. Classroom Teachers Association No report. 3. Joshua Intervenors Mr. John Walker asked for the Board to reconsider the ServiceMaster contract in order to avoid the scheduled Saturday court date. He alleged that the contract was not properly signed and was not considered valid unless ratified by the Board of Directors. Board of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 Page 5 4. Knight Intervenors No report. 5. PTA Council No report. E. BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness reported on visits to Booker Magnet and Hall High Schools. She thanked members of the community and school staff members who had written letters in support of Superintendent Williams. Dr. Daugherty thanked his supporters, especially those from the New Party and ACORN. He stated that he hoped to make good decisions based on his conscious and on public/community input. Ms. Strickland remarked that she had visited several schools in her zone. She specifically noted her favorable impression at Mabelvale Junior High School. Her plans are to meet with groups of parents to turn around the negative concept that the community members have of the junior high schools in South\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":35,"next_page":36,"prev_page":34,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":408,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}