{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_608","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","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":["1988/1992"],"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","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/608"],"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":["72 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\nProposed desegregation plan, site selection committee, news clippings\nI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I I PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN October 3,1988 n I Iobviate the need for compensatory and remedial programs in the higher grades. LRSD proposes that Gibbs Magnet be reorganized as a K-3 school and Rightsell Elementary (approximately four blocks from Gibbs) serve as the 4-6 international studies magnet. Also, Dunbar Junior High School J C \" ] (approximately two blocks from Rightsell and adjoining the Gibbs campus) will have a school within a school for international studies. The use of Gibbs/Rightsell as feeders for Dunbar will provide continuity for the ] international studies theme. The uses described above for Washington, Mitchell, Rockefeller, Ish and Rightsell may change if those I schools are needed to house enhanced schools. C. 1990-91 I I The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate I ( ] Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining Capitol Hill Complex. the The new Stephens will house pre- kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of 600 students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens Iwill be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. J The site for the new Stephens Elementary is approxi- mately one-half mile from Woodruff. i Woodruff has a capacity of 245 students and is situated in neigh- a 9 C - 9 borhood that has no real potential for white growth. I 9 9 9 9 0 9 Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use of this facility is to use it as the Instructional Resource Center (IRC). There is no need to continue to use Woodruff as a school after the opening of the new Stephens School. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, 7th Street and Center Street, In addition to being an interdistrict magnet. the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as natural magnet for individuals a 9 who work within governmental and business Little Rock. centers of III. Assignment Plan 3 The Little Rock School District proposes to use attendance zones for al*l of the non-magnet, non-enhancement schools. The zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary Stu- 1 13JOM S94OOS Jtapuafi Aq paqjodaj: qou aasaqi AjoBaqeo aoej u-I^U^Oh sqq ux squapnqs xYb jo jejoj,  OOT OOT OOT wr passed :iuaoaad 0 0 T T 0 0 T * T passed 'ON saavwaa aawio passed ^tuaoaad 0 0 0 0 pSSSGJ ON ^a4VW WUO OOT OOT OOT TOT passed 4uaojad T 0 T 0 0 T T 0 passed OM saavwaa aiiHM OOT OOT TCT passed 4uaoaad T 0 0 T 0 0 0 T passed 'ON saavw auLiHM S8 8S tV Si Si 9S passed :}uaojad QZ L iT ST passed \"ON saavwaj xavaa 6 S 9S 98 Si iS Ti Oi passed 4Uaojad ZT ST I? OT VT possvd 'ON saavw Hovaa 9 E8 Ti 9S 6 Ti Vi 9S passed ^Tuaojad TT iT 6Z SE VZ VE OT 8T OT iT 5Z SE sz OT 8T passed \"ON P94S9J, Oli sj^Naanis qqv T66T 066T 686T S3IiLVW3HJVW 886T T66T 066T 686T 3NIQV3U 886T AaviNSwaoa SNanaais :aoonDS L2  9  E aavao AHVHwns aoonos avnaiAiaNi T6-066T snnsaa isai, aoNvwaoaaad wnwiNiw svsnvhuv i.3iai.sia aooHos aooa aaiinSCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY 1988 I 1969 READING 1990 t 1991 1988 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed 25 21 35 28 24 18 16 15 25 18 Percent Passed____ 84 80 75 94 72 SLACK HALES No. Passed 6 16 9 5 6 percK.nt Passed BLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed I WHITE MALES Passed I Ko. Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed OTHER HALES No. Passed Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed percent_passed 86 9 75 4 100 1 100 * 1 100 73 11 92 0 0 * 1 100 69 9 82 0 0 0 0 100 6 86 1 100 0 * 3 100 u 86 6 50 4 100 1 100 * 1 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91  INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 6 MATHEI-IATICS 1989 35 26 74 16 73 9 75 0 0 * 1 100 1990 24 19 79 11 85 8 73 0 0 0 0 1991 16 15 94 5 100 6 86 1 100 0 * 3 100 1988 25 11 44 4 57 3 25 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 35 19 54 9 41 9 75 1990 24 13 54 7 54 6 55 1991 16 11 69 5 100 4 57 1988 25 9 36 3 43 1 8 SCIENCE 1989 35 10 29 7 32 2 17 1990 24 11 46 7 54 4 36 1991 16 11 69 5 100 A 57 1988 25 6 24 0 SOCIAL STUDIES 19B9 35 21 60 14 _61_ 19 9 0 24 14 58 8 .6^ 199 1 16 14 5 100 0 6 6 6 50 55 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 1 100 * 1 100 0 lOQ ion. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 0 * 2 67 1 I ii 0 0 I I * 1 1 0 A- 2 * 1 * 1 0 * 3 100 100 67 100 100 J 100 I Total o all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender.~ k Ml -tA \u0026lt; U U 4S *:i dIUM. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 621 I SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I Percentile Sunmary N X N X N X N N X N X N 50 26 01 75 49 25 4 4 1 7 25 X 25X 6X 44X 7 5 3 L 44X 31X 1 9X 6X 5 3 4 4 31X 19X 25X 25X 5 3 5 3 31X 19X 31 X 19X 2 1 4 3 13X 44X 25X 1 9X 4 3 5 4 25X 19X 31X 25X 5 3 5 3 Nuabe Mean NatU.NCE 1 6 -48^ 16 1 6 51.0 1 6 52.9 1 6 48..t__ 16 46.8 1 6 52.6 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES Percentile Sumaary N X N X N X N X N X N X 50 26 01 r, 75 49 25 0 0 9 - -7 ox ox 56X - 44 X 5 7 2 31X 44X 13X ____g____ijx_____ -0 4 5 _ 7 _ OX 25X 31X 44X 0 4 6 6 OX 25X 38X 38X 5 5 0 6 31X 31 X OX 38X 5 3 5 3 31X 1 9X 31X 19X NuBbe Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1 6 34.5 1 6 58.5 1 6 37.4 1 6 41 . 8 1 6 51 .5 1 6 50.1 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES Percent lie Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X ____.76 - 99__ 50 26 Qt  75 49 4 4 1 0 13X 13X 31X 12- 12 5 -14 -._ 44X - .3flX 3ex 1 6X _ 3____9X ..5___IfeX______ 7 9 1 1 22X 28X 34X 5 1 1 1 9 16X 2 ex 34X esx 7 1 2 4 9 22X 38X 13X 28X 9 6 1 0 7 esx 1 9X 31 X eex Number Tested Meaa_N\u0026lt;til,NCE 32 41.7 32 59_u6._. 32 J4.._ 32 47.4 32 49.8 32 49.5 31X 19X 31 X 1 37. e '^1 a COMPLETE BATTERY I-! N 0 4 6 6 1 6 41 . 7 X OX 25X 38X -'3 0 * ! 3 COMPLETE BATTERY 0 N X 5 7 1 1 9 1 6X 22X 34X 28X J 9 {-I 32 47.2 p.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 623 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 3 WHITE FEMALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1: TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BAS 1C BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY . N X' N N X  N Z 0 1 0 0 ' OX 1 OOX OX OX 10 00 1 OOX OX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 1 o' 0 0 100X ox ox ox 1 b 0 0 10OX OX OX ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX ox OX 1 0 0 ox ox ox 56.4 lLLT 1 1 86.9 57.0 1 1 67.7 72.8 1 1 54.2 68.5 TOTAL '  READING TOTAL...... MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X  N X\" N\" X N X 0 1 ox 100X \u0026gt; 0 ox 0 ox 1 0 0 0 100X OX OX OX 0 ox  1 1 oox 0 0 OX ox 1 100X 0 ox 0 0 OX ox 1 1 oox 0 '  ox 0 0 ox OX 0 0 0 OX 100X ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1  56.4 j\n1 1 1 86.9 57.0 67.7 1 1 72.8 54.2 1 68.5 TOTAL READING TOTAL - MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL ' STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N : X N X N X' N  N X N 2354 14X 21X 36X 29X 6 ,fe 4QX. b.. 5 31 33X 2 OX 7X A 7 3 2 20X 47X 20X 13X 3542 ^X 36X 29X 14X 2 4 3 6 23X 27 X 20X 4 OX 3 31 8 20X '2OX 17, 53X 2552 '36X 36X 14X 14 43. 1 15 62.2 15 52.7 14 49.5 1 5 46.8 15 45.3 1 4 48.9 JLd Itt ' 30 fl 29 2ft 19 Jit. 21 2^ a fl ftft, a 1  I  .1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: i^ir! STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 3 ?:iJ\n\n:ii ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING Percentile Sumeary TL 50 26 01 75 49 25 Nunber Tested ___neaii-MatJ-L-KCI N X tt I 1991 \u0026lt; MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY N X N X N r SCIENCE X N X ttJ6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES N X 10/07/91 PAGE 625 COMPLETE BATTERY N X 3 i' e to ^1 * t  ' * I - _j4- 6 1 1 4 14% 24X 44% A4X J.3 1 0 3 48X 37% 1 IX , 4Z 5_ 14 6 2 19X 52X 22X 7X ___6^.._.?45:____ 12 5 2 48X 2 OX ex 4 10 7 6 15X 37% ae-/. 22X 3 9 3 12 1 IX 33X 1 IX 44X 5 12 6 2 _20X 48X 24X 8X 16 It 25 ____45..6. 27 .46^3 27 54.0 25 5-2.12 27 ___50,4__, 27 - 45,5_ 25 51 .4 10 ti 21 ?.9 27 2 30 31 I : '  I J .'t . { :'e 33 I  i 42' ir'  bli } I\n  I  Jr f    'I Ui 2L 2l b3| '*  .'X-  . s ^S- \\ J- '^- 9 A,  ^,r V- jilt r **'1 \"O 7b'A 7O' y\n- J?1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 627 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS   j  TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percontll* Sunaary - N X u. N N X N X N X X N X * iT lO 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 A 1 2 5 ox 13X 25X 63X 3  . .38X 3  1 38X 13X 3 2 0 3 38X esx ox 38X 1 2 3 2 13X 25X 38X 25X 0 2 2 4 OX 25 X 25X 50X 0 2 3 3 OX 25X 38X 38X 1 o' 4 3 13Z OX SOX 38X t\nIB   Nunber Tested : Mtan_NtJ.LJiCt 8 A h-? 8 49.6 8 ___47..e_._ 8 40^6 8 __^.37..4 8 36.9 8 38.7 ALL BLACK ' I 'r-- 20 21 22 23 /jib Un Percentile Suaaary -TOTAL 1! READING \u0026gt; i' hi N X ___7$ .r_99. 50 26 75 49 Qi_r_25 Nunber Tested Mean Nat'I NCE e 13X TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY 28 27 N X N N X N N X N 30  1 .......   53X-'^TifeyBg ____ J In4 2 20X 40X 27X 2131 6 4 0 5 40X 27X OX 33X 3 4 4 4 20X 27X 27X 27X 1 5 2 7 7X 33X 13X 47X 2 4 4 5 13X 27X Z7/, 33X 3 2 4 6 20X 13X 27X 40X 15 ls.9  33 34 3B Jfi. J is '  in-nag^ irtffl Mt p ) I \u0026gt; J 15 54.6 15 46.6 15 40.7 15 42.9 15 44.5 401 i-4. JI 1'1 Miife  M'l,\nf  d I i / ' n-\n,  3\ns\u0026gt; ni 4 H k-! ' f* 'n't fils 'fr . - M 4 'It =3i 5-' 1 i n jr * ! \" J* 80 ( I I 88 I ** \"1 7 M  7i  n 7i 4 78 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 628 SCHOOL : GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunaary N X N X N X N X N X N X N 9 w J 6. 50 26 01 .n 75 49 25 2 3 9 Number Tested I -L3X. 13X 19X 56 X 3 6 4 3 9X. 38X 25X 5A 6____^38X_. 4 1 5_ 25X 6X 31 X 3 4 4 5 _._1?x _ 25X 25X 31X J_____65L 5 3 7 31 X 19X 44X ____2 4 5 _5 13X 25X 31X 31 X 3 2 4 7 19X 13X 25X 44X\n'i '-1 /.W- --if SrJ,\n:\n. * i '7* 16 _____Wan Naf 1 NCE \"l^t  jV: 38.3 16 51.6  16 ___54.1____ I 6 . 6. _ 4.14.\n:   1 e -40,7 16 ___4ga7_ 1 6 43.7. ^^e 'i .i-K* 'K's-' 2t Z2 .s-H jw- :a: a 29 '?^'- i *- 'A  *?!'  i\n, (   :r. t. liii :ii tlKS-' . ' 34 '1 3-1 !!4T h IBW E .'id/.i II4If \u0026lt; i 5? ! S.i' f ifi -Vi 11 Will ri era I :K V iSv\nSt iul 39 2\u0026lt;i. 37 30 39 o \u0026gt; -! y w I _ -  '! '   Ljpj. 4u' WB T ft 0^ ihi iP! all I '  .**: .V** ] ro'j  * tlf^ J.f\" r / i l-i4il\" 'it f IT .- 1 f? j'i' -rii 1 \u0026gt; . It i I* i\nj' H\n'-' . 1 Iff l ^^1 Vr SSlfe  .It ! 7v. V' Mtl .1 ij 5 ? e^'a e\n' e X'' I V I*  ' I. 2  Ip: -  21 ' J i\u0026lt;' I j'H  00 L 00' 071 OS 0 7} 'U:iq *1 t\n- . -. 72 73 zy ^7s.^  '\u0026lt; n'*- 4^' .at1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL:\" STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL' GRADE: 4 UHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING Percentile Summary N X ^OiMLL 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 629 COMPLETE BATTERY N ' X  N X  N X X N X 76 5 0 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 '1 0 0 ox 1 d'dx OX ox 0 1 0 0 0^ 1 OOX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 oox \"OX ox OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 oox ox ox 0 1 Q 0 ox iodx ox ox Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 . 0 63.5 52.1 61 . 0 82.7 59.9 64.2 UHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL  MATHEMATICS TOTAL ' LANGUAGE BASIC \" BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X 'N' X N X N X 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 ox \u0026lt; 0 dx 1 0 1 oox ox 0 ox o' dx 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 i i*ddx ' 0 ox * 'f idox a ' 1 0 100X ox 0 0 OX OX 1 0 1 oox ox 0 0 OX OX 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox Number Tested Mean Nat*1 NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALL UHITE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested . Mean Nat * 1 NCE 47.9 43.0 52.1 47.4 50.0 48.4 47.9 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL  STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N x\" N X N X N' X N X 0 1 1 0 OX BOX BOX OX 0 r f. 1 1 0 SOX BOX ox 0 2 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 1 0 OX BOX BOX OX 1 1 0 0 BOX BOX OX OX 0 f 1 0 ox 5 ox BOX OX 0 1 1 0 ox BOX  BOX OX 2 54,5 2 53.3\nj.y\n2 B2.1 s 54.2 s 66.4 2 54.2 2 56.1 1 . r.'i\ni  :t bl'. I J 3 s o 9 1 19 19 10 ?0 21 32 23 e 29 2 ( 20 90 31 33 34 39 2\u0026gt;. 36 4 5(1) 61 6 6\u0026amp;i 67| ' 6ei 63l 941 6^ Oft' 70' I 741 s 4- J r-' vi '^51 ? V '...A-A. w. I I I 0^' I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91  1 1 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentll* Sunnary 7t - 99 50 26 _0i 75 49 Nuaber Tested ___ Mean NaVLLJiCE. BLACK MALE Percantila Suaaary 76 50 26 99 75 49 01 - g Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE all I----- I 'i 1 I N X N X N X N X N X N X N BLACK 0 ox 2 7 1 0 1 IX 37X 53X 5 8 5 5X 26X 42X 26X X 6 5 7 5X 32X 26X 37X 0. e 4 3 OX 32X 21X 47X 0 5^ 59 OX 26X 26X 47X 0 5 e 8 -OX 26X 32X 42X 0 4' 1 Q 19 34.7 r 19 JJl if i.a. i 1 9 41.0  H 19 .31x5- 19 34.0 19 34_,3 1 9 36.0 TOTAL READING N X 0 OX 3 t9X 25X 56X I TOTAL MATHEMATICS  -g^iTOTAL 'V language BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N N X N N X N 1 6 35.5 TOTAL READING Percentile Suaaary : 50 26 _01 75 49 es. Nuaber Tested \u0026lt; Mean Nat * 1 NCE, N X 5 1 1 0_____ QX. 14X 31 X .\u0026gt;|9 B4X^ -35 \u0026lt;4\"\n35.1jg - 4 5 3A 25X 31X 1 9X _2 i 4 Mu' 5 5  13X 25X 31X 31X 0466 OX 25X 38X 3dX 1 4 Q 3 6X 25X SOX 19X 14 4 6X 25X 25X 7 44X 1 3 7 5 1 6 48.0 1 6 39.6 1 6 39.0 1 6 42.0 1 6 39.3 1 6 39.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N 1 0 1 1 _1 29X 3tX 26X _-3- 1 0 1 0 12 _9X 29X 29X 34X . 0 i 0 1 0 15 _ OX 29X 29X 43X 19 13 12 3X 26 X 37X 34X ___1_____ 3X 9 1 0 15 26X 29X 43X 17 1 4 13 35 44.8 di-\" i 35 35 .3Ba.9 35 ._37u7.__. 35 ____ 36_.4 35 37.4 t . .} . .r- V* y- :T if ex 19X 44X 31 X 3X EOX 40X 37X OX 21 X 37X 42X PAGE 630 X X I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING 1991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE #16481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 631 COMPLETE BATTERY Prc#ntll Suamary 16 50 26 01_ 55_ 75 49. 25 N X N X N X N X N X N X N \u0026gt; Nuaber Tested ... Hean_N*tll_NCJE. 0 b 12 19 _QX 16X 32X 51X _5. 11 12 141 30X 32X 3 24X 3 12 1 0 12 8X 32X 27X 32X 0 OX 1 1 1 1 J5 30X 30X _41X -- .2 1 0 13 12 5X 27X 35 X 32X 1 10 11 15 3X 27X 30X 41X . 18 15 13 3X 22X 41 X 35X  'i^37   36.1 37 45^1 37 4-L.-0____ 37 ___38.9. 37 ____ 39.2__ 37 37.5 _ 37 _38.4__ -t t t'' gjg iTi-l T ial ip 1!^  i j'L- \u0026gt; T s iftS.  *-j I is ' H I is . . 4 t- Mi T 3 h\nv.:* 4*1 1 \u0026gt; IK' \ni : rf , Mai1l.  \u0026lt;\nh.gk J-\u0026lt;T: Jl -tol: 41 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 -------SCHOOL: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL GRADE: 5 WHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS Percent ile'Suamery N 'X 'N X' MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 63S SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY ----------------------- X  ---------N Z N  ... %'   -1 \u0026gt;  at* 9 54 50 36 01 75 49 25 1 0 0 0 1 OOX ox ox OX 1 0 00 1 OOX ox ox ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX \" OX OX 1 10 OX \"0 OX 0 0 OX OX 1 1 OCX 0~ OX 0 0 OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX J _  o' Q 0 1 OOX ox\" OX ox Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Suiaaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * I NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean NatU NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 65.6 99.0 62.9 78.2 99.0 86.9 84.6 TOTAL  READING TOTAV MATHEMATICS TOTAL  LANGUAGE BASIC\" BATTERY SCIENCE -----------SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X 'N  X N X N X N X' 1 0 0 0 1 65.6 l_0 0X OX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 99.0 TOTAL READING N X 2 13 8 14X 7X 21 X 57X 1 4 39.3  -Uii- 100X OX OX OX 0 r 0 0 1 62.9 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N 14 7 2 14 47.8 X 7X 29X 50% 1 4X 1 OOX ox OX 1 0 0 0 1 78.2 TOTAL LANGUAGE N 43 4 3 1 4 49.3 X 29X 21 X 29% 21% 200X ox ox ox Ms IC BATTERY N 3 15 5 1 4 44.6 X 21X 7X 36X 36X 10 0 0 1 99.0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 0' 0 0 1 86.9 SCIENCE N 2 34 5 14X 21 X 29X 36X 1 4 44.3 1 0 0% ox.... 0% OX SOCIAL STUDIES N X 1 3 5 5 7X 21 X 36% 36X 1 4 41 .4 1 0 0 0 1 84.6 1 00% ox  OX ox complete BATTERY  N' 31 46 21 X 7X 29 X 43% 1 4 43.6 *  09 70 71 7a 73 74 3 \u0026lt;e 49 Bl\u0026gt; Bl -as\nwvw 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 633 I SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 \u0026lt;1 ^1 Uli- w BLACK KALE TOTAL READING r TOTAL MATHEMATICS . I-. TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunaery Li - N X 50 26 01 Al 75 49 25 2 33 4 t 0\n.^'  Nuaber Tested ______ Mean Net*1 NCE 17X 25X 25X 33X N. . .4 5 12 X N X N X X N Z N...............X \" 12 __45.7 12 56.7 ALL bii. BLACK TOTAL READING Percent lie Sunnary N X 76 99 50 - 75 4 J. 26 49 Ot - 25wb' 446 12. 15X isx 23X 462^ Number Tested b Mean Net * 1 MCE \u0026gt; 26 42.3 -F Sir OTHER FEMALE ? Percent i1 -.4  . Suamei^y TOTAL READING X 50 26 75 49  1 0 0 01 - 5 OX ox Number Tested ______-Mean _Netl_NCK w s O * 4. I  i * 75.8 * -VI JiX .1.' { _L33X. 42X 8X 17X 0 ox 5 4 3 5 12 J TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 33X 25X 42X 2 4 4 17X 33X 17X 33X \u0026lt; g 3 3 4 ^75^ 25X 25X 33X 3 42 3 25X 33X 17X 25X 3 333 25X 25X 25X 25X 12 48.3 12 41._8 12 51.3 12 48.2 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N Z 5 9 8 A 19X 35X 31X 15K 47 7 8l 15X 27X 27X 31 5 57 9 1 9X 1 9X 27X 35X - 6 7 3 15X 23 X 33'A 4 71 8 15X 27X 27X 31 X 6 4 7 3 23X 15X 27X 35X 26 51.9 26 46.0 26 46.3 26 44.4 26 46.0 26 45.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N X 0 0 0. 1 ^6^9 J-MX. OX ox ___ ox 0 0 0 1 H ' ! ?  4 i 1 OOX OX OX ___OX 1 0 0 lopx ox ox _____0_____ oz 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 6 0 0 1 OOX ox OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 1 1 1 53.3_____ Q3 84.6 82.7 6622'' 67 96 90 92'I ^1 0.* 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6431 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 635 SCHOOL: STEPHENS fNCENflVE GRADE: 5\nr WaiaMb,^, 6i z 1 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL ~ READINS't: \u0026lt; Percentile Sunmary If. .,^.-111 :  ..T0TAL\n:^3,1u.ur*\n4 MATHEMATICS ' LANGUAGE 76 'so S6 01 99 75 49 S5 6 4 e 1S\naix : 1 4X SIX 43X Nunber Tested Mean Nat' 1 N^ 28 44.3 z. \u0026gt;s f \n.' if is   : LLiM.^ / ltJU.Z4 . ',9ii?'a\n38M . 8 !h. e9j{! 4  4x4:' 28 fl, 54.9 3v t-, i-  r.Tin^ I \u0026gt; BASIC Ji jl:BATTERlf?2) ii T SS5X nrrr - * -. r. \\\n.- [W!tris'\n*r- SS!!iLi|2dt^ I Social STUDIES --------- COMPLETE BATTERY  N X B lO 11 12 13 SIX S5X S5X S9X 29X 14X 25X 32X 8 4 1 3 1 1 Q SIX asx 3SX 7 9 T . 28 uijj- , ' SB 47.8 S8 48.7 S8 48.8 .S' 49  0 \u0026gt;1)1,\nit? u. I- v i. J -^y r3{\n:i -ffil. .-iHftpr ! r iW Ji.i 1 li J ' IB IB 17 18 10 20' 21 22 29 24 29 20 27 I 1 t i\n4\nr T '1^- 29 SO 31 I 1\ni'\": n * L \u0026lt; I- ili ipii 33 31 SB S'i 4S 4n. 48 B\u0026amp; Bt 63 B4i bbI Ba| n 68 I 6' I ul i r Wv f II '\u0026lt; 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 UHITE MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6461 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 Percentile Sunmery N X N X N N X N X N ... 50 26 01 75 49 25 A 0 1 0 OX. ox 1 oox ox 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 01 OX ox OX 1 OOX 0 6 0 1 __ ^OX ox OX 1 oox 0 01 0 OX OX 1 OOX ox 0 01 0 ox ox 1 oox ox Number Tested _._Hean_NatJ L.J(CE. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALL UHITE Percentile Sumsary 76 50 26 99 75 49 _01 _rL.25. Number Tested __Me a n_ Na t * 1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sumnary J 6. 50 26 75 49 ._0L_-_g5^ Number Tested .nftAn_NatJ_E_NCE .57 k   36.5 35,1_ 45,2 40.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL , TOTAL MATHEMATICS .. . LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N X N X N X N X N X 0 0 1 A 1 37.7 OX OX 1 OOX ___ ex. 0 01 JL 1 36.5 TOTAL READING N X ox OX  100X ' 0 ox ox vo^ ox -11-l1_1jOOX 0 o 0 OX ox OX 0 01 OX OX lOOX 32.3 1 100X P______OX___ 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox 1 35.1 1 1 45.2 40.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N N.:\nX N X 2 2 2 29X 29X 29X 2\u0026gt; 4  01 29X  57X OX 14X J 2 ./.i 3 J 1,. N N X\n7 47.Q 7 63.2 -i 7 5S. 0 'i i w 1 i.- ' Ji!. ll J  .1i \u0026lt; sxkt: ,*^r41 7 JJX______ 29X 43X 14X \u0026gt; ili' 'M . \u0026lt; *5 .1 4 1 1 57X 14X 14X J.  . 29X 1 4 - 57X 7 .53.u5_ 0 ' 1 ' ____ OX 3 21 14X 43X 29X 14X 7 JJ_,6____ 4 ei 2V 90 31 48 M 99 94 90 IL 97 J  Ji 99 JS 41 42 .f PAGE 636 COMPLETE BATTERY N X 0 0 1 0 1 37.1 OX ox 1 OOX ox COMPLETE BATTERY N X 061 0 1 37.1 ox OX 1 oox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 41 1 7 ___53.7_. X MX 57X 14X 14X 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t V .1991 j .I'...- SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL,. 6  ' lO- ' . i-t l^r' I MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 637 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING } . TOTAL . MATHEMATICS Percentile Sunnary N . X N X\n76---99 50 26 01 75 49 25 1 3 0 eox 20X sox _ox 2 03 0 OX 60X OX 5 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N : N X N X N X J 2 11 20X 4 OX 20X 20X Q. 4 1 0 OX 80X 20X OX 1 4 0 0 29X SOX OX OX 3 60% 1 1 0 20X 20X OX _P_____ OX 41 0 sox 20X ox Number Tested MtarvNatlLMCE. 5 .51^. 5 54^ 5 53-. 6____ 5 -53,4 _ 5 _____ 57,3________ 5 59.5 5 ______55.3 _ ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumnary N X N X N X N X N X N X N 76 50 26 99 75 49 ____ s I ^7'- 17X 25X 42X 7X. 4 43  Nunber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE i 33X 33X esx 8X. 24 42 17X 33X 33X J7X 1 6 21 dX S7X 17X 8X 2 6 4 0 17X BOX 33X OX 4 43 1 33X 33X 25X ex 1 8 21 8X 67X 17X 8Z OTHER MALE 12 49.9\n.TOTAL ' / READING Percentile Sunnary/ N . /. X BQ 99 75 49 1 - 1 QflX. QI - 25 0 00 ox OX 12 59.4 12 52.7 12 53.5 12 55.3 12 54.9 1 2 54.4 Nunber Tested -Bean Nat* 1 MCE 1 67.7  u TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANCUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 1 0 0 A 1'\n' 71 fa X .. . 10,0X. OX OX OX 221 'a/  f: N X N X N X N X N X .0 10 ___ Q\nt 1 OOX ox .0_____ OX 1 -55\u0026gt;9 ____1. 0 0 _ 0 -LOO-X. OX ox ox^ _-,l__.l00.X. 0 00 ox ox ox___ J__ 1JQX_ 0 0 ____0___ OX OX OX 1 JLvJQ. ei 11 V 10 0 0 1 10 OX___ ox ox OX iQ,.J_____ i BOi 3\u0026gt; 22 23 IS 2B IBO -t. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution SCHOOL: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL GRADE: 6 \u0026gt; ALL OTHER TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASl'C?\nyfe^ BATTERY^^ Percohtilo SuBsary x N X X 76 5 0 26 01 33 75 49 25  H 1 \u0026lt; 100X 4 1\n100X- 0 OX i? 0\nox 0 ox 0 0 0 NuBber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE H 67.7 i OX OX ox\n-2 0 , 10 0 OX 10 0X OX OX rk   .  'V 71 .8, /\ni ii'VfiSi hi\nif  b -\u0026gt; 1 ' 55.9 , t h  -' . r.\n j ? 5-' MiaBiii S r if -L .1 i -i *1' Vi . I k'. rJ ^ .% tt t f , 'T T 1 . t J' j* k'1 ' L . .i. ' . I  '* I'jf'F. ' \u0026gt;* I 'L'r I M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 638 Bence N\" X K 1 1 68.5 70.1 3S .. . JS-SOCIAL  STUDIES XOHPreTE BATTERY 37 38 30 40 OOX OX OX OX 100X ox' ox ox 100X OX\" OX OX 20 30 1 o' 0 0 1 IT 0 0 J6481 3 0 0 OX ' P0.! I i  M.  i^,' w ...TJiw epi^\nr  \u0026lt;?'  - 'T  f-' ' '': r OL.ki T T .tr .Huteiir 4)^ t TP\n i If ,! fl  3 J U'i (!P- ' * 8 iimi, 4?*- . 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J64ei M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 639 1 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X N X 76--T, 99 50 Zb 01 75 49 25 3 3 6 2 21 X 21X 43X 14X 5 4 4 1 6X 29X 89X ir. 2 5 4 3 1 4X 36X 29X 21X 2 8 2 2 14X 57X 14X 14X 3 6 5 0 21X 43X 36X OX 5 4 4 1 36X 29X 29X 7X 2 8 3 1 14X 57 X 21 X 7X Number Tested Mean Nat^kHCE. 14 5\u0026lt;L.3.. 14 58^7 1 4 5_l^5 1 4 53 ,J 14 56.4 1 4 54.8 1 4 54.3 I d I I I 1.\n '1'- A * T STEPHENS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVEL 4-year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CBI TOTAL PERCENT B 225 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL % BLACK M F M F M F 6 2 3 1 12 67% 5 19 1 25 96% 18 21 2 41 95% 21 13 16 18 21 5 123 50% 1989-90 W 0 T 0 1 226 14 12 7 23 14 1 113 46% % Blk 100% 1 1 5 3 1 B 191 2% 1% 1990-91 W 0 T % Blk B 5 7 203 94% 236 35 25 23 41 37 6 245 1991-92 W 0 T 8 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 96% % Blk 245 96%ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT Or EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN VERIFICATION FORM 1991-1992 School Building: .Name, Address, Zip) Stephens Incentive School 3700 West 18th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pulaski County 60-01-041 LEA Number \"el ephone: 671-6350 School District: (Name, Address, Zip) Little Rock School District October 1, 1991 DATE 510 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 \"elephone: (501 ) 324-2000 =lease submit one copy of the Annual School Improvement Plan for each school\ny October 15, 1991.* in The distric* Lonnie S. Dean Principal Ruth Steele rm nosnt of - Prin Signature of wLipsri fl tcftCc Dr. L  n a  K** I School Building Task Force Please send to: Lonnie S. Dean Earlene Fowler Associate Director Instructional Services Arkansas Department of Educ. n Michelle Ellington Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mamie Wilkins Doretha Grimes Six-Year Plen Report rorm, Revised 3/S9 I\u0026amp; I 5. I Is I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nMISSION STATEMENT of the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADA The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential, that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: (J *\n basic education for all students\n(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)\nand (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and.athletics. Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. To (1) a program of Adopted 1-26-84  K ? S Di strict Goals 1 1 0 i ncrease educational achievement for al 1 s tudents wi th 2. 3. specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 1 0 establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) b) c) d) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community' and the workplace providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators.MISSION STATEMENT o f STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL The staff at Stephens Elementary is commited to the development of the whole child, strive to provide an environment where children are actively involved in their learning and feel comfortable taking a risk. We recognize that our children arrive with varied backgrounds and a wide range of interest, experiences and abilities. It is with this recognxtion that we provide a learning environment with meaningful opportunitites for children to grow in This is best achieved through a creative, integrated-their language development. curriculum with a focus on literacy.1. Stephens Incentive School Goals 1991-92 The principal and staff will develop and implement a plan that will increase the educational achievement of all students and decrease the disparities between male and female students and increase the number of all students that are on or above grade level as measured by SAT and AMPT scores by the end of the 1991 1992 school year. 2. The principal and staff will establish climates of educational excellence at Stephens through\na. b. c. d. implementing multi-cultural educational programs to enhance the learning of all students at Stephens Incentive School\neducational and motivational programs to increase student participation and interest in school\nopportunities for all students to be actively involved and experience success in the curriculum and in all extra-curricular activities\nthe number of students referred to the principal's office for disciplinary reasons and out of school suspension will be decreased. 3. The principal and staff will implement strategies for improving human relations skills as measured by the LRSD Quality Education Survey.PART ONE assessmeni/analysis of local school ACCOMPLISIiMENTS AND NEEDS IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHED DISTRICT GOALS We have forty-one (41) students assigned to first grade, three (3) repeaters. thirty-three (33) students assigned to second grade, twenty-five (25) students assigned to third grade, twenty-two (22) students assigned to fourth grade, forty (40) students assigned to fifth grade, thirty-seven (37) students assigned to sixth grade and nine (9) students assigned to resource. Each teacher wrote specific Educational Improvement Plans to address each students needs and lesson plans are written and lessons are taught based on these identified needs. Teachers are using all available resources to ensure students are being taught and learning is taking place. Our students needs are being met through the basic curriculum and the following support programs and activities: Gifted Education (Enhance The Chance), Resource, Special Education (Self-contained), Art, Physical Education, Counseling, Music, Media (REACH), Young Author s Conference, Good Citizenship and Scholastic Honor Rolls, Role Models, VIPS, Partners-In- Education, ARKLA Gas, CARE Program, Student Team Learning, Whole Group Instruction, Activities To Promote Higher Order Thinking Skills, One-To-One Instruction, Student Education Plans, Field Trips and Extended Day Classes. Student behavior will continue to improve through the use of our positive discipline plan, rewards and incentives from the counselor and teachers, role models, mentors, positive telephone calls to parents, classroom visitation by me to talk with the students, individual student conferences, counselor's group and classroom sessions. academic awards and good citizenship assemblies at the end of each nine weeks, early C_ __ -1- 'o morning and late evening conferences for our working parents and the \"Principal's Honor Roll\" displayed in the hall by the office door. At Stephens School, we will keep our students in school, we use whatever intervention strategies necessary to keep our students in school. All staff members and some parents will participate in reviewing, revising and writing our \"Positive Discipline Our staff understand that we will be fair, firm and consistent as we implement Plan\". : this plan. We will keep our students on task, we will teach each student every day. i Teacher contact time will not be interrupted, meaningful homework will be sent home : this plan. daily and immediate feedback provided. Stephens School staff helped to write our copy of the plan to use as a guide for assuring plan and each staff member will have a strategies and activities are being implemented that will lead to the accomplishment of our school and district goals. Parent involvement will increase through PTA memberships, volunteers, tutors and , r r . 1 J   chaperones for field trips.I  SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ' annual school IMPiiOVEMENT PLAN Little Rock Stephens Inceptive DATE October'I, 1991 Principal and staff will develop and Implement a plan that will Increase the educa * ... ______________1nnzi f1 o ol'iirlont'c nnn 1 nr.rCAS tlonal achievement of al! students and decrease the disparities between male above grade level as measured by SAT students that are on or school year. oOah No. Slralegies/ActiyiUes and female students and Increase the number of all 1: To Increase educational achievement for all parities in achievement. Person Responsible and AMP Test scores by the end of 1991-1992 students with specific emphasis on closing dis- Completion Date/ Time Lines Related Stall Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Each teacher will analyze MAT-6, AMPT and EPSF test scores and write edu- catlonal plans for each student based on the findings, and determine changes needed in skill .emphpsis and teaching styles. Classroom Teachers PAL Math and Reading Teachers Principal Media Specialist Resource Teacher Counselor August 19, 1991 On-goJ ng Workshops and mini-courses provided through LRSD Staff Development Department SAT, AMPT.EPSF Test scores on file in Principa1's office. Each teacher will analyze test scores to determine Classroom Teachers Principal August 19, 1991 On-going strengths and weaknesses and develop daily plans to address identified needs. Workshops in: Learning Styles TESA\nPET\nClassroom Management, Cooperative Learning Educational plans, reading ,and math progress sheets on file in Principal's office. Ijildmg Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 1: (Contd.) ^elaied Dislricl Goal\nSlrategips/Activities Each teacher will use high interest materials to encourage achievement . Teachers will send home a list of books for their students reading Level. Parents will  rdad to or listen to the students read, sign to verify, teachers will reward students for the number of books read. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Gifted Specialist Media Specialist Computer Specialist Principal/Counselor Classroom Teachers Principal Media Specialist Counselor Parents Gifted Specialist PAL Reading and Math Teachers Completion Date/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Related Staff Development Activities Learning Styles Cooperative Learning\nPET\nWorkshop on making and using manlpulatives Gifted Education Learning Styles PAC Workshops Adult Education Classes Method ol Evaluation SAT, AMPT, EPSF and Teacher-n.ade test. List of books read on file in classroom and principal's office. Iuilding Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 1: (Contd.) delated District Goal\nStraleqigs/Aclivities E.TCll 'At Risk\" student will have an assigned tutor and a folder with materials and activities based on identified needs. Eacli student will write a book. These books will be read at the Young Author's Conference. Incentives will be given to foster good behavior In the classroom - - Room Monitors, Office Monitors, Media Monitors, Peer Tutors, special reports highlighting special events and days. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Completion Date/ Timo Lines Related Staff Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Classroom Teachers Counselors Instructional Aide VIPS\nVolunteers\nPrincipal\nStudent Classroom Teachers Media Specialist Reading Teacher Gifted Specialist Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Gifted Specialist Media Specialist  August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Cooperative Learning Roster o peer tutors on file in Principal's office. Writing Across The Curriculum Positive Disclpllnt Plan Number of books completed for student. eacli Decrease In the number of students referred to the Principal's office, and the number of out of school suspensions.uilding Goal\nHo- SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL 1: (Contd.) telaied District Goal\nSlrategies/Activities All classroom teachers and support staff will receive training in a PET refresher course, TESA, Classroom Management, Cooperative Learning, Learning Styles, and participate in workshops proxijlded through LRSD Staff Development. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION annual school improvement plan Little Rock School District Stephens Incemitlye Person Responsible Principal Stephens Staff Parents DATE October 1, 1991 Completion pate/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going Related Stall Development Activities How to prepare for standardized test without teaching to the test Method ol Evaluation SAT, AMPT and EPSF Test results and roster of participants.SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL___ KiiilOint) Goal: he 1.11 e\u0026lt;l Dislricl Goal\nti (I I fl) It s/Acl i vi Li^ ARKANSAS annual I.ITTLE ROCK______ Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Mastery of Time Tables by 3rd Grade Recruitment for Family Learning Center through classrooms increased use of math manipulatlves department de education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Completion Date/ T i Ilie Lines DATE October 1, 1991__ LUI I Development Activi ties Method ol EvdliiatitHi___ Second and Third Teachers Math Lab Tutors computer Teclinician Family Learning Center Coordinator Teachers Classroom Teacher Pal Math Teacher May 30, 1992 November. 1, 1991 May 30, 1992 Use of manipul- atives in the classroom Teacher Test, LRSD Test AMPT, and SAT EPSF Scores, SAT Classroom performance. Number of students in Family Learning Center Teacher Plan BookSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BiiiliiiiKJ Goal: Ri\nI\u0026lt;11eu Disli'icL Goal: 11 a I i\ni) i(\ns/AcLi vi lies Teacher ARKANSAS DEPARfMENT OT EDUCATION annual SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN LITTLE ROCK Stephens Incentive DATE October 1, 1991 will correlate new social studies text and visuals with Multi-cultural guide (new revised edition), when teaching toward the objectives of achievement tests. Updating library books, materials, films, etc. Make library environment more that focus inviting with centers on current social studies and science objectives and other content areas. Test-taking strategies (more oral questioning, sample questions) Person Responsibie staff Library Media Speciallst/Staff Library Media Specialist/Staff Teacher, Principal, Specialty Staff Cornpie lion Dale/ Time Lines Related Staff Development Activities Method Ol Evaludti^ii On-golng On-going On-going On-going District Curriculum Guide Update Service Inservice on correlating library centers with classroom Related Inservice provided by District SAT, AMPT, Planbook, Visuals, Teacher made tests Inventory of new material Student sign-in sheet. Students' Interest and attitudes toward llhrarj and related activities SAT, AMPT 1SCHOOL DISTRICT l.riTLE ROCK SCHOOL III iili111] (10(11 : 1.1,11 cd Ol sLi' id Cioal\n11 .Il (.''III /ja: l_i V ijj 'lore individualized instruction. More ARKANSAS DLPARIMENI DI EDDCAiION annual school improvement PEAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Staff coorelation between classroom teacher and specialist. Improve self-esteem of individual st ndent. black Closing the disparity between achievement and behavior, by ma I e having male mentorships (teachers or volunteers.) Aides to room so work longer in the class teacher can work closer with small groups remed la t ion. who need More parental involvement. Staff Staff Staff, Sponsors, Volunteers Principal, LRSD Parents, Staff Completion Dale/ Time Lilies____ Pel died staff Pevel opnien L Adi vi lies Helhod ol Lvaliialioii__ On-going On-going On-going On-going On-going On-going Writing and implementation of SEP'S Grade level meetings Workshops on esteem self- SEP, Journal of student Conferences, Planhook Agendas Self-esteem inventory Black male suspension Disparities rate between Black male and Black female. Instructional aide schedule, VIPS sign-in sheetSCHOOL 01 SID I CT I.T ITLE ROCK SCHOOL III I iliiii| Goal : r I ,ii (mI Hi sir ir I Goa 1: 11.11 i.'i) 11 /^: l_i vi tics Study test data for Language by grade level. Arts akkansas annual DUPAUIhENI or EDUCAT 1 UN SCHOOL improvement PEAN DATC_ October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person DesponsiOle Staff Correlate test objectives LRSI) curriculum guide with the Staff Incorporate writing across the curriculum to provide more practice writing and as a check for comprehension Whole group instruction in language mechanics Staff Staff Completion Date/ Ijiii^iftes August 23, 1991 August 23, 1991 On-going thereafter On-going On-going Delated Stafl Development Activi ties___ Language Arts Instruction Writing Across the Curriculum Writing Process Method ol Lvaluatioj!___ Results of study List of objectives Samples of written Teacher planbook work ISCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock SCHOOL 'fijjiIding Goal: 2: ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement PLAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive The Principal and Staff will es A for all students through: . ,of all students at Stephens Incentive School. Related District Goal. excellence in atablish climates of educational excellence at - implementing multi-cultural educational programs Stephens Incentive School to enhance the learning all school? through: A - providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environments. Related Staff strategies/Activities Awards for continued good behavior Each student will be instructed in the Elementary rights and responsibilities handbook and Stephens discipline plan. Display school rules in halls. Workshops on self-image for students. Be consistent with discipline. Person Responsible Completion Date/ Time Lines Development Activities Method of Evaluation Staff staff and Students Staff Principal, Staff LRSD Staff Development Staff On-going At beginning of year and periodically thereafter On-going On-going On-going Share ways of positive affirmation Preventive discipline Self-esteem Classroom Management discipline management Improved behavior List of positive phone calls Teacher Plan Book Observation List of workshops and participants Teacher anecdotal records.V ai iicccisdi/ ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan  lilding Goal\nNo. SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL Stephens Incentive 2: B - Principal and staff will provide educational and motivational programs participation and Interest In school. to increase student dialed Dislricl Goal\nNo, 2: To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: B - Enabling all students to develop a life-long capacity and love for learning. Slralegies/Activities Teachers/parents will ac- quire Central Arkansas Library Cards (CAL) for Stephens School students. Staff will be responsible for monthly assemblies, special day's assemblies and activities. Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Media Specialist Principal Counselor Parents S tudents Classroom Teachers Counselor Support Staff VIPS Parents Completion Date/ Time Lines August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Related Stall Development Activities Cooperative Learning Learning Styles Self-esteem Human Relations Method ol Evaluation Roster of each classroom group on file in Principal's office. Agendas filed In Principal's office, number of students receiving Good Citizenship awards and student of the week recognition. 1j-.t. Ui nucefvsaiy ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION annual school IMPROVEMENT PLAN SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL Stephens Incentive uilding Goal\nNo. 2\nC - The principal and staff will provide opportunities for all students to be actively Involved to experience success in the curriculum and in all extra-curriculum activities. lelated Dislricl Goal\nNo. 2: To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: - Leading all students to be productive contributors In the school, community and the work place. C Strategies/Activilies Each teacher will assess the needs of students, write Educational Plans for all students, plan 1essons color-code to hlgbllebt the using of and following of the multi-cultural curriculum guides. Activities will be planned to assure all students obtain mastery. Students will be taught on their instructional level - cross grouping If necessary. Person Responsible Completion Date/ Time Lines Related Stall Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Media Specialist Gifted Specialist PAL Reading and Math Teachers August 19, 1991 On-going Workshop on Lesson Plan Writing TESA Cooperative Learning Classroom Management Learning Styles SAT, AMPT, EP.SF Test scores. Teacher-made Test, Math Test, Magazine Test and Reading Inventories.c-r'.cjic OL netcssai/ ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan ,uilding Goal: SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL No. 2: D Stephens Incentive - The number of students referred to the principal's office for disciplinary reasons and out of school suspensions will be decreased . delated Dislricl Goal\nNo. 2: To establish climates of educational excellence In all schools through: D - Providing a disciplined. structured learning environment for all students. Slrategi.es/Activilies Teachers will teach planned lessons based on LRSD and Stephens School goals and objectives, keeping students focused on academic tasks, teaching on appropriate instructional level and assuring that all student's assigned to them are successful, providing positive feedback as skills are mastered. Students will be involved in writing class/school rules. These rules will be taught and expectations stated clearly. Self-discipline will be taught. Copies o rules and evnectatlons f Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Support Staff Principal Instructional Aides Classroom Teachers Students Parents Counselor Complelion Dale/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going August, 1991 June, 1992 Related Stall Development Activities TESA PET Classroom Management Learning Styles Cooperative Learning Classroom Management TESA Method ol Evaluation Number of students entered on Discipline list, number of referrals to Pupil Services, number of students receiving Good Citizenship awariis, trophies and certificates. Number of students receiving Good Citizenship certificates, awards and trophies. Number of positive responses on Qualit\u0026gt; Education survey.ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school IMPROVEMENT PLAN uilding Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 2: D (Contd.) delated Dislricl Goal\nNo 2:d (Contd.) Little Rock Stephens Incentive DATE October 1, 1991 Slralegies/Activilies Person Responsible Completion Dale/ Time Lines Related Stall Developmenl ActivUies Melhod ol Evaluation sent home, signed receipts filed to verify parents received, read and understood the behavior expected at school. positive responses on Principal's Parent surveys.SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock SCHOOL 'BfjiIding Goal: 'Related District Goal: Strategies/Activities A group picture will be made. Teachers will pair as tl 'mentors . ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Principal Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Completion Date/ Time Lines August, 1991 September, 1991 Related Staff Development Activities Human Relations Stress Management Human Relations Method of Evaluation Copies of picture on file in Principal's Office. Decrease in staff turn-over, staff attendance. Subscribe to periodicals, books, pamphlets on human relations for staff and parents. Stephens Staff Choir. Staff, Parents Building Climate Committee and Professional Growth Committee Music Teacher Staff August 19, 1991 June, 1992 September, 1991 On-going Human Relations Human Relations Staff Morale Number of staff members listed on check-out cards. List of members and results of Human Relations surveys.Target: School Climate Outcome: improvement plan Increased awareness of the need of safe and secure measures for all students and staff at Stephens Incentive SU.ool. ACTION All exit doors will be checked to assure door locks are working properly. The gates are unlocked each morning and locked at the close of the school day. All exit doors will be locked from the outside, and all staff, parents, and visitors will enter through the front doors. All classroom doors will be locked from the outside. All parents and visitors will sign-in at the office before going to the classroom. Principal or principal's designee will accompany parent to classroom. Visitors will remain in office, staff will come to office to receive visitors during their breaks. Request official ID Tags for all staff. Provide security for evening/ night meeting. RESPONSIBILITY Principal Custodians Principal Custodians Staff: I Support Certified, Classroom Teachers Principal Principal Classroom Secretary Principal Secretary Principal Teachers TIMELINE June, 1991 On-going June, 1991 - On-going June 23, 1992 August 12, 1991 August 26, 1991 September, 1991 September, 1991 On-going RESOURCES LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD Security Custodian Staff STAFF DEVELOPMENT LRSD EVALUATION DATA Memo was sent to Assistant Superintendent stating conditions of door locks.  Daily walk-through checking doors/gates. Daily walk through by Principal Visitor Sign-in sheets on file in the office An orderly school climate. Principal survey number of staff wearing ID tags dally. Decrease in incidents reported.Target\nSchool Climate Outcome\nIMPROVEMENT PLAN Increased awareness of the need of safe and secure measures for all students and staff at Stephens Incentive cliool. ACTION Establish procedures for emergency playground safety in the event of a \"drive by' weapons attack during morning recess, lunch recess or P.E. Establish procedures for entering building when there is an emergency. Maintain procedure for fire, tornado, or earthquake drills. Develop a School emergency code. RESPONSIBILITY Staff Staff Staff Staff TIMELINE September, 1991 On-going September, 1991 September, 1991 September, 1991 RESOURCES Staff Staff School Emergency Safety Plan School Emergency Safety Plan STAFF DEVELOPMENT Meeting with Staff on It, School Emergency/ Safety Plan EVALUATION DATA Reduction In time to exit playground. Reduction in time to exit playground. Reduction in time to complete drills. Principal survey staff, and students to ascertain understanding of code. ITarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery In the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase. ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA WORD RECOGNITION Use flashcards to practice recognition of sight words. Use a list of words with prefixes and suffixes added, to identify base words by dividing between the prefix or suffix and the base word. Practice writing abbreviations,, by writing friendly letters, addressing envelopes and dating daily assignments. Practice recoginzing abbreviations from flashcards. Match synonyms together using cards by playing a concentration game. Match antonyms together using cards by playing a concentration game. Read paragraphs containing unknown words in boldface type. Match the unknown word with its correct meaning. Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 Basal series Dolch Sight Word list English series Basal series English series Basal series English series English and Basal series English and Basal series Basal series Cooperative Learning PET TESA Classroom management Self-esteem Learning Styles Teacher Observation AMPT scor^es Teacher Observation AMPT scores Teacher Observation AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery in the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase ACTION Use sentences on sentence strips containing unknown RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA words. Use context and syllabrication to decode the unknown words. Match words with prefixes and suffixes to their correct meaning by drawing lines. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Basal series English series Trade Books Spelling, English and Basal series AMPT scores AMPT scores ITarget: Outcome: ACTION IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery In the areas of. dpfirlr in Rpadinp, Thg peT-cntao of criiHau.t-c. will Incrcoaev COMPREHENSION: Read paragraphs from set of cards. Select correct main idea by choosing a, b, or c. Read or listen to stories. Recall important facts by answering comprehension questions. Given a list of causes, write an effect that make sense. . While reading a story, stop at different sections to predict what will happen next. Given a list of titles of books, group them into fiction and nonfiction. Read sentences containing pronouns then attach the correct meaning of the pronoun by coosing a, b, or c answers. Brainstorm different feelings and words associated with those feelings. RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, On-going 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, On-going 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going Basal series Trade Books Basal series Trade Books Basal series IRC materials Basal series Trade books. English series Basal series English series Basal series Trade books AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores IIMPROVEMENT PLAN ,Target\nTeach students mastery in the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase Outcome: ACTION Read about different characters. Identify thei\nemotions/moods from information given in the paragraph or story, by choosing the correct a, b, or c answer. STUDY SKILLS: Look up spelling, science, social studies and/or vocabulary words in a dictionary or glossary. Classify a group of words by putting them under correct category names. Alphabetize spelling and/or vocabulary words before looking them up in a glossary or dictionary. Interpret graphs, charts, and maps in math, social studies, English, and reading by answering questions correctly. Given several guide words, match words that would be found on the same page. RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Trade books Basal series, Spelling seriei, English series Social Studies series, and Science series Science series Basal series Basal series. Spelling series Math series. Basal series. Social Studies series, English series Basal series STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores ITarget: Teach students to mastery in areas Outcome: ACTION lthotj NUMBER NUMERATION: Flash numbers to students for identification of either odd or even. Fill in even or i between 2 given Use digit improvement plan of deficit in math in Grade 3. The percentage I of students will increase. responsibility Classroom teacher odd numbers 1 Classroom [ numbers, I cards to make Classroom teacher teacher timeline August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Math series IRC activity Math series staff development Using manipulatives to teach math (base ten blocks) evaluation data AMPT scores AMPT scores numbers up to millions Identify number August 26, 1991 On-going IRC digit  cards. Math series AMPT scores place. in each place. Match word name cards and playing using with number I Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Math series AMPT scores concentration game Use geometric shapes and Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Math series AMPT scores an object to place on. in. or out of the shape upon request by teacher.Target\nOutcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students to mastery in areas of deficit in math in Grade 3. The percentage of students will Increase. ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA RATIONAL NUMBERS: Use visuals and manipula- tives to teach matching of fractions to shaded regions. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series IRC Activites AMPT scores MEASUREMENT: Using individual cardboard clocks, students will show time requested by teacher. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series IRC activiites AMPT scores Use classroom calendar to Identify features of calendar and read dates of special events. Also, use lessons from Math series Involving reading a calendar. Use money manlpulatives to count chang to $1 in classroom store setting. Weigh objects on pound scale to read weight to nearest pound. Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 Math series Bulletin Board Calendar Math series Math series AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students to mastery in areas of deficit In math in Grade 3. The percentage of students will inrrpasp ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA GEOMETRY: Use manipulatlves of different shapes of different/same sizes to match congruent shapes. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series AMPT scores I PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS: Read charts/tables in Math series to answer questions Make own charts and tables using various kinds of Information. Classroom teacher August 26. 1991 On-going Math series AMPT scores ITarget: Outcome: improvement plan The percentage of students will increase that master the AMPT Skills. SCIENCE ACTION 2.1 - Living/Non-Living - Display pictures of Livlng-Non-Livlng - Tour school and park for - Field Trips to Science Museum, Pinnacle Mountain 2.2 - Hereditary - Field trip to a - hospital - students will record data on observable traits of family members. - students will grow different flowers to see what traits are passed on. BODY SYSTEMS Students will make life size systems using butcher paper to display on walls with organs labeled RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Teacher, Parents Filmstrips Art specialist Media Specialist Library Animal Breedei Bulletin Board with systems displayed P.E. Teacher show how cardiovasculai system works. STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresimprovement plan Target: The percentage of students will increase that master rhp AMPT Skills- SCIENCE Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA ROCKS -Display rocks in classroom -Field trip to Arkansas Geological Commission Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Speakers from Arkansas Geological Commission AMPT scores t FOOD CHAIN Poster of Predators Make Poster to illustrate the food chain or pyramid of life. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Art Specialist AMPT scores EARTH CRUST TERMS Students will use world Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 AMPT scores maps to mark areas of volcanoes/earthquakes. Students will trace outline of continents, draw plate boundaries on the continents and compare with each. Art Specialist LibraryTarget: The percentage Outcome: ACTION WEATHER improvement plan of si-iijents will increase that master the AMPT Skillfi. I SCIENCE RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA Field trip to local weather station or airport Students will make simple weather instruments Keep daily weather report Display large map of U.S. - student will place symbols an correct areas Write a weather report predicting the weather for a week. Classroom teacher August 26, On-going On-going Weekly UNIVERSE Field trip to planetarium Use black construction paper to Illustrate galaxies Display universe in classroom. Classroom teacher NATURAL RESOURCES Display pictures and objects of natural resources. Students begin a recycling program. Classroom teacher On-going 1991 Display weather instruments Library Newspaper Weather report Meteorologist Library Film strips Art specialist Newspaper Magazines Filmstrip AMPT scores I AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: The percentage of students will increase Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY POLLUTION Have learning center with activities for students to do. Visit Pollution Control Center Classroom teacher WATER CYCLE Students will collect rain water in containers and measure the amount evaporated daily. Classroom teacher improvement plan that master the AMPT Skills . SCIENCE TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA Draw/label a completed water cycle. ELECTRON FLOW - CONDUCTORS INSULATORS Set up completed circuit - Use various materials to determine if they are conductors or insulators Reflection/Refractlon Students will use mirrors to observe the reversed image Place metal spoon, finger or other objects in glass of water. Classroom i.teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going AMPT scores AMPT scores Art Specialist Electricians Learning Center Visit an Optical Company Learning Center AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget\nThe percentage of students will increase IMPROVEMENT PLAN that master the AMPT Skills, LANUGAGE ARTS * Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA CAPITALIZATION Students will be given materials that will requir\ncapitalization if sentence i proper nouns. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going AMPT scores I PUNCTUATION Students will be required to write a letter to a friend using correct punctuation. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Give sample of letter to each student AMPT scores student will make up the 4 kinds of sentences and use correct punctuation. Display the 4 kinds of sentences in classroom. Give student several sentences that require placing a comma or commas. USAGE Student will use cassette recorder to record every day speech and find all errors of subject, verb agreement, sentence fragament, run-ons and double negatives. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 All staff members Textbooks AMPT scores ITarget\nThe percentage of students will Increase Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY Students will list the names Classroom teacher of all nouns In classroom. Make Into sentences, adding verbs, pronouns and adjectives. COMPOSITION Students will write In journals. Write a report on career choice. Write a report on any subject' of Interest. Classroom teacher IMPROVEMENT PLAN that master the AMPT Skills. LANUGAGE ARTS TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-golng August 26, 1991 On-golng ' RESOURCES All staff Textbooks Library Library Teachers STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores ISTEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL Wellness Is A Habit Were Forming Calendar 1992 TIPS FOR MONTHS TO COME JANUARY DRUGS ARE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH FEBRUARY PROPER DIET IS A SMART DECISION MARCH PROPER EXERCISE GIVES A POSITIVE EDGE APRIL WEIGHT AND CONTROL HAS ITS ADVANTAGES s M T 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 31 S 4 11 18 25 S M T W T F 29 16 23 3 10 17 24 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 S 18 15 22 29 S 18 15 22 29 M 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 31 W 4 11 18 25 T 5 12 19 26 F 6 13 20 27 S 7 14 21 28 S M T 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 S 4 11 18 25 MAY WELLNESS AWARENESS MONTH JUNE GOOD HYGIENE IS NECESSARY JULY ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES AUGUST HEALTHY BODIES MAKE HEALTHY MINDS S M T W T 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 F 18 15 22 29 S 29 16 23 30 S 7 14 21 28 M 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 W 3 10 17 24 T 4 11 18 25 F 5 12 19 26 S 6 13 20 27 s M T S 6 13 20 27 SEPTEMBER CLEAN BODIES SAVES FRIENDS M 7 14 21 28 T 1 8 15 22 29 W 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 F 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26 S 4 11 18 25 FOUR FOOD GROUPS OCTOBER HEALTHY HABITS PROMOTE LONG LIFE M T W 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 31 NOVEMBER PROPER REST ENSURES YOUR BEST 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 T 18 15 22 29 F 29 16 23 30 S 3 10 17 24 31 S 18 15 22 29 M 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 W 4 11 18 25 T 5 12 19 26 F 6 13 20 27 Fruits \u0026amp; Vegetables Milk \u0026amp; Milk Products Meat \u0026amp; Poultry Grains, Bread \u0026amp; Cereal Regular  Ups S 4 11 18 25 S 7 14 21 28 s M T W T F 29 16 23 30 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 S 18 15 22 29 DECEMBER AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION. BETTER THAN A POUND OF CURE s M 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 T 18 15 22 29 W 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 31 F 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26 /Ars. Curry. School Nurse Regular exercise s Watch Your Step - Stay Healthy l\\eep All Appelntments   ii iWJ SEP 1 5 1592 O!fice cl Dsssgrssstcn Moretoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ay., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING the SfP  8 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of filing of attached \"Stephens Elementary School Strategic Plan\" as required by this Court's order of June 5, 1992. LRSD proposes to include the costs of this plan in its desegregation budget. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hi Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this Sth day of September, 1992\nMr. 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 #15 Hickory Place Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STRATEGIC PLAN The new Stephens Elementary School is to be a coordinated effort on the part Kindergarten corridor to facilitate of the Little Rock through 6th. grade School District to build a pre- Listed herein order of 5 June 199E. 1mp1emen tat 1on elementary school i n the 1-630 of the Desegregation Plan. are the major considerations requested in the court Phase schedule: There are numerous steps in the construction process of key events and estimated a facility. Identified planning and herein are only completion dates based on fiscal year. EVENT COMPLETION Draft Educational specifications complete, mittee appointed. site \u0026amp; planning com- Public meeting. 30 Oct.'9S Sites analyzed and selected. Public meeting. 31 Jan. 93 Architect/Engineer selected. 31 Jan. '93 Educational specifications complete Public comment/reviews complete 31 Mar. '93 Preliminary drawings completed \u0026amp; reviewed. Public meeting. 1 May. '93 Land acquisition completed. 30 Jun. '93 City Permits \u0026amp; zoning considerations completed. 30 Jun. '93 Final drawings \u0026amp; specifications completed. 30 Sep. '93 Faculty recruiting begins. 1 Mar. ' 94 Construction completed. 15 Jul. '94 Occupancy completed. 15 Aug. '94 Faculty Assigned E5 Aug. '941 . A strategic plan for communi ty neighborhood meetings with the area of a 2 involvement that includes community members living in the surrounding the current Stephens Incentive School, formation biracial i nVO 1vement of citizens paren ts recruitment to the new school. site whose adv i sory ch i1dren commi ttee, are and targeted the for Community Involvement\nfour (4) priorities\nCommunity involvement will include Neighborhood Meetings\nA neighborhood Meeting was held in early 1992 and meetings will continue throughout the process to ascertain the general feelings des ires, meet i ngs Office, d iscuss with regard to the will be at critical such issues conducted points as the new by in site of the public, and Stephens School. their Public the Student Assignments the planning selection, the process to program and the general design of the school. academic Site Advisory Committee\nSite selection for the new Stephens Elementary School will be assisted by a bi-racial site committee, drawn Distr ict Comm i ttee Administration. will together by the Little Rock Schoo 1 consist It of 1 s members anticipated that the of the L.R.S.D. Administration, Pulaski County School Administration, City Planning Officials, parents, local community experts, Joshua 1nterveners, Knight interveners and technical experts necessary. It will be the responsibility of this committee if to es tab 11sh a time schedule for the completion of site selection in accordance with the master schedule. the Educatior specification commi ttee\nThe educat ion specifications for the new elementary school will be drafted by a committee Curriculum consist of Chaired by the Associate and Learning I mprovemen t. Superintendent for The will teachers, parents and education be responsible for general academic program. soliciting input and committee will specialists who drafting the Parental Involvement\nearly 1992 with a neighborhood General parental involvement began in LRSD school board meeting. meeting and a visit In August 1992 to the the first survey was conducted to assist in determining the theme of the school. Involvement surveys conducted to will continue through new des 1 red selection and any academic program at gather information with regard the new Stephens i nVO 1vemen t other areas where parental will also be is desired invited to in the be members population to the planning process. Schoo 1 , site or community Parents of the site advisory committee and the educational specifications committee.J 2. The schoo1 ' s assigned from total capacity, the number of students to be recruited, LRSD schools. the number of PC55D students to be and the number of early childhood classes anticipated with the ages of the students to be served. Student Distribution: A) Total capacity: 692 Students B) LRSD Students\n415 C) PCSSD Students\n277 D) Early Childhood Classes\n2 E) Student ages\n4 yrs. old through 13 yrs. old The racial balance of the new school will be in accordance with the parameters established in the desegregation plan. 3. A changes and the comprehensive description of schoo 1 and/or capacities. effect these changes will have projected attendance zone on the incentive area schoo 1 enrolIment, racial ba1ance, and The District currently owns three properties that have potential as sites for a new or expanded school. Projected attendance zone of current Stephens Site\nThe schoo1, projected attendance zone Tor if located at the Stephens would consist of the following present site of ISth zone blocks: elementary and Maple, 0572 0573 0574 0583 0441 0571 0575 Zone within bloc ks 0441, the Stephens 0573, 0572, 0583, attendance zone. 0574, are 0575, are within the Franklin attendance Zone blocks zone. currently 0571 , Approximately 245 students currently reside in the first five zone encompass Street, 15th blocks a very 1isted above. These zone smal 1 area Street, Woodrow, generally and 20th School is one block from Pine Street, bounded Street. by bloc ks Pine Stephens three blocks from 15th street, eight blocks Street. An additional 105 from Woodrow, 0571, and 0575. Zone blocks 0571 students reside and two blocks from 20th in zone blocks side of Pine Street (one and 0575 begin on the west blocks 0571 and 0575 block from Stephens School). Zone are currently within the FranklinAttendance toward the zone. The remaining reduction of 65 seats will surround ing it be dedicated incentive enrollment, reducing satellite zones where possible and promoting district wide recruitment. schoo1 Incentive school impact\nThe reassignment of attendance zones from Franklin to Stephens elementary will allow the district to assign students presently being bussed west from these zones due to lack of capacity at Franklin to return to their neighborhood 1 ncen t i ve schools schoo 1. will be The 65 pr imar ily seats for iden t i fi ed for disparity in the incentive schools. reducing racial Area school impact\nand enrollment of The subsequent impact on racial balance the districts western area schools expec ted to be minimal, as the Franklin will be coming from students returning 1 s to will be affected to any great extent. many schools and no one school Projected attendance zone of current Lee site\nThe 12th and projected attendance zone Pine, IS identical for Stephens, if located at to that identified for the present Stephens school site. 0572 0573 057^ 0583 0441 0571 0575 Zone within blocks 0441, the Stephens 0573, 0572, 0583, 0574, are attendance zone. 0575, are within the Franklin attendance Zone blocks zone. curren 11y 0571 , The distribution of students will be identical to that described above for the old Stephens site. Incen t i ve schoo1 identical if the new impact\nDue to attendance zones school IS located being at this site, the impact on the surrounding incentive schools will be the same as described above for the Stephens school site. Area school impact\nSince the attendance zones are identical for this site, the subsequent area school impact will be the same as for the Stephens site. Projected attendance zone of King/Oakhurst Site\nThe present King/Oakhurst site is new elementary school. However, at a possible location present all for the children from this area are being sent to many schools both in the immediate vicinity and west for racial balancing and due to lack of local capacity. There are two options for populating a school at attendance the King/Oakhurst site: zone surround ing the creation schoo 1 of site transportation of students from the present Stephens a new or zone.The If this site is chosen and a new 5 attendance zone is created surrounding this site, a much more in-depth analysis will be required. If a school at the populated with students King/Oakhurst were will be students from necessary to one from the present Stephens transport predominately, black a large number to zone, be i t of black attendance zone to another predominately black attendance zone. This would have a negative impact on our desegregation plan by increasing,rather than decreasing, the burden of busing on black students than if a new attendance zone is created. Incentive school impact\nIf the King/Oakhurst site is chosen a major p1 ace. realignment of ail \u0026lt;St this time this surround i ng zones must take until a final site is selected. affect can not be fully realized Area school schoo1 impact\nA major realignment of the incentive zones and the possible shifting of satellite zones will obviously have an impact on the districts area schools. Until a final site is selected and the zones area school impact can not be fully analyzed redrawn, the above three locations are location of the new school. strong possibilities for the IS determined. and i t above, the fully assessed. impact on is possible that the incentive and However, until the final location i t may not be area schools one the cannot be A. A description of all anticipated costs, including site purchase. site preparation, design fees, construction, equipment/ furnishinqs, materlals, complete budget of personnel, etc. must be start-up and main tenance included in expenses. a The portion of the costs to be funded by desegregation funds is to be clearly indicated in the budget. Antic 1pated costs\nListed herein are the estimated costs for the Stephens school. (Costs are very preliminary estimates expressed in FY 92 dollars. based on averaged anticipated costs in the FY 92 budget and subject to final decisions on location, educational specifications, constraints ). construction method, size and budget Start-up costs\nexpenses: Start-up costs include the following one time Site purchase\nEstimated cost for the purchase improved property: $37,000 (per 50' x 150' lot). of6 Site preparation\nEstimated cost for of the preparation site. the existing school district property: $160,000 per Design fees: Estimated cost of design: $315,000. Construction: $3,500,000. Estimated cost of construction: Equipment/furnishings: Est i mated cost of schoo1 eguipment and furnishings: $^51,000. Mater ials: Estimated cost of materials/books: $641,000. Pont i ngency: $450,000. Estimated cos t of con t i ngency funds: Maintenance costs: Estimated costs to identified areas for FY 94. operate the below No te: Personnel: Estimated personnel costs: $1,593,700. Total personnel cost is funded as follows: Operating budget\n$1,449,800. Desegregation budget\n$144,000. Ma in tenance $215,000. cost: Estimated physical support cost: (All non-desegregation costs are funded improvement or operating budget.) by the capital 5. Contingency plans for students while construction rebui11 on the current site. accommodating the current takes place, if the school Stephens is to be a comprehensive re-use plan If the school is located elsewhere, with the community. should be developed in conjunction Student contingency plan: The current studen ts of Elementary school will be accommodated in the following Stephens manner. Stephens school site: Should the new Stephens school be built on the site of will be moved the present school, all students the construction period. to the Oakhurst/King school site during6. 7 Re-use plan\nIf the new Stephens school is not located on the present Stephens site, the disposition of the old school will be coordinated with the local community after the final site is selected. advisory committee, with the developing building. local any public meetings will neighborhood ideas they may Description of the process that purchase a site, if applicable. description should include coni nq Through the to have site be conducted assist for them 1 n the school will be used to select and If a new site is selected. steps required to obtain the any special consideration required, status of options to purchase the property, and information regarding the neighborhood support an interdistrict school. for Site Selection process\nIt will be recommended that the new Stephens In terdistrict Elementary School be constructed in one of three school locations: site, present Stephens present King/Oakhurst schoo1 schoo1 site, site. cons 1 de'^a11 on will be given to will be made using a three step process: other sites. The final present Lee However, selection 1 \u0026gt; Selection Criteria\nof the Site Advisory It will be the responsibility Committee to draw 2) 3) Site Purchase establish, and list in priori ty together, sequence all criteria with regard to selecting the school site. Visiting \u0026amp; Evaluating Sites\nThe Committee will be responsible for evaluating cr i ter ia. those Recommendat ions: visiting proposed sites against The recommendations based evaluations to the the sites, and estab 1i shed Commi ttee on its site Little will propose visits and its Rock School District Administration as outlined in the master schedule. process\nThe purchase of additional land necessary once the final site has been selected. If may be necessary to purchase additional land to construct school, 1 and condemnation . acquis i tion If city or will be state land through direct- leasing will be considered. is immediately it becomes the Stephens purchase or adjacent. Stephens school site\nproperty may from be acguired If this site is or leased from selected, additional private landowners. This will the city depend on or purchased program of the new school and the anticipated design. the needs and8 Zoning\nZoning is not a consideration at this a school presently exists. site, as will Lee school have to site\nIf this be acquired. site is selected This acquisition additional land direct purchase or condemnation if necessary. will be through a school Zon ing\nZoning is not a presently exists. consideration at this site, as K1 nq/Dakhurst site\nmay be available through a If this site is selected additional land joint use agreement with the city of Little Rock, leasing action with the city or direct purchase from private landowners. Zon1 ng\nZoning is not a a school presently exists. consideration at this site. as Neighborhood support\nheld in early support for 1992, a new site. At a 11 was public meeting with local Citi zens indicated that there interdistrict school At this point in time we do not from the remaining local population. is much local at the Stephens school know the level of support But this will be determined through the process outlined under Community Involvement. 7. Summary of procedures for the design and construction the selection of an process including preliminary designs. arch i tectural design input from citizens. teachers, firm, and parents, design completion with adherence to federal requirements and ADE recommendations regarding new school construction, and a description of the construction schedule. Des 1qn \u0026amp; Construction\nDesign Stephens School will be as follows\nand construction for the new A/E Selection\nArchitectural engineering firms will be solicited via public announcement, screened against an LRSD cr i ter ia by a Plant Services Directorate screening board and an award made. and Purchasing Preliminary Designs\nPreliminary designs will be a part of the design process and administration for periodic review. submi tted to the Design Input\nDesign input will be coordinated with the the educational additionally spec ifications be secured commi ttee. from interested parents during neighborhood meetings. It will citizens and9 8. An Design Completion: Designs will and state review process to follow the normal city insure adherence federal, state and local laws and ordinances. Construction schedule: It 1 s construction schedule submitted by anticipated that be a bar chart ind i cat mg to the the Contractor will significant construe t i on activities against which progress will be measured. administrative, projections for outline of staff recruitment procedures for the school's the outlined teaching and each grade level recruitment and hiring in the description of plans support staff, including and all support programs. staff If Professional practices planned differ from those the LRCTA must be included. to negotiate the hiring Negotiations Agreement, a modifications with Staff recruitment procedures: Staff recruitment and selection procedures currently used by the Little Rock School District for other schools will be used to staff this school so as to accordance with achieve a racially balanced faculty in district. fo 1 lowed positions vacancies based on posi tion. the faculty racial balance of the schoo1 The Professional Negotiations Agreement will be in all regards including using applicable will be filled the job the filling of vacan t Staff transfer provisions. by the most Remaining description and projections: The level with Arkansas Department con trac tua1 agreements, Directors' policies. qualified applicants qualifications for of staffing each will conform of Education standards, negotiated and any applicable Board of' STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATE, PLACE, AND PURPOSE FOR MEETING DATE\nWEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1992 4:00 5:00 P.M. 810 WEST MARKHAM PURPOSE: TO REVIEW THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE\nTO PLAN FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992 3:30 4:30 P.M. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN PURPOSE\nTO FINALIZED PLANS FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO REVIEW SITE APPRAISAL FORM DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1993 9:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. PURPOSE: TO CONDUCT A BUS TOUR OF THE FIVE PROPOSED SITES TO PROPOSE SITE RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING TOUR DATE: FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1993 10:00 11:00 A.M. 810 WEST MARKHAM PURPOSE: TO RECOMMEND STEPHENS SITE TO DR. BERND TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD\nTO SHARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERSDATES STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1. NOVEMBER 18, 1992 STEPHENS SCHOOL 2. DECEMBER 15, 1993 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH REV, WALKER, PASTOR 3. JANUARY 14, 1993 ROBINSON ELEMENTARY PCSSD \u0026gt; 4. JANUARY 26, 1993 PINE FOREST ELEMENTARY PCSSD 5. FEBRUARY 26, 1993 SYLVAN HILLS ELEMENTARY PCSSDLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEARNING EQUITY 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 To: Chris Heller, Attorney From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Subject\nSupport Data for Stephens Interdistrict Site Selection The information to support the Stephens site below and enclosed, call. selection is listed If you need,  additional information, please 1. Abstract: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection 2. Agenda for Stephens Site Selection Community Meetings 3. Unedited comments from patrons and parents 4. Stephens Interdistrict Survey 5. A list of signatures from the Stephens Community 6. A letter from Foster Strong, President of the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation, Inc, (GLRCDC), with a Special Report, Cooperative Community Revitalization Plan A letter from the Pulaski County Special School District A support letter from Jim Dailey, Little Rock Mayor Two special reports with recommendation: Bernd and the Board of Directors. submitted Chris, I have included a packet for your file if you need it. not please return and I will file here. If 7 . 8 . 9 . o Dr. Enc.STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE SELECTION ABSTRACT The Stephens Elementary School Strategic Plan was submitted to the Court in September 1992. A committee was formed to establish a timeline, search criteria, conduct and attend community forums, participate in site visits, and to develop written recommenda- In accordance with the Strategic Plan, Site Selection tions. Committee participants included: representatives from Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts including the LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee\nparents and comnunity experts\nJoshua and Knight Intervenors\nCTA representatives\nand technical experts from the City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. This committee conducted throe (3) meetings for organization and formation of recommendations\nfive (5) community meetings\nan interest survey for Pulaski County School District aund LRSD\nand a bus tour to review the five (5) sites. A total of sixty-one (61) individuals participated in community involvement phase of Coimnunity based groups such as ACORN and The this process. Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation played an  Both groups were integral part to the decision making process. represented in the attendance at the Community meeting, with an ACORN representative serving on the Site Selection Committee. Both groups submitted written documents which were utilized during our consultation. A Special Report, written by Douglas Eaton, was submitted to Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd on Februairy 25, 1993, with recommendations from the Site Selection Committee. The findings, after accumulating all data, evaluating concerns of patrons and experts, and review of site observations was that the present site, 3700 W. 18th, be proposed as the final site for Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. Several major concerns exist as to the success of the proposed site: (1) the perception that inner city is not safe, (2) filling of Pulaski County seats to maintain critical desegre- gation balance\nand (3) present lack of a program, focus. It is believed that these factors can be eliminated through a vigorous recruitment effort for white students\nand because this site has historical significance within the African American community. The representatives of the community based groups have previously voiced their approval of this ite and should be called on to help the District in its search for success of this venture. In addition, the City of Little Rock, in a letter dated February 24, from Mayor Jim Dailey, has pledged its support in as much as the neighborhood is a part of the City's current Block Grant renovation program.t ( Little Rock School District DATE: December 1$, 1992 TO: Stephens Site Selection Committee Members FROM\nMarie A. Parker, Associate Superintendent - Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT: Site Selection Criteria/Materials \" Enclosed are the site^ appraisal ''criteria \"and other materials . ... thatwore discussed by Doug. Eaton at .the December 14 meeting. Please use these forms to give your assessment of the sites. If you are not comfortable visiting these sites alone and would like for someone to visit with you, please call Doug Eaton 570-4020 Marie Parker 324-2271. or There are five (5) proposed sites listed on the enclosed sheets. If there are other sites you feel should be included on this list please call Doug Eaton. k 810 West Markham Street Little Rock Arkansas 72201 (501)374 3561  f SITE LOCATION DATA SHEET 1. The general location of the new Stephens school is to be the I 630 corridor. Generally bounded on the north by I 630\nsouth by city limits\neast by I 30 and west by University Ave. a. The attendance currently being assigned Stephens will be by LRSD students\nattendance zones Elementary School, and PCSSD students: Elementary School and Franklin (Consideration may be given Garland students), attendance to be assigned by PCSSD. 3. Properties which may be considered\n1 . 3700 West 18th (Stephen?,. school, si te ) a. Vacant property a blocks east of University S of I 630 3. 4800 West a7th (Oakhurst/King school site) 4. 3805 West lath (Lee school site) 5. Vacant property south of Horace Mann JH, east of I 30t- f 1 jfc K I ( I Qxqnn m i TTt ( CONSIDERATIONS OF SCHOOL LOCATIONS\n1) Review and Determination of District Organisation Pattern\na) Pattern of development (district) determine service area. 2) Comparison to Land Use Study a) Development of'trends\n\\:population, growth, facilities 3) Enrollment Estimates\\Placement 4) Grade Grouping Patterns a) determine grades to attend\\population\\busing * 5) Determination of Formal School Faci1itiesXExtended Community Service and Implications on Site. 6) Selection of General Land Area for Sites: a) Land use determines natural\\logical community area. b) Population determines number of studentsXages. c ) Grade grouping and.other that formal school services I determines general characteristics of site d) Tie to community 7) Selection of Specific Site: a) No set land formula...use criteria\\program. b) Don't \"back into c) Considerations: II program from site. (1) Location of building(s) (S) Number of stories (3) Set backs (4) Space around buildings (5) Architectural design (6 ) Orientation-sight-sound-climate (7) Integrated building-landscape plan (S) Parking (9) Safety (10) Utilities (11) Site development (12) Accessibility (13.\u0026gt; Traff icibi lity (14) Location (zoning) (15) Physical conditions 8) Miscellaneous Considerations: a) R, choo1\\community relations b) Site determinant school program Attractiveness of site d) Acquisition of property e) Cost f) Resistance to chapging siteXnew site g) Expansion of ma 1! s i tes is nonexistent SITE APPRAISAL STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE \\ 1. SITE LOCATION\n(Ad-dress ) 2. ADJACENT STREETS\n(North) (South) (East) (West) CURRENT USE: (1 ) Vacant, (2 ) Commerc ial, (3) Residential, (4) Pub lie Note\nIf 2, 3 or 4\nWhat is presently on property? 5. MAIN ACCESS TO SITE PROM INTERSTATE OR MAJOR THOROU(3HFARE\nThoroughfare: Directions to site: 6. SURROUNDING PROPERTY: (Within 5 blocks each direction) (Nor th)T ype: Cond i 11 on : (South )Type: Cond i t ion: (East)T ype: Condition: 1(West)Type: Cond i tion:_ GENERAL CRITERIA ELEMENT RATING/POINTS 1. Will the school have to be multistory? YES (0) NO (1) 2. Are utilities readily available? YES (1) NO (0) 3. Are there zoning restrictions? YES (0) NO \u0026lt;1) 5. 6. Are there architectural considerations? Is the site serviced by public transportation? Is the site readily available? YES \u0026lt;0) NO (1) YES (1) NO (0) YES (1) NO (0) 7. Will additional property have to be purchased? YES (0) NO (1 ) 8. Will the site allow for future expansion? YES (1 ) NO (0) 9. Will extensive relocation be necessary? YES (0)N0 (1) 10. Is the site attractive? YES (1) NO (0) TOTAL POINTS\n(10 Points Max) COMMENTS:__ c(Note: Criteria are 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6, SITE EVALUATION in priority sequence) SITE CRITERIA SUPPORT PROGRAM (SUFFICIENT SIZE) (Consider if the site is large enough RATING/POINTS POOR \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;GOOD 1 2 3 A 5 to support the educational program to include sufficient space for recreational activities and parking or will have to be purchased?) SITE CONDITIONS (Cons i der additional land i 2 3 A 5 the physical aspects of the site, flatness, vegetation. soil conditions) drainage, CONSTRUCTION RE{3UIREMENTS (Consider 1 2 3 A 5 0 if any significant construction requirements will have to be met in order to build on the site,ie\ndrainage features, access routes ) sound barriers. retaining walls. spec i a 1 fences, SITE ACCESSIBILITY\\TRAFFICIBILITY (Can the site be accessed easily and by bus/auto) SITE SAFETY (Consider the area around the school present to children and participants. schoo 1 and areas accessibi1i ty by vech1c1es ) . RECRUITMENT (Consider the attendance, zone (s ) ) 1 e, 1 2 3 A 5 safely both walking and 1 2 3 A 5 and the dangers it may look at routes to the and buildings along these routes, evaluate police, fire department and other emergency 1 2 3 A 5 impact of the site on recruitment and accessibility from outside attendance( 7 . EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 5 2 1 3 (Consider program) if the site will determine the educational 8. RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 3 5 2 1 9. (Consider proximity to 1ibrar ies, educat ion community center SITE ENVIRONMENT support facilities le: and organ1zat1ons, par ks ) 1 2 3 4 5 (Consider the school and how surrounding neighborhood) it will complement the 10. ZONING 1 2 3 4 5 (Consider the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood, conducive to enhance the school site) learning environment will its development 11. COMMUNITY SHARING 5 3 4 2 1 (Consider if the site lends itself to community activities beyond educational) 12. ENHANCE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 5 3 2 1 4 (Consider if the school will foster community involvement by virtue of its being there) TOTAL POINTS:(60 Points Max) 7. GENERAL COMMENTS ON SITE: 51 gnature (Evalua tor) (Date) \u0026lt;4COMBINED FORMS (Pulaski County. LRSD and Blue Forms-LRSD) November 1992 STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL INTEREST SURVEY THEME RANK ORDER OF CHOICE COMMUNITY OF LEARNING: 5] 1 3 5 [ [ ( 2 ( 6 J 7] [ 11 ] 6 J ACCELERATED LEARNING: 13] 1 3 5 4 [ [ [ 2 [ 6 ] 14] [ 14 ] 1 ] 4 SCHOOL-WIDE ENRICHMENT: 12] [23 LANGUAGE EXPRESSION: 8] [2 2] 15 1 3 5 1 3 [ [ [ [ ] 2 4 2 [ 5 ] ] ] [ ] OTHER: 13 (6) Creativity in Learning (5) Communications (3) Basic Science, Math \u0026amp; Skills (1) Music and Art Appreciation (Band, Art \u0026amp; Dance) [11 5 [ 2 ] 4 ]t' Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664-0334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, L - Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection CommitteeI I 1 I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I f  i COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN I CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) 1 i COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN I ! 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE f ( Introduction................................................................. Building Community Capacity..........................- The GLRCDC .............................................vVt \u0026lt; Management Structure.......................................... Staffing.......................................................................... Financial Resources .................................................. Geographical Area Served................................... Housing .......................................................................... Initial Target Area.................................................... Community Obstacles to Overcome.............. Actions to Overcome Obstacles ..................... Coalition Building ................................................... Network Members ................................................ Network Objectives............................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary.................................................................... I APPENDIX Census Tract Map .................................. Midtown Service Area Map ............... Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile................. 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I! BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY I I I 1 I I Few Individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A.cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Commursty Cooperative Network is the Identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable arxl respected irxlividual or organization to Inform and organize organizations and irkHviduais about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and Interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Qt the prospective network members to talk 1 in a I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information i- - way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 21 I * Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHling and able to allocate to the network. I -.'T  I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through'network participation. For community groups, Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. I I ! The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3J ! THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I i The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: -To purchase deteriorating residential/nooresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. 1 To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. I To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. I  To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4t I BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! I Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I i The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irxiividuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective\"network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: f * Get the prospective network members to talk I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2I i To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is In place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The - manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined and  controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience In the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 I'- Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 51 I Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. I Staffing 1 The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. I. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE I The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). -- - . - \\ The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. i Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. I I Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. f Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. r I There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should be identified as priorities for any home improvement programs that are initiated In the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading In these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through Improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA I\nI I The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are: gang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n I 1  Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles 1 The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must provg that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9I 1 Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial Institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The Individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. I I I Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. I Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities: Community Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nI Develop safe, decent and affordable housing. I Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I I I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #2 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 #3 #4 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning 1993-1994 1993-1994 #5 GLRCDC 1993-1995 12I ( I I Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, ho\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_599","title":"\"Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas,\" Stanton Leggett and Associates, West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts","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":["1988"],"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 enrollment","School facilities","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["\"Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas,\" Stanton Leggett and Associates, West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts"],"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/599"],"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":["204 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\nw \\ Long-Range Plan for School Facilities Little Rock, Arkansas 1988 Stanton Leggett and Associates West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard, Mass. 0257S Educatknal Consultants September 1968 I.Board of Directors Little Rock School District Joyce Kelly-Lewis Director W.D. Hamilton James L. Rutherford Robin Armstrong H.M. Faulkner Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli Superintendent of Schools Dr. George Cannon RECEIVED JUN 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Ivici I i i IH Table of Contents Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments: A Report to the Little Rock School District Introduction _______________________ Recent Trends in School Enrollment__ Factors Influencing Future Enrollments The Enrollment Projections _________ 1 5 12 19 Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of the Seven Racially Identifiable Schools Racially Identifiable Schools ____________________________________ Renovations of Buildings and Improvements to the Settings for Learning Program Enhancements for Racially Identifiable Schools That Will Require Special Rooms------------------------------------------------------ Recommendations--------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact on Capacity of Proposed Changes__________________________ Implementation Plan___________________________________________ 1 1 4 10 12 18 Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock II II II BB Use of Plannmg Committees ____________________________________________ An Extended Overview: Further Comments Fiscal Capacity for Capital Improvement Programs Summary of Recommended Priorities ____________________________________ Summary Evaluations of Little Rock School Buildings Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings High Schools___________________________________________________ Junior High Schools _____________________________________________ Elementary Schools _____________________________________________ Enrollments /Capacities and Photographs 3 5 8 12 14 17 24 32 68 k  fl Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments - A Report to the Little Rock School Districtn The Grier Partnership 6532 EAST HALBERT ROAD BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817 (301) 229-4454 fl fl fl fl DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND FUTURE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS fl A Report to the Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas fl fl fl  Eunice and George Grier The Grier Partnership in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates June 1988 I . INTRODUCTION * * Objectives of the Demographic Study The demographic study of the Little Rock. School District is part of an overall examination of the District's existing physical facilities undertaken by Stanton Leggett and Associates. In order to help determine what types and sizes of facilities will be needed over the next decade or so, it is necessary to know how the school system's pupils are likely to change in numbers, characteristics, and location of residence. As a first step in the demographic study we reviewed recent trends in enrollments and evaluated the accuracy of some past enrollment projections. We then examined some of the external factors which could influence enrollments, such as birth rates and migration patterns, overall population growth, and the economy of the Little Rock area. Because the Little Rock School District recently enlarged its boundaries, acquiring several schools and about 7,000 additional pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, we also assessed the likely Impact of this change on future enrollments. Some Special Considerations in the Little Rock Situation Racial Factors For several years the Little Rock School District has been under federal court order to maintain racial balance within its schools. While the racial composition of the schools has shifted slowly in the past several years, there has been a gradual increase both in the number of black pupils attending Little Rock schools and in their proportion of total enrollment. In 1980-81 black enrollment totalled about 13,000 or 63.6 percent of the total enrollment of 20,500. By the 1986-87 school year the number of black pupils had J grown to almost 13,800 out of a total of 19,300\nthey were 71.3 percent. (See Table 1.)* TABLE 1 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1987-88 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Year Black Nonblack Total % Black 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13,769 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 63.6% 65.9% 68.6% 70.0% 71.2% 71.3% 71.3% 1987-88 16,101 10,479 26,580 60.6% Source: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollments. In both 1980-81 and 1986-87 the proportion of black pupils was highest in the early grades and lowest in the high school years. However, racial change at all grade levels has been slow. Both total enrollment and white* enroll- ment reached their lowest points in 1984-85 and began climbing again thereafter. In order to meet the conditions of racial balance set down in the latest federal court order. Little Rock pupils are assigned to schools based on par- ents' expressed preferences and desegregation guidelines set by the court. *There will sometimes be small differences between enrollment numbers cited in this report for the same year. The differences occur because they have been taken from different source materials furnished by the school system and were assembled at different points in the school year. **Although there are a handful of nonblack nonwhite children in the Little Rock School District, for all practical purposes the terms \"white tt and u, non- ti black' are synonymous and are used interchangeably in this report. -2- I I I I I I I I I I V1 Since the racial balance requirements are likely to remain in force for some HI years, the projection methodology must consider not only the size of the pupil population by race, but also its projected location within the district. Expanded Boundaries Until Fall 1987, the Little Rock School District took in only about two- I thirds of the land area and child population included in the city of Little Rock. The remainder of Little Rock, together with other parts of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River, was served by the Pulaski Special School HI District. By order of the federal court, the boundaries of both districts were changed effective in school year 1987-88. This change brought about 7,000 more pupils into the Little Rock District, and made its boundaries virtually contiguous with those of the city. It also reduced the percentage of blacks in the district's population to 60.6 percentthree percentage points below their proportion in 1980. As in the earlier years, the black proportion was highest in the early grades (65.1 111 percent) and lowest at the high school level (50.1 percent). We could obtain almost no historical data to help judge what changes in school enrollments are likely to occur in the annexed territory. Metroplan 111 estimates for 1986 indicate that much of the total population growth in the city of Little Rock took place in the annexed school territory, and Metroplan projects further growth in the years ahead. A comparison of 1980 census data n n with 1987 school data suggests that both black and nonblack pupils have increased in some parts of the annexed territory since 1980. Since we have no data for intervening years, however, there is no way of telling whether the increases occurred in the early years of the decade but have now halted for one or both racial groups, or whether they have occurred more recently, or have taken place at a constant pace throughout the period. Nor can we obtain census data on the child population by race for census -3- B J tracts in which the total black, population numbered fewer than 400 persons in 1980, even though they may have grown since then. Several of these tracts are in the annexed school territory. I I I I I I I I I I I -4- II  IB II. Recent Trends In School Enrollment II Trends in the System as a Whole (Old boundaries) Overall, the Little Rock School District's enrollment declined somewhat during the early years of the 1980s decade, as Table 1 indicated. From almost 20,500 in 1980-81, it dropped to about 18,900 in 1984-84a decrease of about 1,600 pupils or 7.5 percent. In recent years, however, the trend has been reversed. Small gains were registered in 1985 and again in 1986, making up for some of the losses in the early 1980s. By 1986-87 enrollment was up to 19,300, 5.6 percent below 1980. In 1987 the enrollment again Increased. This  la H n time, however, the reason was an expansion in the District's boundaries which added about 7,000 pupils from the Pulaski Special District. H Some grade levels reached their lowest points earlier than others. The first to bottom out were the junior high grades (7-9), which had their lowest enrollment in the 1982-83 school year. Kindergarten was next in 1983-84, followed by the primary grades (1-3) and high school (10-12) in 1984-85. The intermediate grades (4-6) were the last to reach bottom in 1985-86. All but II kindergarten and the junior high years increased their enrollments in the last year before the District was enlarged. (See Table 2 and Figure 1.) II Racial Differences in Enrollments (old boundaries) Except for Grades 1 to 3, all grade levels from kindergarten to high schools had larger black enrollments in 1986-87 than in 1980-81, although the change from year to year was rarely very large. Overall, the number of black pupils increased by less than 800 in the six-year period, or by 5.8 percent. The number of white pupils, on the other hand, was smaller in 1986 than in 1980 at every level except kindergarten. The changes were also greater as -5- H n n nTABLE 2 TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1986-87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BLACK PUPILS GRADES K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 1,120 3,800 2,879 2,712 2,498 81-82 1,072 3,842 2,987 2,679 2,424 82-83 1,141 3,815 3,136 2,735 2,411 83-84 1,059 3,768 3,264 2,871 2,393 84-85 1,142 3,754 3,243 2,960 2,367 85-86 1,211 3,728 3,237 3,099 2,369 86-87 1,160 3,729 3,267 3,086 2,527 I I TOTAL 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13,769 NONBLACK PUPILS GRADE K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 434 1,636 1,645 1,627 2,104 81-82 459 1,276 1,430 1,650 1,928 82-83 420 1,114 1,191 1,574 1,765 83-84 413 1,069 1,083 1,540 1,617 84-85 393 1,077 971 1,450 1,559 85-86 429 1,104 915 1,363 1,668 86-87 475 1,159 926 1,257 1,719 I TOTAL 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 TOTAL ENROLLMENT I GRADE K 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 80-81 1,554 5,436 4,524 4,339 4,602 81-82 1,531 5,118 4,417 4,329 4,352 82-83 1,561 4,929 4,327 4,309 4,176 83-84 1,472 4,837 4,347 4,411 4,010 84-85 1,535 4,831 4,214 4,410 3,926 85-86 1,640 4,832 4,152 4,462 4,037 86-87 1,635 4,888 4,193 4,343 4,246 I I TOTAL 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 SOURCE\nI Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollment. I I I4 6600-| 6200- S800- CL 3 5400- Q_ O La\n5000- EO 22 4600-^ 4200- Figure 1 TRENDS IN TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 / ! I ! 'i I i I I 3800 T 1 80-81 T 81-82 T 82-83 T 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 well, although still quite gradual. By Fall 1986 there were about 1,900 fewer white pupils enrolled in the Little Rock. School District than in Fall 1980, for a drop of 25.7 percent or roughly 4.5 percent per year. However, all grade levels except 7-9 had begun to see their white pupil enrollments grow again by the 1986-87 school year. White students in the primary grades (1-3) reached their low point in 1983-84, and began to climb thereafter. Kindergarten and high school both saw their white pupil populations begin to grow again the following fall. White enrollment in the latter continued to grow in I 1986-87, as it did in the primary grades. Whites in grades 4-6 dropped conti- nuously through 1985-86, then gained slightly in 1986-87. (See Figures 2 and 3.) Hence the white decline appears to have leveled off, and may even have been reversed, before the court decision added pupils from the Pulaski Special District. I Locational Differences (old boundaries) I Historical data by geocode area of residence within the District were furnished by the school system for each individual grade. These were combined for our analysis in two ways. The first was by grade levelskindergarten. primary (grades 1-3), intermediate (4-6), junior high (7-9), and high school (10-12). Second, in order to make the analysis more manageable, the Individ- ual geocodes were combined into subgroupse.g. all geocodes beginning with 01 were combined under Group 01, all beginning with 02 under Group 02, and so on. We then chose Primary grades 1-3 and High School grades 10-12 for further I examination and compared the changes in enrollees at these two grade levels from Fall 1979 to Fall 1987. The data for these levels have been mapped, and I the results are shown in Figures 4 through 9. I Within the old district boundaries, total enrollments in both grade levels declined substantially (more than 100 pupils) In some neighborhoods close to -6-f |g g Q m B B B fl fl fl fl Figure 2 TRENDS IN BLACK ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 4600-1 4200- 3800 (I)  3400- Q_ O S 3000- E O Z 2600- 2200- 1800 80-81 T 81-82 T 82-83 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 T 86-87 '^-QQ School Ysons 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-123400-1 2600- 0) o. 2200- o S 1800- E O Z 3000- 1400- Figure 3 TRENDS IN WHITE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 I 1000- 600 T 1 80-81 81-82 T 82-83 T 83-84 T 84-85 T 85-86 T 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 61 14 15 16 33 40 54 12 13 11  10 17 18 19 20 21 36 08 09 J 05  44 73 74 OT' 1 06  72 34 04  Figure 4 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Total: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 02 01 36 32 34 Numerical Change  50 @ +51-100 @ +101 or more  -51 to 100  -101 or more J61 12 14  13  08  0' Figure 5 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 15  33 1 11  10^ 09 -  1 17  40 54 18 19  20  44 21 36 73 74 05 72 34 04  02  01 36 32 34 Numerical Change  +50 @ + 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51 to 100  - lOlor more N H the city's center. (See Figures 4 and 5.) These correspond to geocodes 1, 2, II 3, and 4. There were also drops in enrollment in the upper northwest section of the citysubstantial for the primary years and less so for the high school n grades. Total enrollments changed relatively little, on the other hand, in II neighborhoods west of University Avenue (Geocodes 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and in the areas east of University but north of West Markham (geocodes 7, 8, and 9) although here there were occasional spots of decline. H II There were no geocode groups where total enrollments increased by more than 50 pupils in the primary grades, and only two in which they increased this much in grades 10 to 12. One such area is south of 1630 and east of Uni- H versity (geocode 05). The other is also south of 1630 but west of Barrow to 1430\nits southern boundary is West 36th Street (geocode 17). II Some of the geocode areas which remained stable did so because Increases H among black pupils offset white losses. (See Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9.) This was true of areas below 1630 and west of University for both grade levels H II II (geocodes 17, 18, and 19). There were also small losses among whites in some neighborhoods east of University, but blacks did not always gain sufficiently to offset these losses. Losses among black students, on the other hand, were substantial in some downtown neighborhoods for both the primary and high school grades. White enrollments in these areas, which were small to begin II with, changed little between 1979 and 1987. II II As the maps indicate, there has been a clear movement of black pupils toward the western part of the city, but not to the higher-priced northwest. Whites have moved out of the areas where black enrollees have increased (or white graduates have not been replaced by younger whites). However, whites have contributed little to public school enrollments in the northwest despite substantial new construction. Since much of the recent construction has been of apartment units, new occupants may include relatively few school-age chil  -7- 61 12 14  1 08  0 15 13  1 Figure 6 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 33 17 40 54 18 11  09 J - 06 19  05  04  02  01  s 36 32 20  44 34 21 , 36 73 74 72 34 Numerical Change  25  +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more  -r B I' 1 w 61 12. 14 08 15 -r 33 17 40 54 13 18 0' 'Yl Figure 7 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987-88 11  09  06 19 20 44 05  04 02 01 21 72 36 34 74 0/ 36 34 32 Numerical Change  +25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more I 61 12 14  08  15  33 40 54 17 13  11  iQ(d 09  J 18 19  20 44 21 36 74 05 07 YD 06  72 34 04 Figure 8 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 02  01 a 36 32 34 Numerical Change  +50 @ +26-75 @ + 76 or more  -26-75  - 76 or more 61 12. 33 14  08 15 16(g) 17 40 54 13 18 S. 0' Figure 9 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987-88 11 09  06 19  05 @ 04  02  01  aS 36 32 20  44 34 21  72 36 34 74 Numerical Change  25  +26 to 75  +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more 5 Ji dren. These areas also Include some of the city's higher-income neighborhoods, where between 30 and 50 percent of school-aged children were reported to be attending private schools at the 1980 census. Private school attendance probably remains high in these areas. Locational Changes (Expanded Boundaries) As already indicated, we were able to obtain no reliable historical data on school enrollments which could be used to make a precise assessment of recent trends in the territory added to the Little Rock District in Fall 1987. Metroplan's 1986 population estimates indicate substantial new residential construction in much of the annexed territory, and considerable increase in population as well. In fact, it is in the new territory that much of the city's new residential construction and population gain has taken place. according to Metroplan. (See Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 10.) It is likely. therefore, that school enrollments have also increased, offsetting some of the decline in neighborhoods closer to the city's center. Much of the new construction has been in multi-family units, however, and thls may have tended to hold enrollments down. At the time of the 1980 cen- sus, apartments in Little Rock yielded an average of 1.9 persons, compared with 2.41 persons for single family homes. Furthermore, about 40 percent of the city's total population growth occurred in one far northwest census tract (42.03) where about a third of all children of elementary and junior high age were in private schools in 1980. More than half the units built since 1980 in this tract, according to Metroplan officials, have been apartments. In adjoining tracts (22.01, 22.03, 22.04, 22.05 and 24.01) the ratio of apart- ments was even higher. In the tracts in the southwest part of the city (24.02, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, and 42.04) single family units have I -8- I42.04 42.03 @ 22.04 22.05 @ 24.01 @ 22.01 @ 22.03 24.02  41.03 23 21.01  21.02  16  17g: 18 19  20.01 15 14 13 I 12  20.02  10 11  3 $ 42.04 @ 41.05  41.06 41.08  40.03 41.04 @ Figure 10 Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-86 1 $  2  5 I 40.01 40.01 Percentage Chainge    + 1% + 2-5% + 6% or more - 2-5% - 6% or moreTABLE 3 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 1986 I Census Tract 1980 1986 Change 80-86 No. Pct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 11,100 7,378 2,705 3,813 1,154 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 7,512 2,615 1,090 4,430 2,890 1,490 4,940 3,880 2,920 760 790 4,340 4,750 2,630 5,170 3,420 9,270 5,350 850 6,350 5,280 5,900 5,480 8,740 4,050 5,710 5,510 8,830 9,570 12,170 7,530 2,860 3,800 1,490 6,480 6,930 3,990 6,250 13,970 3,460 230 (61) 164 (18) 36 (76) (49) (13) (16) (51) (81) (45) (92) 3 1,095 92 (17) (56) 251 152 (88) 272 (45) 514 575 892 2,630 1,070 152 155 (13) 336 269 270 (68) (111) 6,458 845 26.7% -1.4% 6.0% -1.2% 0.7% -1.9% -1.7% -1.7% -2.0% -1.2% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% 0.1% 13.4% 1.7% -2.0% -0.9% 5.0% 2.6% -1.6% 3.2% -1.1% 9.9% 11.7% 11.2% 37.9% 9.6% 2.1% 5.7% -0.3% 29.1% 4.3% 4.1% -1.7% -1.7% 86.0% 32.3% I I I I I I Total 177,759 193,320 15,561 8,8Z I *Some census tracts extend into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. Only the population of these tracts living within the city of Little Rock are included in the numbers given for both 1980 and 1987. I R SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population, updated by Metroplan to include territory annexed by Little Rock after 1980. 1987 estimates from Metroplan, January 1988. I predominated in new construction, but except for the extreme southwest, the  number of new homes has been relatively modest.  M Table 4 Housing Permits Issued for New Housing Units, 1980-86 in Census Tracts with 100 or More New Homes Little Rock, Arkansas H H n M H Census Tract 1 3 15 16 19 20.01 21.01 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.06 42.03 42.04 Multi-Family 152 130 727 60 204 154 243 271 372 464 1,386 439 2 122 64 2,073 no Single-Family 0 2 31 45 6 6 18 80 29 133 227 259 135 5 137 1,462 324 Total 152 132 758 105 210 160 261 351 401 597 1,613 698 137 127 201 3,535 434 Source: Metroplan, March 1987 It is possible to obtain some Indication of enrollment change in the annexed areas by comparing data on school-age children from the 1980 Census by  census tract with data for the same tracts from 1987-88 school data. While H school data are recorded for geocodes and not for census tracts, about 83 per- cent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. Among many  of the remainder which cross tract lines, it is apparent from an examination H of maps that the majority of residents live within one of the tracts. In these cases we assigned all of the children to that tract. While this procedure may result in some errors, they are probably small, and the results can be considered illustrative, if not definitive. -9- iiiThe census data are for 5-year age groups rather than by grades as are the school data. In the analysis, therefore, we used children aged 5 to 9 years in 1980 as a proxy for kindergarten to grade 4, making an adjustment to take out those attending private schools. We have data on the total population without regard to race for all census tracts. However, no 1980 racial data are available for those tracts in which the black population as a whole num- bered fewer than 400 persons in that year. Several tracts within the annexed territory fell into this category, although 1987 school data now show sizeable black school populations. We also do not have separate data on private school attendance for blacks and nonblacks. The analysis of the 1980 and 1987-88 data can give us only a rough indication of changes in enrollment patterns and the direction of change in the ter- ritory recently added to the Little Rock School District. (The annexed terri- tory includes all or part of census tracts 20.01, 20.02, 24.02, 40.01, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, 41.07, 41.08, 42.03, and 42.04.) Nevertheless, they do indicate a clear increase in enrollments in the lower grades in much of the annexed area since 1980, primarily south of 130 and east of Heinke Road (tracts 41.05, 41.06, and 41.08). The comparison shows little change west of I Heinke (tracts 41.03 and 41.04) and In the far northwest part of the school district (tract 42.03), although Metroplan reports a considerable amount of I new construction of both multi-family and single-family dwellings. In one tract (42.04) there was a sizeable decline in enrollment.* (See Figure 11.) Since most census tracts in the annexed territory had relatively small black populations in 1980, it is difficult to tell much about racial change within the new area. At least a few tracts, however, appeared to have drawn R increases in both black and nonblack enrollments between 1980 and 1987-88. I (See Figures 12 and 13.) I -10-jjjjjT jjjj iju jjjj JU ^Eb 42.03  22.01  42.04 42.04 22.04 22.03 22.05  24.01  24.02  41.03  41.05 41.04  21.01  21.02'  17 16  18  19 20.01 41.06 @ 15 . __ I 13 I [  10  12  11  20.02 41.07^ 41.08 40.03 Figure 11 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1 SI J 7 3 6  4, 2  5  40.01  40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87  @ @   + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more22.01 42.03 22.04 16 22.03 Figure 12 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Black\nK-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 22.05 24.01 42.04 24.02 41.03 42.04 41.05 41.04 21.01 17 18 19  20.01 7 41.06 15 r 14, 13 12  20.02  41.07 41.08 (2 9 10  11 40.03 2) 7.  '6 5  40.01 3, 4 / 2  40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87    + 25 + 26-75 + 76 or more - 26-75 - 76 or more 122.01 42.03 23 22.04 22.03 42.04 42.04 16 Figure 13 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts White: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 22.05 24.01 24.02  41.03 41.05 15 41.04 21.01  21.02 17 18 - 19  20.01 41.06 112 13  10  9 1 7^ 12  11  J 20.02  41.07 41.08 40.03  4,  2  5  40.01 40.01  Numerical Change, 1980-87    + 25 + 26-75 + IQ or more - 26-75 - 76 or moreV Overall, it appears that there have been few if any radical and rapid shifts in the pupil population of the Little Rock School District over the past several years. Total enrollments have declined steadily from year to year (except for the recent increase due to the annexation), but the drop has been gradual. Black enrollments have grown somewhat while white enrollments have decreased, but the pace has been quite slow in both directions. In general, change in the schools appear to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a wholepopulation losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. While much of the city's total growth has gone into the northwest and southwest, however, some of these areas have gained rela- lively few public school pupils, at least in the lower grades.* Black population and black school children have tended to move out of the older areas to the east and in the center and toward the west and southwest. In some of I these areas they are clearly replaced white pupils. In other areas white enrollments appear relatively stable. I I *Metroplan staff expressed surprise at the drop in the K-4 enrollment in this tract (42.04) where their figures show a 1980-86 total population increase of Prisons and the addition of 432 dwellings, threefourths of which were reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. single-family units. -11- I IH II H III. FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS II Expectations for Growth II There are several sources of population projections for Pulaski County, two of which were consulted for this studythose made by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which produces the official projections for all counties in the State of Arkansas, and those made by Metroplan. UALR's pro- jectlons are for the total population of Pulaski County by race, sex, and five-year age groups. The projections are given for intervals of five years to the year 2000. There are no separate figures for subareas of the county. Metroplan projects the total population of Pulaski County, along with the three other counties (Saline, Faulkner, and Lonoke) that make up the Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area, and also distributes the projection among census tracts in the urbanized areas. The census tract projections are only for the year 2010 with no figures for Intervening years. II UALR projects the population of Pulaski County to reach more than 441,000 persons by the year 2000, an increase of more than 100,500 or 29.6 percent H H II over the 1980 population of 340,600. (This represents approximately one-fifth I II of the total increase projected for the entire State of Arkansas in the 20-year period.) About one-fourth of the Increase is estimated to have II n occurred between 1980 and 1985, with about an equal increase expected every five years thereafter to the turn of the century. Metroplan has a somewhat higher projection, expecting the county to reach more than 474,000 persons by 2000 (an increase of 39.3 percent over 1980), and 530,000 by the year 2010, a gain of over 189,000 persons or 55.6 percent in hl just 30 years. II -12-Only UALR projects the county's population for whites and blacks separately. Because of their higher rate of in-migrationduring the 1970s the nonwhite rate was 19.6 percent compared to only 2.7 percent for whites nonwhites are projected to number about 148,800 in the year 2000. They will then constitute one-third (33.7 percent) of the Pulaski County population. compared with 25.2 percent at the 1980 census. Our informant at UALR expects this in-migration to continue for the foreseeable future. Since Little Rock now has a substantial black community, he believes it will continue to be attractive to blacks now living elsewhere in Arkansas. Where the Growth Will Go Only a limited amount of the growth projected for Pulaski County in the next 20-30 years is likely to go inside the current boundaries of the city of Little Rock. Much of the central area has been losing population in recent years, and much of the rest of the city is already well developed. In 1980 the city contained almost half of the county's total population, and since then several tracts of land on the west and northwest sides of the city have begun to fill up. Described by one informant as II the place to live in Little Rock\", the area of greatest growth in Pulaski County during the 1980s has been the northwest section of the city. To a lesser degree, the area to the southwest has also been attractive. H This latter area was described by the same informant as popular for \"entry level\" housing for first-time homebuyers of more modest means. Almost everyone consulted for this study agrees that growth will continue on the city's western borders. There are still several large tracts of undeveloped land now prime for development. A number of major residential, commercial or institutional construction projects are in the planning stages or * beyond. Census tract 42.03 in the northwest alone is projected by Metroplan -13-to increase its population by almost five times between 1980 and 2010. Tract 42.04 extending directly westward from the city will grow by almost three and a half times. Other tracts in the same general area will also grow, though more modestly. (See Table 5 and Figure 14.) Altogether, Metroplan has projected that the census tracts on the city's west side will gain almost 50,000 new residents by the year 2010. Only part of that growth will occur within the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District, however. While part of the growth area lies within the recently-annexed territory of the school system, most of the census tracts where growth is projected also extend well out beyond current city limits into the remainder of Pulaski Countyand hence, beyond the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District. While the city of Little Rock may eventually annex some of the newly developed area, it is not axiomatic that the children  living there will also be annexed by the Little Rock School District. At the same time, it is unlikely that a large segment of Little Rocks black community will participate in the westward movement to the citys borders and II beyond. These areas contain some of the highest priced housing in the city. and blacks in Little Rock still have a considerably lower median Incomes than II do whites. Instead, the movement of blacks has tended to be on the near west II side of the city and toward the southwest below 1630 where housing Is more affordable. It is likely that this movement will continue unless steps are II taken to re-direct it or to open up other options. n Other Population Change in Little Rock n As already noted, like almost all American cities. Little Rock has been losing population at its core. Between 1980 and 1986 Metroplan estimated that H there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the -14-TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 Census Tract 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 23 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 920 11,100 7,378 5,539 3,813 1,354 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 8,260 6,614 1,600 4,000 3,200 1,000 5,200 4,000 3,200 800 800 4,600 4,600 2,200 4,800 3,800 10,000 5,100 850 5,900 4,500 5,700 5,600 8,000 6,000 5,600 5,300 8,800 9,500 950 16,800 13,800 4,500 5,500 6,800 12,200 8,400 4,900 7,200 38,900 22,000 740 (491) 474 (508) 296 44 231 27 (6) 209 (231) (475) (462) 383 1,825 (158) (17) (506) (529) (48) 32 (468) 1,905 404 365 862 2,560 30 5,700 6,422 (1,039) 1,687 5,446 5,989 1,740 842 839 30,640 15,386 86.0% -10.9% 17.4% -33.7% 6.0% 1.1% 7.8% 3.5% -0.7% 4.8% -4.8% -17.8% -8.8% 11.2% 22.3% -3.0% -2.0% -7.9% -10.5% -0.8% 0.6% -5.5% 46.5% 7.8% 7.4% 10.9% 36.9% 3.3% 51.4% 87.0% -18.8% 44.2% 402.2% 96.4% 26.1% 20.7% 13.2% 370.9% 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases. I the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, Pulaski Area Transportation Study, May 1987.42.04 42.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 42.04 22.01 22.03 24.02 41.03 41.05 23 16  Figure 14 Projected Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-2010 41.04 21.01  21.02 15 17 18  13  10  1 7 19  12  11  20.01 20.02  41O7@ 41.06 41.08 40.03 '6  5 40.01 ^ 4 2  40.01  Percentage Change   + 5% + 6-25% + 26% or more - 6-25% - 26% or morecity, in the tracts close to downtown, and In those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. Several of these tracts are projected by Metroplan to continue their population decline through the year 2010 while others, including some close to the city's center, will gain slightly. Some of the 1980-86 gainers west of University or south of 20th Street are projected to turn into losers or to stabi- llze by 2010. Since \"declining\" neighborhoods are usually \"aging\" neighbor- hoods as well, these areas will probably lose school-age as well as total population. However, some losers in the southeast are projected by Metroplan to become gainers by the year 2010. One close-in prospect for population gain Is the neighborhood just to the east of the old downtown where there has been recent rehabilitation of old Victorian homes by young middle-class couples and families (Census Tract 6). However, the size of the area available for such gentrification is severely restricted not only by the number of dwellings but also by physical barriers to its extension. To date, whatever physical changes have taken place in the area's housing has had little effect on the pupil population living within the area. Future Growth of the Child Population Children are usually the most difficult group in the population to project. Unlike adults whose births are already a matter of record and whose survival from one age group to another can usually be tracked based on past experience with mortality and migration, how many children there will be in the future is subject to many more uncertainties. How will the birthrate shift? Will there be a trend toward larger families? or having babies at earlier ages? or later ages? If migration patterns for an older group changes, how will this affect the migration of children? -15- n n The number of children born to Pulaski County residents (we have no sepaII rate data for Little Rock) has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years. Except for a dip in 1978 (considered by several sources as an obvious II error in the data), the number of births did not vary by more than a few II hundred between 1977 and 1986. remained almost constant\nBirths to both blacks and whites have also the difference between the highest and lowest num- bers in any one year has been little more than 300 for each race. (See Figure 15). Despite the constancy in births, the child population of Pulaski County, like the total population, is projected by UALR to gain by the year 2000. How- ever, like child populations nationally and in most communities across the country, their growth rate will be substantially below that of the total popu- lation. Accordlng to UALR's projections, children below age 20 will increase by only 16.7 percent between 1980 and 2000, an increase of fewer than 19,000 in the 20-year period. Furthermore, the largest number will be ages 15 to 19, with smaller numbers at each descending 5-year age group. The smallest number li will be children below five years of age. Thus, unless there is a substantial in-migration of young children it is likely that the seeds are present for II even more slender growth of the countys child population in the future. II Still, children will total almost 130,000 in Pulaski County in 2000. will be almost 30 percent of the county's total population. And they (See Table 6.) n n  H II i I All of the gain in children and then some will be among black children who are projected to grow from under 37,200 in 1980 to almost 57,800 in 2000. n They will be almost evenly distributed among the four age subgroups. White n children, on the other hand, will decline slightly in numberfrom about 74,200 in 1980 to about 72,100 in 2000. There will be more than 2,000 more white children ages 15 to 19 than under five years. -16- hn II II II II II H Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools K H M M II A A A A A Ap II II II TABLE 6 II PROJECTIONS OF THE CHILD POPULATION BY RACE - PULASKI COUNTY  TOTAL CHILDREN II 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 II H Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 28,291 28,117 25,870 29,047 32,599 28,074 28,358 26,423 32,649 32,385 28,404 29,042 31,923 32,496 32,804 29,142 31,370 31,848 32,981 33,682 TOTAL 111,325 115,454 122,480 126,365 129,881 H WHITE CHILDREN H 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 II Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 17,903 18,350 17,662 20,252 20,201 17,267 17,975 17,766 19,504 19,488 16,915 18,084 18,132 18,818 19,092 17,016 16,966 17,496 18,437 19,212 H TOTAL 74,167 73,209 73,991 73,058 72,111 II NONWHITE CHILDREN H 1980 CENSUS 1986 ESTIMATE 1990 1995 PROJECTIONS 2000 H Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15-19 years 10,388 9,767 8,208 8,795 12,398 10,807 10,383 8,657 13,145 12,897 11,489 10,958 13,791 13,678 13,712 12,126 14,404 14,352 14,544 14,470 II TOTAL 37,158 42,245 48,489 53,307 57,770 n SOURCE: Research and Public Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock. 0 I If there has been no rise in the number of births among Pulaski County residents, then why is the number of children in the county expected to growF? According to our informant at UALR the explanation lies in the migration patterns to the Little Rock area which have recently shown an Increase in the in-migration of blacks from elsewhere in Arkansas. Blacks who might formerly have gone to Chicago, Detroit or Memphis, he states, are now drawn to Little Rock because of the size of its black community. As long as there continues to be a sizeable black population remaining in rural or small-town Arkansas, he expects that the migration to Little Rock will continue. We have found no projections below the county level for children so it is difficult to say what proportion of them are likely to end up in the Little Rock School District. Some are probably members of young families whose best prospects for starter housing may lie outside the city limits. Still, while less than half of Pulaski County's total population lived in Little Rock in 1980, almost 63 percent of its black population resided there. If this ratlo- -or close to itcontinues into the future, a substantial proportion of the county's additional child population could go to Little Rock schools. We note that the UALR projection calls for an increase of somewhat over 1,000 black children per year in Pulaski County between 1980 and 2000. Over 600 of this Increase, by the figure just cited, will occur in Little Rock. Enrollment figures so far in the 1980s, however, have shown a fairly consistent Increase in black pupils averaging only about 127 per year. We have no explanation for this difference. However, we note that our projections. which will be discussed in the next chapter, indicate not a gain but a gradual decrease in overall black enrollments in future years. Because of the possibility that enrollment trends may be in the process of shifting, we recommend that they be monitored closely for the next several years and that revised projections be developed if necessary. -17-   I I    I I   I I II II Influence of the Little Rock Economy II A major shifteither up, down or dramatically differentin Little Rock's economic picture could affect migration patterns, and hence its school enroll- H ments. This is unlikely to occur. One informant, a businessman with several decades of experience in living and working in Little Rock, described its H economy as extremely stable\"Good times, bad times, we grow about 2 percent a II year. This isn't going to change\". Centers of government are often fairly recession-resistent, and Little H Rock is probably no exception. When times are good, most people share in the prosperity. If times turn bad, government often steps in with new programs or H expands old ones. In addition to being the State Capital, Little Rock is also B a trading and distribution center for the upper south central region. also a major education and hospital center. It is It has a campus of the University B of Arkansas as well as several regional medical centers. Its economy, in addition to growing steadily, has been moving in concert B with the national economy. Manufacturing employment is down but not out. II white collar and service industries are up. In 1985 the largest number of I jobs (53,700) in the four-county Little Rock-North Little Rock metropolitan II area were in wholesale and retail trade, according to the Arkansas Employment Security Division. The second largest number were service jobs (47,200). A II substantial majority of these were in professional and related services. such II as hospitals, other health services, and education. 28 percent in the five years since 1980. Service jobs had grown by In third place were government jobs M (44,400). While manufacturing was in fourth place (33,800), the number of manufacturing jobs had declined by 10 percent since 1980. The drop, however. M was more than overset by gains in other sectors so that the overall number of H jobs was greater in 1985 than in 1980, by more than 9 percent. Fl -18- k  IV. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS  The Record of Prior Projections According to informants in the school system, its earlier enrollment pro-  jections have come remarkably close to the mark. In one recent year, for  example, the actual enrollment was off by just a single pupil. Projections made in 1981 in an earlier study by Stanton Leggett and Associates also came I close. When based on earlier enrollment trends, the Leggett figures fell just 136 pupils short of actual enrollment in fall 1985, or 0.7 percent. When I based on the geographic distribution of the student population, the shortfall I was only 79, or 0.4 percent. Most pupil enrollment projections are made by some variation of the I \"cohort survival\" method. Basically, the method begins with data on the cur- rent school population by grade. It then It ages\" that population, moving it up one grade for each succeeding year. At the same time, it II survives II the popu  lation, employing ratios developed out of school system experience which indi- cate what proportion of the children in one grade can usually be expected to show up in the next. The II survival ratio 11 is often a decimal fraction smaller I  than one\nhowever, it can be greater than one if youngsters migrating into the area from outside are added to the population in later grades. For children  who are not yet old enough to be in school, the number of births in the appro- priate year is used to develop the ratio. When the projection goes beyond I the children already born, assumptions are made about the future fertility rate of the population. I The comparative accuracy of past projections in the Little Rock School I District is a tribute not just to the skill of the projectors, but also to the steadiness of past enrollment trends. In the present situation, however, one -19-II factor makes the projections particularly risky. This is the 1987 addition of II a large number of pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, about whose It survival tl almost nothing is known. Thus, we cannot develop survival ratios for almost a third of the current Little Rock pupil population based on their own trends and behavior. II Projections for System-wide Planning Several sets of projections were developed and evaluated. All but one involved some variation of the \"cohort survival\" method, although they were also compared with independent data sources such as those furnished by Metro- plan and UALR to determine if they were consistent both with current demoII graphic and economic trends and future projections. Table 7 presents the final projections for each grade level which we recommend for current planII ning. We suggest strongly, however, that these be reviewed and updated annu- ally as more data become available on the pupil population in the annexed ter- II ritory. For the projections of black enrollment we used a three-year average of II survival ratios for the old district. Past data were first projected to 1986 H M H H H II for the old district and compared to the actual 1986 enrollment. When the two compared quite closely, the three-year ratio was applied to the actual enroll- II ments in the expanded district in fall 1987 and projections made to future years. II White enrollments received somewhat different treatment. They had defl dined during the first years of the 1980s, but then began to turn up again. Some grade levels among whites began the reversal earlier than others, and the fl junior high years from 7th to 9th grade never did change directions. Since we could not determine whether the reversal was merely a temporary blip or pre- fl saged a change in trends, we used only one year's survival ratiosthat of -20- JI TABLE 7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL AND RACE 1987-88 TO 1997-1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Current 1987-88 1990-91 Projected 1995-96 1997-98 Total Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 1,846 6,449 5,820 6,064 6,401 1,834 6,059 5,494 5,966 5,952 1,797 6,072 5,180 5,297 5,605 1,797 6,072 5,158 5,269 5,389 Total 26,580 25,305 23,951 23,685 I Black. Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 1,184 4,196 3,819 3,695 3,207 1,156 3,797 3,593 3,712 3,219 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,167 3,128 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,115 2,913 I Total 16,101 15,477 14,490 14,223 Nonblack Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 662 2,253 2,001 2,369 3,194 678 2,264 1,900 2,253 2,732 662 2,262 1,930 2,131 2,477 662 2,262 1,908 2,154 2,477 I I Total 10,479 9,827 9,462 9,463 I *Ratios have been calculated on basis of enrollments within the boundaries which existed prior to the 1987-88 school year, but projections are based on enrollments in the expanded district in that year. I I I I II II 1986for the white projections. These trends especially will require careful tl monitoring to determine their staying power. Total enrollments were arrived at by combining the black and white projections. M In addition, as already noted, all of the projections assume that pupils in the annexed territory will behave in exactly the same way as those in the n old territory This is a risky assumption at best that should also be evalu- II ated as reliable data on the new territory becomes available. Since data on births are available only for children who will be entering M kindergarten through 1992, for later years we assumed that there would be the same number of both black and white births in the years thereafter as in 1986. H As already noted, except for a temporary decline in 1978 (which many people H attribute to an error in the figures and for which an adjustment was made). the number of births has remained remarkably stable for the past ten years in II Pulaski County. Overall, the projections indicate that total enrollment will continue to II decline moderately through the 1997-98 school year. The drop will be largest at the junior and senior high school level. Both black and white enrollments II II II wlll decline. Black junior and senior high school students will grow slightly by 1990, then drop off, while the number in grades 1 to 3 will be somewhat larger in 1995 and 1997 than in 1990. The number of white pupils at every grade level above 3rd grade will decline from its current level. Kindergarten and grades 1-3, on the other II hand, will experience almost no change. M Small-Area Projections II Projections have also been made of the K-4 enrollments for individual cen- SUS tracts throughout the expanded school district. They are shown in Figures M 16 through 18. -21-42.03  22.04  22.03 42.04 42.04  22.05  24.01  24.02  41.03  41.05 41.04  22.01  21.01  17 16  18 19  20.01 41.06 15 14, 13  12  20.02  41.07 41.08 10  11  40.03 Figure 16 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1990-91 1 8 ) 7, 6 M | 5  40.01 2  40.01 Numerical Change    + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more 42.03  22.04  22.05  42.04 42.04  22.01  22.03 z^ 24.01  24.02 41.03  41.04  23 21.01  21.02  16  17 18  19 20.01 41.05 I @ 41.06 @ 15 I 13 I \\  12  20.02  41.O7@ 41.08 @ A 10  11 40.03 8, Figure 17 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1995-96 1 7^6 3,  J. 5  40.01 4 2  40.01  Numerical Change  @ @   + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more42.03  22.04 22.05 42.04 42.04 22.01  24.01 23 22.03 21.01  21.02 17 24.02 41.03  41.05 41.04 16  ^ 13 I  I 10  19  20.01 41.06 12  11 20.02  41.O7@ 41.08 Figure 18 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1997-98 I  'r-M |  I 40.03 % 40.01 3 T  2  40.01  Numerical Change   + 50 + 51-100 + 101 or more - 51-100 - 101 or more II II II H n H Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools N H H H II n n H H H km m n Stanton Leggett and Associates  Educational Consultants West Tisbury, Mass. 02575 n n II REPORT\nMEETING THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES NEEDS OF SEVEN RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas June 1988 n H RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS H A school with 76% or more Black enrollment is designated as racially identifiable. These schools will have major enhancements to their programs including the following\nH H  Tutoring programs  Reduced teacher/pupil ratio- a ratio of 18 children to one teacher will be used.  Extended day care will be provided with costs based on a sliding scale.  Home Instruction will be supported for preschoolers  Individual school programs will be Implemented with areas of emphasis.  Renovations of buildings are proposed to put these buildings in top physical condition. H RENOVATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SETTINGS FOR LEARNING n n In order to create In the seven racially identifiable schools the appropriate environment for learning, a series of major enhancements to these buildings have been proposed. These enhancements are detailed in the Appendix and are summarized in Table 1. To the seven racially identifiable schools has been added the Franklin School. This building Is in the general area of the seven schools and can be involved In the effort to provide Improved facilities for the seven schools. M Table 1 shows estimated costs of enhancements. Those at Franklin are considered minor enhancements.  Table 2, following, shows enrollments in the fall of the 1987-88 school year at the various schools. A map follows showing the relative locations of the schools and the major arteries. H n I-2- pl I Table 1 Racially Identifiable Schools and One Borderline School, with Estimated Costs of Physical Enhancement  School Cost  Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 22,350 396,890 124,770 1,197,815 106,470 53,350 964,720 742.730  3,609,095  Table 2 Enrollment by Grade for Selected Schools, 1987-88 School K 1 R 4 2 3 5 6 Spec Ed Total  Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 55 34 18 32 32 50 14 31 56 48 39 44 43 48 49 42 62 46 33 53 47 42 36 24 66 47 23 32 29 32 24 24 51 41 32 32 37 33 30 37 64 45 31 41 39 42 32 26 49 45 30 35 21 42 33 30 23 8 8 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 R R R 2192 R R R Ifl fl fl fl ^5o \u0026lt; / / J. T 0 00 3 0 3 A, G iEsB S S,AgAto o RoCi t^KMTSl^U- /\\4lTCl-tjLi- o rA ^cc\u0026gt;^EV\u0026amp;:}~ iS^ti I U\u0026gt;l I lnj4,S+41 f4?iroM 15M- pAl MAP S-AoW/MiS R^ZATOE LoCATlOhJS ecAcoE BUILb//^GS ir\u0026gt;l f^f=e)f^ ^^JL/AiLf eia4\\^OLQ-4- I Calculation of Capacity: Racially Identifiable Schools  The capacity of a school Is a variable depending upon policy decisions as to class size and the provision of specialized staff that serve the student body as children are drawn out of the regular classes for this purpose. The provision of special education self-contained classes and resource rooms also affects capacity as these are withdrawn from the regular classroom supply. In this analysis kindergartens have been treated as classrooms since the program is a full-day operation. V  In the analysis of major enhancements of schools that are racially identifiable, the matter of providing adequate working conditions for the specialized staff assigned to the school becomes Important. One measure of the school system's concerns in this area is given by the specialized (other than kindergarten and classroom) facilities provided for new schools. Table 3, following, shows the spaces provided in the three most recently constructed schools of the school system.  Analysis of these data suggests that in terms of staff and programs added to the schools, the following number of rooms should be set aside for the uses indicated. These rooms do not contribute to capacity of a school as students use these in addition to the regular classroom to which they are assigned, except for self-contained special education rooms.   There should be at least one self-contained special education room in each school. This number is the average required by the system, including those in its five-year plan for special education. The rooms may be assigned differently from year to year, depending upon incidence of handicapped students among those assigned and the desire to provide primary and Intermediate levels In program. The special education program provides a resource room In each school as well. Children attend programs for help In such a room, leaving the regular classroom for this purpose.   In addition there are needs for reading and math laboratories for the ALP program, a computer laboratory and a music space which can be either a specially designed room that will control the sound or the use of the stage, suitably separated from the dining area.  In consequence, for each school, six rooms must be deducted from the classroom inventory. Further, some of the major enhancements offered in the schools require rooms outside the capacity of the school. For example, the introduction of a Wrlte-to-Read program requires a computer laboratory outfitted with IBM computer in order to function. Such a room uses a classroom that cannot be counted as capacity. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS FOR RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS THAT WILL REgUIRE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ROOMS if Garland\nMass media specialty does not require special space. ISH: A science laboratory is required to support environmental education program.  King: A program for four-year olds will require space. A greenhouse laboratory is called for. Full-time art. music and foreign language, as well as environmental education specialists, will require science, foreign language and art spaces. With so many specialists the likelihood is that a departmentalized program will be used to schedule students to special classes. It has been assumed that the addition of a science laboratory and a room for four-year-olds will be required.   Mitchell: Artists In residence for drama, writing, speech, and mime will be utilized. One space should be provided. RII -6- II II Capacity Is calculated by deducting from the number of classrooms that are ayallable in a building the number of rooms that will be required to be used for special purposes, including special education, ALP programs, music, and special offerings related to the program of enhancement. II II n The number of regular classrooms is multiplied by eighteen, the maximum class size in racially identifiable schools. Kindergarten Is treated like a regular grade since the program is a fuU-day program. Smee a common standard of provision of special rooms has been used for the seven racially identifiable schools equal to the best that the school system has used in its most recent schools, and since additional special rooms are allocated based upon the program enhancement of the schools, the capacities of the schools are substantially lowered. The capacity of each of the schools is shown in the following table. H Desirable School Size H The schools under consideration are generally small schools built at a time when only classrooms were proylded in the building. When the specialized rooms required for today's educational program are deducted, the schools become yery small. The capacities of the schools under consideration are grouped by size below. H Less than 200 Student Capacity: II King Washington Stephens 136 student capacity 172 student capacity 190 student capacity 200-300 Student Capacity II Mitchell Garland Ish 208 student capacity 226 student capacity 226 student capacity II 300 Student Capacity and Up H n H 352 student capacity 370 student capacity Franklin Rockefeller It is Important to note that the capacities of the eight schools under consideration total 1880 students, when an adequate number of rooms for specialized use are deducted from the total ayallable number of classrooms. This compares to the enrollment tn the fall of 1987-88 of 2192 students. Any enhancement program based upon fixing up the existing buildings will not haye dealt with the matter of proylding adequately the serylces to be offered children in the schools, including the program enhancements required by the programs. To continue the buildings without change in spaces proylded will cause these buildings either to be sharply oyercrowded or to fall behind the system in proylding sendees commonly proylded across all schools, as well as program enhancements to make these schools educationally attractlye. H size and School Organization II n In looking at school size, it is important to see the numbers with respect to the classroom organization that students pass through. The schools are organized as kindergarten to six grade units. That Is, In order to haye one section to a grade It Is necessary to haye about seven times 18 students, or 126 students, as total enrollment. To have two sections to a grade requires about 14 times 18 students per class, or 252 students. While children do not come In neat packages of 18 to a grade, it takes a somewhat larger school to accommodate such changes and still maintain the grade organization.TABLE 4 Calculation of Capacity\nSeven Racially Identifiable Schools and Franklin Elementary School School No. of CR's* Assign 6 CR's to Spec. Use CR's Required- Spec. Use by Enhancement Function (1) (2) (3) Total Special Use CR's (4) Rooms Not Assigned to Spec. Use (1H4) (5) Capacity Remaining CR's X 18 (G) Capacity One Self- Contained I Spec. Ed. @ 10 Students [Incl In (2)] (7) Total Capacity Fall 1987-88 Enrollment (8) Franklin Garland Ish King Mitchell Rockefeller Stephens Washington 25 18 19 15 16 20 17 16 6 6 6 6 4\" O'\" 6 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 6 7 8 5 0 7 7 19 12 12 7 11 20 10 9 342 216 216 126 198 360 180 162 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 352 226 226 136 208 370 190 172 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 1800 1880 2192 'Includes kindergarten rooms. \" Building has additional rooms suitable for ALP program. Therefore four set aside for special programs. \"'Building has many specialized rooms in addition to classrooms and kindergarten space available to meet needs for special use rooms. *II -8- II  II When a school has a capacity well under 252 students and with more than 126 students representing one class to a grade, it is necessary for the school to organize classes so that more than one grade is in a classroom. Most parents find this approach to be less desirable. It is possible to organize differently than by the chronological grade, using what is called an ungraded organization. In such a situation the children are divided among the classrooms by some measure of maturity, or skill at reading, or some combination of devices. n It can probably be said that with all the problems that the school system Is faced with, forcing a reorganization to some different kind of grade organization by maintaining small schools Is unwise. It will no doubt be resisted by parents, concerned about their children, who do not see the need for such a change. n Currently the schools avoid the issue by not having the special rooms that in this study are assigned to the schools in order to keep them at the level of provision of school facilities now found in the best school facilities of the system. H A desirable size school that relates to the school organization ranges from 500 to 600 students with the equivalent of four sets of kindergarten to six units, or 28 rooms with 18 students each, for a total of at least 504 students. H While children do not come to school in neat enrollment packages, in a moderate size school it is possible to accommodate, for the most part, differences in enrollment from grade to grade without resorting to the placement of two grades In one classroom. H Size and Staffing II H One should weigh the prudence of spending large sums of money to conserve buildings with limited enrollment and less adequate facilities as against providing larger schools with superior facilities that can be staffed so that there is room to work and the extensive specialized staff will be fully utilized. H Any consideration of proposals for Improvements in the seven racially identifiable schools must necessarily involve specific choices among a number of possible alternatives. H II For example, a decision must be reached on the question of school size. Should Little Rock continue to maintain and operate very small school units, however outdated and costly to elTlclently maintain and operate they may be. because such little school units can also provide pupils a higher degree of personal attention with smaller class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios? Moreover, do not such smaller older schools often provide a sense of neighborhood Identity and intergeneratlonal stability which can give individuals a sense of \"roots\" and belonging and continuity in a constantly changing larger community? H H By contrast, is it not also true that because of these very same smaller enrollments, such smaller schools often cannot provide many full-time services of such specialists as nurses, art and music teachers, counselors, and physical education Instructors, and cannot provide separate full-time specialized rooms for art. science, music, remedial reading, computer Instruction, and similar costly services and facilities? How should a community choose between these competing alternatives? H bl  For example. In many small schools an art teacher may be assigned for only nine weeks per year, and for the rest of the year pupils are without this teacher's instructional services. While at the school such a teacher may do his/her work, based upon a stage, in a teachers lounge or workroom, or may even cany needed supplies and work tools in the trunk of his/her car. These teachers may work with pupils, not In an art room but In a comer of the lunch room, or in an area of a regular classroom, and in some cases even In a stage or storage area or in a recessed part of a hallway. Moreover. If there is a reasonably useful space available, such teachers will-9- have to compete i with the needs of other part-time specialists who also wdl be seeking space as a i base of operations. We note with approbation that the established enhancement plan for staffing proceeds for the assignment of many such specialists on a fud-tlme basis and the consultants have therefore Included necessary facditles for such specialists in their calculation of budding capacities and recommended new facilities. i  also contrasting advantages which come with having larger units. With a combine their skids at any given grade level. Frequently there are larffe enough Dupilbase, three or four teachers can------------------ -  and pupds benefit. Thus one teacher may delight in teaching reading vdidepother may have ___ ___ Viovp tHpH bj^pkcxrnund in one and enthusiasm for teaching arithmetic. One may have a rich background one soecial skills arithmetic, une nave ncu ox area and another have hobby interests and competencies of a different kind. The larger school, with its larger staff, can offer many such benefits. Thus, too, because of the larger numbe pupils, the cost per pupil for specialized full-time instructors in subjects such as art mu^c Erafts, health, coniputer science, and other diversified curricular offerings, becorne economically feasible. In addition, the costs of administration and overhead ser^ces can be reduced. One set of overhead costs in a larger building can be far less than the combined costs for similar services in two or three smaller units. I R R Hence the decision as to what constitutes a desirable optimum size of a school Involves an analysis of many factors. The consultants believe that an optimum size elementary school unit -  having about four sections per grade level and preferably 5CX)-600 pupds. Such a  _ _ ... ________________3 incfnipfinnal I would be one graae levei ana preierauiy selection could provide an efficient base for personalized and specialized Instructional services and at the same time provide an economical overhead and administrative cost basis also. Based upon the foregoing considerations, we believe that the enhanced instructional programs estaWlshed by the policies of the Little Rock Board of Education, In confon^ty Mth the over JI Court directives and decisions which have been previously established, can be well served by the recommendations herein presented. R I The Condition of the Building as a Criterion for Enhancement Some buddings are of a basic condition or have reached a point of wear where the erffiancement of the building will not cover up the major problems that exist in the structure or the mechanical systems of the building. When schools were bullt as econo^caUy as Posslbksuch buddings do not last forever, even with major repairs. The condition of the core of the budding should be weighed in assigning children to these schools over long periods of time. R the Garland School. This budding has masonry bearing walls and a wood frame multistoried budding. A building of this type would not meet todays budding An example is Inside. It is a ouiiaing oi ims rypc wuuiu uui mcvu luua,   codes and could not be budt now. It is unwise to spend money on a budding where the rare Is not that which should be m use today. In the case of Washington School, for exjmpl^t mechanical systems are worn out. The windows are rusting and should be replaceci The s^tOT of ventilating the rooms through the corridors by use of corridcir fans represents the pos of spreadmg flames in the event of fire. Washington School is not of sufficient quality to warrant substantial expenditures to patch it up. R The proposed budding program dealing with the seven racially identifiable schools atterripts to appty current standards of quality to the buildings rather^ than accepting the J^sterje of some buildings that, were the school district able to do so, would have been retired long ago. It Is not wise to enhance a basically unsatisfactory structure. R R R RII -10- II RECOMMENDATIONS n n II The cost of remodeling and rehabilitation of the schools, either as major or minor enhancements, has been estimated at $3,600,000. Such enhancement did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been provided by the school system In Its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools. A series of alternative proposals have been suggested to combine four of the schools into two buildings each of about 600 student capacity. These are to add to Franklin Elementary School to bring its capacity to 600 students, requiring fourteen classrooms. The other move would be to combine Stephens and Garland Schools in one new building at the Stephens site, with a capacity of about 600 students. H H H n II Add to Franklin Elementary School to Accommodate King Elementary School The estimated cost of adding to Franklin to bring the capacity to 600 students Is based on the cost of 14 additional classrooms. These rooms, at 780 square feet each, the size of rooms under construction at the new Carver Magnet School, would require about 10,900 net square feet of space. Adding the necessary circulation, toilets, mechanical space to the net area would result in about 16,000 square feet'of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, using the basis for Carver Magnet School, the addition would cost $800,000. To this should be added the costs for upgrading Franklin School, first through the minor enhancements called for in the amount of $22,350 and. secondly, the probable need for further improvements necessary to upgrade Franklin School. These costs can be determined more accurately when architectural studies are started on the project. The amount of $100,000 has been tentatively allocated for the project. The total cost is estimated to be $922,350. n n Major enhancement of King Elementary School was estimated to cost $1,187,815. With a capacity of 136 students, unchanged by the enhancement, the cost would be $8,700 per student. The new Carver Magnet School will have a cost for new construction, equipment, grounds, fees, and the like, of about $4,000 per student. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School H II Hi H The new Carver School has a capacity, depending upon the use of rooms and using the same measures of capacity as the other schools in this analysis, of about 568 students. Adding two classrooms by using the stage as a music room and reducing the storage for specialized spaces would result in a capacity of approximately 600 students. Using the cost of the Carver School as a measure, the new school would cost about $2,500,000. The combined budgets for enhancement of Garland of $396,890 and for Stephens of $964,720 is $1,361,600. This does not take Into account that the Garland School is constructed with brick bearing walls and wood frame. It is suggested that a new school of 600 capacity be-constructed to replace Garland and Stephens Schools. The two schools are located only about seven blocks apart in an area with small block size. By using the Stephens site expanded, as the site of the new school, the new school could be expedited. There Is much vacant land and many abandoned houses that could be secured to expand the site. H a-n-  Add to Ish Elementary School and Distribute the Students Now Attending Washington Elementary School Between Rockefeller and Ish Schools  V Washington Elementary School is a building that requires substantial rehabilitation. When completed, the result will not be a building that will be as effective as either Rockefeller School, which represents the best of the elementary schools in the area, or Ish, which is a more recently constructed building, fully air conditioned and with the capability of becoming one of the finer school buildings of the system.  Both Ish and Washington have 214 student enrollments as of the fall of 1987-88. The service area of Washington School Ues in part across Roosevelt Road from the school. It Is proposed that studenrs living north of Roosevelt Road attend Rockefeller School. If the capacity at Rockefeller of 370 students will not accommodate Its present load of 289 students plus the students from Washington living north of Roosevelt Road, new classroom construction suggested here for Ish could be transferred to Roosevelt, until an appropriate balance has been reached.   Assuming that the 80 student excess capacity at Rockefeller Is used, there would be a total of 134 students now assigned to Washington who could be assigned to Ish Elementary School. The Ish School has a total of twenty classrooms, and an enrollment of 214 students. The total enrollment. Including Ish and part of Washington, would be 344 students. From the number of classrooms should be deducted stx specialized rooms assigned tn all schools and two additional specialized rooms related to the specialty of the school. Ish as an environmental education focus needs a science room and Washington would require a Wnte-to-Read laboratory. A total of eight specialized rooms would be needed.   V With twenty classrooms, reducing the count by the specialized rooms would result in twelve rooms. A series of changes are proposed. One is to move the cafeteria from the center of the Ish building and replace this outside the walls so that the noise is moved from the building. The space should be converted to a library and its supporting services. The present kitchen can be converted to a science room, the present library can be a computer laboratory. The new construction of an all-purpose room can Include a stage that can be designed for music use. Thus three of the eight special rooms required can be provided. The additional five specialized rooms are deducted from the twenty classrooms available. The fifteen rooms available as regular kindergartens and classrooms at eighteen students a room would have a capacity of 270 students.  V V with an anticipated student load of 344 students and an existing capacity of 270 students, there is a need for four classrooms, bringing the capacity to 342 students plus ten in a special education self-contained classroom, for a total of 352 students. The new rooms could be constructed at either Rockefeller or Ish, as was noted above. They are calculated under Ish capacity at this time. V New construction would involve a new all-purpose room and kitchen described as 1,000 square feet of space for kitchen and auxiliary space, 1,600 square feet for the main floor, and 1,000 square feet for a stage usable for music along with storage. Four classrooms at 780 square feet, the size tn the Carver Magnet School, would require a net area of 3120 square feet. The total net area required would be 6,720 square feet or an estimated 10,000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, the estimated cost is $500,000. R H To the cost of new construction should be added $125,000 for enhancements to the original structure and for repair to damage at the mechanical room and the nearby exterior wall. The total cost of the project Is estimated to be $625,000. The estimated cost of enhancement of Washington Elementary School Is $742,730 and of Ish Is $204,311 for a total of $951,041. R Ril -12- H il Mitchell Elementary School I M The needs of the school, as suggested In the original program for major enhancement in the amount of $106,470, should be expended as planned. The needs for the combination of Mitchell Elementary School and Rlghtsell should be approached in the light of overall needs of this area of the city. These needs should be analyzed In connection with other schools In the area. H IMPACT ON CAPACITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES II The resulting capacities of the seven racially identifiable schools and Franklin are as follows. H King-Franklin Garland-Stephens Ish-Washlngton Rockefeller-Washington Mitchell 600 students 600 students 342 students 370 students 208 students II Total 2120 students II H The fall of 1987-88 enrollment In the schools was 2192. The Mitchell School should be modified and recommendation will be made for this school in relation to other schools In the area. This will provide opportunity to change capacity further. Mitchell shows an enrollment of 256 students and a capacity of 208 students. Much of the apparent deficit is caused by the difference at Mitchell. H Summary\nNew Construction and Enhancements of Schools as Planned or for the Period of Time Necessary to Complete Major Changes H Washington Elementary School Provide enhancements for period of time necessary to make permanent changes $75,400 II Rockefeller Elementary School Make planned enhancements $53,350 II Mitchell Elementary School Make planned major enhancements. $106,470 M Garland Elementary School Make enhancements to buUdlng for use until new Garland- Stephens is completed $86,300 fl Stephens Elementary School Demolition and site work New Stephens-Garland School $50,000 $2,500,000 fl fl King School Make enhancement to the school anticipating combining the school with Franklin $80,000I -13- \"TmpSS-s j? .c,ud\u0026gt;g m\u0026gt;.r ehace,e.s construction, fourteen-classroom addition New $122,350 $800,000 p Ish enhancements and correction of fault in Make i----------------- mechanical room and exterior wall New construction of cafeteria and four classrooms with stage also usable as music room Total cost rounded to $125,CXX) $500,000 $4,498,870 $4,500,000 costs that would be involvedw  resulting from additions would be related to good basic o,,rtrtpctinn would be that the new scnoois resuuuig uwu ___ suggestion buildings and that the new school TOtoSlth?uaht?lleS^^^ and to so doing acceptt^a S? eStlonal environment for children to these schools for years to come. proposed could be controlled in quality of educational Involved encapsulation of building cores that do riot  - lesser standard ior The significant factor in the difference in cost between the original estimates of cost of about capacity between the original proposal and the J3.6O.OOO  caused by ,,, ,33^ SS'of Srlglnal proposal and the 2120 cecity ot hSenTo'apJ^ wo5S SatoEt'So.00aorclose to $ 1 .IWO.OOO. ellmlnallng the Itoanclal advantage of the onglnal the 240 student capacity Involved would proposal. p p p I p p p R I I-T ^?iC\u0026gt; 1^: to (1\u0026gt; O RC'id) F CoMWJtr MtU 5E4flOt o CoMBiWl ?? KIhiCr IKl s. K1|A\u0026lt;\u0026gt; Do Wcoessaet kUUJG UMTIL j^Ub'TT -IO peAMfcUM cokpleth^^^^^ 6_-re^k^lS  AliG^^J-VrL gidBs Q^M\u0026lt;CA{L coABlAe. CAPiAAJb \u0026lt;srsptlM3 g.AI^/-A\u0026gt;j23 n \\jc^ curler Mew IS eoWSIRU^iEb / o MAwe. a. SN/AAXjI wwacs M.AJofL AKTO/teLU -------- o i^ic.nis{^LL. oe SENI\u0026gt; 3tu' IP  I * K c^ ih 5\" *\u0026lt;^,74 iSA TO 15U '^ TC RzxUCeFEilufe f* - ' vn nn- 4ot) b4FET\nAz4 TO /SH T DO MHCES-jA\u0026amp;Y X. '^OIS4\u0026lt;. WO/^E. HA-ITlIJf 'T^Z^bE. I A2,TC AT I \\' to AM P\u0026lt;2 O v'/ RJ 6 HlYS/ tLIHE^S MAP LoCAnohl OF ecAcoL. BU/Lb/RJGS 1/^ RGFO/^.n FZ\\jLIALLf /I\u0026gt;t'MnF/ABLE S(U\\C)OLQ-15- p Conformity with Previously Established Major Enhancements Proposals and Time Schedules p pi It should be noted that these proposals are sufficient to house all present and contemplated 1989- 90 enrollments, and do not require a declining enrollment to be feasible. Whether the Central City school-age population actually remains stable, declines, or Increases, it remains true that in the final analysis the number of children attending these schools will be determined by assignment and will not be determined by local residential status. However, the consultants believe that the recommended school size range from 500 to 600 pupils is desirable for both educational and economic reasons and has therefore been the basis of these proposals. p p If there be completely adverse reaction to the concept of not conforming completely with he original Court-accepted plans and time schedule, the consultants suggest that every effort be made to conform with the major elements of such plans as previously approved, and that consideration be given to securing approval of certain modifications by consideration of the following. p p 1. We believe that the work could and should proceed Immediately as previously planned at Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Ish. All such enhancements will be of continuing use and value to the pupils and staff therein. p 2. We believe that such work previously planned at Garland, which will be of primary benefit and usefulness to the pupils in their final year of occupancy of this school, should go forward as planned. p Work which is long-term preventative and primarily structural and mechanical in nature should be deferred and re-evaluated. It is recommended that this building become the much needed improved housing for the Instructional Resource Center, which is now located in former Lee Elementary School. The Garland School cafeteria facility should continue to function as a community center until such time as the newly constructed school achieves recognition of Its own community center status. p It is. of course, true that plumbing, site, heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical requirements for thirty to forty adult occupants are far less than those needed for hundreds of pupils. We earnestly suggest that public funds Invested In the recommended new school would be of substantially greater benefit to pupils and taxpayers than would be the case If pumped Into an elghty-year-old building. Moreover, by utilizing Garland for the Instructional Resource Center and disposing of Lee (which requires much work), the resource staff and program can function more effectively. Garland's facilities can be retained as a community center for as long as required, and substantial repair costs can be saved at both Garland and Lee. p 3. We recommend that proposed work previously planned at King, and intended primarily for pupil safety, comfort, and instructional effectiveness, be started immediately. The same considerations suggested for Garland should apply to King for the final year of pupil occupancy at this building. All savings from work that can be deferred and transferred to the King-Franklin addition should be seriously considered. A possible future use of the present King facility as an administrative unit for housing assistant superintendents and thetr staff could be considered, and such use would not require the major mechanical, site or structural renovations previously planned for effective occupancy by hundreds of pupils. p p p Because the future use of King Involves substantial consideration of possible future administrative reorganization policies and patterns, we believe that It would be Judicious to keep current Investment in this plant at a minimum consistent with short-term p pq -16- q q utilization by present pupils, until final decisions are made to determine the final use of this facility. q 4. To provide an effective new school to replace Garland and Stephens, the simplest procedure would be temporarily to spread Stephens' projected fall enrollment into not more than three or four nearby schools, which have the excess capacity to enroll them, and which can and will offer adequate facilities for their education. The present Stephens structure could then be demolished, and the site graded and prepared and a totally new school erected as recommended. q II n There Is much available vacant, boarded-up and low-cost property adjacent to the existing Stephens site. However, site acquisition takes substantial blocks of time, as well as funds. Other alternatives might include retaining some of the existing Stephens plant and building a part of the new school adjacent thereto, and then proceeding with final demolition and completion of the entire new plant. Still another choice could involve retaining some portions of the existing facility and building an addition thereto. In the consultants' view, this latter course could be as costly and more time consuming in the long run than the erection of an entirely new school. M n H 5. In the case of Washington, it is recommended that the same consideration be given as previously recommended for Garland and King. Work should proceed Immediately for items necessary for pupil safety and effective educational utilization for the coming school year. Those other items beneficial to long-term plant and site use should be deferred while the addition at Ish is constructed. The community could continue to use the cafeteria facilities for as long as desired, while future use of the old building is determined. One suggestion might be to lease It for a nominal sum and required maintenance and operational expenses to the Annie Casey Foundation for their use as an administrative headquarters. Ultimate use or sale could await future developments. A simple chart illustrating the above concepts follows. II II II While ultimate costs of this group of alternative proposals will be largely determined by how much is demanded and/or required to be done at the buildings to be given up after only one year of further pupU use, we believe that by careful selection, the entire program of new construction can be provided close to the the cost parameters previously suggested. If this is done, more than a thousand pupils, and perhaps as many as 1500, could benefit by these new and Improved facilities. We further believe that these proposals for new construction can be completed within a time frame actually and realistically required for the previously proposed projects. We therefore recommend that they be given serious consideration, if our original recommendations are not acceptable. n Time Frame for Facilities Improvement II n The consultants, based upon their combined experience of almost one hundred years of responsible leadership involving literally billions of dollars In school plant planning, construction and operational development In widely scattered geographic areas, believe that any proposed development of new or significantly Improved school facilities must involve substantial amounts of time. H School districts are typically enshrouded in massive amounts of regulatory procedures or \"red tape,\" which cannot be legally Ignored. Boards of education and their staffs take many mandated, specifically stipulated legal actions to employ qualified engineers and architects, to procure financing, to hold public hearings, to advertise for bids, to approve architectural plans.-17- p and to seek approval from various state, local and federal authorities having responsibilities for conformance with such things as fire, electrical, health, safety, zoning, and sanitary codes, labor laws, anti-discrimination regulations, and minimal education standards, etc. When finally approved, specifications and bids must be advertised for stipulated minimum periods of time, and contracts must be legally awarded within the parameters of literally thousands of Court decisions concerning such awards. Many of these statutes and regulations require time periods which are beyond the immediate control of the local board. Fortunately for Little Rock, Federal Court intervention may Indeed expedite or \"short circuit\" some such procedures. Nevertheless, It is always also true that such things as shortages, procurement of critical building materials, approval of alternate components, preparation of shop drawings, selection of subcontractors, clarification of specification requirements, possible labor difficulties, delayed inspections and approval by regulatory bodies for code compliance, inclement weather, necessary change orders as work progresses, and many similar or unforeseen obstacles may delay progress of the work. In our experience, many of these delays occur, whether the total project be large or small. In general, it is our experience that such contrasting projects as a small elementary school addition or a massive new high school take a minimum of thirteen months for completed construction. In practice, larger contractors employ larger work forces and seem to have more \"clout\" In expediting necessary non-constructlon aspects of the projects. Consideration of all the required legal processes, adequate planning time, proper supervision and Inspection of the work in progress, and final acceptance of the work typically require a year to a year and a half of elapsed time. We see no reason to believe that the time frame for Little Rock's construction procedures would be slgnlflcantly different from those tn other areas. WhUe it is true that by utilizing overtime shifts, double-time labor, and paying premium prices for various components, and by using and paying for completion penalty and liquidated damages clauses in contracts, work progress can sometimes be significantly accelerated, we believe the proposed financing levels for Little Rock's school modification and construction projects leave little room for any such practices. pl pi pi PI pi p p p p p Addendum The following material shows the original planned major enhancements for the seven racially identifiable schools. The suggested action for buildings that may be replaced or combined are shown In this compilation as alternative moves. The ^tematlve suggestions are Included in the summary of costs that appeared above. p p p R R Rn -18- H IMPLEMENTATION PLAN II H II H H M H H H II II H II II II d Washington Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect: develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owners acceptance Projects to be accomplished Washington Elementary School Interior Toilet partitions Painting Floor tile, cafeteria Carpeting, classroom Exterior Partial re-roof Window replacement Clean and waterproof exterior Plumbing Piping and fixture replacement Heating and Ventilating All new system, HV only Air condition cafeteria Electrical All new system Other Equipment New furnishing and equipment storage in classrooms, sinks in classrooms, modify chalkboard heights Subtotal Special conditions (10%), miscellaneous (5%), contingency (5%), professional services (10%) Total building upgrade Site Development Paving and curbs Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Security Miscellaneous Deadline Current 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89 Alternative 6-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89 Bstiniated Cost Original 10,500 9,450 2,500 40,000 10,000 25,800 12,000 40,000 167,300 10,000 154,400 18,230 500,180 150,000 650,230 30,000 5,050 32,650 8,850 4,050 4,500 3,000 Alternative 9,450 2,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 54,950 12,000 66,950 4,050Washington El. School (cont'd.) Subtotal - Site Contingency Total Grand Total Rockefeller Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished. Rockefeller Elementary School Waterproof outside wall, early childhood area Roof repairs Repair HVAC units Repair carpeting Subtotal - Building Site development Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Miscellaneous Subtotal - Site Total -19- 88,100 4,400 4,400 92,500 742,730 75,400 Deadline Current 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 Alternative 5-15-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 Estimated Cost Original 2,000 12,000 8,000 2,000 24,000 2,330 10,320 8,950 5,850 2000 29,350 53,350 Alternative 2,000 12,000 8,000 2,000 24,000 2,330 10,320 8,950 5,850 2.000 29,350 53,350 p Pi p p Pl Pl p p p i p * RII -20- II il DeadBne Current Alternative ' Garland Elementary School Implementation Schedule I i Ifl 4 Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 9-30-88 Ifl Projects to be accomplished. Garland Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative Ifl Ifl Interior Portable stage for cafeteria Stage storage Replace toilet floor tiles Repartition all toilet rooms Replace tack strips and bulletin boards Replace carpeting Paint interior 7,800 6,500 8,000 10,500 1,500 40,000 13,500 7,800 2,000 1,500 10,000 13,500 Ifl Plumbing Replace all flush valves Replace sinks with vanities 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 II Electro-Mechanical Additional electrical service A/C with window units 2,000 32,700 2,000 II Exterior Re-roof Clean and waterproof exterior masonry 60,000 12,000 II II II Site Development Build flammable storage Paving/curbs Play areas Grassed area Planting Outdoor equipment Security Retaining wall construction 2,500 18,250 5,500 10,300 8,950 14,500 15,700 30,500 30,000 II Subtotal 305,300 Miscellaneous, fees, contingency 91,590 15,000 II Total 396,890 86,300 II 4 I-21- : Stephens Elementary School i Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owners acceptance *The consultants view the elapsed time suggested there as Insufficient. The project involves construction of a gym, total replacement of electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, replacing ceilings, replacing windows, and the like. In our judgment the project wUl take thirteen months at least to complete. Project to be accomplished, Stephens Elementary School Plumbing Replace plumbing fixtures, pipes, fountains, 1950 unit Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Replace window operators Paint all trim Reroof, partial Interior Carpet all classrooms and replace asphalt tile Replace suspended ceilings, 1950 unit Install Insulation, 1950 unit Refinlsh Interior, doors, walls, paint, etc. Install new toilet partitions Electro-Mechanical All new electrical system All new HVAC system Subtotal for Building Mlsc. fees, special conditions, contingency @ 30% Total for building New Construction Multipurpose gym Fees, contingency, equipment, 20% Total new construction Deadline Current 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 1-1-89* 2-1-89* Alternative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-1 to 12-1-89 10-1-89 to 1-1-90 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 40,000 24,000 1,460 1,430 58,650 51,600 10,100 4,900 23,100 13,650 107,250 179.Q0Q 515,150 154,550 669,700 191,750 38,350 230,100 I I R H R R R RII -22- n Stephens El. School (conf d.) 4 Site Development Develop plan Paving play area, walks 2,950 5,500 II t| Grass area Planting trees and shrubs Fencing Equipment Lighting 19,000 9,750 11,200 4200 3.060 II Subtotal Mise, fees, contingency, 15% 56.450 8,470 II Total, site work 64,900 Grand total 964,700 II The alternative is to build a new school replacing Stephens and Garland n Demolition New construction 50,000 2,500,000* n *The approximate cost for the Carver Magnet School, recently bld and under construction, was this amount. II M H H II M A A Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance The consultants view the current time schedule as optimistic. In the judgment of the consultants this project will take a minimum of nine months to complete. Projects to be accomplished, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Safety Enclose fire stairs (south) Provide fire stairs (north end and from auditorium) Replace wood transoms with fire-rated enclosure Sanitary Replace all piping and plumbing fixtures Deadline Current 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89* 3-1-89* Alternative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 4-15-89 5-15-89 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 2,990 9,800 4,700 2,990 87,500Martin Luther King (cont'd.) -23- p p p Structural Underpin and repair wall and floor slab, remove north stairs and enclose area 3,900 p Roof Re-roof 1949 and 1953 sections 12,300 12,300 p Exterior Repair masonry and repair wood windows and sills 2,240 2,240 p Interior Install new tile ceilings, 1939 and 1949 units with Insulation Install doors, toilet partitions Replace flooring, all classrooms, cafeteria and auditorium 14,750 2,830 45,000 2,830 p Electro-Mechanical Remove present electrical service over roof, install proper equipment in new switch gear location. Including distribution Rewire for increased fixtures, outlets and unit ventilators, 1937 and 1949 units Install new fixtures throughout Install new heating system 40,950 75,000 48,750 227,500 Subtotal, building 579,310 20,360 Mlsc., special conditions, fees, contingency  30% 173,790 Total, building 753,100 29,620 p PI p p Site Work Pavlng/curblng, Including driveway and parking for 30 cars Curbs Walks Steps Play area basketball court Retaining walls at drive Retaining walls at west play field All grassed areas Planting and shrubbery Equipment Playground Baseball backstops Soccer goals Security lighting poles Security fencing Tree removal and clear stumps 8,970 7,350 5,460 3350 5,000 24,700 37,400 25,700 4,940 8,450 2375 975 6,100 10,300 5.800 Subtotal, site work 156,670 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 20% 31330 8,970 7350 5,000 8,450 2375 975 5.800 38,820 7,760 p p p p Rn -24- II Martin Luther King (cont'd.) H Total, site work 188,000 46,580 q 11 Additional Upgrading Air conditioning Replace windows with aluminum Double-hung, double-glazed sash Equipment Painting and finishing BuUd greenhouse Build outside flammable storage building 63,375 62,400 40,000 19,200 10,000 2,500 2,500 n Subtotal, additional 197,475 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 30% 59,240 II Total, additional upgrading 256,715 2,500 q Grand total 1,197,815 78,700 rounded to 80,000 q q Mitchell Elementary School Implementation Schedule Deadline II q Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Current 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 1-1-89 2-1-89 Alternative 5-15-88 6-7-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 11-1-88 12-1-88 q Projects to be accomplished, Mitchell Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative II II Air condition, window units Additional electric service Clean and waterproof exterior Paint Interior Build outside flammable storage Replace or repair bulletin boards and tack strips Site work 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 q Subtotal 81,900 81,900 Mlsc., fees, contingency, 30% 24,570 24,570 q Grand total 106,470 106,470 q-25- p p Ish Elementary School Implementation Schedule p This schedule is for implementation of items on current schedule and does not include schedule for new construction. The site work planned for Ish should be scheduled after new construction is completed. DeadUne Current Alternative p Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bld project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance 4-1-88 5-1-88 5-21-88 6-7-88 8-1-88 8-21-88 5-12-88 6-7-88 6-21-88 7-1-88 8-15-88 8-28-88 p p p Projects to be accomplished, Ish Elementary School Estimated Cost Original Alternative Exterior Exterior walls, clean and waterproof Additional electrical and wiring Roof repairs Replace flush valves 12,000 15,000 1,500 3,500 12,000 15,000 1,500 3,500 p p p Interior Install glass partitions to sound-isolate cafeteria Install acoustic material on wall panels Carpet classrooms Replace louvered door with wall tn ALP room 3,640 1,500 25,500 2.500 3,640 1,500 25,500 2.500 p Subtotal, building 65,440 65,440 Mise., fees, contingency, 20% 13,100 13,100 Total, building 78,540 78,540 Site work, Incl. fees, contingency 47230 47.230 Grand total 124,770 124,770 p p p R I In fl fl fl fl fl fl Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock H fl 11 II II II II II M Mq q q The School Buildings of Little Rock q q It has been said that \"What the wisest and best Informed parent would want for the education of his or her child, the Board of Education should seek to provide for the education of all the children of all parents.\" q In conformity with this challenging axiom, the Board of Education of Little Rock and Its chief administrators have sought objective information to assist them In arriving at decisions and establishing policies that will provide maximal educational opportunities for the youth of the community. I q One of the Important Ingredients of an effective educational system to provide such optimal educational opportunities for all citizens Is the school plant, which works as a tool to assist the Instructional staff. Students learn best when school facilities provide an effective learning environment. q q q Eight years ago, the Little Rock School District sought the services of the present consultants to evaluate the buildings and sites, to judge how they were maintained and operated, to consider how they were used by the public they served, and to determine how their physical settings support the process of education of children attending the public schools of the district. The findings of that 1980-81 study were published In a two-part report that provided specific information as the basis for specific recommendations and specific cost estimates for implementing the changes so recommended. q Because the passage of time and events have validated much of the proposals and cost estimates then made, the consultants were asked to again study the physical facilities, to review the Impact of national and local demographic changes and trends, and to update their recommendations on physical facility needs and priorities and the cost estimates related thereto. q q Early and particular emphasis and attention was to be given to the facility needs of seven racially Identifiable schools, as well as to an objective evaluation of how those needs were related to the totality of facility needs within the expanded boundaries of the enlarged Little Rock School District. q In response to this multifaceted assignment, the consultants have provided preliminary and updated versions of their findings on the racially Identifiable schools, have completed the demographic studies and projects, and are herewith submitting this third aspect of thelr report, suggesting the prioritized needs and current cost estimates of physical Improvements tn each of the school buildings within the system. q q q Each school was given expert and careful examination of buildings and site conditions. Comments, suggestions and concerns of administrators and staff In each building were carefully noted. Comparative evaluations of the Impact of observed conditions upon both building operational efficiency and integrity and educational effectiveness were established. Based upon these evaluations, preliminary task lists and cost estimates were established. In conferences with the Director of Plant Services and Maintenance and his two top assistants, these preliminary lists were then updated and prioritized as the most pressing needs for each facility. q As each school facility was visited, the consultants checked the recommendations made in the 1980-81 study and determined which poor conditions had been corrected, which recommended-2- Improvements had been carried out. and which poor conditions still existed or had been exacerbated by almost eight years of additional continued wear and deterioration. 1 ( I p In a very real sense, the perspective given by this two-fold exposure over an extended time period gave the consultants added effectiveness in forming their judgments on priorities and projected costs. The consulting cost expert, who had compiled the initial cost estimates of the 1980-81 study, then took the task lists and updated costs of the former tasks yet remaining, and the reported new condition and proposed projects that were observed and listed at visits to the various buildings in April and May. p As a further step In the process, the consultants discussed the educational Impact of perceived plant needs with various administrative Instructional personnel and also considered the goals sought by the desegregation and assignment programs, which are the primary determinants of actual enrollments in each Individual Little Rock school. p p After this Information had been collected and the demographic study reports had been compiled and submitted, the final parameters of the study were more clearly defined by several board policy decisions and actions related to the facilities situation. p The Board acted with dispatch in authorizing work related to the major and minor enhancement programs as recommended to and accepted by the court. The Board agreed that the Washington and King Schools should be closed. It approved the recommendation for an addition to Franklin and directed that architects be assigned for designing a replacement school for Washington. It further stated that Stephens School should be replaced, but preferably not on the existing Stephens site. p In addition, the work on the major and minor enhancement schools was to proceed, even though the responsibility for. and ultimate sharing of. costs for such work are yet to be determined by the courts. Under such authorization, this work has proceeded effectively and with dispatch. p The Board has further authorized funding for certain major roofing projects of approximate costs of $1.5 million, plus approximately $3 million for air conditioning all the classrooms in those schools that do not now have such an Important environmental Improvement, as well as an additional sum of approximately $500,000 for Exxon energy grants. As a most significant and far-reaching step, the Board, supported by effective volunteer community executive, professional, and tndustrial leaders, has courageously decided to submit a referendum request for approvEil of an 8 mil tax Increase. This additional levy is to apply 2.5 mils to physical plant Improvement, with a minimum annual Income to support an approximately $20 million program. In working with the Director of Facilities and Maintenance and his two assistants, the consultants sought final reviews of proposed work, work to be accomplished or already completed under the major and minor enhancement, air conditioning and roofing program, and ongoing maintenance. The evaluated project lists were adjusted to reflect latest costs and prioritized. Following all these steps, an adjusted program of about $18.5 million is recommended herewith. R It should be noted that many prior requests for voter approval of tax Increases have not been successful. However, there Is a growing nationwide understanding of the Importance of an effective education for all citizens for the survival of our democratic way of Ufe. Industry has come to realize the need for an effectively educated labor force to compete successfully In the marketplace, and business understands that it is the educated consumer who provides the market for all the new and varied products and services that their enlightened customers demand. R R At both the state and local levels, volunteer groups of distinguished citizens from all walks of life have stepped forward and given freely of their time and talents to create an informed public Ifl -3- fl fl fl fl awareness of the Importance of education and of the needed fiscal support to provide such an effective education. Their objective reviews of ongoing programs and their educational goals and results, and actual physical and fiscal realities of the local educational process can be an important motivator for significant change and Improvement in the city schools. We believe that as a result of this awakened Interest, the leaders of the Little Rock community can not long Ignore the accelerating effects of continuous neglect of school facilities. Their Informed and understanding support, plus the responsible and courageous leadership of the Board of Education and Its chief administrator, can literally work wonders in producing a changed climate of public support for better education of the children who are the principal ingredient of the future of Little Rock. fl fl As a concomitant aspect of this report, we wish to point out that any program for the improvement of school facilities cannot overlook the fact that it is human beings who must operate, use, maintain, repair, preserve and protect the tremendous public Investment In those facilities. As consultants, with broad knowledge of comparative educational operations elsewhere, we believe that custodial care and operation of Little Rock schools can be substantially improved. fl fl fl We believe the recommendations we made in 1980-81 for the better organization, more adequate staffing, and Improved and Increased supervision and training of the school custodial, maintenance and operations staff are now more important than they were eight years ago. We decry the almost impossible work load placed upon the Director of Facilities and Maintenance, and we reiterate our recommendations with respect to the importance of increasing and reorganlzating staff support for the supervision of this costly public service. The Little Rock School District has Increased the district's school facilities by fourteen school buildings, increasing by roughly one-third the floor area to its maintenance operations and custodial work loads. It has not added any supervisory or administrative staffing in maintenance or operations to affect either the prior Inadequacies or the added load of the additional facilities. We believe that continuance of such a situation Is \"penny wise and pound foolish.\" fl 11 11 These comments and recommendations for additional staff assistance are in no way intended to imply that the Director and his present limited staff are falling to produce. In fact, the work accomplished in the past semester and short summer season on the magnet schools, and in getting work done In the major enhancement and minor enhancement schools, while at the same time carrying on urgent and necessary repairs In all other buildings, is a magnificent accomplishment. The Board of Education can indeed be proud of the fact that so much has been accomplished. In so short a time and by so very few. However, It is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that such a pace can continue for very long. II il To emphasize our concern, we also strongly recommend that if the millage for plant and facilities improvement is enacted, the district should immediately provide an assistant to the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. We further recommend that engineering and architectural services should be provided and district-wide specifications and blds be used In such a manner as to \"cluster.\" or to bring together many similar type projects in the various buildings (such as roofing, air conditioning, new Intercom systems, rewiring, relighting, etc.). By contractual services, such design people can help ensure district-wide fixed responsibility and the authority and opportunity to make on-the-job decisions to foster prompt continuance of the work. n Use of Planning Committees II  The best planning for adequate educational facilities should Involve the Input of those who, by experience. Judgment, knowledge and technical skills, can contribute to the successful design of superior and effective teaching tools. Administration can foster such Input by the creation of organized procedures for gathering these Insights or inputs and transmitting them to the persons entrusted with the design of such facilities. Planners can be helped in such diverse-4- fields as Instruction, administration, community and personnel use, maintenance, operations, and civic pride and citizenship education, as they go about their work. Who best can tell what is necessary or desirable for effective teaching in various subject areas? Who can ensure that architects design a facility that will facilitate learning by pupils? Who can tell what faculties help an administrator to best operate a school program in harmony with student, community and staff needs? Who can teU how best to design a kitchen or lunch room layout, or to assist in designing facilities for proper custodial care and operation? The answer, seasoned by use In countless communities, Ues In creating planning committees of administrators and staff experts who pool their knowledge to create educational specifications, as well as material specifications, thereby advising architects and engineers on desirable design elements, and who can screen out obvious design \"bloopers\" before they are transformed into enduring concrete and steel that forever plague their users during the life of a facility. pi pi The consultants have strongly recommended, and are pleased to observe, that such planning committees are being created to assist and strengthen the designing of future projects. In commenting upon the form of this report, we state that because we are aware of the existence and use of copies of our voluminous prior reports in various administrative offices, we have not Included a reiteration of those reports here. Copies of significant aspects of such reports can be readily produced in administrative offices whenever their use is of Interest. As a final comment, we wish to thank the Board, its administrative staff, and the host of its employees for the absolute cooperation, patient assistance, and supportive actions of all personnel, which have assisted in the production of this report. We trust that It will contain much useful Information for the Improvement of educational opportunities for the youth of Little Rock. if i i Respectfully submitted. II Stanton Leggett Frederick HUI Stanton Leggett and Associates H V B B :m -5- m n An Extended Overview: Further Comments n II II Priorities and Costs in the Preceding Listings. We have indicated those projects that the consultants believe will be most slgnJlcant to Improving the service life and educational utility of the present school buildings. We have Intentionally leveled the total cost of these priority needs to a sum less than the proposed $20 million \"celling\" envisioned by an eight mil increase. There Is no accurate way to determine the time frame that will pass, nor to determine the economic climate that will prevail, before specific projects are undertaken, nor can we guess what unexpected breakdown or emergencies may occur in the intermittent time period. We have consulted with top staff in establishing the estimated cost and priority of the Included items, but the final responsibility of this listing rests with us alone. n It is our Intent that the difference between our listing and the amounts made available by an increased millage shall serve as a cushion to absorb any changes In cost, to cover emergency items, and to provide some leeway to permit the Inclusion of some additional items that may be strategically or politically desirable. M H Administrative Facilities. We have not Included any projects for the betterment of administrative facilities. Without question, much money could be spent to provide more adequate housing for those administrative and instructional services now housed at Lee and the administrative annex. M II M Maintenance and Operations needs additional and more effective space and equipment. The main administration building and Board service areas could be Improved. The food service function and equipment storage are poorly housed. There is need for housing an extended personnel function. The purchasing department requests more space and double decking some of Its present space, etc. We have evaluated all such needs to presently be of lower priority than the needs of the Individual school buildings. Moreover, If and when the new school facilities are constructed, administrative use of old facilities then released may be carefully considered. Ultimately, also, such administrative needs may be again reconsidered each time a subsequent bond or current improvement program is established. Failure to Include any such Item In our present listing may be viewed unhappily by those with genuine needs\nnevertheless, it is the consultants' recommendation that they not be Included at this time. II M The Specter of Asbestos. The Board of Education and its staff have sought and received careful engineering evaluation of all locations of asbestos within the Little Rock schools. They have complied with all Inspection and rectification and removal procedures related thereto. In those few remaining locations where It exists, it Is safety encapsulated and in non-frlable condition. Nevertheless, the environmental agency regulators continue to grind out increasingly tough and almost bizarre regulations. M n II In some Instances, observing all their rules can cause a $300 celling or floor tile repair to cost thousands of dollars. Then sometimes what starts out as replacement of a leaky pipe, obsolete lighting fixture, or broken floor tile can become a nightmare of unbudgeted (and many believe unwarranted) expenditures of scarce public funds for asbestos removal. It is not unrealistic to estimate that perhaps as much as $3 or $3.5 million could be required as an auxiliary hidden cost of some of the electrical-mechanical corrections and improvements that may become necessary In the future. Air Conditioning Program. The Board of Education has wisely provided for the air conditioning of all classrooms that do not have It now. However, there are many cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums, offices, and work rooms and conference areas that could also be so-6- equipped. This will undoubtedly be requested for future consideration, and additional funding would then be required. Portable Replacement. In June of this year, the Little Rock School District used 64 portable buildings, of which seventeen were judged to be \"below standard,\" or In poor condition. Their many problems, such as leaky roofs, deteriorated floors and stmctural elements, damaged siding, vandalized utilities, unsightly appearance, etc., make it neither economically feasible nor desirable to repair them. It makes good sense to use portables to house temporary peaks in a growing school population. When capital funds for new constmctlon are hard to come by, portables provide a way out. i However, in areas of declining population or in those cases where a school's enrollment is determined not by residence but by assignment, the need for portables can be anticipated and controlled. In the case of Little Rock, where all such factors are prevalent, it is likely that portables will be needed in the foreseeable future. We believe a ten-year program of replacing about six portables per year, if all portables are to be eventually replaced, or a three-year program Involving the 17 worst present ones, is called for. Replacement of these would be desirable. Staff has estimated that local costs for either program would be approximately $100,000 per year. p p Window Replacement. There are many inefficient and obsolete windows in various Little Rock school buildings. Windows can be a source of both light and delight to the occupants of school classrooms. We believe most teachers and most pupils prefer the airy and spacious feeling of larger, old-fashioned windows in hlgh-celllnged rooms, rather than the claustrophobic atmosphere that prevails in some modem school rooms with low ceilings, non-opening windows, and single-slit windows with constant need for operational, artificial means of Illumination and ventilation. There Is a clearly existing modem reconsideration of the many functions of windows, as well as genuine concern that the closed recirculation of air In some modem ventilation and air conditioned systems Is contributing greatly to a higher Incidence of respiratory Illnesses and Infections. p p p Nevertheless, despite the controversies that may be Involved, it Is a fact of life that spiraling energy costs have spawned the need for forced replacement of many leaky and rotten old windows and window casings in many buildings, and we believe that many of such replacements, at a cost of approximately $350 per window opening, may be anticipated. p p Needed New High Schools. As population changes now are Indicated, the major growth of school population could possibly occur in the areas east of the airport complex where the Badgett and new Carver schools are serving. There is more opportunity for entry-level rental and purchase of homes In this area than In other sectors of the city. At some future date, these residents could demand secondary school facilities. p p In the area west of 430 and north of 300. there is indicated growth of expensive apartments, condominiums, and more expensive single-family dwellings. Should economic conditions change enough to decrease such construction, less expensive housing units with families likely to have older children of high school age might be erected and at some point local high school facilities could be demanded. p Likewise. In the area west of Chicot and south of Baseline, the availability of land for middle- Income. single-family dwellings, which would likely be purchased by older family groups having few elementary but some secondary age children, could require new high school facilities In this area. Moreover, the gradual deterioration of older existing high schools could make the replacement with new buildings economically desirable. At such time the new buildings could be relocated and could be the result of abandoning and/or consolidating older high schools. Rd -7- d d d d other Nee\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_1303","title":"Parent Committee: Little Rock School District","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":["1988/1989"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Parent Committee: Little Rock School District"],"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/1303"],"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":["200 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_holsaertfaith_r4930p19z","title":"Points of Inquiry, Pressure, and Support, 1988","collection_id":"ndd_holsaertfaith","collection_title":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Holsaert, Faith"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["fhpst02046","https://repository.duke.edu/iipsrv/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/srv/perkins/repo_deriv/multires_image/a/7/bd/a7bd3d8c-902a-462d-a552-bf6663b4429f/fhpst02046001.ptif/full/!350,350/0/default.jpg"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Faith Holsaert papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Feminism","Civil rights","Social justice","Women political activists","Women's rights","Voter registration--Mississippi"],"dcterms_title":["Points of Inquiry, Pressure, and Support, 1988"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Duke University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4930p19z"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Duke has not determined the copyright status of this item. Regardless of its status, we have made a good faith determination that online access through the Duke Digital Repository is an acceptable fair use and otherwise permitted under U.S. copyright law. For more information, see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_765","title":"Test data, standardized results","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":["1988/1995"],"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--Standards","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Test data, standardized results"],"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/765"],"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":["54 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\nSCHOOL: Cloverdale Junior High Iges 1989 READING 2.90. 1991 1992 1990 MATHEMATICS 1969 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 I Number Tested Number Passed 202 183 201 181 212 182 222 186 218 186 202 168 201 177 212 181 Percent Passed 91 90 86 84 85 83 88 85 BLACK MALES Number Passed ,44 44 54 51 58 43 43 51 Percent Passed 81 81 81 77 83 80 80 76 Number Passed 56 61 59 70 78 48 60 61 Percent Passed Number Passed rcent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 89 87 81 8C 81 76 86 84 32 35 31 15 21 30 34 31 97 49 98 2 IOC 97 36 100 5 100 94 35 100 3 75 95 40 93 6 100 100 26 93 3 100 91 45 90 2 100 94 94 35 35 97 5 100 100 3 75 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICr ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUm4ARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 222 180 218 188 1988 202 166 languz^ge arts 1989 1990 1991 1992 SCIENCE .1920 91 1992 1986 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 4990 19 91 .112. ** PASSING 8CORE=4204 88 90 199011991 1992, 81 52 79 69 79 19 95 34 79 6 100 Total for all students in the Other' race category, were not reported by gender. 86 58 83 82 85 20 95 25 89 3 100 82 40 74 50 79 29 88 45 90 2 100 201 164 212 156 222 218 172 192 202 121 201 135 212 150 222 135 218 139 202 127 201 124 212 135 222 118 218 156 206 178 207 181 213 191 219 193 219 198 82 36 67 57 81 32 89 35 97 4 80 These scores 74 38 57 57 78 26 79 33 94 2 50 77 44 67 69 79 16 80 39 91 4 67 88 56 80 84 88 21 100 28 100 3 100 60 27 50 31 49 25 76 37 74 1 .50 67 71 61 64 63 62 64 53 72 86 87 90 88 90 33 43 38 49 31 24 36 31 50 61 38 54 32 89 27 75 5 100 64 58 70 57 44 54 47 71 46 63 29 88 30 86 2 50 42 48 18 90 34 79 3 50 46 48 20: 95 22 79 2 67 32 37 43 42 62 51 53 59 48 65 26 33 28 16 19 79 92 85 80 90 36 72 2 100 25 69 5 100 26 74 2 50 25 58 4 67 23 82 2 67 The PASSING SCORE information for 1980-1992 is based on three administrations of the HPT. ' A '1SCHOOL: Dunbar Junior High 1986 1969 READING 1-9 9 0 1991 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 202 167 219 174 169 124 152 126 242 216 202 169 219 175 169 116 152 114 Percent Passed Number Passed BLACK rgMALE? Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed as 71 S3 89 84 80 69 75 51 laa 59 80 28 88 26 93 3 75 63 72 75 80 13 100 22 100 1 50 40 63 57 76 12 92 15 94 0 41 79 42 82 21 84 22 92 0 49 75 65 90 55 98 42 95 5 100 52 81 63 85 26 81 25 89 3 75 66 75 76 81 13 100 20 91 0 42 33 66 63 50 38 67 10 77 13 81 1 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 J 992. 242 215 89 54 83 59 1988 202 142 70 36 56 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 1991 1992 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 1980 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1992  PASSING BCORE=4204 75 82 19 76 24 100 0 * Total for all students in the Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. 55 98 42 95 5 100 60 81 22 69 23 82 1 25 219 148 169 120 152 117 242 210 202 106 219 105 169 94 152 76 242 160 202 116 219 128 169 101 152 85 242 168 1 1988 195 170 lie? 1990 Alli 1992 68 49 56 65 69 13 100 20 91 1 50 These scores 71 77 87 52 48 56 50 66 57 58 60 56 69 87 37 58 58 77 10 77 14 88 1 100 34 65 41 80 18 72 24 100 0 51 78 64 89 49 88 42 95 4 80 27 42 33 45 23 72 22 79 1 25 41 47 35 37 11 85 17 77 1 50 36 56 34 45 11 85 12 75 1 100 18 35 23 45 21 84 14 58 0 32 49 35 49 50 89 39 89 4 80 34 53 39 53 23 72 19 68 1 25 45 31 28 38 51 54 57 12 92 16 73 1 50 48 42 56 11 85 16 100 1 100 54 26 51 18 72 13 54 0 58 38 53 48 86 40 91 4 80 222 175 170 126 152 136 242 222 79 74 89 92 The PASSING SCORE information for 1988-1992 is based on tlirea administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Forest Heights Junior High 1968 1989 READING 1990 1112, 1966 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 AUX REVISED AUGUST 1992 ftlL STVPEHT? Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 259 244 94 222 204 92 258 239 93 218 188 86 225 169 75 259 242 93 222 206 93 258 237 92 218 193 _5a BLACK MALES Number Passed 61 59 68 55 49 58 60 67 54 Percent passed 86 82 53. M 56. 55. 51 BIAgK FEHAI.S? Number Passed 81 58 78 65 57 82 58 79 71 Percent Passed 55 55 51 25 76 96 55 55 52 WHITE MALES, Number Passed 42 49 43 35 27 42 49 43 35 Percent Passed 55 100 100 52 90 58. 105 105 52 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 57 31 42 29 28 56 38 40 29 Percent Passed 98 97 100 100 100 97 100 95 100 OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed 3 1 8 4 8 4 1 8 4 Percent passed 75 50 100 100 89 100 50 100 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 225 179 80 58 in 61 81 26 52 26 93 8 89 1986 259 234 90 55 50. 75 55 42 58 58 100 4 100 lANGUAGB ARTS 1969 222 192 86 49 _2Q 57 __2Q 46 51 38 100 2 100 These scores 1990 258 229 89 218 177 _1L. 1992 225 152 68 1988 259 207 _S0 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 .1952 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1969 1990 1991 1992 Igas PASSING 8COnE=4204 Am. 90 im .19 9 2 60 45 44 51 If, 79 55 41 55 41 98 8 100 66 50 33 55 29 100 4 100 5 8 50 52 22 21 28 100 8 89 60 21 42 58 52 90 2 50 222 184 -51 258 213 _5i 218 154 -Zl 225 140 62 259 204 _2S 222 191 -55 258 208 218 172 225 134 -60 262 254 _95 226 214 _as. 261 244 93 219 197 _9Q_ 218 181 83 53 If, 46 .25 49 100 35 92 1 50 55 in 68 25 42 58 40 95 8 100 42 88 47 52 34 51 27 93 4 100 4 1 55 40 51 25 83 27 96 7 78 47 55 55 50 40 5 25 25 15 58 5 42 58 55 95 2 50 48 66 56 38 2__Z2 58. 51 49 40 34 100 55 54 26 87 37 97 2 100 39 28 23 93 8 100 97 4 100 55 7 78 u The PASSING SCORE infoniiation for 1980-1992 is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH 19 89 READING 1990 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989\n??o 199 1 REVISED AUGUST 1992 Number Tested Number Passed 297 282 285 265 290 261 288 242 Percent Passed Number Passed Ptrcent Paaaea BIJVCK FEMALES Humber Passed Percent Passed WUTE MALE? Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Humber Passed percent Passed Humber Passed tatssBt 95 83 94 79 92 54 98 63 98 3 75 93 68 94 98 90 43 91 42 100 14 93 90 66 80 103 91 47 96 34 100 11 100 84 70 74 101 85 27 96 30 17 14 88 212 174 82 74 79 61 77 12 100 21 100 6 100 297 266 285 266 290 270 288 254 90 75 85 75 87 52 95 61 11 3 75 93 68 94 96 88 46 12 42 111 14 93 93 73 88 104 12 49 111 34 111 10 91 88 79 84 103 87 27 11 31 100 14 88 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 212 183 86 76 81 69 87 11 92 21 111 6 100 1988 297 267 90 71 81 79 92 51 93 62 12 4 100 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 285 259 91 64 89 98 90 45 11 42 111 10 67 These scores 1990 290 240 83 59 71 95 84 42 11 33 12 11 100 288 231 80 63 67 98 82 26 12 31 111 13 81 92 212 160 75 57 61 66 84 11 92 21 100 5 83 1980 297 218 73 58 66 50 58 51 93 57 11 2 50 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 19 9 2 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1991 1992 ** PASSING 6CORE=4204 8 1989 1990 9 . JUi. 285 210 290 205 288 166 74 45 63 73 67 42 89 38 11 12 80 71 52 63 64 57 45 12 33 12 11 100 58 53 56 51 43 24 11 26 14. 12 75 The PASSING SCOPE 212 120 57 54 5.7_ 32 4 1 11 18 _ai 5 83 297 225 285 240 290 245 288 162 76 63 72 55 64 48 12 57 11 2 50 84 62 86 83 76 43 11 40 11 12 80 84 68 82 8 7 77 46 11 34 111 10 91 56 50 53 59 50 19 11. 24 22 10 63 212 141 67 56 60 48 11 92 20 11 6 100 306 290 288 280 303 282 295 263 211 179 95 97 93 89 85 information for 1908-1992 administrations of the MPT. 1 is based on throeSCHOOL: MABRLVALE JUNIOR HIGH 1988 1969 READING 1990 1991 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WIITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed 203 196 174 158 162 153 191 163 97 40 87 54 98 57 100 44 100 1 100 91 38 79 39 87 39 100 41 100 1 100 94 48 91 38 90 39 100 24 100 4 100 85 42 lA 49 82 30 94 36 100 6 100 175 146 83 37 70 51 84 23 92 33 97 2 100 203 177 174 160 162 154 191 163 87 35 76 45 82 54 95 42 95 1 100 92 41 85 40 89 38 97 40 98 1 100 95 50 39 93 37 95 24 100 4 100 85 44 21 47 78 30 94 36 100 6 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 175 154 88 41 77 55 90 24 96 33 97 1 50 LANGUAGE ARTS 1988 203 179 88 35 76 46 84 53 93 44 100 1 100 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 1988 SOCIAL STUDIES -1909 991 1992 r * PASSING BCORE=\u0026lt;204 AWL 199? 1990 1111 1-992 174 150 86 34 7 1 36 80 39 100 40 98 1 100 These scores 162 135 83 39 74 36 86 34 87 23 96 3 75 191 160 84 41 21 48 80 30 94 36 100 5 83 175 128 73 32 60 42 69 22 88 31 21 1 50 203 149 73 27 30 55 51 89 40 91 1 122 174 111 162 119 191 111 64 26 51 18 40 37 95 29 71 1 122 73 35 56. 23 55 36 92 21 88 4 122 58 26 16. 21 35 26 81 34 94 4 The PASSING SCOPE 175 86 49 19 36 25 41 17 68 24 71, 1 50 203 146 72 28 61 30 55 51 2. 36 82 1 122 174 128 74 31 65 23 51 38 27 35 85 1 122 162 126 78 37 70 31 74 33 85 22 92 3 75 191 125 65 31 54 31 52 27 84 32 82 4 67 175 85 49 18 34 25 41 15 60 26 76 1 50ji 207 195 171 160 166 159 193 178 94 91 96 92 175 153 87 information for 1900-1992 administrations of the MPT. is based on threeSCHOOL: MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH l?88 1969 READING 1990 199 986 MATHEMATICS 98 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 232 227 98 269 258 96 278 271 97 282 268 95 272 248 91 232 219 94 269 257 96 278 255 92 282 246 87 BLACK HALES Number Passed Fercent Pnased BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES  Number Passed Percent Passe i Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed Total for a. 6'9 99 62 95 39 98 49 100 8 100 65 89 80 98 48 98 57 100 8 100 64 98 85 96 59 98 60 100 3 75 61 91 81 94 57 95 63 100 6 100 were not reported by gender. 58 83 94 90 37 100 52 100 7 100 64 91 61 94 40 100 46 94 8 100 66 90 79 96 48 98 56 98 8 100 59 55 91 75 84 58 97 59 98 4 100 82 69 80 56 93 61 97 5 83 students in the \"other\" race category. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1906 1969 lAHGUAGE ARTS 1990 1991 1908 1989 SCIENCE 1990 199 1 19 92. 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1992 - ** PASSING 6CORE=:4204 69 90 1991 1922 . 272 247 91 61 87 92 88 36 97 52 100 6 86 232 211 91 60 86 58 89 37 93 48 98 8 100 269 248 92 59 81 76 93 48 98 57 100 8 100 These scores 278 267 96. 58 89 85 96 60 100 60 100 4 100 282 261 93 55 82 81 94 56 93 63 100 6 100 272 252 93 58 83 101 96 36 97 51 98 6 86 232 196 84 58 83 50 77 37 93 43 88 8 100 269 210 78 48 66 55 67 48 98 53 93 6 75 278 235 85 53 82 64 72 59 98 56 93 3 75 282 201 71 272 202 74 232 184 79 269 217 81 278 237 85 282 225 80 272 216 79 233 224 96 270 263 97 282 272 96 284 276 97 27 3 257 94 41 61 43 50 53 88 60 95 4 67 49 70 65 62 35 95 46 88 7 100 50 71 48 74 37 93 41 84 8 100 50 55 49 51 68 62 76 48 98 51 89 6 75 85 66 74 58 97 55 92 3 75 73 60 70 52 87 53 92 6 100 73 75 71 35 95 49 94 6 86 1 i The PASSING SCORE information for 1988-1992 administrations of the MPT. is based on tlireeSCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH 986 1989 READING 90 1988 MATHEMATICS 989 1990 9 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Eaased BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent passed 194 177 91 49 36 44 83 45 100 37 100 2 100 220 198 90 45 80 53 87 48 100 48 96 4 80 217 189 87 223 198 89 223 195 87 194 169 87 220 191 87 217 189 87 223 193 87 49 79 65 83 34 97 35 97 6 100 38 73 56 85 44 98 57 100 3 100 57 86 51 74 33 97 54 100 0 46 81 43 81 45 100 35 92 1 50 41 73 53 87 46 96, 47 94 4 80 49 36 79 65 83 35 100 35 97 5 83 69 53 80 44 5a 57 100 3 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 223 196 88 52 79 58 84 32 94 54 100 0 1986 194 163 84 42 74 42 79 43 96 34 92 2 100 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 199 1 1992 im 1969 SCIENCE 19 9 0 1991 1992 1988 SOCIAL STUDIES im 19JA 1991 1992 * PASSING 6CORE=\u0026lt;20X 19 68 I 19_.e 990 1991 1992 220 196 89 43 77 53 87 47 98 49 98 4 80 These scores 217 190 88 48 77 69 88 32 91 36 100 5 83 223 187 84 223 174 78 194 116 60 220 144 65 217 167 77 223 158 223 163 34 65 51 77 43 96 56 98 3 100 44 67 46 67 30 88 54 100 0 26 46 20 38 42 93 28 76 0 J 30 41 71 73 194 101 52 220 163 74 217 183 84 223 148 66 223 162 73 196 175 89 223 202 91 219 204 93 223 207 93 228 202 89 29 47 20 35 48 23 4 1 54 21 34 45 54. 44 88 4 80 66 54 69 33 54 35 97 4 67 56 71 35 63 77 44 62 28 42 44 5S 54 95 31 4 5 32 94 53 _98 3 0 15 28 41 51 25 68 0 35 57 46 .36. 43 86 4 61 78 34 .97 35 97 5 32 48 40 55 50 88 3 38 55 32 94 51 94 0 100 The PASSING SCORE administrations of 80 85 100 i information for 1988-1992 the MPT. is based on threeSCHOOL\nSOUn-KJEST JUNIOR HIGH READING 98 8 9 92 8 198 MATHEMATICS 90 19 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 222 203 209 185 170 143 209 186 205 163 222 199 209 176 170 134 209 161 Percent Passed 91 89 84 89 80 54 21 22 BUCK HALES Number Passed Percent Passed BUCK FEHALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS 68 86 65 90 22 96 47 100 Number Passed 1 Percent Passed 100 63 81 70 91 28 93 22 100 2 100 60 85 52 81 16 94 13 93 2 50 67 86 73 90 18 95 22 100 6 67 51 72 59 77 28 90 20 95 5 100 66 84 65 90 22 96 45 55 1 100 62 79 65 27 90 20 51 2 100 51 72 50 78 15 88 14 100 4 ,100 57 73 61 75. 16 84 20 51 1 78  Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 205 153 75 49 69 56 73 27 87 16 76 5 l^NGUAGE ARTS 1988 222 198 89 66 84 63 5S. 22 96 46 aa. 1 100 1100 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1112. , * PASSING GCORE=42O\u0026lt; 88 1992 209 180 86 60 77 69 90 29 97 21 55. 1 50 These scores 170 141 51 55 77 53 55 16 14 IQQ. 3 75 209 160 22 55 71 60 TA 18 E5. 21 55 6 67 205 160 222 159 209 108 170 115 209 118 205 95 222 172 209 146 170 89 209 98 205 107 235 220 78 50 70 64 83 26 84 15 71 5 100 72 48 61 44 1 21 51 45 95 1 100 52 33 42 30 32 26 Ei 18 Ei 1 50 43 61 39 it 17 IQQ. 14 inn 2 50 56, 43 52 37 17 16 iE 5 56 46 33 46 27 35 24 n 7 33 4 80 IL. 70 52 47 52 q.'i 55 TH 53 74 21 ai 42 EA 1 100 49 50 E5. 26 Ei 19 2 IQO 32 A5 29 45 14 Ei 12 E6- 2 50 30 5S 36 16 84 12 E5- 44 33 46 39 51 21 68 10 48 4 soil 212 184 171 152 sq 206 191 53 199 16 2 81 The PASSING SCORE information for '19U8-1992 is based on three administrations of the MPT.COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 LITTLE ROCK 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 A B W 0 A B W 0 A B W O A B W 0 Reading 86 82 96 78 87 83 95 95 87 82 95 96 88 82 98 96 Mathematics 89 85 96 83 87 82 95 90 87 83 94 91 81 87 97 96 Reading 88 84 96 96 90 87 97 95 94 92 97 100 92 89 98 94 Mathematics 89 86 95 96 90 88 96 95 90 88 95 97 89 86 95 91 Language Arts 75 68 89 88 77 70 92 86 78 72 89 90 77 70 90 85 Science 66 56 86 85 72 62 92 82 73 64 90 87 75 67 90 88 Social Studies 70 60 89 88 77 69 94 95 74 66 89 90 74 66 89 85 Reading 94 91 99 93 93 90 99 93 92 90 98 92 92 89 98 97 Mathematics 92 90 96 93 90 86 97 93 91 88 96 90 90 87 96 94 Language Arts 89 84 97 83 86 82 94 88 89 85 95 88 86 82 94 89 Science 70 59 89 78 75 65 94 86 67 55 90 72 68 58 88 86 Social Studies 78 71 90 88 78 72 92 81 73 68 84 74 69 61 84 86 A All students % B Black students % W White students % 0 Other students % A-1COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 LITTLE ROCK YEAR 1989 A B 0 A 1990 B W 0 A 1991 B W 0 A 1992 B W 0 3 Reading 3 Mathematics 6 Reading 6 Mathematics 6 Language Arts 6 Science 6 Social Studies 8 Reading B Mathematics 8 Language Arts 8 Science 8 Social Studies A - All students I W White students % 86 89 88 89 75 66 70 8' 96 92 -I 94 5195 3O8B \n?|85 3 88 92 91 89 67 73 B 0 89 91 90 98 8 8: 5 6 Black students I Other students t 96 9' 4 82 762 * 74 Looking at the reading test results in the 3rd grade in 1989, we note that black students have a passage rate of 82% while white students have a 96% passing rate, a difference of 14 percentage points. Following this group to the 6th grade (the grade they should be in 1992) we see that the rate of passage for black students has improved to 89% while the white student rate of passage improved to 98%, a difference of only 9% points. Thus the disparity between the rates has diminished by 5% points, but this data shows science as an area of concern in this district. We do understand that the students in the 1989 group are not exactly the same students in the 1992, but we feel that looking at these two groups is more accurate than looking at 1989 and 1990 or 1989 and 1991 of the same grade level. A-2COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK 82% 3rd 6th 85% 3rd ?  95% 6th Reading 1989/1992 Math 1989/1992 BLACK STUDENTS 1989 BLACK STUDENTS 1992 WHITE STUDENTS 1989 WHITE STUDENTS 1992 A-3 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 LITTLE ROCK RACE BY SEX YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM Reading 86 87 96 95 88 79 98 93 85 79 97 94 89 75 98 97 Mathematics 88 83 96 97 84 80 98 93 84 82 96 92 90 84 97 97 Reading 89 79 98 94 90 84 98 96 95 88 98 97 91 86 99 98 Mathematics 89 82 96 94 89 86 97 95 92 84 96 94 89 83 96 94 Language Arts 74 61 92 85 74 66 96 88 78 64 93 86 76 64 94 86 Science 53 59 85 87 58 66 91 92 63 66 88 92 66 68 91 90 Social Studies 62 58 89 89 69 69 95 93 69 62 89 90 66 66 89 89 Reading 93 89 99 98 91 89 99 98 91 88 99 98 91 86 98 98 Mathematics 91 88 96 97 88 84 98 97 90 86 97 96 90 85 97 94 Language Arts 90 77 99 96 89 75 98 91 91 79 99 91 89 75 97 90 Science 56 61 85 93 64 67 93 95 50 61 88 92 54 64 86 90 BF WF Social Studies 71 72 86 95 74 71 92 91 68 68 81 86 62 61 85 84 Black female students % White female students % BM WM Black male students % White male students % A-4 8COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST YEAR 1989 LITTLE ROCK 1989-92 RACE BY SEX ..1990 1991 1992 BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM 3 Reading 96 87 96 95 BF WF Mathematics Reading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies Reading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies 88 83 96 - 97 89 89 74 53 62 79 98 94 '5 91 86 * i\\ 82 61 59 58 Black female students t White female students t 96 92 85 89 94 85 87 89 BM WM 7\n91 90 91 50 68 Black male students t White male students X 89 83 96 94 88 99 98 71 86 97 96 79 61 68 99 68 61 91 92 66 Female Disparity / \\ - Male Disparity 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 1 Looking at the reading test results in the 3rd grade in 1989, we note that black males have a passage rate of 87% where white males have a 95% passing rate, a difference of 8 percentage points. We also noted the passage rate to be 86% of black females and 96% of white females 96%, a difference of 10 percentage points. Following this group to the 6th grade (the grade they should be in 1992) we see that the rate of passage for black males has decreased to 86% and white males increased to 98%, a difference of 12 percentage points and black females rate of passage increased to 91% while white females increased to 99%, a difference of 8 percentage points. Thus the disparity between race by sex is diminishing, but this data also shows science as an area of concern in this district. We do understand that the students in 1989 group are not exactly the same students in 1992, but we feel that looking at these two groups is more accurate than looking at 1989 and 1990 or 1989 and 1991 of the same grade level. A-5COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 10 86% 3rd 99% 6th It FEMALE 87% 3rd Reading 1 989/1 992 MALE 98% 6th BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1992 WHITE 1992 A-6 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 88% 3rd^ 7 96% 6th / , 83% 3rd 94% 6th FEMALE Math 1989/1992 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1992 WHITE 1992 A-7 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX z 8^ 6th 99% 8th 79% 6th 10 98% 8tha FEMALE Reading 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 j WHITE 1991 A-8 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK / RACE BY SEX 7 7 89% 6th 97% 8th IK 82% 6th 71 / 96% 8th FEMALE Math 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 IfiJ WHITE 1991 A-9 5 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 3 71 z 'o- 99% 8th 91% 74% 6th tj 8th 61% 6th n B FEMALE Lang. Arts 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 WHITE 1991 A-IOCOMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX z 3^ z 5^ 88% 8th 92% 8th z 53% 6th 59% 6th FEMALE Science 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 Ui WHITE 1991 A-llCOMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 7\\ Z 71 Z /3 81% Sth /2 86% 8th ^2% 6th 58% 6th FEMALE Social 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 WHITE 1991 A-12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMTkRY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 2 TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = STUDENTS FAILING 4204 SCHOOL/NO, TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 7 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 6 27 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 21 10 2 10 2 10 20 8 17 32 15 3 14 2 50 I 40 11 5 5 14 1 25 2 40 12 5 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 ___5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 2 SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING BLACK WHITE 4204 OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 1 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 6 27 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 21 10 2 10 2 10 20 8 37 32 15 3 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 5 14 1 25 3 40 12 5 22 13 16 6 26 11 31 19 4 44 ___5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.4 T-n n -f J Hl-fo A.,. .3,. Ck.c,f-_ Aft^u:^ C,. Apmktt^ At 5 - 7^ \"-1^ - H . ?!- ki 76-Pk X '^-iO iO'kt ?!. __ /r-^3 '^'7-f'l^ y/~ in rp-sr _____ vZrijL._ ___^jJ2Z 'I'i-Vf Hy-6j- 7i f 'J . ^r'/X i 7-Co 7'S^it ^k- -?! 'J H- fj-r? 6.0- 5\u0026lt; r6- (.(. t,S~77 71 Ci\u0026gt;J\u0026gt;\u0026lt;^^ /11. i^. '2k. it- ~73 ^y- 7? J - o /7- 0 tJ ,. kp.'kA_. l/Aa 2 ^1, 5^ - H'i-'ii v/y/tXzMXl 7 MoLiijaJix I)!'., k'i MxA^oM- z*-L ^\u0026lt;4!? 7^-71 \\CJ. VS-J 5 Ai\"- _fe!v_Ci4iX.^ -2\u0026gt;-tJLi. i^hi- .jL|\u0026gt;. 7g-yy vr-7y 33-0 a. T - \u0026lt;9 IVJ '7. __'^. W3- 71\" _ ^^klAVj 3 7 3T-0 -ff- o iz 2i ir- \u0026lt;^5-- A-/3 L. }?.. hl- - o lx_ 3i - Hl Z\u0026lt;j|- z? VV- 7! Ll-. Ht- a Hi-7c3 ir- fj 7i-'4\u0026lt;i S't'JJ' ^7'7i- S'l-ti .73-4J- r3.:L0 fl~kr il-HI '-/i. -vj y'f- 71- H\u0026lt;)\u0026lt;3 Hi-ir 3V-1Z St-- O S^f fz- HI 3\u0026lt;l- \u0026lt;3 7^-3^ Ikl)^ 'A. _ 'i' -J ___Ji 2^~ki Ijito.uI'^ rr\u0026gt;'\u0026lt;t-i. ^:i-7-i. ir-ct yy-rz Aj2 y/k-iz^ /I IL - 6 'I. 06/26/92 15:37 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/003 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324 - 2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE SUBJECT f^umber' of Pagtt (include cover pc^e) Fax Phon Speed Dial FOR DATA. PROCESSING OFFICE USE ONLY Transmiaei By Date Time R 03/91 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was adm-inisrAred in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through eleven. Since this is the first year for administering the Stanford, concrete match between the Stanford-8 and the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) is difficult. \" several areas that were not tested by the MAT-6, purposes this is a new beginning. 7 ' ' ~ districtwide data follows. The Stanford includes For practical A very brief summary of I. When all student scores are reported as district totals, students scored at/above the 50th percentile in the following areas\nReading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies Basic Battery Complete Battery - Grade 6 - Grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 - Grades 3, 6, and 9 - Grades 6 and 9 - Grades 6 and 11 - Grades 6 and 11 - Grades 6 and 11 II. White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subjects and at all grade levels reporting. Highest, 77th percentile Lowest, 57th percentile - Grade 2 mathematics - Grade 9 mathematics. a III. Other students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subjects and grades except grade one science which was at the 49th percentile. Highest, 87th percentile - Grade 2 mathematics - Grade 8 mathematics IV. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all subjects and at all grade levels reporting. Highest, 48th percentile Lowest, 26th percentile - Grade 6 mathematics - Grade 6 social science. - Grade 5 reading. More detailed information relative to individual school results and longitudinal data will be provided later. bjgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAMHIHG, RESEARCH AHU EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/MCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 s t'O oa co ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SC IKMCE BASIC BATTERY .COMPLETE BATTERY VI 1 TOTAL D W 0 2094 1330 697 24 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 40/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42,9 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.0 67/59.1 VI 2 TOTAL B W O 1803 1173 672 28 39/44.1 29/38.1 62/56,2 63/56,9 57/53.0 46/47.7 77/65.6 07/73.6 49/49,7 39/43.9 70/60,9 64/57,4 43/46.3 32/40.0 65/50.0 67/59,3 k-fi 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.0 70/61.2 74/63.5 t-O 3 TOTAL B W O 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.0 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46,1 30/38.8 67/59,1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 67/59.2 61/55.9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/40.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/59.7 to *4 TOTAL 1067 44/47.0 50/53,9 46/47.6 46/47,6 48/49.0 40/49.0 47/48.2 5 TOTAL I) H 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43.3 26/35.6 63/55.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 40/48.7 30/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43,1 65/58,2 70/60.8 44/46,8 34/41,1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62,4 6 TOTAL 8 W O 1043 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/40.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50,3 41/45.4 60/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63.5 75/64.0 59/54.5 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62,0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64,0 73/62,6 t- W o Cr o o e 0) *7 TOTAL 1694 42/45.5 45/47.4 43/46.1 42/45.6 47/40.6 46/47.9 46/47.7 8 TOTAL D W O 1573 1060 493 19 41/45.2 29/30.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/44.0 30/38,8 59/54.7 87/73.6 40/49.1 30/43.6 69/60.7 81/60.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 03/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/50.6 84/71.2 43/46.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72i6 1 1 O a K 9 TOTAL 8 H O 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 68/59.6 54/51,9 42/45,9 73/63,0 69/60,6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62.6 71/61.4 47/48,2 34/41,1 70/61,0 71/61,7 48/48.0 . 34/41.1 73/62.6 73/62.9 *10 TOTAL 1602 49/49.2 37/43.2 40/48,6 45/47.3 43/46.2 47/40.4 47/40.5 11 TOTAL B W 0 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60,7 66/58,4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 40/49.1 35/41.9 66/58,5 61/55.1 47/40.6 32/40.2 68/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61.0 o * Data by raoa Cor grades 4, T, and 10 is unavailable at this time. Thia Intormatlon will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objdotlves are combined and reflected as one score under EHVinONKSHT. 1 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Mabelvale Junior High READING MATHEMATICS 9 0 9 99 ,989 LANGUAGE ARTS 90 991 1992 199 1990 SCIENCE 19 992 I 1993 SOCIAL STUDIES 1969 I 1990 I 1991 ** PASSING SCORE=42O4 . 1989 11990l19911199 99 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Parcent Passed 174 158 91 162 153 94 191 163 85 175 146 83 179 157 88 174 160 92 162 154 95 191 163 85 175 154 88 179 157 88 174 150 86 162 135 83 191 160 84 175 128 73 179 132 74 174 111 64 162 119 73 191 111 58 175 86 49 179 105 59 174 128 74 162 126 78 191 125 65 175 85 49 179 116 65 171 160 91 166 159 96 193 178 92 175 153 87 179 151. 84 BLACK HALES Number Passed 38 48 42 37 49 41 50 44 41 52 34 39 41 32 38 26 35 26 19 33 31 37 31 18 33 Percent Pjsed 79 91 74 70 80 85 94 77 77 85 71 74 72 60 62 54 66 46 36 54 65 70 54 34 54 4 BMCK FEMALES Number Passed 39 38 49 51 48 40 39 47 55 46 36 36 48 42 39 18 23 21 25 22 23 31 31 25 29 Percent Passed 87 90 82 84 87 89 93 78 90 84 80 86 80 69 71 40 55 35 41 40 51 74 52 41 53 WHITE MALES Number Passed 39 39 30 23 25 38 37 30 24 25 39 34 30 22 22 37 36 26 17 20 38 33 27 15 25 Percent Passed 100 100 94 92 93 97 95 -94 96 93 100 87 94 88 81 95 92 81 68 74 97 85 84 60 93 Number Passed 41 24 36 33 34 40 24 36 33 33 40 23 36 31 32 29 21 34 24 29 35 22 32 26 28 Percent Passed 100 100 100 97 100 98 100 100 97 97 98 96 IQQ. 11 54. 71 85 55. 57 82 76 52. Number Passed Percent Passed 100 100 100 too 50 100 100 100 50 50 100 3 75 83 50 50 100 100 67 50 50 1 100 75 4 67 50 50 51 3k 58. 1 4 6 2 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 1 I I * Total for all students in the \"other race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Mann Magnet Junior High READING 8 MATHEMATICS 90 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Paased_ 269 258 96 278 271 97 282 268 95 272 248 91 256 234 91 269 257 96 278 255 92 282 246 87 BLACK MALES Number Passed 65 64 61 58 52 66 59 55 Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed 89 80 98 48 9a 57 100 8 100 98 85 96 59 aa 60 100 3 75 91 81 94 57 95 63 100 6 100 83 94 90 37 100. 52 100 7 100 87 68 87 49 aa 58 97 1 88 90 79 96 48 28 56 98 8 100 91 75 84 58 az 59 98 4 100 82 69 80 56 az 61 97 5 83 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 LAUGUAGE ARTS 1589 1550 1551 1552 1593 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1591 1592 1993 1589 SOCIAL STUDIES 1590 1591 195? Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1589 1990 1991 272 256 247 221 91 61 87 92 88 36 az 52 100 6 86 86 49 82 61 78 48 a6. 56 93 7 88 Total for al1 students in the \"Other race category, were not reported by gender. 269 248 92 278 267 96 282 261 93 272 252 93 256 231 90 269 210 78 278 235 85 282 201 71 272 202 74 256 173 68 269 217 81 278 237 85 282 225 80 272 216 79 256 187 73 270 263 97 282 272 96 284 276 97 273 257 94 256 234 91 59 ai 76 93 48 aa 57 100 8 100 58 85 96 60 loa 60 100 4 100 55 az 81 94 56 az. 63 100 6 100 These scores 58 aa 101 96 36 az 51 98 6 86 47 7a 73 94 46 az 58 97 7 88 48 aa 55 67 48 98 53 93 6 75 53 41 49 31 50 55 49 51 36 az 64 72 59 98 56 aa 3 75 61 43 50 53 88 60 95 4 67 7a 65 62 35 95 46 aa 7 100 az 36 46 47 94 52 az 7 88 as 62 76 48 98 51 89 6 75 13 60 The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. 66 74 58 97 55 92 3 75 60 70 75 71 44 56 52 87 58 92 6 100 35 46 95 49 94 6 86 92 54 90 7 88LITT'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE a SCHOOL: Pulaski Heights Junior High 1989 1990 READING Alli. 1992 1993 1969 MATHEMATICS 19^ Alii. ,969 LANGUAGE ARTS 1990 9 9 9 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1969 199 SOCIAL STUDIES ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1990 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Paaaed 220 198 90 217 189 87 223 198 89 223 195 87 234 210 90 220 191 87 217 189 87 223 193 87 223 196 88 234 202 86 220 196 89 217 190 88 223 187 84 223 174 78 234 196 84 220 144 65 217 167 77 223 158 71 223 163 73 234 168 72 220 163 74 217 183 84 223 148 66 223 162 73 234 178 76 223 202 91 219 204 93 223 207 93 228 202 89 234 210 90 1 BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 45 80 53 87 48 100 49 79 65 83 34 SI 38 13 56 85 44 98 57 86 51 Ik 33 SI 49 IS 66 86 35 100 41 13 53 hl 46 96 49 IS 65 83 35 100 36 hS 53 80 44 98 52 79 58 84 32 94 44 43 48 34 44 44 30 41 29 47 35 35 48 23 41 35 71 (A 83 34 SI 77 53 87 47 98 77 69 88 32 91 65 51 77 43 96 hl 46 67 30 5a ir 60 78 32 51 54 21 34 45 54. 66 54 69 33 ,56 28 44 58 71 31 Ai 32 56 41 ii 35 IQQ 63 35 iZ 46 5t 77 44 62 56 61 32 38 53 78 34 SL 48 40 89 55 32 54, 69 34 52 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 48 35 57 54 58 47 35 57 54 58 49 36 56 54 58 44 35 54 53 56 43 35 50 51 54 Percent Paaaed 96 97 100 100 too 94 97 100 100 too 98 1130. 98 100, 100. 58. 52 55. 55 51 .86 52 54, 53 38 OTHER STUDENTS 6 3 0 2 5 3 0 2 5 3 0 2 3 0 1 4 5 3 0 2 Number Passed li It Percent Passed 80 100 100 too 80 83 100 - 100 50. 51 100. lOO 50 521 lOO 50 50. 531 ino mol Total for all students in the Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Southwest Junior High iW. READING -1392 -1393 1989 MATHEMATICS -1390 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 TEST RESULTS INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 Revised August 1993 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent PasaeJ BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Peened BLACK FEMAl.E.S Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed J991 -1391 language arts - Jlii  1989 I 1990 i 199 11 199 1993 . 1989 SCIENCE 209 185 89 170 143 84 209 186 89 205 163 80 196 159 81 209 176 84 170 134 79 209 161 11 205 153 196 156 209 180 170 209 1990 I 1991 9: SOCIAL STUDIES .990 199 992 19 PASSING SCORE=42o'T 989 199011991 1992 63 60 67 51 61 81 70 91 28 93 22 100 2 100 85 52 81 16 94 13 93 2 50 86 72 76 62 79 51 72 57 73 7^_80_ 86 141 83 160 77 205 160 78 196 138 70 209 108 52 170 115 68 209 118 56 205 95 46 196 117 60 209 146 70 170 89 52 209 98 47 205 196 107 52 120 61 212 184 86 171 152 89 206 191 93 199 162 81 1993 194 160 82 49 69 61 76 60 55 55 50 46 33 21 21 21 10 58 43 43 33 44 49 61 JI 46 73 90 59 77 58 85 65 84 50 78 61 75 56 73 57 84 69 90 53 83 60 74 64 83 55 81 30 39 39 61 37 46 18 95 22 100 28 90 20 95 17 85 19 83 6 5 4 61[100 80 * Total for all students in the were not reported by gender. 27 90 20 91 2 100 \"Other\" 15 88 14 100 4 100 race 16 84 20 21 7 78 n 87 16 21. 5 16 80 18 21 100 I 80 category. 29 97 21 1 50 16 18 26 15 26 94 14 IQQ, 3 15 These scores 95 84 75 87 17 100 17 89 21 6 15 n 5 19 3 67 100 60, 18 .82 1 50 14 16 100. 73. passing score infonnation is based on three administrati. ons of the 2 50 5 56 n 27 35 24 77 7 33 4 32 30 33 49 63 45 38 46 61 41 60 14 70 14 1 4 80 I 80 50 65 29 45 36 44 39 51 39 57 26 87 19 38. 2 100 14 82 12 38 2 50 16 21 16 84 68 80 12 10 13 55. 3. 52 4 4 3 44 80 60 1RECEIVED TO: FROM:' DATE: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr.  V -IO -1 nno May 16, 1993 SUBJ: AMPT Test Summary/Six Years MAY 1 8 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams.-JR-p 6\u0026lt;7n\u0026lt;JlA\u0026gt;n^ Xx/ziiv O^C^yilAnt^ c^/jopcvxCt^ lU^4\u0026gt;i-^. h LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1993 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 1941 1232 682 26 46/47.7 34/41.3 67/59.0 61/55.8 48/48.8 35/41.8 70/61.2 65/57.9 45/47.5 33/40,6 68/59.8 61/55.6 43/46.3 31/39.4 66/58.7 55/52.5 48/48.9 35/41.8 70/61.3 62/56.6 42/45.8 28/38.0 67/59.5 58/54.3 2 TOTAL B W O 1913 1214 668 30 41/45.0 29/38.1 63/57.1 64/57.5 61/55.8 49/49.2 79/67.2 84/71.1 50/50.1 38/43.8 70/61.2 67/59.5 48/48.9 35/42.1 70/61.0 61/56.1 47/48.5 34/41.2 70/61.0 72/62.4 47/48.6 33/40.8 72/62.1 73/62.7 3 TOTAL B H O 1770 1099 641 26 43/46.3 29/38.6 67/59.0 61/56.1 54/52.3 42/45.6 73/62.8 84/70.7 48/48.7 35/42.0 68/59.9 63/57.2 46/48.0 32/40.0 70/61.1 66/58.9 46/47.9 33/40.6 68/59,7 68/60.0 47/48.5 34/41.2 69/60.4 71/61.7 46/47.8 32/40.0 69/60.6 70/61.2 4 TOTAL B W 0 1716 1094 598 23 45/47.5 33/40.7 68/59.9 60/55.4 61/55.9 52/50.8 76/65.1 79/67.0 53/51.5 41/45.0 73/63.1 68/59.8 53/51.5 40/44.7 74/63.5 74/63.2 59/54.5 46/48.0 78/66.2 73/62.6 53/51.6 41/45.2 73/63.1 71/61.6 53/51.8 40/44.9 75/64.2 72/62.2 5 TOTAL B W O 1821 1189 606 23 39/44.1 27/37.0 64/57.7 51/50.3 57/53.5 46/48.1 74/63.7 71/61.6 49/49.6 39/44.1 68/60.1 60/55.5 48/49.0 35/41.7 73/62.9 59/55.0 52/51.2 42/45.6 72/62.0 60/55.2 46/48.0 35/41.9 68/59.8 61/56.0 47/48.3 34/41.5 70/61.1 61/56.1 6 TOTAL B W 0 1855 1227 603 24 52/50.9 39/44.0 75/64.5 74/63.2 58/54.4 49/49.6 74/63.8 81/68.2 53/51.8 44/46.8 71/61.6 67/59.2 55/52.6 44/46.7 75/64.0 78/66.4 59/54.5 48/48.9 77/65.4 77/65.5 56/53.2 46/47.7 75/64.0 75/64.5 56/53.1 45/47.1 76/64.8 77/65.6 7 TOTAL B W 0 1718 1120 575 21 42/45.5 29/38.4 67/59.4 58/54.0 45/47.1 35/41.9 63/57.2 63/57.2 46/47.6 34/41.3 68/59.8 63/57.1 46/47.8 31/39.8 74/63.4 70/60.9 49/49.7 39/44.0 70/60.9 64/57.4 44/46.9 32/40.4 67/59.4 65/58.0 44/47.0 31/39.8 69/60.5 66/58.4 8 TOTAL B W 0 1571 1046 503 20 43/46.5 30/39.2 71/61.5 73/62.6 43/46.2 32/40.3 65/57.9 72/62.5 49/49.6 38/43.6 71/61.9 78/66.3 47/48.3 34/41.5 72/62.4 74/63.7 48/48.8 34/41.5 74/63.6 85/71.6 46/47.9 33/40.8 72/62.0 75/64.4 46/47.7 32/39.9 74/63.3 78/66.1 9 TOTAL B W 0 1506 994 496 15 44/46.6 33/40.5 65/58.3 72/62.5 34/41.4 25/35.6 54/52.0 89/75.6 51/50.5 40/44.9 70/61.2 88/74.3 48/48.9 38/43.7 66/58.8 79/67.3 47/48.5 36/42.4 68/60.1 87/73.4 46/47.7 35/41.7  66/58.9 88/74.7 46/48.0 35/41.6 68/60.0 89/75.5 10 TOTAL B W O 1587 985 572 29 51/50.3 35/41.9 75/64.3 74/63.6 42/45.8 31/39.7 61/55.8 73/62.6 50/50.2 37/43,2 71/61,8 73/62.7 47/48.4 31/39.6 74/63.2 75/64.5 46/48.0 34/41.5 67/59.0 69/60.7 50/50.1 36/42.2 73/62.9 79/66.6 49/49.7 34/41.1 74/63.6 00/67.9 11 TOTAL B W O 1383 791 562 29 47/48.5 32/40.4 68/60.0 66/58.9 40/44.7 28/37.9 58/54.0 65/57.9 46/47.9 32/40.3 66/58.4 66/58.8 46/47.9 31/39.7 67/59.3 59/54.7 48/49.0 34/41.3 68/59.7 67/59.1 48/48.9 33/40.7 68/59.9 71/61.4 48/49.0 32/40.1 70/61.0 69/60.7 * At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Resvised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Henderson Junior High 19SP READING 19-91 1^92 1^93 -11S9 MATHEMATICS 1990 1991 1989 1990 LAUGUAGE ARTS 9 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1990 1991 Alii 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 A989 1990 -1191 1992 199? ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 285 265 93 290 261 90 288 242 84 212 174 82 242 206 85 285 266 93 290 270 93 288 254 88 212 183 86 242 197 81 285 259 91 290 240 83 288 231 80 212 160 75 242 181 75 285 210 74 290 205 71 288 166 58 212 120 57 242 136 56 285 240 84 290 245 84 288 162 56 212 141 67 242 180 74 288 280 97 303 282 93 295 263 89 211 179 85 243 214 88 BLACK MALES Number Passed 68 66 70 74 74 68 73 79 76 77 64 59 63 57 60 45 52 53 54 48 62 68 50 56 65 Percent Passed 94 80 74 79 80 94 88 84 81 84 89 71 67 61 65 63 63 2L 60 71 2L BLACK FEMALES Number Passed 98 103 101 61 97 96 104 103 69 89 98 95 98 66 89 73 64 51 32 55 83 87 59 48 81 Percent Passed 90 91 85 77 86 88 52 SL 2a 50. 52. 54 2a 52 52 43. 41 4a 2ii. 11 51 22 52 WHITE MALES Number Passed 43 47 27 12 18 46 49 27 11 16 45 42 26 11 15 42 45 24 11 17 43 46 Percent Passed 91 19 11 18 96 100 100 98 100 55 52 5a 55 55 53 921 53 5a 52 86 52 54 51 54 68 52 -100 % WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 42 34 30 21 14 42 34 31 21 13 42 33 31 21 14 38 33 26 Percent Passed 100 100 97 100 93 100 100 100 100 87 IQQ. 52 IQQ, IQQ 53 90 52 54 18 14 40 34 24 20 12 55 53 93 IQQ 22 55 50 OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed 14 11 14 14 10 14 10 11 13 12 11 12 12 10 10 Percent Passed 93 100 88 100 75 93 91 88 100, 50 67 IQQ. 51 53J 25 55 IQQ 25 53 50 5Q 51 53 IIQQ 100 6 3 6 2 5 3 5 2 6 4 1 * Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 I Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Forest Heights Junior High 1989 1990 READING 1991 1122 1993 1989- MATHEMATICS -19 98. 1991 1989 LANGUAGE ARTS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1991 ** PASSING SCORE=42O4 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 222 204 Percent Passed 92 258 239 93 218 188 86 225 169 75 228 192 84 222 206 93 258 237 92 218 193 89 225 179 80 228 191 84 222 192 86 258 218 229 177 89 81 225 152 68 228 184 81 222 184 258 213 83 83 218 154 71 225 140 62 228 154 68 222 191 86 258 208 81 218 172 79 225 134 60 228 155 68 226 214 95 261 244 93 219 197 90 218 181 83 227 195 86 195^ 1?^ 19?? 1231 BIACK MALES Humber Passed 59 68 55 49 44 60 67 54 58 Percent BIACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed 84 58 92 49 100 86 78 91 43 100 82 65 79 35 97 59 57 76 27 90 62 82 27 100 86 58 92 49 100 85 79 92 43 100 81 71 87 35 97 70 61 81 26 87 48 68 78 88 26 96 49 70 57 90 46 94 60 76 79 92 41 95 45 67 66 80 33 92 44 53 50 67 22 73 40 53 55 42 41 36 55 55 50 40 37 56 79 89 26 96 76 46 73 49 100 70 68 79 42 98 63 47 57 34 94 49 40 53 25 83 51 53 60 27 100 79 70 75 48 52 48 76 49 100 66 77 40 93 56 38 58 68 34 94 51 26 87 65 24 89 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed 37 97 42 100 29 100 28 100 34 97 38 100 40 95 29 100 26 93 34 97 38 100 41 98 29 100 28 100 34 97 35 92 40 95 27 93 27 96 33 94 37 97 39 93 28 97 23 82 32 91 OTHER STUDENTS 1 8 4 8 5 1 8 4 8 5 2 8 4 8 5 1 8 4 7 5 2 8 4 7 4 Number Passed percent Fused 50 100 100 89 83 50 100 100 89 83 100 100 100 89 83 50 100 100 78 83 100 100 100 78 67 Total for ill students in the 'Other*' race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. ISCHOOL: Dunbar Magnet Jr. High ma. 1990 READING 1991 1993 19 99 MATHEMATICS 1990 AW. Aaai I ALL ETVPEHT? Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMAUS Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed w * 219 174 79 63 11. 75 80 13 100 22 100 1 50 169 124 73 152 126 83 242 216 89 230 202 88 219 175 80 169 116 69 152 114 75 242 215 89 40 63 57 16 12 92 15 55 0 0 41 79 42 21 84 22 21 0 0 49 52 66 42 33 54 75 65 90 55 98 42 95 5 100 75 59 46 96 39 5a 6 86 75 76 81 13 100 20 91 0 66 50 67 10 77 13 81 1 100 63 83 38 75 59 82 19 76 24 100 0 55 98 42 95 5 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 A Ui 230 195 _ai 51 74 54 2. 47 5S. 37 93 6 86 Total for all students in the Other race category, were not reported by gender. 1989 219 148 68 49 56 65 69 13 100 20 91 1 50 LANGUAGE ARTS A990 1991 1992 A993 . 1999 SCIENCE 0 9 9 19 199 SOCIAL STUDIES 0 Aiai Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 Aa89 -19 90 1991 1992 -1993 169 120 71 37 58 58 77 10 77 14 88 1 100 152 117 77 242 210 87 230 194 84 219 105 48 169 94 56 152 76 50 242 160 66 230 155 67 219 128 58 169 101 60 152 85 56 242 168 69 230 154 67 222 175 79 170 126 74 152 136 89 242 222 92 229 203 89 34 65 41 80 18 72 24 100 0 These scores 3 passing score information is based on three administrations MPT. of the 51 78 64 89 49 88 42 95 4 80 47 41 36 18 32 32 45 31 28 38 29 68 60 51 44 9? 37 93 6 86 47 35 37 11 85 17 77 1 50 56 35 49 liiL 51 48 54 58 A2 34 45 23 45 35 49 35 53. 54 57 42 56 26 51 38 53 42 64 11 21 50 46 12 11 18 48 44 12 75 1 100 .24 14 58 0 52. 56. 21 52 11 86 52 39 89 4 80 36 90 6 86 16 73 1 50 16 100 1 100 13 54 40 91 33 83 0 4 80 6 86SCHOOL: Cloverdale Jr, High 1969 1990 READING 1991 1311 1993 J 35 9. MATHEMATICS 0 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 201 181 90 212 182 _a5 222 186 .84 218 186 85 185 146 -79 201 \\n _aa 212 181 88 44 81 54 81 51 77 58 83 44 76 43 80 51 76 61 59 70 78 57 60 61 87 35 31 36 100 5 100 81 31 94 35 100 3 75 5Q 51 76 55 M 19 21 16 34 31 95 40 93 6 100 100 26 93 3 100 25 93 4 100 94 94 35 97 35 100 5 100 3 75 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS 199211993 222 180 JU. 218 188 86 185 135 73 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 1969 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1290 1992 1322 Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1989 1990 1991 199? 1993 52 79 58 83 39 67 69 82 53 7^ 19 95 34 79 6 100 5. 21 20 95 25 89 3 100 Total for all students in the Other\" race category. 16 1() 24 89 3 75 201 164 8? 212 156 74 222 \\12 218 192 .88 185 154 _a3 201 135 _a7 212 150 _?1 222 135 61 218 139 64 185 94 51 201 124 _6Z 212 135 -64 222 118 6.8 218 156 -72 185 87 _42. 207 181 SJ- 213 219 191 -91. 193 _aa 219 198 -99 185 154 _8J 36 67 38 44 57 67 56 50 45 78 33 51. 43 54 38 55 49 15 30 52 24 44 36 54 31 41 50 21 28 48 57 57 69 84 51 32 59 35 97 4 80 la 19. 58 62 83 38 46 42 46 26 16 21 18 19 55. 100. 86. .54. 1 48 28 37 37 5i 43 59 42 62 28 32 29 18 20 13 33 28 59. aa 90. 95. 62 95 5S 4a 55 21 16 19 11 5Q 95 52 33 94 39 91 28 100 25 93 27 75 30 86 34 79 22 79 22 81 25 69 26 74 25 58 23 82 18 67 2 50 4 bl These scores were not reported by gender. The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. 3 100 4 100 5 100 2 50 3 50 2 67 1 25 5 100 2 50 4 bl 2 67 2 50 f 1received AUG 6 1992 Oitice oi Desssregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nAugust 5, 1992 To\nFrom\nMargie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingram^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re\nStanford Achievement Test Results, 1992 I am attaching Stanford-8 results by school at this time. I believe the report is self-explanatory\nhowever, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. bjgSCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BADGETT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 23 10 13 21 16 5 22 17 5 37 36 28 8 26 18 8 21/32.7 24/35.2 18/30.7 41/45.2 48/48.9 36/42.4 16/28.7 17/29.9 15/27.8 27/37.1 23/34.5 30/39.2 25/35.5 28/37.4 22/34.0 19/31.1 20/32.5 17/30.0 31/39.7 24/34.9 59/54.9 44/46.6 35/41.8 71/61.8 36/42.3 23/34.4 80/67.6 33/40.9 28/37.9 51/50.7 30/39.1 21/33.1 66/58.4 39/44.3  31/39.6 67/59.3 27/37.2 23/34.6 43/46.3 52/50.8 50/49.9 58/54.1 35/41.9 33/40.5 44/46.7 20/32.2 16/28.8 40/44.6 28/37.6 27/37.3 30/38.8 38/43.4 35/41.6 49/49.6 33/40.6 30/38.7 45/47.1 31/39.4 46/47.8 32/40.0 29/38.6 35/42.7 35/41.9 32/40.4 16/29.1 14/27.6 23/34.5 32/40.0 33/40.9 27/36.8 23/34.6 23/34.5 24/35.0 20/32.6 21/32.8 20/32.3 29/38.1 27/37.3 34/41.0 22/34.0 22/33.4 26/36.1 21/32.9 20/32.3 24/35.1 34/41.2 29/38.4 46/47.6 45/47.2 43/46.0 50/49.9 41/45.4 41/45.3 42/45.6 41/45.0 38/43.8 49/49.7 46/48.1 56/53. 1 41/45.4 39/44.2 47/48.3 41/45.0 38/43.8 46/47.9 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: BALE GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS language SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 40 35 4 1 39 33 5 34/41.3 30/39.1 66/58.4 58/54.2 31/39.4 25/35.7 73/62.9 90/77.0 25/35.6 22/33.4 58/54.0 32/40.1 29/38.4 25/35.9 69/60.4 30/39.0 29/38.3 24/35.2 69/60.7 62/56.4 27/37.3 23/34.5 65/58.0 56/53.2 23/34.4 21/32.8 42/45.9 35/42.1 32/40.0 63/56.9 32/40.3 30/38.9 55/52.6 32/40.3 28/37.4 72/62.5 30/39.2 28/37.5 52/50.9 29/38.4 26/36.4 54/52.3 41  21/32.7 33 7 1 53 51 39 9 3 38 30 8 19/31.4 30/39.1 17/29.9 27/36.8 27/37.0 22/33.8 53/51.3 26/36.6 28/37.7 22/33.7 52/51.0 42/45.8 42/45.7 42/45.9 44/46.8 40/44.4 36/42.7 51/50.7 61/55.9 26/36.7 27/36.9 26/36.1 20/32.3 27/37.3 27/36.9 30/39.1 27/37.1 34/41.4 33/40.7 40/44.7 34/41.3 31/39.3 30/38.7 35/41.9 30/39.0 31/39.4 26/36.7 27/36.8 32/40.4 27/36.8 25/35.5 41/45.1 40/44.5 40/44.6 59/54.5 35/41.9 33/40.5 43/46.4 7/42.8 4/41.1 t 8/49.0 1/45.2 35/41.7 32/40.0 4?/47.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unava'able at this ti This information will be provided at a later date. .,e. 33/40.5 26/36.6 59/55.0 45/47.3 36/42.7 28/38.0 66/58.4 34/41. 31/39. .8 44/46.7 42/45.6 40/44.3 37/42.3 55/52.5 33/40.7 29/38.6 47/48.4 40/44.5 31/39.4 28/37.5 43/46.3 31/39.8 28/37.4 47/48.3 39/44.3 30/39.2 27/36.8 46/47.9 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEN.E and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combine and reflected one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: BASELINE F.T.EMFNTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 1 TOTAL B W O 61 38 21 2 34/41.3 32/40.0 42/45.6 11/23.8 31/39.4 27/37.2 41/45.3 9/21.5 28/37.5 25/35.8 30/39.0 61/55.6 30/38.7 26/36.3 39/44.1 16/29.0 33/40.8 29/38.5 39/44.0 52/51.0 27/37.0 25/35.5 34/41.2 9/21.2 2 TOTAL B W o 39 27 10 1 28/37.4 24/34.9 38/2,3.5 34/41.3 37/42.8 28/37.8 61/55.7 59/54.8 43/46.1 33/40.7 68/60.1 43/46.3 25/35.7 19/31.4 47/48.4 9/21.8 30/38.9 24/35.1 47/48.2 39/44.1 28/37.9 22/33.6 47/48.4 35/41.9 3 TOTAL B W O * '53 42 11 30/38.8 25/36.0 49/49.3 54/52.0 47/48.2 78/66.5 41/45.4 36/42.2 64/57.6 34/41.5 28/37.6 62/56.5 40/44.4 35/41.6 59/54.9 40/44.5 34/41.4 62/56.6 38/43.3 31/39.8 63/56.7 4 TOTAL t B W O 42 .38/43.8 60/55.3 41/45.3 43/46.2 54/52.2 44/46.8 46.6 5 TOTAL B W O 38 30 8 30/38.8 32/39.9 23/34.7 50/49.9 49/49.6 52/51.-1 41/45.2 39/44.3 47/48.3 37/43.0 37/42.8 39/43.9 35/41.9 35/A2.0 34/41.2 37/43.2 38/43.8 34/41.1 35/42.1 36/42.6 32/40.2 6 TOTAL B W O 32 28 4 40/44.6 38/43.8 50/50.2 39/44.3 39/43.9 44/46.6 38/43.5 38/43.7 36/42.4 42/45.5 39/44.2 59/54.8 45/47.1 43/46.2 57/53.7 37/43.2 37/42.8 43/46.1 37/42.9 36/42.2 46/47.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information ill be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BOOKER MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY  1 TOTAL B W o 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 89 49 39 1 82 48 32 2 - 92 50 39 3 89 87 50 35 2 87 46 38 3 39/44.1 27/37.2 55/52.7 46/47.9 42/45.7 30/39.2 56/53.3 73/62.9 38/43.8 26/36.6 55/52.6 62/56.4 36/42.6 20/32.5 60/55.5 35/41.9 41/45.4 29/38.4 57/53.8 60/55.3 35/41.7 21/33.2 54/52.2 55/52.6 46/48.0 32/40.1 68/59.7 61/55.8 63/56.8 49/49.4 78/66.2 91/78.5 51/50.7 39/44.3 68/59.7 63/56.7 46/48.1 32/40.1 67/59.3 69/60.3 51/50.7 36/42.2 73/62.8 71/61.5 52/50.8 35/41.6 74/63.7 74/63.5 40/44.9 25/35.9 59/55.0 74/63.8 52/51.1 39/44.0 64/57.6 94/82.5 47/48.2 35/42.0 58/54.2 89/75.9 43/46.1 27/36.9 63/56.8 71/61.5 40/44.6 27/36.9 55/52.4 85/71.8 46/47.7 32/40.2 60/55.4 86/73.1 44/46.6 29/38.3 60/55.3 87/73.2 61/55.9 47/48.5 34/41.2 64/57.7 73/62.6 59/54.6 40/44.5 78/66.1 74/63.8 67/59.5 56/53.3 60/55.2 59/54.9 61/55.9 60/55.5 63/57.2 55/52.8 72/62.1 87/74.0 55/52.6 44/46.7 69/60.2 50/49.9 53/51.8 43/46.4 65/58.3 77/65.4 52/50.9 39/44.3 67/59.1 82/69.4 53/51.8 46/47.6 63/57.1 72/62.4 52/50.8 41/45.4 64/57.4 81/68.7 51/50.7 41/45.0 65/57.9 83/69.8 60/55.4 46/48.1 75/64.1 66/58.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 53/51.7 40/4.9 68/60.0 54/52.1 65/57.9 53/51.7 77/65.2 72/62.1 59/54.9 44/47.0 75/64.3 63/57.1 59/54.9 44/46.6 76/64.9 65/57.9 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflcctad as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTl : ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BRADY ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W o 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 64 40 23 59 41 16 2 - '43 32 11 57 60 48 10 2 60 38 22 48/48.7 39/44.1 62/56.5 57/53.7 45/47.3 74/63.5 46/48.1 34/41.0 69/60.3 36/42.7 27/37.1 55/52.4 53/51.3 41/45.4 71/61.5 47/48.6 36/42.7 66/58.8 38/43.6 33/40.8 51/50.3 42/45.8 26/36.5 18/31.0 54/52.2 35/42.0 27/37.2 24/35.4 32/40.4 77/65.5 42/45.6 29/38.1 66/58.9 53/51.7 48/48.9 62/56.5 82/69.6 44/46.7 31/39.5 80/67.5 50/50.2 45/47.5 41/45.2 57/53.6 87/73.3 41/45.3 30/39.2 62/56.2 51/50.7 50/50.0 57/53.8 35/41.7 33/40.7 22/34.0 69/60.5 39/44.0 35/41.8 33/40.7 39/44.3 61/56.1 45/47.1 36/42.5 60/55.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 46/47.9 41/45.1 59/54.9 47/48.6 44/46.9 39/44.2 56/53.0 54/52.2 44/47.0 39/44.0 58/54.0 55/52.6 27/37.3 19/31.6 57/53.8 31/39.8 24/35.0 57/53.8 33/40.8 23/34.6 66/58.9 30/39.1 20/32.6 64/57.8 40/44.4 33/40.9 29/38.6 42/45.8 84/70.6 48/48.9 37/42.8 67/59.5 43/46.4 32/-. 0.4 31/39.4 35/41.9 66/58.4 51/\"'O. 6 41 Al 5.2 68/79.9 40/44.6 38/43.7 35/41.7 31/39.6 43/46.4 82/69.0 33/40.5 29/38.3 41/45.3 82/69.3 44/46.8 32/40.3 65/58.0 44/46.8 32/39.9 66/58.7 **At Grades 1 and 2 the .SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE I TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 67 38 26 3 87 49 38 -90 49 40 1 94 93 48 43 2 96 53 41 2 78/66.0 70/61.3 85/71.8 89/75.7 84/70.8 78/65.9 90/76.5 94/83.4 71/61.6 62/56.5 81/68.8 75/64.3 58/54.2 46/47.8 71/61.8 82/69.5 80/67.5 73/62.7 87/73.6 90/76.7 76/65.1 68/59.7 85/71.6 90/76.9 64/57.7 48/48.9 82/63.0 81/68.3 64/57.8 86/72.3 72/62.1 58/54.3 85/72.2 60/55.2 44/46.7 78/66.1 72/62.1 54/52.2 88/74.9 73/62.6 54/52.1 89/76.1 63/56.9 38/43.7 86/72.5 95/84.6 79/66.6 61/55.6 92/79.3 99/99.0 75/64.3 55/52.5 91/78.4 93/81.1 70/61.0 48/49.0 89/75.4 81/68.5 69/60.2 47/48.2 88/74.4 92/79.6 72/62.3 51/50.3 89/76.2 98/93.3 72/62.2 49/49.4 90/77.2 97/89.6 67/59.1 84/70.9 71/61.6 73/62.9 70/61.3 74/63.5 74/63.7 56/53.1 34/41.2 77/65.7 82/69.0 70/60.8 51/50.3 85/71.4 95/85,2 62/56.6 46/47.9 77/65.6 84/71.0 73/62.6 47/48.6 91/77.6 90/77.2 63/5U.8 46/47.8 77/65.8 91/78.1 61/56.0 41/45.4 79/67.0 88/74.4 63/57.2 42/45.7 82/69.2 91/77.7 76/64.7 63/57.2 88/74.6 73/63.0 79/66.7 68/60.1 89/75.7 67/59.0 71/61.4 61/55.7 82/69.4 45/47.4 79/67.3 69/60.5 90/76.4 63/56.9 79/66.9 70/61.2 88/74.3 78/66.4 78/66.2 68/59.7 88/74.8 68/59.6 79/67.2 69/60.2 90/76.5 68/60.0 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com! ined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 CHICOT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY A 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 85 52 32 72 48 23 1 62 39 22 59 59 35 24 53 33 18 2 34/41.3 25/35.6 52/51.2 46/47.7 38/43.6 59/54.7 33/40.8 24/34.8 53/51.7 32/39.9 22/33.6 50/50.1 35/41.8 24/35.3 55/52.6 35/41.6 26/36.7 50/50.0 32/39.9 25/35.8 44/46.8 92/79.6 47/48.6 40/44.5 61/56.0 92/79.6 43/46.2 34/41.1 60/55.3 92/79.6 31/39.4 23/34.3 48/48.8 83/68.5 37/43.0 28/37.6 55/52.4 96/86.9 36/42.4 26/36.4 56/52.9 97/89.6 32/40.1 31/39.3 35/41.9 52/50.9 48/48.9 50/55.3 45/47.4 42/45.5 52/51.0 34/41.3 32/40.3 39/44.0 41/45.1 38/43.6 46/48.1 41/45.0 38/43.3 47/48.5 39/44.1 36/42.2 46/48.1 -38/43.4 38/43.4 29/38.3 51/50.6 47/48.2 34/41.4 62/56.3 92/78.9 51/50.5 32/40.2 38/43.7 40/44.5 39/44.1 37/43.1 48/48.9 40/44.9 58/54.4 44/46.8 38/43.4 50/50.0 89/75.4 47/48.3 41/45.0 56/53.0 46/47.8 38/43.6 54/52.3 88/74.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at thi^ time. This information will be provided at a later dace. 41/45.1 31/39.4 56/53.4 46/^17.8 38/43.7 57/53.9 40/44.8 33/40.5 52/51.2 40/44.8 32/39.9 54/52.0 50/50.2 39/44.0 65/58.3 90/76.9 52/a.0 44/4 6.6 61/56.1 90/\n6.9 47/48.4 37/42.9 59/54.5 94/83.4 47/48.2 36/42.4 59/55.0 94/82.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SC.EHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W o 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL it B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUtlMARY 1992 r.I.EMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 37 30 6 1 45 33 12 -47 36 10 1 47 49 35 14 62 51 10 1 51/50.4 50/50.1 56/53.0 40/44.7 73/62.8 71/61.8 84/71.2 36/42.5 51/50.6 49/49.7 62/56.2 43/46.3 47/48.5 40/44.9 83/70.0 14/27.2 61/55.8 59/54.9 72/62.4 37/43.0 56/53.2 54/52.0 71/61.4 28/37.7 42/45.9 34/41.1 67/19.4 40/44.7 38/43.3 46/47.9 77/65.6 42/45.9 43/46.3 37/43.1 57/53.8 43/46.2 43/46.3 47/48.2 10/23.0 60/55.5 49/49.7 85/72.0 63/57.0 60/55.4 68/60.0 97/89.6 67/59.0 59/54.6 53/51.5 71/61.8 64/57.8 63/57.1 71/61.9 57/53.7 46/47.7 38/43.6 68/59.6 58/54.2 54/51.9 70/61.2 84/70.9 48/48.9 54/52.3 47/48.5 71/61.4 47/48.6 49/49.3 44/46.9 12/25.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 65/58.2 60/55.2 79/66.7 48/48.7 37/43.2 74/63.7 49/49.7 39/44.0 77/65.5 57/53.7 53/51.6 68/60.0 85/71.8 59/54.5 56/53.0 65/58.3 87/73.7 53/51.7 50/50.1 60/55.1 89/75.8 54/52.0 50/50.2 61.55.7 90/77.0 56/53.3 57/53.8 57/53.9 57/53.8 46/48.1 39/44.0 64/57.7 44/46.7 43/46.1 54/52.3 8/20.4 51/50.6 49/49.2 58/54.2 51/50.3 5 0 / 5 0.2 54/52.2 28/37.7 50/50.1 45/47.1 63/57.1 49/49.6 43/46.5 63/57.1 53/51.5 53/51.4 57/53.8 28/37.7 51/50.4 50/50.2 56/53.1 23/34.4 **At Grade? 1 and 2 the SCiZNCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are coml ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION I STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 DODD ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B H O 41 27 13 1 22/33.9 22/33.8 23/34.1 23/34.4 30/38.8 31/39.7 28/37.9 11/24.2 19/31.2 21/33.2 13/26.5 18/30.7 22/34.0 23/34.3 20/32.6 42/45.8 25/35.5 28/37.6 19/31.8 13/26.3 21/32.7 22/33.5 20/31.9 10/23.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 42 17 24 30/39.0 26/36.1 34/41.5 37/43.0 28/37.6 45/47.2 43/46.4 26/36.6 59/54.6 35/42.0 22/33.4 47/48.6 32/39.9 19/31.3 43/46.5 36/42.3 27/37.0 44/46.7 3 TOTAL B W O 32 18 13 1 26/36.5 21/32.8 34/41.1 38/43.6 45/47.4 45/47.4 45/47.4 45/47.4 39/44.3 36/42.6 43/46.5 45/47.4 32/39.9 26/36.5 38/43.5 56/53.2 27/37.2 25/35.7 30/38.7 38/43.6 34/41.5 32/39.9 38/43.4 42/45.8 31/39.8 28/38.0 35/41.8 41/45.2 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 30 41 24 17 52 27 25 44/46.8 43/46.5 46/47.9 40/44.7 59/54.5 43/46.4 74/63.3 54/52.0 42/45.6 38/43.5 37/43.1 45/47.4 42/45.5 58/54.3 60/55.5 55/52.5 52/51.1 54/52.0 50/49.9 44/46.8 46/47.6 42/45.7 45/48.1 49/49.4 43/46.2 49/49.7 53/51.4 45/47.1 48/49.1 52/50.9 44/46.7 52/51.2 49/49.7 56/52.9 58/54.4 49/49.7 67/59.5 59/54.6 49/49.7 68/60.0 60/55.3 51/50.5 69/60.4 56/53.2 49/49.2 64/57.6 56/53.4 48/48.9 65/58.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will ba .rovided at a later date. *At Gr-des 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are . rabined and reflected and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT*\" NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 46 38 7 32 26 5 1 37 29 8 35 36 32 3 1 36 29 6 1 35/42.1 29/38.1 70/61.0 42/45.8 36/42.3 74/63.4 22/34.0 16/29.1 67/59.4 30/38.9 23/34.4 72/62.1 30/39.0 23/34.2 73/62.6 33/40.5 26/36.3 70/61.3 27/36.9 19/31.6 65/57.9 82/6-9.3 51/50.4 43/46.1 74/63.2 99/99.0 36/42.5 28/38.0 63/60.1 86/72.8 35/42.0 29/38.3 58/54.1 91/78.2 32/40.3 23/34.7 69/60.6 94/82.7 31/39.8 22/33.9 71/61.7 95/84.6 29/38.6 21/32.8 68/59.6 50/50.1 42/45.5 79/67.0 45/47.1 35/41.6 79/67.1 29/38.1 21/32.9 63/56.8 41/45.3 31/39.5 78/66.3 38/43.7 30/38.7 72/62.0 36/42.4 27/36.8 72/62.4 39/44.2 54/52.1 43/46.5 40/44.6 42/45.5 43/46.2 41/45.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 61/55.8 3/10.4 40/44.5 31/39.8 77/65.4 57/53.7 40/44.8 39/44.0 52/50.8 39/44.1 50/49.9 45/47.5 68/60.0 62/56.4 39/44.0 35/41.8 77/65.4 16/29.1 30/38.7 27/36.9 61/55.7 16/29.1 38/^3.3 36/42.3 70/61.1 10/23.0 31/39.6 29/38.1 67/59.0 18/30.7 30/39.1 27/37.3 71/61.8 15/28.2 46/47.7 41/45.0 68/59.6 60/55.3 50/49.9 43/46.3 80/67.7 46/47.9 59/54.6 53/51.4 81/68.2 76/34.9 47/48.4 41/45.0 73/63.0 62/56.4 47/48.5 41/45.1 75/64.1 61/55.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be prov ed at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are comb-'ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 72 34 37 1 45 12 32 1 48 21 27 69 48 28 20 45 24 20 1 63/56.9 36/42.3 84/70.7 68/59.9 71/61.4 42/45.6 89/76.0 68/59.9 55/52.6 28/37.6 79/66.8 53/51.6 50/50.0 30/38.7 70/51.1 30/39.0 67/59.3 39/44.0 87/73.3 67/59.3 61/55.6 29/38.4 84/71.3 62/56.4 62/56.5 37/42.8 70/61.0 92/7-9.6 68/59.9 33/40.7 77/65.7 99/99.0 54/52.0 26/36.2 63/57.1 86/72.8 55/52.7 21/33.1 67/59.4 81/68.5 63/57.1 32/40.1 72/62.5 97/89.6 64/57.5 30/38.9 74/63.5 97/89.6 58/54.1 26/36.1 31/68.1 52/51.1 49/49.7 23/34.2 83/70.4 62/56.2 40/44.4 81/68.7 97/89.6 77/65.8 49/49.3 91/78.7 59/54.5 35/41.6 75/64.5 61/55.6 29/38.3 82/69.0 63/57.0 30/38.9 84/71.0 67/59.2 36/42.2 86/72.4 66/58.5 32/40.2 86/72.6 64/57.5 54/51.9 51/50.3 53/:\u0026gt;l. 5 57/53.7 56/52.9 68/59.9 45/47.1 90/76.9 56/52.9 38/43.8 77/65.7 54/51.9 27/37.0 85/71.8 53/51.6 34/41.5 77/65.2 57/53.8 33/40.7 85/72.2 57/53.6 31/39.4 87/73.4 65/58.2 47/48.2 81/68.1 99/99.0 54/51.9 37/42.8 71/61.6 88/74.7 63/57.2 46/47.8 78 '66.5 99/99.0 65/58.2 46/4 3.0 82/69.4 91/78.2 64/57.3 44/46.7 80/67.8 99/99.0 54/57.5 43/46.1 82/69.0 99/99.0 I Data by race for grade 4 is u.'.available at this time. This information will be prov- ied at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are cowl ined and reflect.ad as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nLITTL, ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL P \"ICENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 1 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 25/35.5 25/35.5 25/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 2 TOTAL B W O 63 60 3 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 3 TOTAL B W O 60 55 5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/47.3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 39 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.6 31/39.4 24/34.9 18/30.9 28/37.8 26/36.1 23/34.1 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2 Data by race for grade 4 is uiavailable at this time. At Grad 3 1 and 2 the S,.^Et\nCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives This information will be provi '.ed at a later te. are con ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLl rock SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 71 34 36 45/47.5 27/37.1 64/57.8 45/47.2 25/35.7 66/58.8 47/48.4 24/35.0 71/61.7 37/43.2 19/31. 8 58/54.2 46/48.1 25/35.5 69/50.6 40/44.8 18/31.0 65/58.6 2 TOTAL B W 0 80 35 40 4 56/53.0 37/43.2 72/62.2 43/46.0 64/57.5 49/49.2 74/63.7 71/61.4 58/54.4 44/46.6 71/61.7 41/45.1 49/49.7 37/42.8 61/56.1 58/54.4 59/54.7 42/45.5 72/62.3 51/50.3 60/55.5 41/45.1 75/64.4 52/51.1 3 TOTAL B W O 68 25 42 1 56/53.0 28/38.0 72/62.0 47/48.4 73/63.1 48/48.8 85/71.5 85/71.8 61/56.1 40/44.8 73/63.1 36/42.5 60/55.1 27/37.3 77/65.3 85/71.8 59/54.9 33/40.9 74/63.4 43/46.3 65/57.9 39/43.9 78/66.2 60/55.3 63/57.2 35/41.8 78/66.4 60/55.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 63 73 37 35 1 72 26 45 1 57/53.7 61/55.9 51/50.5 55/52.6 55/52.5 56/53.4 56/53.0 39/44.0 23/34.1 59/54.8 77/65.6 64/57.6 35/41.7 78/66.0 98/93.3 52/51.2 41/45.1 62/56.6 99/99.0 65/58.0 42/45.9 75/64.0 99/99.0 48/48.9 34/41.0 63/56.8 98/93.3 49/49.3 27/37.3 70/60.9 99/99.0 47/48.2 33/40.7 60/55.4 93/81.1 46/47.6 31/39.4 60/55.3 93/81.1 46/47.6 29/38.5 61/56.1 96/86.9 1 1 I 62/56.4 38/43.3 73/63.1 97/89.6 67/59.2 44/46.7 77/65.6 99/99.0 71/61.9 53/51.4 80/67.4 96/86.9 64/57.7 39/44.3 76/64.6 98/93.3 66/58.5 40/44.5 78/65.9 98/93.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STAl^FORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: GARLAND ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 42/45.5 42/45.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 29/38.5 29/38.5 20/32.1 20/32.1 35/41.9 35/41.9 26/36.1 26/36.1 2 TOTAL B W O 29 26' 3 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/40.3 29/38.4 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/34.5 48/48.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/34.1 58/54.2 3 TOTAL B W O 28 '28 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 24/35.0 24/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 31 35 35 42 42 23/34.1 23/34.3 23/34.3 27/37.2 27/37..? 39/44.3 38/43.8 38/43.8 43/46.4 43/46.4 29/38.1 26/36.7 34/41.5 28/37.7 26/36.4 32/40.0 32/40.0 39/44.3 39/44.3 3C/38.7 39/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/43.9 39/43.9 47/48.5 47/48.5 39/43.9 39/43.9 38/43.5 38/43.5  Data by race for grade 4 is v. vailable at tfiis time. This information will be profiled at a.later Jate. **At Grac\n1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are cor Ined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 43 22 21 26 18 8 25 19 6 24 42 29 13 31 26 5 32/40.1 30/38.7 35/41.8 35/42.1 31/39.5 46/47.8 25/35.5 27/37.3 17/29.8 31/39.6 30/39.2 22/33.4 54/52.0 33/40.6 31/39.6 42/45.5 55/52.6 49/49.4 62/56.2 64/57.6 57/53.6 79/66.8 54/52.0 53/51.5 57/53.8 44/46.9 41/45.0 34/41.4 55/52.8 57/53.7 56/53.2 63/56.7 41/45.3 39/44.1 44/46.6 46/47.7 39/44.1 61/55.9 36/42.6 36/42.5 37/42.8 41/45.2 38/43.6 32/39.9 54/51.9 40/44.7 40/44.5 42/45.6 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 28/37.7 27/37.2 29/38.2 56/53.4 44/47.0 80/67.9 32/40.4 31/39.4 38/43.4 31/39.3 30/39.1 32/40.0 29/38.5 35/41.6 30/39.0 24/35.4 45/47.1 35/41.6 32/40.1 40/44.8 43/46.2 37/42.9 49/49.6 32/39.9 26/36.6 38/43.4 45/47.5 45/47.2 48/49.0 4 3/46.4 43/46.0 47/48.4 46/47.9 39/44.3 61/56.0 47/48.6 40/44.6 64/57.7 36/42.3 36/42.6 34/41.4 36/42.5 34/41.0 26/36.4 52/51.0 46/47.8 45/47.5 49/49.4 33/40.5 33/40.7 32/39.9 33/40.6 32/40.0 25/35.7 49/49.7 44/46.9 43/46.5 48/48.7 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH ANd' EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 45 27 18 43 20 22 1 38, 22 16 46 69 37 31 1 44 20 24 52/51.1 41/45.3 68/59.8 52/51.0 42/45.6 67/59.2 45/47.2 31/39.6 66/58.5 45/47.2 27/37.2 72/62.1 52/51.0 39/44.2 70/61.3 49/49.4 36/42.5 68/59.8 64/57.5 45/47.5 79/66.8 55/52.6 79/66.9 62/56.6 90/76.6 72/62.3 67/59.0 47/48.3 83/70.3 11/24.2 63/57.2 48/48.7 75/64.2 87/73.7 70/61.0 52/51.1 83/70.4 58/54.2 71/61.6 53/51.3 84/71.3 63/57.0 59/54.9 46/47.7 77/65.4 82/69.2 69/60.4 94/81.8 68/60.0 55/52.7 84/70.5 68/59.8 50/50.0 87/73.3 74/63.2 59/55.0 88/74.5 72/62.2 58/54.3 86/73.0 72/62.4 57/53.9 88/74.2 63/56.7 80/67.5 57/53.8 63/56.9 70/61.1 67/59.0 67/59.2 62/56.4 39/43.9 84/70.5 89/75.8 72/62.5 48/48.8 91/77.9 97/89.6 62/56.5 47/48.5 77/65.8 82/69.3 65/58.1 33/40.6 91/78.1 93/81.1 69, ,0.3 46/47.8 87/74.0 99/99.0 66/58.5 42/45.8 86/72.8 94/82.7 67/59.0 40/44.9 88/75.0 96/86.9 72/62.0 41/45.0 89/76.1 72/62.4 53/51.6 85/71.4 61/55.8 43/46.2 74/63.8 68/60.0 46/48.1 83/70.0 76/64.9 55/52.6 88/75.1 72/62.1 49/49.4 86/72.7 72/62.4 48/49.0 87/73.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are contb.Mied and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRCT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAIl'ATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGIKH EDITION NATIONAL PMCENTILE RANK,/NORMAL CURVE EQUI'CALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ISH ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 37 37 29/38.6 29/38.6 28/37.8 28/37.8 31/39.6 31/39.6 33/40.5 33/40.5 28/37.6 28/37.6 25/35.6 25/35.6 2 TOTAL B W 0 28 26 2 33/40.5 34/41.0 21/33.1 49/49.5 46/48.0 81/68.8 56/53.0 55/52.8 61/55.7 61/56.1 59/55.0 83/70.4 45/47.3 45/47.3 46/47.8 43/46.2 43/46.0 49/49.3 3 TOTAL B W O 16 16 17/29.9 17/29.9 37/43.0 37/43.0 40/44.7 40/44.7 26/36.3 26/36.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 33/40.7 33/40.7 31/39.4 31/39.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 20 29 28 1 14 14 32/40.2 57/53.5 35/41.9 29/38.1 43/46.3 41/45.0 38/43.5 24/35.3 25/35.5 14/27.2 31/39.4 31/39.4 * Data by race for grade 4 is r This information will be prov 42/45.8 43/46.2 23/34.4 41/45.3 42/45.5 32/40.1 32/40.1 32/40.4 16/29.1 36/42.4 36/42.5 32/40.1 33/40.6 33/40.9 21/33.0 31/39.8 32/40.1 20/32.3 - 62/56.3 62/56.3 36/42.5 36/42.5 vailable at th..\ntime, 'ed at a later date. 42/45.7 42/45.7 49/+9.3 49/49.3 46/47.7 46/47.7 44/46.8 44/46.8 At Grad are coir.  1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives ned and reflect.d as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTL: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES 'PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 67 26 40 53/51.5 25/35.9 71/61.5 64/57.6 34/41.1 81/68.4 53/51.6 27/37.0 71/61.7 55/52.6 21/33.0 76/65.0 58/54.3 28/37.7 76/65.0 54/52.0 21/33.3 75/64.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 64 26 35 3 48/49.0 23/34.1 57/59.4 63/56.9 69/60.5 38/43.8 85/71.9 91/77.9 53/51.8 29/38.2 72/62.2 56/53.0 57/53.9 28/38.0 76/64.8 82/69.3 57/53.5 28/37.9 75/64.5 69/60.6 58/54.1 28/37.4 77/65.7 72/62.5 3 TOTAL B W O 70 30 39 1 56/53.1 40/44.5 69/60.5 12/25.3 70/61.3 56/53.3 81/68.2 14/27.2 59/54.9 51/50.4 67/59.3 5/15.4 67/59.5 42/45.9 84/70.7 18/30.7 69/60.4 51/50.4 81/68.8 22/33.7 62/56.2 47/48.3 73/63.1 10/23.0 63/56.8 46/47.7 76/64.7 9/21.8 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 70 63 26 37 53 22 31 59/54.7 64/57.8 59/54.7 57/53.7 59/54.6 59/54.6 58/54.3 60/55.4 26/36.1 82/69.4 71/61.9 42/45.7 87/73.4 70/60.8 51/50.3 81/68.4 82/69.5 65/58.0 91/77.7 69/60.4 45/47.5 83/69.7 70/61.0 54/52.3 79/67.1 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 69/60.2 33/40.7 88/74.4 74/63.5 48/49.1 87/73.8 82/69.6 55/52.6 94/82.0 64/57.4 36/42.5 80/67.9 68/60.1 37/43.0 85/72.1 82/69.3 62/56.3 91/78.5 78/66.0 56/53.1 88/75.2 79/67.1 56/52.9 90/77.2 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are coral Hied and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 I 1 TOTAL B W 0 71 35 34 1 36/42.4 26/36.5 47/48.3 80/67.7 34/41.5 26/36.3 44/46.7 44/46.8 43/46.3 36/42.5 50/49.9 74/63.5 37/42.8 27/37.3 48/49.1 54/52.1 33/43.7 32/40.0 45/47.2 76/64 .9 31/39.8 24/34.8 40/44.6 74/63.5 2 TOTAL B W O 75 43 32 37/42.8 26/36.5 53/51.4 49/49.6 39/44.2 63/56.8 42/45.5 33/40.7 54/51.9 34/41.3 23/34.5 51/50.4 39/44.1 30/39.2 51/50.7 37/42.8 27/36.8 52/50.9 3 TOTAL B W O 60 34 25 1 32/39.9 21/33.2 48/48.7 72/62.3 48/48.9 38/43.3 60/55.5 95/84.6 42/45.9 32/39.9 57/53.9 80/67.7 33/40.7 25/35.9 45/47.1 56/53.2 38/43.3 30/38.9 48/49.1 62/56.4 39/44.3 28/37.9 55/52.4 85/71.8 38/43.8 28/37.6 52/51.0 83/70.1 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 66 62 36 26 69 44 23 2 35/42.1 48/48.7 36/42.6 37/42.8 39/44.3 38/43.4 36/42.3 35/41.7 27/37.0 46/48.1 41/45.2 37/42.9 47/48.5 52/51.2 47/48.3 60/55.3 42/45.7 31/39.4 59/54.5 41/45.3 34/41.3 51/50.7 38/43.6 31/39.7 48/48.9 38/43.3 30/38.8 49/49.5 36/42.3 29/38.5 49/49.6 45/47.4 45/47.1 38/43.3 56/53.3 66/58.4 41/45.3 34/41.1 56/53.3 47/48.2 50/50.2 45/47.3 59/54.6 73/63.0 45/47.1 42/45.9 47/48.4 64/57.4 41/45.4 35/41.8 53/51.5 58/54.0 41/45.2 35/41.8 52/51.0 60/55.2 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AiD EVALUATION STAMFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 72 41 28 3 57/53.8 36/42.7 80/68.0 90/76.7 64/57.5 48/49.0 80/67.9 93/81.7 56/53.3 37/42.8 79/66.8 91/78.5 53/51.4 33/40.8 76/64.6 90/77.3 61/56.1 41/45.0 83/70.0 92/79.0 59/54.6 35/41.9 84/70.5 91/78.7 2 TOTAL B W O 68 36 32 52/50.9 35/42.0 70/60.9 75/64.2 56/53.1 90/77.1 64/57.3 46/47.9 81/68.1 55/52.4 37/43.1 73/62.8 61/55.9 41/45.1 80/68.0 61/56.1 40/44.7 82/69.1 3 TOTAL B W O 60 28 31 1 60/55.2 46/48.0 71/61.9 58/54.2 74/63.6 64/57.4 83/69.8 56/53.2 66/58.7 53/51.3 78/65.9 43/46.3 60/55.5 42/45.9 75/64.1 81/68.5 65/58.3 49/49.6 79/66.8 66/58.7 69/60.5 56/53.1 80/67.4 58/54.2 69/60.5 54/52.2 81/68.2 62/56.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 66 57/53.5 66/58.9 52/50.8 52/51.1 51/50.6 58/54.2 56/53.1 5 TOTAL B W O 74 40 34 49/49.5 32/39.9 71/61.5 56/53.4 46/47.9 69/60.2 56/52.9 45/47.2 68/59.9 52/51.2 39/44.0 58/59.8 51/50.6 41/45.3 63/57.0 53/51.5 40/44.6 67/59.5 53/51.4 40/44.4 68/59.7 6 TOTAL B W 0 63 44 16 3 47/48.2 39/43.9 71/61.8 32/40.1 I 56/53.4 51/50.3 68/60.0 74/63.7 45/47.1 39/44.2 58/54.4 54/52.3 48/49.1 39/44.2 66/58.7 84/70.5 52/50.8 46/48.0 64/57.5 64/57.3 51/50.7 45/47.3 67/59.5 60/55.2 50/50.1 43/46.4 67/59.4 63/56.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at thi2 time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 71 45 25 62 40 22 55 37 18 58 47 27 20 46 34 12 35/42.1 28/37.5 51/50.6 39/44.2 34/41.5 50/50.0 27/37.3 23/34.4 38/43.6 25/35.9 19/31.2 41/45.2 35/41.8 28/37.7 49/49.5 31/39.8 26/36.3 44/46.7 32/40.0 25/35.7 46/48.1 28/38.0 25/35.8 36/42.6 34/41.1 32/40.2 18/30.6 56/53.2 49/49.5 41/45.3 71/61.4 49/49.4 47/48.5 52/50.9 37/43.2 32/40.2 48/48.7 27/36.8 23/34.3 34/41.3 37/43.1 31/39.7 49/49.3 34/41.4 28/37.4 47/48.6 40/44.6 37/43.1 46/48.0 38/43.5 37/43.2 39/44.1 28/37.8 25/35.6 36/42.5 30/39.0 28/38.0 34/41.2 34/41.2 31/39.8 39/44.1 31/39.7 29/38.1 37/42.8 43/46.3 34/41.1 21/32.7 54/52.3 52/51.0 49/49.6 60/55.1 36/42.7 46/47.6 44/4b.7 37/43.2 37/43.1 43/46.5 28/37.6 66/58.5 46/47.6 41/45.1 59/54.8 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 36/42.6 18/30.6 66/58.8 50/49.9 43/46.4 68/60.0 35/42.0 24/34.9 53/51.6 34/41.3 20/32.6 56/53.1 33/40.6 19/31.3 56/53.3 63/56.8 54/52.2 83/70.0 51/50.3 46/47.8 64/57.4 51/50.7 46/47.7 67/59.2 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAIVATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MITCHELL ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 40 38 2 43 41 2 39, 35 3 1 41 24 23 1 38 38 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 27/37.1 25/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 37/42.8 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 30.38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36.5 25/35.9 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at th..s time. This information will be provided at a later date. 2 i/32.9 20/31.9 55/52.6 31/39.5 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3 25/35.6 49/49.4 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/45.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 26/36.7 29/38.2 35/41.6 -) 4/41.0 66/58.7 50/-.9.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 29/38.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 29/38.2 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 36/42.6 36/42.6 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 26/36.7 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 36/42.2 36/42.2 J At Grad 1 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com'Aned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 65 34 31 46 15 31 48. 2'1 26 1 49 46 25 21 52 23 28 1 56/52.9 44/46.7 67/59.4 56/53.2 34/41.2 78/65.9 47/48.6 29/38.5 67/59.4 38/43.5 22/33.7 58/54.2 59/54.6 42/45.7 75/64.0 54/51.9 38/43.3 70/61.3 49/49.3 31/39.8 58/54.3 72/62.3 44/47.0 83/70.0 57/53.6 39/44.0 66/58.4 53/51.5 25/35.9 66/58.8 56/53.2 32/40.4 67/59.5 57/53.6 30/39.2 69/60.6 54/52.0 35/41.7 69/60.7 40/44.7 71/61.9 51/50.3 85/71.4 68/59.9 65/57.9 44/47.0 79/66.9 51/50.5 48/48.8 32/40.4 61/55.9 31/39.6 54/52.2 37/43.1 68/59.9 40/44.7 64/57.3 43/46.2 78/66.4 58/54.2 60/55.5 39/44.3 76/64.8 52/51.1 55/52.4 63/57.0 60/55.2 53/51.6 57/53.8 57/53.6 56/53.2 38/43.4 24/34.9 57/53.5 67/59.2 53/51.5 81/68.5 61/55.9 44/46.7 79/67.0 49/49.4 36/42.3 64/57.7 52/70.9 41/45.0 65/58.0 53/51.5 38/43.8 69/60.6 52/51.2 37/43.1 69/60.7 63/57.0 35/42.0 82/69.5 48/48.9 72/62.2 49/49.2 86/73.1 62/56.4 58/54.1 32/40.4 77/65.3 56/53.2 64/57.8 41/45.0 81/68.5 54/52.1 I 66/58.9 41/45.0 84/70.6 49/49.5 66/58.4 40/44.5 83/70.2 48/48.9 66 /58.7 39/44.1 84/71.1 48/48.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflec i as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHxEVEHENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE S^'LENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 71 37 32 2 32/40.1 16/29.1 58/54.0 20/32.0 49/49.5 26/36.5 74/63.8 80/67.8 49/49.6 26/36.7 74/63.7 80/67.4 45/47.2 20/32.4 76/65.0 39/44.3 41/45.0 20/31.9 68/59.8 48/48.9 42/45.5 18/30.5 73/62.8 42/45.6 2 TOTAL B W O 46 20 25 1 46/47.9 20/32.5 68/59.9 58/54.2 70/60.8 46/47.7 83/69.7 99/99.0 53/51.7 33/40.9 69/60.3 52/51.1 52/50.8 29/38.1 71/61.6 28/37.7 54/52.1 28/37.7 74/63.2 72/62.3 55/52.8 27/36.9 76/65.1 70/61.0 3 TOTAL B W O 41, 19 21 1 50/49.9 28/37.8 68/59.6 88/74.7 71/61.8 49/49.5 85/72.0 92/79.6 64/57.6 45/47.3 78/65.9 93/81.1 60/55.3 39/44.0 77/65.4 69/60.4 57/53.5 40/44.7 70/61.0 72/62.3 63/56.8 41/45.1 78/66.5 90/77.0 62/56.3 39/44.0 78/66.4 38/74.7 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 47 41 22 18 1 33 21 12 48/49.1 57/53.8 42/45.5 46/47.8 49/49.5 49/49.2 47/48.5 37/43.2 21/33.1 59/54.7 66/58.7 37/42.8 28/37.5 54/52.1 55/52.4 42/45.5 65/58.2 99/99.0 49/49.4 38/43.5 62/56.2 65/58.1 44/46.6 25/35.7 65/58.2 90/77.0 47/48.5 34/''.0 62/j6.4 83/70.1 44/47.0 31/39.3 59/55.0 84/70.9 44/46.9 28/38.0 62/56.2 88/74.7 35/41.6 26/36.6 51/50.5 40/44.9 30/38.7 61/55.8 38/43.8 30/39.0 54/52.1 47/48.6 41/45.3 59/54.5 37/43.0 28/37.7 54/52.1 36/42.7 28/37.5 54/51.9 Data by race for grade 4 is vailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PEt'CENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 39 38 43/46.2 43/46.5 46/47.9 46/48.0 32/40.4 33/40.8 25/35.9 26/36.2 40/44.7 41/45.0 39/44.0 40/44.4 2 TOTAL B W 0 33 32 45/47.1 45/47.2 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/58.7 66/58.7 44/46.9 45/47.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/54.1 58/54.1 3 TOTAL B W O 3,8 37 1 4 TOTAL * B W 0 33 32/40.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 45/48.1 45/47.1 95/84.6 53/51.6 42/45.7 41/45.0 84/70.9 37/42.8 24/35.2 23/34.7 56/53.2 2//35.1 30/38.8 29/38.4 55/52.6 31/39.4 38/43.8 38/43.3 75/64.2 36/42.4 34/41.5 34/41.0 73/62.9 32/40.1 5 TOTAL B W 0 42 42 21/33.1 21/33.1 40/44.7 40/44.7 37/43.1 37/43.1 26/37.9 z 7737.9 37/43.2 37/43.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 29/38.4 29/38.4 6 TOTAL B W 0 1 33 33 34/41.0 34/41.0 49/49.5 49/49.5 42/45.6 42/45.6 26/42.3 -3/42.3 41/45.2 41/45.2 43/46.0 43/46.0 40/44.6 40/44.6 * Data by race for grade 4 is ur',vailable at thij time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com)' led and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 62 41 20 1 42/45.8 37/43.0 52/51.0 64/57.5 50/50.1 45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51/50.3 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40.8 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 41 29 10 2 28/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 3 TOTAL B W O 39 2'6 12 1 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 38 38 32 5 1 36 27 9 29/38.4 38/43.4 25/35.6 26/36.7 31/39.3 28/37.8 26/36.3 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nGRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAI.OATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ROMINE ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 46 40 6 49 47 2 44 38 6 45 36 32 4 40 35 4 1 39/44.3 37/43.0 55/52.8 63/57.1 62/56.2 73/62.7 47/48.3 45/47.5 58/54.3 44/46.7 41/45.3 61/56.0 49/49.4 46/48.1 66/58.6 49/49.3 47/48.2 63/56.8 19/31.3 19/31.2 22/33.4 32/40.0 29/38.6 49/49.4 39/44.1 41/45.2 40/44.9 45/47.2 40/44.4 36/42.5 73/62.8 23/34.4 33/40.8 34/41.5 11/24.0 34/41.3 34/41.4 30/39.2 29/38.2 28/37.4 62/56.4 27/36.8 27/37.1 16/29.4 25/36.0 26/36.3 16/29.4 49/49.3 50/50.1 39/44.3 47/48.4 47/48.5 46/47.7 40/44.7 39/44.0 48/49.0 42/45.8 42/45.9 40/44.7 42/45.5 41/45.4 43/46.1 40/44.6 40/44.4 42/45.7 53/51.8 43/46.0 42/45.7 48/48.8 47/48.6 45/47.1 78/66.5 17/29.9 46/47.7 45/47.3 45/47.2 48/48.7 40/44.6 40/44.6 52/51.0 3/20.4 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 38/43.7 37/42.9 45/47.2 41/45.4 I 40/44.9 41/45.0 39/44.1 38/43.5 36/42.7 50/50.0 40/44.7 40/44.5 42/45.7 39/43.9 38/43.7 42/45.6 43/46.2 40/44.5 74/63.3 32/40.1 59/54.9 55/52.7 90/77.0 35/41.9 43/46.4 40/44.9 72/62.5 19/31.5 44/46.8 41/45.2 76/64.7 20/32.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SC EHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are conC'ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 38 37 1 22/33.8 22/33.8 23/34.4 42/45.5 41/45.4 52/51.1 35/41.8 35/41.6 53/51.6 23/34.5 23/34.7 14/27.2 31/39.6 31/39.6 35/41.9 24/35.3 24/35.2 25/35.8 2 TOTAL B W O 32 32 27/37.3 27/37.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 33/40.5 33/40.5 24/35.2 24/35.2 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 3 TOTAL B W O V 21 20/32.6 20/32.6 43/46.1 43/46.1 35/42.0 35/42.0 29/38.5 29/38.5 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 4 TOTAL 2 24/35.4 34/41.4 38/43.6 27/36.8 35/41.9 49/49.7 47/48.3 * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 39 39 17/30.2 17/30.2 35/42.0 35/42.0 34/41.3 34/41.3 32/40.4 32/40.4 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 6 TOTAL B W 0 30 28 1 1 33/40.9 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/82.7 99/99.0 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/36.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 76/64.9 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.3 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTL\n. ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 TERRY ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 67 26 37 4 63/57.1 51/50.6 69/60.7 79/67.2 68/60.1 48/48.8 81/68.6 75/64.0 51/50.7 36/42.7 62/56.6 61/56.0 50/50.2 3 '43.3 62/56.6 34/41.3 65/58.1 49/49.3 74/63.6 75/64.0 61/55.6 43/46.2 71/61.6 69/60.7 2 TOTAL B W 0 68 28 39 1 47/48.3 27/37.3 59/54.9 97/89.6 67/59.2 49/49.7 76/64.9 99/99.0 59/55.0 40/44.8 70/61.2 99/99.0 46/48.0 33/40.8 54/52.2 95/84.6 55/52.6 35/41.7 67/59.2 99/99.0 54/52.2 33/40.8 67/59.3 99/99.0 3 TOTAL B W 0 73 33 39 63/56.8 44/46.8 78/65.9 70/61.3 56/53.2 81/68.7 70/61.1 56/53.1 81/68.2 62/56.6 46/47.9 75/64.5 66/58.9 49/49.3 80/67.6 68/60.0 52/50.8 81/68.3 68/59.9 50/50.0 82/69.0 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 79 78 45 32 1 74 34 37 3 53/51.8 66/58.4 54/51.9 47/48.5 54/52.2 56/53.2 54/52.1 45/47.3 30/38.8 68/59.9 11/24.2 47/48.3 36/42.7 63/56.9 12/25.3 47/48.2 34/41.4 65/58.2 24/35.1 47/48.5 32/40.4 69/60.6 15/28.2 48/n9.0 38/43.7 63/57.2 18/30.7 46/47.7 32/40.4 66/58.6 11/24.2 46/47.6 31/39.8 67/59.3 9/21.8 67/59.0 50/50.0 79/67.3 67/59.2 74/63.7 65/58.0 82/69.1 70/60.8 63/57.2 51/50.7 73/62.8 71/61.4 73/61.4 54/52.0 84/70.6 61/55.8 70/60.8 52/50.9 84/70.5 56/53.4 i 71/61.4 59/54.6 80/68.0 64/57.7 71/61.7 57/53.9 82/69.3 63/57.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 71 55 16 1 31/39.5 31/39.3 32/40.3 29/38.3 29/38.6 27/36.8 41/45.0 -0- 24 /34 .8 23/34 .3 28/37.5 8/20.4 17/30.0 16/28.8 23/34 .7 7/18.9 28/37.6 26/36.5 34/41.4 -0- 21/32.9 18/30.5 33/40.8 -0- 2 TOTAL B W O 58 33 23 2 34/41.0 23/34 .4 46/48.1 80/-67.9 48/48.9 38/43.3 57/53.8 94/82.6 38/43.8 31/39.7 46/47.9 72/62.0 32/40.0 23/34.6 43/46.4 52/51 . 0 37/43.0 27/37.3 47/48.4 89/75.3 36/42.6 26/36.4 48/48.7 88/74 .5 3 TOTAL B W O 64 39 25 34/41.1 28/37.6 44/46.7 46/47.7 40/44 .4 56/53.0 41/45.4 32/40.0 57/53.7 34/41.0 27/37.3 44/46.8 38/43.3 31/39.4 49/49.3 39/44.3 33/40.5 50/50.2 37/43.0 30/38.9 49/49.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 63 39/44 .3 50/50.0 46/47.8 42/45.6 46/47.7 43/46.3 42/45.7 5 TOTAL B W O 66 52 13 1 25/35.9 1''/31.7 53/51.7 45/47.4 34/41.2 27/37.2 60/55.1 83/70.1 35/41.6 28/37.9 61/55.6 57/53.7 32/40.3 26/36.1 60/55.3 70/61.0 33/40.9 30/38.7 48/48.9 49/49.5 29/38.3 23/34 . 1 56/53.2 70/61.0 28/37.8 22/33.5 56/53.2 68/59.9 6 TOTAL B W O 78 56 20 2 37/42.9 32/40.2 49/49.3 54/52.0 49/49.3 44/46.6 60/55.2 74/63.6 46/47.7 37/42.8 68/59.6 66/58.7 45/47.4 37/43.2 64/57.6 71/61.8 49/49.5 43/46.0 66/58.8 58/54.2 43/46.4 38/43.3 58/54.0 64/57.6 43/46.2 36/42.7 59/55.0 63/57.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANF/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WASHINGTON MAGNET ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 ? TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 152 98 53 1 124 71 49 4 10 2 5'6 46 111 95 53 4 1 1 89 51 37 1 49/49.7 35/41.8 75/64 . 2 80/67.7 65/58.0 52/50.9 84/71.2 94/82.7 61/55.7 43/46.3 86/73.0 99/99.0 57/53.5 45/47.4 76/65.1 83/70.1 * X 59/54.9 43/46.2 84/70.5 91/78.2 55/52.8 38/43.6 82/69 . 3 91/78.2 41/45.3 25/35.7 65/58.3 6 1 /-5 5 . 8 70/60.8 48/48.8 90/77.4 85/71.8 60/55.4 38/43.3 86/72.6 66/58.7 52/51.1 29/38.4 80/67.6 87/73.3 51/50.6 29/38.6 79/67.0 72/62.0 52/51.2 29/38.5 81/68.6 75/64 .5 38/43.7 17/30.1 68/59.8 50/49.9 35/41.8 17/30. 1 63/57.0 51/50.5 51/50.6 30/39.0 78/65.9 86/72.8 55/52.8 36/42.5 77/65.3 63/56.7 63/57 . 1 48/49.0 80/67.4 86/72.8 63/57.1 50/49.8 79/66.7 90/77.0 47/48.5 27/36.8 73/62.8 47/48.6 46/48.1 31/39.8 66/58.5 72/62.3 53/51.6 39/44 .3 70/61.0 91/78.2 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 44/46.8 23/34 .7 71/61.5 45/47.2 24/35.0 72/62.0 46/47.7 25/35.6 72/62.5 44/46.7 22/34.0 72/62.0 52/50.8 50/50.0 30/39.1 74 '63.5 95/84 .6 60/55.3 40/44.4 82/69.2 99/99.0 55/52.4 52/51.0 51/50.5 46/47.7 31/39.6 65/58.0 66/58.7 59/54 . 5 43/46.4 76/64.9 89/75.8 46/47.9 29/38.4 68/59.9 65/58.1 56/53.0 39/44 . 1 76/64 .7 90/77.0 46/47.9 28/37.6 70/60.9 71/61.7 56/53.4 38/43.5 78/66.2 94/82.7 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WATSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 64 47 17 27/37.0 24/34.9 37/42.8 33/40.5 30/38.9 41/45.2 23/34.1 20/32.4 30/38.8 23/34.4 20/32.5 32/40.1 27/36.9 23/34.3 39/44.0 24/35.4 22/33.7 32/40.3 2 TOTAL B W O 48 37 9 34/41.4 30/38.8 55/52.4 46/47.6 43/46.1 59/54.5 44/4' . 6 38/43.5 66/58.7 31/39.5 24/35.1 61/56.0 40/44.6 36/42. 62/56.2 39/44.0 34/41.3 64/57.3 3 TOTAL B N O 44 29 15 24/35.2 15/27.7 48/48.8 47/48.2 35/41.7 69/60.4 31/39.4 21/32.7 54/52.0 33/40.7 20/32.6 61/55.0 33/40.5 25/35.9 49/49.2 33/40.9 22/33.8 59/54.5 31/39.7 20/32.2 58/54.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 65 55 42 12 1 69 43 25 38/43.3 46/48.1 40/44.6 48/49.0 44/47.0 40/44.6 40/44.4 I 39/43.9 40/44.4 37/43.1 18/30.7 52/51.1 38/43.8 73/62.8 58/54.1 57/53.6 62/56.6 39/44.1 58/54.3 47/48.5 74/63.4 48/49.1 47/48.6 53/51.8 26/36.5 50/49.8 41/45.2 64/57.3 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 45/47.3 46/47.9 44/46.8 16/29.1 47/48.6 36/42.3 67/59.2 44/4 6.9 4 7.0 44/47.0 35/41.9 46/47.7 46/48.0 46/47.8 24/35.1 45/47.2 46/47.6 44/46.9 23/34.4 53/51.6 43/46.0 70/61-.0 54/51.9 43/46.1 71/61.5 53/51.3 40/44.9 71/61.9 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCI2NCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** I GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY A 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL \u0026gt;( B W 0 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 44 24 20 44 25 17 1 45 '27 18 51 51 34 17 50 28 22 46/48.1 35/41.8 61/55.8 41/45.3 29/38.1 57/53.9 43/46.0 29/38.4 60/55.1 29/38.4 20/32.6 41/45.4 50/50.1 41/45.0 62/56.2 43/46.3 29/38.5 61/55.7 45/47.1 34/41.5 57/53.9 54/5-2.1 46/47.6 33/40.7 64/57.8 35/41.9 35/41.8 26/36.2 56/52.9 60/55.1 46/47.8 75/64.4 65/58.1 56/53.0 81/68.4 63/57.0 63/56.7 50/50.1 81/68.1 81/68.5 47/48.2 34/41.0 67/59.3 68/59.9 52/51.1 41/45.4 71/61.7 60/55.3 52/51.0 40/44.8 72/62.2 63/57.0 69/60.6 59/54.9 82/69.2 53/51.6 39/44.3 73/62.7 44/46.7 33/40.7 61/55.6 42/45.6 34/41.2 54/52.3 57/53.6 44/47.0 74/63.5 53/51.5 40/44.7 71/61.8 54/52.0 37/42.9 38/43.5 39/44.1 41/45.0 39/43.9 53/51.8 45/47.3 69/60.7 45/47.2 36/42.6 62/56.4 41/45.0 30/38.9 63/57.2 45/47.4 36/42.6 63/56.9 41/45.1 32/40.2 59/54.9 40/44.7 31/39.4 60/55.4 60/55.2 55/52.5 65/58.6 56/53.0 49/49.4 64/57.6 61/55.9 52/50.9 72/52.4 64/57.8 53/51.6 77/65.7 60/55.4 52/50.9 70/61.0 60/55.5 51/50.4 72/62.0 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WILLIAMS MAGNET ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY  1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 65 38 25 2 65 35 29 1 60 33 27 68 89 47 4 1 1 69 40 29 82/69.5 74/63.5 91/77.8 92/79.4 69/60.3 54/52.1 82/69.6 9 0 /-7 7.0 68/60.0 56/53.2 81/68.3 70/60.8 63/56.9 46/48.1 78/66.1 98/93.3 81/68.2 76/64.7 86/73 . 1 82/69.0 76/64.8 89/75.5 82/69.0 76/64 .7 68/59.7 85/71.4 88/75.2 62/56.4 48/48.7 81/68.3 61/55.9 83/69.9 75/64.5 90/77.3 91/78.8 80/67.8 72/62.1 89/75.9 90/76.6 82/69.6 76/64 . 6 88/74 .8 98/93.3 83/69.8 77/65.2 89/75.3 81/68.7 81/68.6 69/60.3 90/77.3 99/99.0 81/68.4 72/62.2 90/76.9 81/68.2 71/61.5 89/76.0 92/79.6 78/65.9 74/63.4 82/69.1 72/62.0 70/61.3 59/54.6 81/68.5 92/79.6 75/63.9 70/61.1 80/67.8 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 81/68.6 72/62.3 90/76.6 62/56.4 67/59.3 54/52.2 80/67.9 74/63.8 77/65.3 62/56.6 88/74.4 99/99.0 73/62.9 67/59.0 81/68.4 * * 74/63.7 64/57.7 84/71.0 69/60.6 71/61.9 59/54.6 82/69.3 99/99.0 80/68.0 76/64 .9 86/72.4 78/65.9 66/58.5 87/74.1 95/84.6 79/67.3 68/59.7 89/75.8 95/84.6 77/65.8 69/60.3 86/72.6 77/65.6 67/59.5 86/73.0 73/62.9 74/63.3 72/62.3 57/53.8 84/71.2 99/99.0 81/68.7 76/64.7 88/74.2 74/63.5 59/54 .5 86/72.9 99/99.0 82/69.0 76/64.9 88/74.6 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WILSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 44 33 11 84/70.7 84/71.1 83/69.7 71/61.8 69/60.7 76/64.9 67/59.2 66/58.8 69/60.5 41/45.2 38/43.8 49/49.4 75/64.2 75/64.2 75/64.5 68/59.9 67/59.4 71/61.6 2 TOTAL B W O 63 36 27 52/50.9 47/48.4 58/54.2 69/60.2 67/59.2 71/61.5 56/52.9 51/50.3 62/56.5 41/45.2 39/43.9 44/46.9 58/54 .3 54/52.1 63/57.2 58/54.1 54/52.0 63/57.0 3 TOTAL B W O . 55 '4 0 13 2 37/43.2 35/41.7 46/47.8 36/42.6 55/52.5 51/50.7 61/56.0 74/63.4 49/49.3 45/47.5 56/53.2 71/61.4 40/44 .5 34/41.2 54/52.2 73/62.9 45/47.1 41/45.3 54/51.9 59/54.5 46/48.1 43/46.5 53/51.7 58/54.0 45/47.3 41/45.1 56/53.0 59/54 .8 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 45 48 42 6 42 32 10 35/42. 1 27/37.0 25/35.8 42/45.6 40/44.5 32/40.1 64/57.6 48/49.1 45/47.1 40/44 .8 36/42.2 41/45.1 38/43.7 39/44.2 38/43.4 49/49.7 55/52.8 54/52.3 58/54 . 3 34/41.0 32/40 . 1 44/47.0 42/45.6 39/44.0 51/50.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be prov'ded at a later date. 31/39.6 31/39.5 33/40.7 37/43.1 33/40.9 51/50.4 32 /'iO . 1 32/ 10.1 31/39.8 49/49.4 45/47 . 1 63/57,1 32/40.1 30/39.2 43/46.4 46/48.0 43/46.4 55/52.8 30/39.1 29/38.4 39/44.1 44/47.0 41/45.1 56/53.3 *At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLr\nROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION SCHOOL: STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT** SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 22 13 9 35/41.6 22/33.5 56/53.4 37/43.2 24/34 .9 60/55.1 31/39.8 16/29.4 59/54.9 27/37.0 17/30.1 45/47.1 30/39.2 14/27.6 61/55.9 28/37.9 14/27.3 56/53.3 2 TOTAL B W 0 20 12 8 24/35.3 19/31.6 33/40.9 39/44 . 1 30/39 . 1 53/51.7 28/37.4 17/29.5 49/49.3 30/38.7 22/33.4 44/46.8 fr -k 31/39.7 26/36.6 40/44 .4 26/36.5 18/31.0 40/44.6 3 TOTAL B W 0 23 17 6 32/40 ..3 24/35.2 59/54.8 4 3/46.0 36/42.6 61/55.6 45/47.5 34/41.5 75/64.2 30/38.9 22/33.8 56/53.4 37/43.0 32/39.9 53/51.6 38/43.7 31/39.3 61/56.1 35/42.1 28/37.4 60/55.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 35 26 16 9 1 34 20 14 30/38.7 31/39.7 25/35.7 40/44.7 66/58.7 31/39.6 21/32.7 49/49.4 47/48.5 67/59.2 60/55.5 74/63.3 93/81.1 46/48 . 1 41/45.4 54/51.9 34/41.2 33/40.7 39/44.1 35/41.8 33/40.7 48/49.1 44/46.8 57/53.7 38/43.6 39/44.3 36/42.4 45/47.4 42/45.8 48/48.8 42/45.9 55/52.7 66/58.7 46/47.7 39/44.1 54/52.1 76/64 .9 45/47.2 38/43.6 54/52.0 73/62.9 40/44.4 29/38.6 55/52.8 40/44.7 33/40.5 51/50.7 49/49.5 42/45.5 60/55.3 39/44.0 31/39.7 50/50.0 38/43.7 30/39.2 50/50.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W 0 8 TOTAL B W 0 9 TOTAL B W 0 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, NATIONAl PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE 181 205 156 48 1 19 4 129 62 3 32/40.3 34/41.3 35/41.9 EIGHTH EDITION EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCIENCE 34/11.0 SOCIAL SCIENCE 36/42.3 BASIC BATTERY 35/42.1 COMPLETE BATTERY 35/41.6 34/41.4 28/37.9 55/52.7 84/70.9 30/38.7 25/35.9 45/47.1 99/99.0 40/44. 8 35/41.6 58/54.2 99/99.0 38/43.5 32/40.3 57/53.6 67/59.3 38/43.5 33/40.5 56/53.2 78/66.3 33/40.5 28/37.5 49/49.2 97/89.6 32/40. 1 27/36.8 49/49.7 97/89,6 36/42.6 30/38.8 52/51.1 23/34 . .3 27/37.0 22/33.5 39/43.9 35/4 2.1 47/48.3 40/44.8 61/55.9 37/42.8 41/45.2 36/42.6 52/50.8 31/39.4 41/45.3 35/42.1 54/52.0 38/43.8 39/44.0 33/40.6 53/51.3 36/42.4 39/44 . 1 33/40.7 53/51.4 35/41.6 * Data by race for grade 7 Is unavailable at this time. This information will be j covided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EV.'-LUATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W O 8 TOTAL B W o 9 TOTAL B W 0 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE SCHOOL: NUMBER TESTED 239 229 126 101 2 121 84 37 SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 DUNBAR MAGNET JR. HIGH TOTAL READING 55/52.8 53/51.8 38/43.3 72/62.1 86/72.6 34/41.1 24/34.8 61/56.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE 59/54.9 54/52.2 EIGHTH EDITION EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 56/53.2 59/54.6 59/54.5 59/54.6 46/47.7 34/41.4 59/54.9 97/90.0 59/54.6 45/47.2 74/63.4 94/83.2 55/52.7 39/44.2 73/62.6 96/85.8 57/53.7 37/43.1 78/66.2 97/90.1 52/51.0 37/43.1 69/60.2 97/90.1 53/51.5 36/42.2 72/62.3 99/96.2 28/37.6 18/31.0 55/52.8 43/46.3 33/40.7 67/59.5 44/46.9 32/40.2 72/62.3 39/44.2 27/37.0 70/60.9 36/42.6 25/35.8 66/58.6 38/43.3 25/35.8 69/60.4 * Data by race for grade 7 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAI,UATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W O 8 TOTAL B W O STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL: NUMBER TESTED 205 181 120 54 7 SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH TOTAL READING 46/48.1 32/39.9 21/32.8 63/56.8 66/58.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 47/48.4 47/48.3 42/45.9 51/50.4 50/50.2 50/49.9 9 TOTAL B W O 188 124 61 3 46/48.0 35/41.9 69/60.3 50/49.8 * 38/43.3 27/37.0 62/56.2 81/68.2 37/43.0 26/36.1 61/55.7 72/62.5 42/45.7 32/39.9 65/58.0 81/68.1 43/46.4 32/40.4 69/60.2 72/62.0 41/45.1 29/38.2 69/60.2 73/63.1 39/44.1 27/36.9 63/57.2 76/65.1 39/43.9 26/36.2 65/58.1 78/66.0 56/53.1 47/48.4 72/62.3 70/61.1 57/53.7 44/47.0 78/66.0 79/66.7 49/49.7 40/44.6 66/58.6 83/70.0 50/50.0 39/43.9 72/62.2 64/57.4 50/50.2 38/43.5 74/63.4 70/61.1 Data by race for grade 7 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: HENPFRSON JR HIGH GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 7 TOTAL B W 0 216 31/39.3 40/44.9 34/41.0 33/40.9 36/42.5 38/43.7 37/43.0 8 TOTAL B W 0 199 162 33 4 34/41.3 27/37.0 67/59.3 90/76.6 39/44.2 34/41.3 58/54.1 95/83.9 42/45.8 35/41.7 72/62.0 94/82.8 39/44.0 32/40.4 65/58.1 92/79.1 42/45.8 35/41.7 70/61.3\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_1510","title":"Testing: Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6), comparative data, Little Rock School District","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":["1988/1991"],"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--Standards","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6), comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"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/1510"],"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":["118 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"usm_hmp_mus-m319-0005","title":"Letter, William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr.; November 18, 1987","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":["Simmons, William J., 1916-"],"dc_date":["1987-11-25"],"dcterms_description":["From the Johnston (Erle E., Jr.) Papers; Typewritten letter from William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr., dated November 18, 1987, in response to Johnston's request for information to be used in his book about Mississippi from 1953-1973.  Topics discussed include integrated sporting events, the White Citizens council, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, and issues related to the Sovereignty Commission during the administrations of Ross Barnett and J.P. Coleman.  Also mentioned are the Voting Rights Act of 1968, the Reconstruction of the 1860s, and the New Reconstruction of the 1859s.","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":["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":["M319 Johnston (Erle E., Jr.) Papers","Box 2, Folder 9"],"dcterms_subject":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","Race relations","White Citizens councils"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr.; November 18, 1987"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_f4691966-15c3-4440-a8b3-e80f4b87c076"],"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":"usm_hmp_mus-m319-0007","title":"Letter, William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr.; November 25, 1987","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":["Simmons, William J., 1916-"],"dc_date":["1987-11-25"],"dcterms_description":["From the Johnston (Erle E., Jr.) Papers; Typewritten letter on Citizens Councils of America letterhead from William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr., dated November 25, 1987.  Discusses the Legal Education Advisory Committee (LEAC), as well as other issues in Johnston's book, \"Mississippi:  The Defiant Years.\"  Includes a list of members of the LEAC.","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":["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":["M319 Johnston (Erle E., Jr.) Papers","Box 2, Folder 9"],"dcterms_subject":["Letters","Mississippi","Politicians"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, William J. Simmons to Erle Johnston, Jr.; November 25, 1987"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_6f62a46a-05ae-4b5f-be5c-6917802a8023"],"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_p15728coll3_451241","title":"Arkansas State Press, October 28, 1987","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas State Press"],"dc_date":["1987-10-28"],"dcterms_description":["Volume XXI, No. 43","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas State Press, October 28, 1987"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/451241"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_814","title":"Court filings: District Court, order","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":["1987-10-15"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Magnet schools","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order"],"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/814"],"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":["86 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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_208","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count","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":["1987-10-01"],"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","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count"],"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/208"],"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":["63 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\nOctober 15, 1987 TO: Board of Directors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation '5\"\"$ THROUGHD:r . George Cannon, Interim Superintenden~ SUBJECT: Enrollment Report - October 1, 1987 cc: Executive Staff TEL: TOTALE NROLLMENT Senior High School!! Central F-,ir H.!!ll McClel hn P~rkview Metropolit-,n TOTALH !GHS CHOOLS Junior High School, Clovcrdsle Ounbor Forest Heiohh Henderson Mabelvele Monn Pula~ki Heiahh Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLK IND~RGARTEN: CP-ntral Fair '50  Hall McClellan 1\u0026lt;2''\u0026gt; l/f Parkview /' I 1{oe3.2)e ~i~ TOTAL ~ ENROLLMERNETP ORT October\" 1, 1987 ~WiE.!'il 26,853 2108 882 1449 1279 833 15 6566 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 White 2 :1 8 12 9. 32 Jan 14,94 , Black Otht'r 57 q 7 7 110 90 10:32 No.001 P.02 X BLACK 61 57 48 50 39 55 80 Sl 63 68 62 60 50 53 63 66 61 Total 59 10 15 19 19 :122 I f I \\ ..\\ i ! I j i y:,?: fF piO N f1.1 I ,\n::J It-/ ,(1-1 \n,i,3/51e .- f 21 fi)ull\\(3/ Eler,entary Schools Badgett 290 72 Bale 397 70 Baseline 448 71 Brady 423 65 Chicot 642 57 Cloverdale 408 64 Dodd 398 61 Fair Park 315 69 Fore::it Park 426 59 Franklin 403 72 Fulbright 503 57 Garland 329 85 Geyer Springs 235 66 Ish 214 81 Jefferson 462 56 King 269 81 Mabel vale 546 59 McDerr,ott 471 56 Meadowcli ff 449 65 Mitchell 256 86 Otter Creek 325 60 Pulaski Heights 340 75 Rioht sell 246 77 Rockefeller 289 87 Ror,ine 484 71 Stephens 218 90 Terry 481 57 Wakefield 467 62 Washington 214 93 Watson 491 63 Western Hills 314 61 Wilson 407 71 Woodruff 229 76 Total 12,389 67 EleMentary Magnet Schools Booker 636 51 Carver 362 49 Gibbs 265 49 Williar,s 496 50 Total 1,759 50 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,148 65 Special Schools 0 SCHOOLS Amboy Argenta . Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Crestwood Glenview -Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Pine Redwood Rose City Seventh Street TOTALS NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT ~{ OF OCTOBER1 , 1987 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSE XCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN NONBLACK 203 86 6 70 219 121 99 256 128 124 124 223 120 215 93 109 98 177 2,471 BLACK 137 92 7 54 265 89 . 93 133,_. 94 132 137 126 67 188 91 115 74 127 2,021 TOTALS 340 178 13 124 484 210 192 389 222 256 261 349 187 403 184 224 172 304 4,492 BLACK PERCENTAGE 40.3% 51. 7% 53.8% 43.5% 54.87. 42.4% 48.47. 34.27. 42.3% 51.6% 52.5% 36 .1% 35.8% 46.7% 49.5% 51.3% 43.0% 41. 8% 45.0% # ~A -NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS . RACIAL COUNT ,,._ AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1987 BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Baring Cross (secondary students) __ 9 18 27 66.77. SUBTOTALS 9 18 27 66.77. SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 433 258 691 37.37. -- Lakewood 350 132 482 27.47. Ridgeroad 340 279 619 45.17. Rose City 258 --- 175 433 40.47. SUBTOTALS 1,381 844 2,225 37.97. Northeast 862 329 1,191 27.67. Ole Main 606 424 1,030 41. 27. SUBTOTALS 1,468 753 2,221 33.97. SECONDARTYO TALS 2,858 1,615 4,473 36. li. ELEMENTARTYO TALS (excluding kindergarten) 2,471 2,021 4,492 45.0% DISTRICT TOTALS (excluding kindergarten) 5,329 3,636 8965 40.67.\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_p15728coll3_37840","title":"Little Rock Central High School symposium","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-09-23/1987-09-25"],"dcterms_description":["This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Elizabeth Huckaby papers, 1936-1998 (UALR.MS.0118)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas--Little Rock--History--20th century","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Public schools--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Central High School symposium"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/37840"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Huckaby, Elizabeth"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":75,"next_page":76,"prev_page":74,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":888,"total_count":4339,"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":4077},{"value":"StillImage","hits":387}],"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":1145},{"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":1727},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":503},{"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":955},{"value":"1963","hits":662},{"value":"1965","hits":511},{"value":"1962","hits":470},{"value":"1957","hits":460},{"value":"1960","hits":454},{"value":"1966","hits":442},{"value":"1961","hits":438},{"value":"1967","hits":438},{"value":"1995","hits":427},{"value":"1959","hits":418},{"value":"1994","hits":407},{"value":"1958","hits":399},{"value":"1996","hits":395},{"value":"1993","hits":382},{"value":"1969","hits":381},{"value":"1968","hits":357},{"value":"1992","hits":355},{"value":"1991","hits":353},{"value":"1999","hits":345},{"value":"1997","hits":342},{"value":"2000","hits":331},{"value":"1998","hits":324},{"value":"2001","hits":321},{"value":"1970","hits":317},{"value":"1990","hits":306},{"value":"1971","hits":293},{"value":"2002","hits":290},{"value":"1956","hits":276},{"value":"2003","hits":276},{"value":"1989","hits":275},{"value":"1972","hits":266},{"value":"1955","hits":257},{"value":"2004","hits":254},{"value":"2005","hits":235},{"value":"1954","hits":228},{"value":"1981","hits":223},{"value":"1974","hits":219},{"value":"1987","hits":213},{"value":"1988","hits":212},{"value":"1975","hits":203},{"value":"1973","hits":201},{"value":"1984","hits":201},{"value":"1986","hits":200},{"value":"1985","hits":199},{"value":"2006","hits":199},{"value":"1977","hits":195},{"value":"1980","hits":195},{"value":"1982","hits":195},{"value":"1983","hits":195},{"value":"1979","hits":193},{"value":"1976","hits":187},{"value":"1978","hits":187},{"value":"2007","hits":187},{"value":"1952","hits":156},{"value":"2010","hits":155},{"value":"1951","hits":154},{"value":"1953","hits":154},{"value":"2009","hits":152},{"value":"2008","hits":151},{"value":"2011","hits":151},{"value":"1950","hits":146},{"value":"2012","hits":142},{"value":"1948","hits":140},{"value":"2013","hits":140},{"value":"2014","hits":139},{"value":"1947","hits":137},{"value":"1945","hits":132},{"value":"1946","hits":132},{"value":"1944","hits":131},{"value":"1949","hits":131},{"value":"1943","hits":125},{"value":"1942","hits":119},{"value":"1934","hits":118},{"value":"1940","hits":118},{"value":"1932","hits":117},{"value":"1936","hits":117},{"value":"1937","hits":117},{"value":"1939","hits":117},{"value":"1933","hits":116},{"value":"1935","hits":115},{"value":"1941","hits":115},{"value":"1930","hits":114},{"value":"1938","hits":114},{"value":"1924","hits":111},{"value":"1931","hits":111},{"value":"1929","hits":97},{"value":"1921","hits":94},{"value":"1928","hits":91},{"value":"1923","hits":90},{"value":"1926","hits":90},{"value":"1927","hits":90},{"value":"1922","hits":89},{"value":"1925","hits":89},{"value":"1909","hits":87},{"value":"1918","hits":87},{"value":"1919","hits":87},{"value":"1920","hits":87},{"value":"1908","hits":86},{"value":"1911","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":26892,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4339},{"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":46},{"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":1879},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":653},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":33},{"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":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4333},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}