{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1414","title":"Report: ''Monitoring Report: The Little Rock School District, 1994-95 Incentive School Extended Year Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1995-12-01"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Monitoring Report: The Little Rock School District, 1994-95 Incentive School Extended Year Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1414"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["59 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_734","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary,'' 3D/International, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-11-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary,'' 3D/International, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/734"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nreceived FEB 29 199 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary Revisions based on 1995 enrollment and various modifications to tables and cost data. Recommendations remain unchanged November 22,1995 Volume No 1 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026lt;S Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership Demographers112 Easl Pecan Streel. Suite 2350 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone 210/227-2500 Fax 210/227-9704 November 22, 1995 Little Rock School District Subject: Supplement to the Executive Summary Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study The following documents represent changes to tables provided in the August 30, 1995 Executive Summary to the Facilities Master Plan Study. In addition, certain new tables have been added which reflect enrollment impact on the middle school concept as well as readjustment of enrollment projections based on the actual 1995 enrollment. These documents are being provided in this bound form and should be substituted for the previously provided tables issued report. in Volume 1 of the I 9 3D International Central Region Tab_______ Cost Factor Table CST-1 CST-3 CST-4 CST-5 CST-6 Action Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace a Demographic Study Analysis of 1994-1995 Enrollment Projections New Document Educational Study Table 4A and 4B Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table ES-1 Table ES-3 Table ES-4 Table ES-7 (95) Table ES-8 (95) Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace Replace New Document New Document Attendance Zone AZ-1 Replace  Based on the 1995 enrollment and a review of the projections, no substantial change were encountered that would alter the recommendations set out in Volume 1. Very truly yours, Barbara Trammell Project AdministratorIN ij IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT O EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS s' I WESTERN DIVISION district court eastern district ARKANSAS I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEB 2 81996 PLAINTIFF JAMES W McCORiVirtGK, CLER By------------- - V. LR-C-82-866 OEP CL.  I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING I The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the I1 filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. H Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I N FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helled It I Bar No. 81083 L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Cost FactorCOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 2 McClellan 3 J.A.FAIR 4 HALL 5 PARKVIEW (Building 1) (Building 2) (Buildirtg 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 CLOVERDALE 8 DUNBAR 9 FOREST HEIGHTS 10 HENDERSON 11 MABELVALE 12 MANN MAGNET (Building #1) (Building #2) 13 PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) ___________________(Building #2) (Building #3) 14 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 15 ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC TOTAL ALC Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2008 SO $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $965,994 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 DIST SITE NO 1 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 I $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $8,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $412,381 $412,381 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $277,011 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,453,981 $415,614 $415,614 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 $505,588 $505,588 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,642 $819,091 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $3,565,459 $474,524 $474,524 $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 SO so $967 $2.284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $944,741 $328,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $4,701,777 $133,401 $133,401 $16,586 $77,696 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $0 $86,423 $8,415 $0 $24,526 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $790,338 $40,658 $40,658 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2.940.722 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $637,872 $13,997,995 12 6 2 5 $996,969 $998,969 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $326,960 $197,872 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $2.068,798 $119,074 $119,074 $3,488,367 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $645,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,968 $1,483.632 14,580,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 Table CST-1 Page 1 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 BADGETT TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $666,504 17 BALE $1,200,466 18 BASELINE $1,111,915 19 BOOKER MAGNET $892,564 20 BRADY $476,919 21 CARVER MAGNET $378,889 22 CHICOT $0 23 CLOVERDALE $481,989 24 DAVID 0 DODD $954,119 25 FAIR PARK $714,626 26 FOREST PARK $752,687 27 FRANKLIN $1,845,175 28 FULBRIGHT $484,019 29 GARLAND $1,373,658 30 GEYER SPRINGS $321,017 31 GIBBS MAGNET $215,003 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,028 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $35,836 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $63,502 $36,857 $5,446 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $263,911 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 $538,790 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 $620,356 $96,646 $12,684 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 35 Years 98-2001 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,076 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $47,995 $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 $431,070 $51,671 $39,827 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $28,034 $2,588 $38,364 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $74,594 $107,175 $193,889 $237,544 $136,712 $205,943 $0 $139,186 $156,315 $92,005 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $230,695 $133,255 $118,682 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 OIST SITE NO 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27  32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ISH $656,776 $10,800 $328,091 $216,525 $0 JEFFERSON $1,814,531 $953,937 $601,600 $120,203 $0 MARTIN L KING MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $139,245 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $126,957 $7,807 $308,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 $37,892 $4,621,163 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $258,663 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $734,402 $7,206 $252,213 $304,581 $294,576 $440,444 $11,315 $10,542,382 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $37,943 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,785 $60,406 $253,058 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $38,301 $6,489,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $4,489 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $3,476 $1,383,323 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ANNEX CASHION BUILDING TRANSPORTATION PLANT SERVICES PURCHASING SAFETY/SECURITY TOTAL ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $65,182,530 $274,848 $54,724 $17,576 $47,649 $53,716 $41,951 $20,563 $511,026 $14,091,965 $110,770 $128,376 $1,981 $54,714 $19,625 $47,959 $126,004 $24,594 $172,268 $187,670 $32,380 $27,469 $113,938 $215,840 $115,296 $12,736 $39,574 $26,403 $313,590 $697,256 $19,750,412 $34,671 $812,769 $15,990,139 $759 $296,593 $2,644,228 $101,360 $138,791 $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $143,666 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $119,186 $286,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $121,114 $6,234,682 $81,673 $70,339 $20,280 $25,425 $63,760 $63,760 $18,292 $343,530 $12,705,775 1 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $65,182,531 Table CST-1 Page 2 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME DISTRICT ESTIMATES AOA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 1995 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,530 $77,205,530 1 Year 1995 $3,088,221 $80,293,751 $3,088,221 $80,293,751 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,587,000 $17,738,965 $17,738,965 1 -2 years 1995-1997 $1,447,500 $19,186,464 $709,559 $16,448,523 $737,941 $19,186,464 $767,459 $19,953,923 $798,157 $20,752,080 $830,083 $21,582,163 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,598,000 $22,609,412 $22,609,412 3 Years 1996 $2,823,102 $25,432,514 $904,376 $23,513,789 $940,552 $24,454,340 $978,174 $25,432,514 $1,017,301 $26,449,815 $1,057,993 $27,507,807 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-1 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $1,000,000 $406,000 $17,396,139 $17,396,139 3-5 Years 2000 $3,768,924 $21,165,063 $695,846 $18,091,985 $723,679 $18,815,664 $752,627 I $19,568,290 $782,732 $20,351,022 $814,041 $21,165,063 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,069,228 $5,069,228 5-10 Years 2005 $2,434,468 $7,503,696 $202,769 $5,271,997 $210,880 $5,482,877 $219,315 $5,702,192 $228,088 $5,930,280 $237,211 $6,167,491 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $14,391,775 $14,391,775 10-15 Years 2010 $11,526,998 $25,918,773 $575,671 $14,967,446 $598,698 $15,566,143 $622,646 $16,188,789 $647,552 $16,836,341 $673,454 $17,509,794 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,530 $77,205,530 $22,000,991 $99,206,521 DIST SITE NO hl hl I + 6 2001 7 2002 8 2003 9 2004 10 2005 11 2006 n 12 2007 13 2008 Bl n Bl Bl 14 2009 15 2010 $863,287 $22,445,449 $897,818 $23,343,267 $933,731 $24,276,998 $971,080 $25,248,078 $1,009,923 $26,258,001 $1,050,320 $27,308,321 $1.092,333 $28,400,654 $1,136,026 $29,536,680 $1,181,467 $30,718,147 $1,228,726 $31,946,873 $1,100,312 $28,608,119 $1,144,325 $29,752,444 $1,190,098 $30,942,542 $1,237,702 $32,180,244 $1,287,210 $33,467,453 $1,338,698 $34,806,152 $1,392,246 $36,198,398 $1,447,936 $37,646,333 $1,505,853 $39,152,187 $1,566,087 $40,718,274 $846,603 $22,011,665 $880,467 $22,892,132 $915,685 $23,807,817 $952,313 $24,760,130 $990,405 $25,750,535 $246,700 $6,414,191 $256,568 $6,670,758 $266,830 $6,937,589 $277,504 $7,215,092 $288,604 $7,503,696 $700,392 $18,210,186 $728,407 $18,938,593 $757,544 $19,696,137 $787,845 $20,483,983 $819,359 $21,303,342 $1,030,021 $26,780,557 $1,071,222 $27,851,779 $1,114,071 $28,965,850 $1,158,634 $30,124,484 $1,204,979 $31,329,463 $300,148 $7,803,844 $312,154 $8,115,998 $324,640 $8,440,638 $337,626 $8,778,263 $351,131 $9,129,394 $852,134 $22,155,476 $886,219 $23,041,695 $921,668 $23,963,363 $958,535 $24,921,897 $996,876 $25,918,773 ..............in n I ............ Table CST-1 Page 3 hCOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 2 McClellan 3 J.A.FAIR 4 HALL 5 PARKVIEW (Building 1) (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $8,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $412,381 $412,381 $505,588 $505,588 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 CLOVERDALE 8 DUNBAR 9 FOREST HEIGHTS 10 HENDERSON $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 11 MABELVALE 12 MANN MAGNET 13 PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) (Building #2) (Building #1) (Building #2) (Building #3) $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,968 14 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS $1,483,632 $12,317,113 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,176,970 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $2,746,368 ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER 15 ALC TOTAL ALC $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $415,614 $415,614 $474,524 $474,524 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 BADGETT 17 BALE 18 BASELINE 19 BOOKER MAGNET 20 BRADY 21 22 23 24 25 CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $692,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,028 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $263,911 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 26 FOREST PARK 27 FRANKLIN 28 FULBRIGHT $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 29 30 GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS $321,017 $36,857 I $96,646 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $328,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $3,757,036 $133,401 $133,401 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,076 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 $51,671 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 $18,588 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $0 $86,423 $8,415 $0 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $765,812 $40,658 $40,658 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $2,588 PRIORITY S 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $965,994 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $998,969 $998,969 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $1,870,926 $119,074 $119,074 $74,594 $107,175 $193,689 $237,544 $136,712 $205,943 $0 $139,186 $156,315 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $133,255 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,463,632 12,317,113 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,689 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $321,017 Table CST-3 Page 1 OIST SITE NO 1 12 8 2 5 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME 31 GIBBS MAGNET 32 ISH 33 JEFFERSON 34 MARTIN L KING 35 MABELVALE 36 MCDERMOTT 37 MEADOWCLIFF 38 MITCHELL 39 MARTIN L KING 40 OTTER CREEK 41 PULASKI HEIGHTS 42 RIGHTSELL 43 ROCKEFELLER 44 ROMINE 45 TERRY 46 WAKEFIELD 47 WASHINGTON 48 WATSON 49 WESTERN HILLS 50 WILLIAMS MAGNET 51 WILSON TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $215,003 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $5,446 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $7,807 $306,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $12,684 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $7,206 $252,213 $304,581 $294,576 $440,444 52 WOODRUFF TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $22,682,055 $3,252,993 $7,449,166 ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $2,661,172 $511,026 $697,256 SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $56,329,991 $12,446,784 $15,838,105 DISTRICT ESTIMATES ADA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN Deduct District Costs TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $39,827 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,785 $60,406 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $5,344,708 $812,769 $13,900,303 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $38,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $1,347,324 $296,593 $2,583,704 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $118,682 $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $286,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $5,287,864 $343,530 $11,561,084 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $215,003 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $22,682,055 $2,661,172 $56,329,992 OIST SITE NO 27 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 IH OPTIONS OPTION M ESCALATION OPTION T ESCALATION OPTION C ESCALATION TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST I $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 $12,730,000 $3,194,400 $63,054,391 $23,413,500 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $18,281,000 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,685,000 $16,191,784 ($1,223,000) $14,968,764 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $0 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,500,010 $18,599,115 $18,599,115 $12,730,000 $3,911,879 $35,240,994 $12,808,500 $3,921,680 $35,329,296 $11,807,000 $3,796,629 $34,202,745 $1,000,000 $406,000 $15,306,303 $15,306,303 $0 $3,316,155 $18,622,458 $8,291,000 $5,112,424 $28,709,728 $6,474,000 $4,718,766 $26,499,069 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,008,704 $5,008,704 $0 $2,405,401 $7,414,105 $2,314,000 $3,516,687 $10,839,391 $0 $2,405,401 $7,414,105 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $13,247,084 $13,247,084 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $0 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,010 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 $12,730,000 $21,465,054 $101,325,045 $23,413,500 $24,382,410 $114,925,901 $18,281,000 $22,752,415 $108,163,406 Table CST-3 Page 2 COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1996 OPTION M ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION $5,811,000 $6,919,000 $5,811,000 $6,919,000 Total Option Cost ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 $12,730,000 $79,859,991 1 Year 1995 $3,194,400 $83,054,391 $3,194,400 1996 I $83,054,391 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 e $0 $12,730,000 + 2003 9 2004 T 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 13 2008 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $0 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $0 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $5,811,000 $6,919,000 $12,730,000 DIST SITE NO $14,968,784 1 -2 years 1995-1997 $31,329,115 3 Years $15,306,303 3-5 Years $5,008,704 5-10 Years $13,247,084 10-15 Years $79,859,991 $1,221,453 1998 $3,911,879 2000 $3,316,155 2005 $2,405,401 2010 $10,610,166 $21,465,054 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 $22,157,457 $35,240,994 $18,622,458 $7,414,105 $23,857,250 $101,325,045 $1,253,165 $32,562,280 $612,252 $15,918,555 $200,348 $5,209,052 $529,883 $13,776,967 $1,303,291 $33,885,571 $1,355,423 $35,240,994 $1,409,640 $36,650,634 $1,466,025 $38,116,659 $1,524,666 $39,641,326 $1,585,653 $41,226,979 $1,649,079 $42,876,058 $1,715,042 $44,591,100 $1,783,644 $46,374,744 $636,742 $16,555,298 $662,212 I $17,217,510 $688,700 $17,906,210 $716,248 $18,622,458 $744,898 $19,367,357 $774,694 $20,142,051 $805,682 $20,947,733 $837,909 $21,785,642 $871,426 $22,657,068 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,168 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,889 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 $19,608,920 } i I T I 14 2009 15 2010 $886,298 $23,043,756 $921,750 $23,965,506 $958,620 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 $1,854,990 $48,229,734 $1,929,189 $50,158,923 $2,006,357 $52,165,280 $2,086,611 $54,251,891 $2,170,076 $56,421,967 $906,283 $23,563,351 $942,534 $24,505,885 $980,235 $25,486,120 $1,019,445 $26,505,565 $1,060,223 $27,565,788 $296,564 $7,710,670 $308,427 $8,019,096 $320,764 $8,339,860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 $9,020,393 $784,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,008 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,587 $23,857,250 Table CST-3 Page 3COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO NAME TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 OPTION T ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Total Option Cost ESCALATION IMPACT COST ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 6 2003 9 2004 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 T X 13 2008 14 X 2009 15 2010 $13,513,500 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 BASE COST $90,543,491 1 Year 1995 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $3,621,740 $94,165,231 $0 PRIORITY 1 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 $22,157,457 $866,298 $23,043,756 $921,750 $23,965,506 $958,620 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY S 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $7,858,500 $4,950,000 I $12,808,500 PRIORITY 2 $31,407,615 3 Years 1998 $3,921,680 $35,329,296 $1,256,305 $32,663,920 $1,306,557 I $33,970,477 $1,358,819 $35,329,296 $1,413,172 $36,742,468 $1,469,699 $38,212,166 $1,528,487 $39,740,653 $1,589,626 $41,330,279 $1,653,211 $42,983,490 $1,719,340 $44,702,830 $1,788,113 $46,490,943 $1,859,638 $48,350,581 $1,934,023 $50,284,604 $2,011,384 $52,295,988 $2,091,640 $54,387,828 $2,175,513 $56,563,341 $3,341,000 $4,950,000 $8,291,000 PRIORITY 3 $23,597,303 3-5 Years 2000 $5,112,424 $28,709,728 $943,892 $24,541,195 $981,648 $25,522,843 $1,020,914 I $26,543,757 $1,061,750 $27,605,507 $1,104,220 $28,709,728 $1,148,389 $29,858,117 $1,194,325 $31,052,441 $1,242,098 $32,294,539 $1,291,782 $33,586,321 $1,343,453 $34,929,773 $1,397,191 $36,326,964 $1,453,079 $37,780,043 $1,511,202 $39,291,245 $1,571,650 $40,862,894 $1,634,516 $42,497,410 $2,314,000 $2,314,000 PRIORITY 4 $7,322,704 5-10 Years 2005 $3,516,687 $10,839,391 $292,908 $7,615,612 $304,624 $7,920,237 $316,809 $8,237,046 $329,482 $6,566,528 $342,661 $8,909,169 $356,368 $9,265,557 $370,622 $9,636,179 $385,447 $10,021,626 $400,865 $10,422,491 $416,900 $10,839,391 $433,576 $11,272,966 $450,919 $11,723,885 $466,955 $12,192,840 $487,714 $12,680,554 $507,222 $13,187,776 $0 PRIORITY 5 $13,247,084 10-15 Years 2010 $10,610,166 $23,857,250 $529,863 $13,776,967 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,166 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,869 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 $19,608,920 $764,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,006 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,58 $23,857,250 $13,513.500 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 TOTAL 1-5 $90,543,491 $24,382,410 $114,925,901 I ( I i Table CST-3 Page 4 I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL TOTAL BASE COST NO NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 OPTION C ADDITIONS NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $7,891,000 $3,916,000 Total Option Cost $18,281,000 $0 $11,807,000 ESCALATION IMPACT BASE COST PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 COST Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 PRIORITY 3 3-S Years 98-2001 $6,474,000 $6,474,000 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $0 PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $0 PRIORITY 5 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $18,281,000 TOTAL 1-5 OIST SITE NO H  II H II n ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 1996 2 1997 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 I 8 2003 9 2004 10 2005 : 11 2006 ! 12! 2007 I 13 2008 14 2009 T 4- 15 2010 $85,410,991 1 Year 1995 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 $3,416,440 $88,827,431 I $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,221,453 $16,190,237 $598,751 $15,567,536 $622,701 $16,190,237 $647,609 $16,837,847 $673,514 $17,511,360 $700,454 $18,211,815 $728,473 $18,940,287 $757,611 $19,697,899 $787,916 $20,485,815 $819,433 $21,305,247 $852,210 I $22,157,457 ! $886,298 I $23,043,756 I I $30,406,115 3 Years $21,780,303 3-5 Years $5,008,704 5-10 Years $13,247,084 10-15 Years $85,410,991 1998 $3,796,629 2000 $4,718,766 2005 $2,405,401 2010 $10,610,166 $22,752,415 $34,202,745 $1,216,245 $31,622,360 $1,264,894 $32,887,254 $1,315,490 $34,202,745 $1,368,110 $35,570,854 $1,422,834 $36,993,669 $1,479,748 $38,473,436 $1,538,937 $40,012,373 $1,600,495 $41,612,868 $1,664,515 $43,277,383 $1,731,095 $45,008,478 $26,499,069 $7,414,105 $23,857,250 $108,163,406 I $871,212 $22,651,515 $906,061 $23,557,576 $942,303 $24,499,879 $979,995 $25,479,874 $1,019,195 $26,499,069 I $1,059,963 $27,559,032 $1,102,361 $28,661,393 $1,146,456 $29,807,849 $1,192,314 $31,000,163 $1,240,007 $32,240,170 $200,348 $5,209,052 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $529,883 $13,776,967 $551,079 $14,328,046 $573,122 $14,901,168 $596,047 $15,497,215 $619,889 $16,117,103 $644,684 $16,761,787 $670,471 $17,432,259 $697,290 $18,129,549 $725,182 $18,854,731 $754,189 I $19,608,920 $921,750 $23,965,506 $956,620 $1,800,339 $46,806,818 $1,872,353 $48,681,170 $24,924,126 $996,965 $25,921,091 $1,036,844 $26,957,935 $1,947,247 $50,628,417 $2,025,137 $52,653,554 $2,106,142 $54,759,696 $1,289,607 $33,529,776 $1,341,191 $34,870,967 $1,394,839 $36,265,806 $1,450,632 $37,716,438 $1,508,658 $39,225,096 $296,564 $7,710,670 $308,427 $6,019,096 $320,764 $8,339,860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 $9,020,393 $784,357 $20,393,277 $815,731 $21,209,008 $848,360 $22,057,369 $882,295 $22,939,663 $917,587 $23,857,250 Table CST-3 Page 5 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST - 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT tn D . tn tn LU in in SCHOOL OPTION \"M II BADGETT BALE (REVISED) BASELINE (REVISED) BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS (REVISED) GIBBS MAGNET q: LU X o LU X  O \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; O o \u0026lt; to z. LU o Qt LU Q. o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; tn LU Ql o o LL LU to \u0026lt; LU Q 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 179 118 379 270 47% 44% z o u tn LU Q. LL tn o o \u0026lt; LU tn \u0026lt; Li. \u0026lt;2 in tf\u0026gt; /\u0026gt; o o o z LU tn tn O o tn tn z o o 5 LU z. 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 341 59 81 -60 -33 31 -185 641 66 175 598 13 45 -61 -30 55 84 -16 25 -22 -2 33 -75 -18 -42 34 -162 341 Elementary 5,900 8,100 -6,000 -3,300 3,100 -18,500 64,100 6,600 17,500 59,800 1,300 4,500 -6,100 -3,000 5,500 8,400 -1,600 2,500 -2,200 -200 3,300 -7,500 -1,800 -4,200 3,400 -16,200 34,100 Subtotal $214,500 $1,202,500 $195,000 $143,000 $117,000 $1,053,000 $2,925,000 I Table CST-4 Page 1 $0Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST - 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M ISH II (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT (REVISED) MABELVALE) MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON (REVISED) a LU I o iu X g O 2 m \u0026lt; t- O 340 250 590 o \u0026lt; _l m 2 LU O O' LU Q. 42% o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; O' LU Q. o 445 tn D Q. X D V\u0026gt; + O u. LU Q  LU Q -145 z o w X LU O. LL tn o o \u0026lt; LU X \u0026lt; -14,500' u. 55 \u0026lt;o V) o o o z UJ Of u. 52 u\u0026gt; U) Vi @) h V\u0026gt; O O X I  Z Q O 5 LU Z Elementary 1 4 2^7 27% 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 16 15 110 107 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 448 283 165 165 44 -68 4 59 -38 15 -45 16,500 16,500 4,400 -6,800 400 5,900 -3,800 1,500 -4,500 $442,000 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 666 574 427 414 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 682 589 537 521 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 367 367 380 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 -129 34 65 -70 -56 177 196 -15 ___9 -260 -164 24 -12,900 -7,400 3,400 6,500 -7,000 -5,600 17,700 19,600 -1,500 900 -26,000 -16,400 2,400 $481,000 $364,000 $1,066,000 98% 97% 80% 79% 782 782 491 491 100 193 -46 -30 10,000 19,300 -4,600 -3,000 Subtotal $195,000 $2,548,000 $0 Table CST-4 Page 2fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF II (REVISED) (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"M II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST CST - 4 to 3 _l Q. U. D CO LU kO IO IX LU I o LU X 5 O m \u0026lt; I- O t- o \u0026lt; m z LU o a: LU Q. O \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; K LU 0. O 122 119 193 186 315 305 61% 61% o LU LU Q \u0026lt; LU Q 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 59% 340 340 501 421 421 316 25 35 501 -68 -52 171 28 449 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 614 642 96% 0 -642 167 616 27% 0 -616 z o Vi lU Q. iu tn o o \u0026lt; LU O' \u0026lt; LX. u5 \u0026lt;o t Vi O U O z LU O' m O o IX tn z o o 5 ai z Elementary 2,500 3,500 50,100 -6,800 -5,200 17,100 -64,200 -61,600 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $338,000 $338,000 $5,811,000 $3,531,000 $3,388,000 $6,919,000 $6,919,000 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 59 322 400 561 472 289 470 174 Jr.High School 416 378 591 53S 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 938 955 971 971 971 938 225 298 99 123 TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Table CST-4 Page 3 $0Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT co o _l a. Of 3 U) U. io IO SCHOOL OPTION \"Wl II CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLAN PARKVIEW MAGNET K LU X I- O LU I 5 O 3 ffi \u0026lt; I- O o 3 m z UJ o a: UJ Q. O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; K UJ Q. O o LL UJ Q \u0026lt; in o   Z o CO Q UJ LU Ui o o \u0026lt; in q: \u0026lt; u. io u\u0026gt; @ CO O O O z UJ tn w O o O' co z o o 5 LU Z 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 365 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 435 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 800 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 54% 2252 2252 1206 1206 1385 1385 1157 1157 991 647 592 370 473 448 632 64 130 191 TOTAL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OPTION \"M\" COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Sr.High School $0 ADDITION $5,811,000 $0 ________$0 $5,811,000 NEW $6,919,000 $0 _______$0 $6,919,000 $12,730,000 Table CST-4 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (0 :o _i Q. Z Z) w u. 2 U) lA SCHOOL OPTION \"T II BADGETT (REVISED) BALE (REVISED) BASELINE_______ BOOKER MAGNET (REVISED) BRADY__________ CARVER MAGNET CHICOT (REVISED) CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) I FOREST PARK FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET (REVISED) UJ I o UJ z S o m O O \u0026lt; _i DO z tu o a: UJ Q. to \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; ce UJ Q. o O iu Q \u0026lt; I- _i LU Q z o w q: UJ LL (n o o \u0026lt; UI q: \u0026lt; LL  io vy @ I to O to o z UJ a: V) O o d: tn z O o g UJ z Elementary 56 6 138 158 101 108 200 212 152 243 74 113 141 106 162 268 239 25 48 353 382 26 61 148 104 329 257 434 268 592 160 335 395 592 369 700 65% 98% 65% 73% 73% 85% 179 4 379 216 47% 2% 358 329 421 325 173 154 194 510 572 495 438 314 260 356 70% 58% 85% 74% 55% 59% 54% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 59 -116 -60 -257 31 -300 66 229 13 -49 -61 -4 55 109 5,900 -11,600 -6,000 -25,700 3,100 -30,000 6,600 22,900 1,300 -4,900 -6,100 -400 5,500 10,900 $754,000 $1,670,500 $1,950,000 $318,500 $26,000 137 ___7_ 449 561 287 39 313 405 246 474 609 640 421 339 34% 3% 95% 92% 45% 9% 92% 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 25 184 -2 -137 -75 144 -42 2,500 18,400 -200 -13,700 -7,500 14,400 -4,200 $890,500 226 519 287 667 79% 78% 321 321 341 34 -346 341 3,400 -34,600 34,100 Subtotal $2,249,000 $7,858,500 I $0 Table CST-5 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST \u0026lt;5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT tn D a. tn =3 tn SCHOOL OPTION \"T II ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE (NOT USED) MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (REVISED) RIGHTSELL (NOT USED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON tn UJ I I- o Z 5 O 3 CO o 340 250 590 o \u0026lt; m z UJ o tn UJ Q. 42% o \u0026lt; o o z UJ Q. O 445 t o u. UI Q \u0026lt; LU Q -145 7 91 297 445 167 462 378 169 35 356 469 469 466 480 523 99% 81% 36% 7% 68% 634 634 510 510 527 165 165 44 30 4 170 316 486 65% 448 -38 11 336 233 254 312 18 27 19 34 173 557 506 106 16 13 317 328 97% 283 -45 160 60 92 144 316 496 293 346 456 334 32% 20% 27% 32% 95% 367 367 380 380 264 -129 74 34 -76 -70 z O 0) tn LU Q. LL tn o o UJ tn \u0026lt; -14,500 16,500 16,500 4,400 3,000 400 -3,800 -4,500 -12,900 7,400 3,400 -7,600 -7,000 u. \u0026lt;2 u\u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 W O O O Z LU OC u. 52 in in @) 0) O o od CO z o o 5 UI z Elementary $494,000 222 451 390 574 229 76 394 249 470 424 747 786 582 500 89% 96% 92% 77% 29% 13% 79% 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 177 -44 -15 -338 -260 -56 24 17,700 -4,400 -1,500 -33,800 -26,000 -5,600 2,400 $286,000 $2,197,000 $364,000 666 645 682 658 98% 98% 782 782 100 124 10,000 12,400 Subtotal $3,341,000 I $0 Table CST-5 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CST-5 SCHOOL OPTION \"T II WATSON (REVISED) WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET (REVISED) WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF NEW SCHOOLS (NOT USED) (LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) Of LU Z I- O iu I 5 it: o 3 m O it: o 3 m z LU O z UJ Q. 110 139 122 240 427 538 193 270 537 677 315 510 80% 79% 61% 53% 202 287 489 59% 60 85 145 59% 128 125 743 743 871 868 85% 86% SUMMARY OPTION \"T\" COSTS (/} 3 Q. K  W o \u0026lt; CL \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; q: lU Q. o 491 491 340 340 501 421 316 900 900 O u. UI Q \u0026lt; Ui Q z o Ui z UJ Q. LL Ui o o \u0026lt; UJ Q \u0026lt; u. 52 in to Ui O o o z UJ q: u. w in in @ W o o cd (Z\u0026gt; z O o  UI Z Elementary -46 -186 25 -170 501 -68 171 465 466 -4,600 -18,600 2,500 -17,000 50,100 -6,800 17,100 90,000 90,000 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) $1,209,000 $1,105,000 $2,314,000 $13,513,500 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 $9,900,000 $9,900,000 ADDITION $13,513,500 $0 ________$0 $13,513,500 NEW $9,900,000 $0 _______$0 $9,900,000 $23,413,500 Table CST-5 Page 3H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I B ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w D _l Q. 0 O v\u0026gt; u. 52 io IO SCHOOL OPTION \"C II BADGETT (REVISED) BALE (REVISED) BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY__________ CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD (REVISED) FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH (REVISED) (CLOSED) 0* UJ I I- O UJ X 5 o 3 m o lx: o m z UJ o a: LU Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z. \u0026lt; K UJ Q. O O u. UJ o Ji _i UI o z o w a: UI LL  o o \u0026lt; UJ O' \u0026lt; u. 52 u\u0026gt; (D @ CD o o o z LU q: W O o q:  Z o o 5 UJ z Elementary 66 66 138 137 101 145 200 300 152 90 74 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 73% 56% 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 358 386 421 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 287 48 313 226 548 510 476 495 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 70% 81% 85% 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 49 -139 -60 -49 31 69 66 90 598 13 47 -61 -93 55 -79 25 -288 -2 -187 -75 137 -42 34 -379 341 -13,900 -4,900 6,900 9,000 4,700 -9,300 -7,900 2,675 -28,800 -200 -18,700 -7,500 13,700 -4,200 3,400 -37,900 Subtotal $903,500 $318,500 $604,500 $513,500 $1,872,000 $1,215,500 $2,463,500 $7,891,000 $0 Table CST-6 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w Q. X 3 tn SCHOOL OPTION \"C II JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON or UJ X o X 5 O m \u0026lt; (- o 340 590 o \u0026lt; _i 03 2 LU O 01 LU Q. 42% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; 01 LU Q. O 445 5 LL LU Q \u0026lt; LU O -145 z o w O' LU LU o o \u0026lt; LU Q^ \u0026lt; u. u5 co F tn O o O z LU O' LU 52 lO in  U) o o q:  z o o S LU Z Elementary 7 147 297 419 167 187 170 462 459 169 83 356 217 316 469 606 466 502 523 404 486 99% 76% 36% 17% 68% 54% 65% 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 165 28 44 8 4 123 -38 2,800 4,400 800 400 12,300 -3,800 11 336 304 254 18 20 27 88 34 94 557 399 106 16 98 110 22 317 328 97% 283 -45 -4,500 160 66 92 496 370 346 32% 18% 27% 367 367 380 -129 -3 34 -12,900 -300 3,400 $19,500 316 531 222 587 390 536 229 87 394 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 29% 18% 79% 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 -70 177 -249 -15 -221 -260 40 24 -7,000 -28,700 17,700 -24,900 -1,500 -22,100 -26,000 4,000 2,400 $1,865,500 $1,618,500 $1,436,500 666 667 427 419 682 765 537 441 98% 87% 80% 95% 782 782 491 491 100 17 -46 60 10,000 1,700 -4,600 6,000 Subtotal $4,940,000 $0 Table CST-6 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CST-6 SCHOOL OPTION \"C II WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET a: UJ I O UJ I  o m O 122 182 193 394 315 576 202 287 489 o 3 m z UJ o a: UJ Q. 61% 68% 59% Ui ZD -I Q. q: o Ui LL w A m o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 340 340 501 421 6 LL UJ O \u0026lt; UJ Q z O Ui a: UJ IL Ui o o ? IE. \u0026lt; u. !2 io (O  @) w O o O z UJ Q (0 O o of Ui z o 5 UJ z Elementary 25 -236 501 -68 -23,600 $1,534,000 WILSON (NOT USED) 60 85 145 59% 316 171 WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL 73 639 712 90% 712 71,200 Subtotal TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS $1,534,000 $14,365,000 $3,916,000 $3,916,000 $3,916,000 I Table CST-6 Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) CST-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT w o Q. o u. OT in lA SCHOOL OPTION \"C II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS I a SOUTHWEST Q UJ I 1- O LU I 5 O m \u0026lt; I- O O 3 OQ z UJ o O' UJ Q. (D \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; O' UJ a. O 6 u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q z o  tn UJ u V) o o @) \u0026lt; UI O' \u0026lt; u. A to in O o O z UI Q^  o o oi H W Z o o 5 UJ z Jr.High School 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 724 765 707 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 203 322 281 561 197 289 614 174 21,600 20,300 32,200 28,100 56,100 19,700 28,900 61,400 17,400 314 110 281 264 416 473 591 582 730 583 872 846 57% 81% 68% 69% 935 955 955 971 971 935 225 372 99 125 93,500 22,500 39,804 9,900 12,500 TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS $oT $0 SUMMARY OPTION \"C\" COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Not Effected) ADDITION $14,365,000 $0 $0 $14,365,000 NEW $3,916,000 $0 _______$0 $3,916,000 $18,281,000 Table CST-6 Page 4Demographic StudyLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Analysis of 1994 1995 Enrollment Projections Table DS-1 Summary 1994 1995 1994 25258 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 24515 24076 23610 23156 22795 22550 22348 22154 21941 21805 21636 24922 24711 24280 23829 23385 22990 22731 22537 22353 22157 22042 delta delta % 407 635 670 673 590 440 383 383 412 1.66% 2.64% 2.84% 2.91% 2.59% 1.95% 1.71% 1.73% 1.88% 352 406 1.61% 1.88% Enrollment Projections 1995 to 2005 Grades Pre-K Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4fh 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Ungraded elem jr.hi sr. hi 1994 1995 747 2050 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 1840 1791 1899 1946 1598 1435 1996 718 2046 2094 1890 1843 1749 1849 1796 1821 1789 1846 1917 1608 1426 1997 704 1941 2076 1989 1820 1794 1706 1803 1818 1671 1680 1921 1597 1432 1998 707 1901 1970 1972 1916 1773 1750 1664 1830 1667 1569 1749 1594 1423 1999 703 1914 1928 1872 1900 1868 1731 1707 1687 1679 1565 1633 1450 1418 2000 696 1889 1942 1832 1803 1852 1825 1688 1730 1548 1578 1629 1355 1289 2001 690 1872 1918 1845 1765 1759 1809 1781 1715 1587 1454 1642 1353 1206 2002 683 1855 1901 1822 1778 1720 1718 1766 1815 1575 1491 1513 1361 1205 2003 677 1839 1885 1806 1756 1733 1680 1677 1802 1668 1480 1551 1255 1210 2004 671 1823 1869 1791 1741 1712 1694 1640 1713 1655 1569 1541 1287 1116 2005 665 1808 1853 1775 1726 1698 1673 1653 1671 1574 1558 1634 1275 1145 SpcI Schools totals 162 93 89 156 64 53 154 65 63 154 78 66 155 69 60 154 71 63 24876 24665 24234 23783 23339 22944 154 73 62 154 71 63 154 71 63 154 72 63 154 71 63 46 46 46 46 46 46 22685 22491 22307 22111 21996 46 24922 24711 24280 23829 23385 22990 22731 46 46 46 46 22537 22353 22157 22042 Table DS-1, Page 1 of 2 II Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H II 11 Impact of Middle School Enrollment Middle School (Option #1) 6th 7th 8th Ungraded 6th 7th \u0026amp; 8th totals elem@1/6 jr. hi @2/3 Middle School (Option #2) 7th 8th Ungraded 7th \u0026amp; 8th totals jr. hi @2/3 High Schools 9th 10th 11th 12th Ungraded 9th jr. hi @1/3 sr. hi @1/3 totals 1797 1840 1791 1796 1821 1789 1803 1818 1671 1664 1830 1667 1707 1687 1679 1688 1730 1548 1781 1715 1587 1766 1815 1575 1677 1802 1668 1640 1713 1655 1653 1671 1574 27 62 5517 26 43 5475 26 43 5361 26 52 5239 26 46 5145 26 47 5039 26 49 5157 26 47 5229 26 47 5220 26 48 5082 26 47 4971 1840 1791 1821 1789 1818 1671 1830 1667 1687 1679 1730 1548 1715 1587 1815 1575 1802 1668 1713 1655 1671 1574 1227 4858 1214 4824 1212 4701 1220 4717 1125 4491 1153 4431 1143 4445 1210 4600 1201 4671 1142 4510 1114 4359 1899 1946 1598 1435 1846 1917 1608 1426 1680 1921 1597 1432 1569 1749 1594 1423 1565 1633 1450 1418 1578 1629 1355 1289 1454 1642 1353 1206 1491 1513 1361 1205 1480 1551 1255 1210 1569 1541 1287 1116 1558 1634 1275 1145 31 89 6998 21 53 6871 22 63 6715 26 66 6427 23 60 6149 24 63 5938 24 62 5741 24 63 5657 24 63 5583 24 63 5600 24 63 5699 H H H n n n II H Assumptions: 1. Ungraded elementary enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 1 through 6. 2. Ungraded junior high enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 7, 8, and 9. 3. Ungraded senior high enrollment is pro-rated evenly among grades 10, 11, and 12. 4. Special school enrollment is assumed to remain constant and students in this program are housed in facilities other than those included in this survey, and therefore, do not impact enrollment projections. H a Table DS-1, Page 2 of 2r ibH Educational Study FS? teWBLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 TABLE 4-A PROJECTIONS 1995-1999 Grade Level Pre4\u0026lt; Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Total 1994 Current \"^26 2060 1990 1914 1796 1895 1842 1797 1949 1966 1843 1930 1601 1548 338 25195 1995 575 2056 2146 1855 1824 1770 1844 1795 1847 1798 1791 1897 1620 1403 273 24494 1996 564 1951 2126 2000 1768 1798 1722 1797 1843 1702 1638 1844 1593 1419 283 24048 1997 566 1911 2017 1982 1906 1743 1749 1678 1847 1698 1550 1687 1545 1395 299 23573 1998 562 1923 1976 1880 1888 1878 1696 1704 1724 1703 1546 1596 1413 1353 285 23127 1999 557 1898 1989 1842 1791 1861 1828 1652 1749 1589 1551 1592 1341 1237 287 22764 TABLE 4-B PROJECTIONS 2000-2005 I Grade Level Pre^K Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Total 2000 552 1882 1962 1853 1755 1765 1811 1781 1697 1611 1447 1597 1338 1175 292 22518 2001 546 1865 1945 1829 1766 1730 1719 1765 1831 1564 1467 1489 1341 1173 287 22317 2002 541 1849 1928 1812 1742 1740 1684 1675 1815 1688 1424 1510 1252 1175 288 22123 2003 536 1833 1911 1796 1726 1717 1694 1641 1723 1674 1537 1466 1271 1097 288 21910 2004 531 1818 1894 1780 1710 1702 1672 1651 1686 1589 1524 1583 1232 1114 288 21774 2005 526 1802 1878 1764 1695 1686 1657 1629 1698 1555 1447 1569 1329 1080 288 21603 Page 10Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I TABLE 5 Elementary Schools with High Value Scores and Estimated Capacity for Each School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity ! i I I 1 I I Baseline Brady Carver Magnet Cloverdale Forest Park Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet McDermott Mablevale Otter Creek Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Martin Luther King Chicot (new) 755 820 850 765 765 850 815 870 835 885 900 820 790 915 785 755 895 780 820 770 765 940 Not Rated 400 445 598 434 430 565 297 321 341 510 527 367 264 426 409 523 782 491 340 501 421 634 523 10549 e:ltl-rock\\ed-survey\\table5 Page 11Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I Table 6 Elementary Schools with Average Value Scores and Estimated Capacity for Each School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity Badgett Bale Booker Magnet David O. Dodd Franklin Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights 735 725 735 730 705 710 705 Total Operating Capacity this Group L w 219 335 641 369 472 448 380 2864 Table 7 Elementary Schools Subject to Alternate Use Or Closure Estimated Capacity for Each n I School Value Score Estimated Permanent Operating Capacity II I n Jefferson Woodruff Ish Fair Park Wakefield Mitchell 680 670 660 685 690 600 445 316 0 340 524 283 i Total Operating Capacity this Group 1908 I I Garland (Previously shown on Table 5) 815 297 L E Page 12  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1  RANKING BY EVALUATION SCORES Table-ES-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL EDUCATIO RATING FACILITY RATING SCORE NO NAME TOTAL COST ESTIMATE PRIORITY 1 ESTIMATE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 900-1000 * HIGH SCHOOLS NONE HIGHLY * JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SATISFACTORY NONE * ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 700-900 ACCEPTABLE 1 2 1 2 3 4 * 1 2 w 1 * 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  14 ' 15 ' 16 17 18 ' 19  20 21 ' 22 23  24 ' 26 I 27 ! 28 I MARTIN L KING WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOLS PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR HALL McClellan Subtotal JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE FOREST HEIGHTS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL METROPOLITAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS CARVER MAGNET FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS ROCKEFELLER incentive WESTERN HILLS OTTER CREEK BRADY McDermott MABELVALE GIBBS MAGNET baseline ROMINE WATSON FOREST PARK TERRY WILSON BALE DAVID O DODD BOOKER MAGNET WILLIAMS RIGHTSELL incentive BADGETT CLOVERDALE FRANKLIN incentive PULASKI HEIGHTS MEADOWCLIFF T Subtotal I 940 895 82S 760 780 700 755 755 830 850 850 870 915 820 820 820 885 900 835 755 785 780 765 755 765 725 730 735 770 790 735 765 705 705 710 1 T 986 968 814 872 704 695 890 711 724 896 862 818 759 823 814 806 733 689 752 801 740 727 742 747 737 771 755 746 708 688 721 680 690 680 623 $239,042 $313,822 $552,864 $837,872 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $3,489,032 $687,389 $2,410,310 $3,488,387 $378,889 $484,019 $321,017 $399,444 $850,067 $674,313 $476,919 $689,136 $1,568,674 $215,003 $1,111,915 $1,660,421 $937,532 $752,687 $498,742 $933,698 $1,200,466 $954,119 $892,564 $723,963 $645,652 $666,504 $481,989 $1,845,175 $1,389,146 $1,138,095 $36,710,512 $0 $7,807 $7,807 $8,690 $411,771 $453,800 $579,059 $228,836 $822,810 $412,381 $5,028 $26,102 $36,857 $133,487 $89,413 $48,281 $220 $94,614 $334,844 $5,446 $156,719 $233,762 $308,388 $91,391 $96,792 $23,358 $341,296 $12,275 $154,780 $211,937 $61,724 $145,216 $45,062 $214,024 $302,995 $71,174 $6,162,534 $1,773,977 $2,258,943 $4,032,920 $3,678,656 $3,041,886 $3,233,040 $3,366,982 $1,957,408 $2,464,108 $1,334,595 $2,134,430 $1,544,004 $823,012 $1,955,387 $926,227 $938,437 $1,147,571 $1,322,150 $1,343,716 $1,320,131 $972,972 $1,364,597 $1,202,740 $1,130,600 $1,363,947 $1,159,664 $1,081,655 $916,524 $2,342,801 $1,873,461 $1,029,820 $704,527 $1,107,190 $1,838,099 $1,004,237 $1,144,114 $52,768,688 Table-ES-1 Page 1RANKING BY EVALUATION SCORES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL EDUCATIO RATING SCORE NO NAME 600-700 * HIGH SCHOOLS NEED OF REPAIR 400-600 POOR CONDITIONS RE-STUDY T 5 * 3 4 5 6 7 * 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 8 * * 1 CENTRAL 665 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS MANN MAGNET HENDERSON SOUTHWEST PULASKI HEIGHTS DUNBAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS GARLAND incentive JEFFERSON WOODRUFF ISH FAIR PARK WAKEFIELD MITCHELL incentive HIGH SCHOOLS NONE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS NONE ALTERNATE LEARNING ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-1 FACILITY RATING TOTAL COST ESTIMATE PRIORITY 1 ESTIMATE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 687 $5,763,718 $3,224,480 $4,998,321 685 630 665 680 640 815 680 670 660 685 690 600 565 475 T Position ranking is based on an average of the Education and Facility Rating scores in | decending order by score groups I 1 726 771 691 616 652 629 764 772 752 718 693 683 682 628 4- $1,414,500 $845,431 $1,483,632 $1,620,183 $3,855,668 $120,619 $219,472 $18,690 $290,309 $1,476,235 $3,264,881 $3,049,193 $2,133,841 $2,323,492 $2,287,694 $1,373,658 $1,814,531 $212,098 $656,776 $714,626 $1,238,092 $579,516 $21,572,429 $2,263,241 $1,183,270 $3,446,511 $62,282,316 $63,502 $953,937 $37,892 $10,800 $35,836 $126,957 $139,245 $1,246,993 $1,437,864 $735,334 $1,572,822 $924,020 $1,178,781 $1,242,719 $6,717,973 $26,395,955 $277,011 $415,614 $692,625 $13,580,939 $2,162,579 $445,144 $2,607,723 $85,805,286 Table-ES-1 Page 2CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A B C D TYPE OF SCHOOL LU NO NAME HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J.A.FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 0\u0026gt; Oi co z o V) Oi LU Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-3 E F G H J K PUPIL STATIONS CO z o CAPACITY CO It UJ s UI uT Q CO z o o \u0026lt; Q UJ CO 3 O X w UJ o \u0026lt;2. CO 10,11,12 10,11,12 10,11,12 10.11.12 10.11,12 0 0 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7,8.9 0 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 z UJ S o It z UJ 1,637 1,031 800 917 897 5,282 1,058 0 0 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5,862 733 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 UJ co It o Q. 3 o 0 0 0 2 Single S.ID.+ann 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5D. IS 0 2Double 2D. IS 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 2 Double 0 0 0 2649 1629 1344 1419 1421 8462 0 0 1111 1162 1409 1357 1054 1437 1160 1179 9869 230 353 421 716 468 671 550 457 m (t o S Vi z o W o Q. 0 0 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 99 100 434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0. z UI z \u0026lt; S Ct UJ z UJ (t (t o o 2649 1629 1344 1419 1361 8,402 1,680 0 0 1111 1162 1409 1357 819 1437 1061 1079 9,435 1,173 230 353 421 716 468 671 550 457 \u0026lt; U \u0026lt; z o 2 UJ O z UJ It It 3 u 2252 1385 1142 1206 1157 7,142 0 0 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 1293 955 971 8,492 219 335 400 680 445 637 523 434 z LU s UJ LU oi \u0026lt; o UJ Vi LU o LU LU s o (0 z LU s co D J Q -151 151 0 0 -358 358 -39 -39 o O z o UJ O  LU co D Q z UJ It (t 3 o @85% utiliz. 2252 1385 991 1206 1157 6,991 1,338 0 0 @90% utiliz. 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 1,017 @95% utiliz. 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 OQ o O CO CO UJ o X UJ 615 354 191 289 260 1,709 342 0 0 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 2,272 284 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 Table ES-3 Pagel o z o s o D CQ U Ct CO A 1 2 5 8 12 4 ' 15 I 9 1 13 I 16 1 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A B C D TYPE OF SCHOOL UJ NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (cont) 9 DAVID 0 DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 JEFFERSON 18 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS MAGNET 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY Average Size | TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS I Oi co z o co 0^ UJ Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-3 E F G H J K PUPIL STATIONS CO z o CAPACITY Q UJ co D o X UJ Q z UJ S O a Z UJ s UJ _J ffi s E O CL CO o K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 494 474 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 401 I 25,195 0 3 Double 2 Single 0 ISingle 0 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 0 1 Double 0 0 1 Double 1 Double 0 2D, IS 1 Single ID, IS 0 ID. IS 0 2D, 2S 2 Single 0 0 0 388 386 481 497 595 313 338 358 552 667 537 555 472 298 386 456 278 448 431 582 552 823 517 358 537 443 333 16,447 i 34,778 I co IX UJ I UJ co 0^ o Q. Z \"Z o I co 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 lU Q CO z o I CO D 0. z UJ z \u0026lt; s ce UJ Q. z UJ o o 388 358 453 497 595 313 338 358 468 667 537 555 472 298 386 400 278 446 431 554 552 823 517 358 537 443 333 16,223 464 34,060 o \u0026lt; \u0026lt; o z o I- UJ Q. o z UJ o\n 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 340 445 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 510 421 316 15,412 31,045 z UJ s UJ UI O' o \u0026lt; o UJ co UJ o UJ UJ S O Vi I- z UJ s Vi Q X 1 -9 -86 595 o o \u0026lt; z o p UJ 0. o  UJ co D Q \u0026lt; z UJ a: z D 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 341 445 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 15,326 436 30,450 OQ o \u0026lt; O CO CO UJ o X UJ 71 58 .2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 1,275 36 5,255 I Table ES-3 Page 2 o z o z Q  co o 5 W A 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 20 46 33 34 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 14UTILIZATION RATIOS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL UJ NO NAME HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW MAGNET 4 J .A.FAIR 5 MCCLELLAN TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASK! HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS Average Size ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 0\u0026gt; O) (0 z o Vi a: UJ Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-4 WITH PORTABLES WITHOUT PORTABLES TRAILERS TRAILERS (f) UJ co UJ Q o UJ (Z) o o UJ Q o z UI S O z UJ Q 10,11.12 10,11.12 10,11,12 10,11,12 10,11,12 0 0 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7,8.9 7.8.9 7.8.9 0 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 1,637 1,031 800 917 897 5,282 1,056 0 0 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5,862 733 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 UJ ffi 5 o z o UJ O 0 0 0 2 Single 1S,1D,+annex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5D, IS 0 2Double 1 Single 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 2 Double 0 not in service 1206 1208 2414 0 0 949 1044 1061 3054 219 335 445 o s Z o I- 3 @85% utiliz. 76% 74% 75% 0 0 62% 74% 57% 64% 81% 92% 92% o \u0026lt; Q \u0026lt; z 2 I- UJ O Q UJ CO Q 2252 1385 1142 1206 1157 7,142 1,428 0 0 1000 1064 1268 1221 737 1293 955 971 8,509 1,064 219 335 400 680 445 637 2 s z o Z3 @85% utiliz. 73% 74% 70% 76% 78% 74% 0 0 @90% utiliz. 65% 66% 62% 75% 79% 65% 81% 63% 79% @95% utiliz. 81% 92% 82% 84% 92% 92% not in service 6 z 0 z Q m g a: w Q 1 2 5 8 12 4 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 Table-ES-4 Page 1UTILIZATION RATIOS SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS BY GROUPS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL Oi Oi UJ fA Z o \u0026lt;0 UJ NO NAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (continued) 6 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID 0 DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 JEFFERSON 18 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 iMEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS MAGNET 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY Average Size TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table-ES-4 WITH PORTABLES TRAILERS WITHOUT PORTABLES TRAILERS V) w UJ O o \u0026lt; o o UJ co 3 O Z (0 UJ o s o \u0026lt; Z UJ S o z UJ PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 PK-6 0 0 392 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 494 474 411 272 359 I 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 401 4 I I 25,195 I 2 UJ O m \u0026lt; ft O z O I- UJ o 0 0 3 Double 2 Double 0 ISingle 0 0 2 Double 3 Double 0 0 0 1 Double 0 0 1 Double 1 Double 0 2D. IS 1 Single ID, IS 0 ID, IS 0 2D. 2S 2 Single 0 0 0 367 457 565 340 524 448 433 264 409 553 524 491 510 421 7.306 12,774 4. O I- 2 z o   77% 95% 96% 86% 96% 92% 97% 87% 79% 101% 79% 87% 93% 82% \u0026lt; z o 2 UJ Q. o  UJ CO 3 o 434 369 340 430 472 565 297 321 340 445 634 510 627 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 510 421 316 14,889 425 30,541 I o I z o s 3 @95% utiliz. 90% 81% 83% 100% 94% 96% 95% 93% 86% 113% 87% 97% 90% 92% 96% 98% 111% 87% 95% 79% 106% 79% 88% 87% 93% 93% 82% 77% 88% 6 z o z o  CD o 0^ \u0026lt;/) Q 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 30 35 20 46 33 34 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 14 Table-ES-4 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL Table ES-7 (95) ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION BY GRADES/ BY SCHOOLS I I 2 I 3 I NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS PK I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I UNGR 45 17 18 15 20 115 625 330 310 337 344 527 287 268 241 275 389 269 259 280 238 1946 1598 1436 5 25 0 32 27 89 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 6 7 I 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 metropolitan TOTAL VTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 199 251 241 234 152 291 272 200 192 234 222 252 157 281 266 187 214 247 271 279 169 275 233 211 1840 1791 1899 0 0 0 4 0 25 27 13 0 10 14 93 Table ES-7 Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS BY GRADE LEVELS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1 BADGETT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION BY GRADES/ BY SCHOOLS PK 1 I 2 I 3 I 4~r 5 I 6 Table ES-7 (95) I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I UNG'R 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 36 35 36 17 0 18 53 36 69 18 37 38 39 59 78 60 60 59 78 39 39 60 63 78 29 39 40 22 47 51 90 62 66 72 69 32 45 67 75 76 37 41 48 23 46 31 79 64 91 56 55 39 31 68 51 71 30 46 45 17 50 41 93 53 99 46 51 45 26 64 38 64 35 35 42 28 36 30 77 37 107 60 50 29 42 50 44 65 29 43 40 20 40 36 92 50 105 61 51 44 24 73 39 75 32 26 47 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 8 13 6 0 7 0 22 1 16 0 0 12 7 7 0 0 71 17 18 18 93 33 53 35 18 36 60 103 60 59 57 37 40 57 30 58 52 75 57 78 59 40 60 55 40 62 86 69 74 63 38 48 61 30 53 45 72 74 96 67 47 73 61 32 74 57 73 58 61 37 45 67 19 42 47 70 61 83 63 43 75 61 38 73 68 70 52 50 23 48 67 37 47 37 98 47 79 55 49 72 46 41 72 47 66 63 66 24 41 54 26 40 26 67 66 71 62 48 81 50 23 77 51 75 73 54 36 61 49 39 39 20 72 63 105 57 49 75 28 22 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 I 39 72 44 22 9 0 0 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 21 0 747 1935 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLs| 747 2050 2051 1900 1858 1760 1860 1797 1840 1791 1899 1946 1598 1435 344 Table ES-7 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;tf2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83.8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 8,134 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-STH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Attendance Zoner H a a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL OPTION \"M II BADGETT BALE (REVISED) BASELINE (REVISED) BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET (X UJ z O \u0026lt; CD o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; co o z O UJ t X 5 O \u0026lt; CQ \u0026lt; o Z UJ o ix UJ 0. UJ Q. o ELEMENTARY SCH OOLS 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 179 118 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 379 270 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 47% 44% 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING McDermott (REVISED) MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) x LU I o iu X 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; o 340 7 4 297 276 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 16 15 110 107 122 119 250 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 666 574 427 414 193 186 590 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 682 589 537 521 315 305 O \u0026lt; m Z lU o x LU Q. 42% 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% O \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; X LU Q. O 445 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 448 283 367 367 380 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"M II CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE (CLOSED) MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST 0^ UJ X O LU I 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; O 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 28 449 614 642 167 616 JR HIGH SCHOOLS 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 ie o \u0026lt; m z LU O q: UJ Q. 59% 58% 59% 96% 27% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 501 421 421 316 0 0 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 416 378 591 535 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 935 955 955 971 971 TABLE AZ-1 PAGESLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL OPTION \"M CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan II PARKVIEW MAGNET OPTION \"T BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK 'll (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) O' UJ Z o UJ t z g O \u0026lt; _l m _i \u0026lt; o o \u0026lt; m I-z UJ o q: UJ Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z a UJ Q. o HIGH SCHOOLS 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 5525 2252 1206 1206 1385 1385 1157 1157 991 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 56 6 138 158 101 108 200 212 152 243 74 113 141 106 162 104 329 257 434 268 592 179 4 358 329 421 325 173 154 194 160 335 395 592 369 700 379 216 510 572 495 438 314 260 356 65% 65% 73% 73% 85% 47% 2% 70% 58% 85% 74% 55% 59% 54% 219 219 335 335 400 400 641 445 445 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 4 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL FOREST PARK FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT n Q n H n a GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) (CLOSED) (CLOSED) (NOT USED) (NOT USED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (NOT USED) (REVISED) QC UJ X o UJ t X 5 268 239 25 48 353 382 26 61 148 340 7 91 297 445 167 170 11 336 233 254 312 18 27 19 O \u0026lt; CQ O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z o \u0026lt; CQ \u0026lt; O Z UJ o IX UJ CL UJ Q. O 137 7 449 561 287 39 313 405 246 474 609 640 421 339 34% 3% 95% 92% 45% 9% 92% 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 226 519 250 462 378 169 35 356 316 317 160 60 92 144 316 222 451 287 667 590 469 469 466 480 523 486 328 496 293 346 456 334 249 470 79% 78% 42% 99% 81% 36% 7% 68% 65% 97% 32% 20% 27% 32% 95% 89% 96% 321 321 341 445 634 634 510 510 527 448 283 367 367 380 380 264 426 426 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt; SCHOOL ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON (REVISED) WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF NEW SCHOOLS (NOT USED) (LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED) DC UJ X (J \u0026lt; m o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O \u0026lt;3 Z o UJ t X 5 34 173 557 506 106 16 13 110 139 122 240 202 60 128 125 O \u0026lt; _J CO \u0026lt; o Z UJ o DC UJ Q. \u0026lt; CC UJ Q. O 390 574 229 76 394 666 645 427 538 193 270 287 85 743 743 OPTION T JR. HIGH \u0026amp; HIGH SCHOOLS SAME OPTION M OPTION \"CII BADGETT (REVISED) BALE REVISED) 424 747 786 582 500 682 658 537 677 315 510 489 145 871 868 92% 77% 29% 13% 79% 98% 98% 80% 79% 61% 53% 59% 59% 85% 86% ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 501 421 421 316 316 900 900 BASELINE 66 66 138 137 101 145 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 73% 56% 219 219 335 335 400 40 BOOKER MAGNET BRADY 200 300 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 641 445 445 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 6 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 H \u0026gt; SCHOOL CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE (REVISED) DAVID O DODD (REVISED) FAIR PARK (CLOSED) FOREST PARK (REVISED) FRANKLIN (REVISED) FULBRIGHT GARLAND (CLOSED) GEYER SPRINGS (REVISED) GIBBS MAGNET ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON (CLOSED) MARTIN L KING McDermott MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) 0^ LU z O u] X g O \u0026lt; I OQ \u0026lt; O lx: o \u0026lt; I co I- z LU O QO LU Q. o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O O z LU Q. O 152 90 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 340 7 147 297 419 167 187 170 358 386 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 287 48 313 226 548 250 462 459 169 83 356 217 316 510 476 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 590 469 606 466 502 523 404 486 70% 81% 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 42% 99% 76% 36% 17% 68% 54% 65% 598 523 523 434 434 369 369 340 430 430 472 472 565 565 297 321 321 341 445 634 634 510 510 527 527 448 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE?Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 \u0026gt;- SCHOOL MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL QC LU I O LU I g 11 336 304 254 18 20 27 88 34 94 557 399 106 16 98 110 22 122 182 202 60 83 o \u0026lt; m 317 160 66 92 316 531 222 587 390 536 229 87 394 666 667 427 419 193 394 287 85 635 \u0026lt; I- O 1- 328 496 370 346 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 682 765 537 441 315 576 489 145 718 o \u0026lt; -I m Z 111 o UJ CL 97% 32% 18% 27% 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 29% 18% 79% 98% 87% 80% 95% 61% 68% 59% 59% 88% o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o 283 367 367 380 264 264 426 426 409 409 526 526 524 782 782 491 491 340 340 501 421 316 TABLE AZ-1 PAGE 8II H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION II (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-1 II H \u0026gt; II 0^ UJ z O \u0026lt; CO o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z II H tl II n II n  a SCHOOL o UJ t z 5 o \u0026lt; 00 \u0026lt; 1- O z UJ o Qt UJ Q. \u0026lt; q: UJ Q. o OPTION \"C II JR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST (CLOSED) 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 724 765 707 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 314 110 281 264 416 473 591 582 730 583 872 846 51% 81% 68% 69% 935 955 955 971 971 OPTION C HIGH SCHOOLS SAME AS OPTION M TABLE AZ-1 PAGES\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1596","title":"Court Filings concerning faculty and staff desegregation and assignment, court proceedings, ODM budget ,and Arkansas Department of Education project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-11"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School employees","School management and organization","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning faculty and staff desegregation and assignment, court proceedings, ODM budget ,and Arkansas Department of Education project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1596"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1361","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-10-06"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School administrators","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"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/1361"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["159 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_237","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1995-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/237"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["117 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nR' .'E '~ ~ \"1'f\n-:--0 \"\"\"' ,,-4..  , ,,- l :_\"_,\n: --:-, ~~ - 1019195 Little Roel\u0026lt; School Olatrict r1 J.-,.- _,:  {r( C Page 1 October 1, 1995 Companaon 199!\u0026gt;-96 OCT 1 1'\\ IJ 199.5 Comp11mon  Octob., 1 19/U to Octob., 1 1996 r\u0026gt;o~,,_, October I. 1994 October I. 1995 0.itf..,enc . - I iii r-'\"' ~\n,l~dW i!lt~wII Jh\n. i, ,cztH~ ~ ! I ~ l f ' ~ 1 .. l i I J i~ ... ! ! Ji .!! :.( --~ central HS 10.l 5.48, 49 1637, 63.53\" 1017 543 31 1591. 63.9n. .23 .5 -18 ~ 0.\nm1, 1891 . 300 ~ ... Fair HS 631 279 7 917 68.81\" 651 246 8 9051 71.93'.II 20 .33 I -12 3.12'!\n954 .49 95'J. Hal/HS 669 326 36 1031 64.89'.II 626 262 ,4() 928I 67.46'.II ..J -64 4 -103 2.57\" 1291 -363 ----rii MCOellan Hs 684 203 10 897 76.2596 n1 171 6 90,tl 80.4.ns 43 -32  7 4.1,:.. 1199 -295 75% PariMewHS 435 328 37 8001 54.3896 447 373 35 8551 52.28\" 12 \"5 -2 55 -2.~ 1000 -145 86% Sub-Total 3459 1684 139: 5282 65.49\"1. 34611 1595 120 5183 68.91% I -at -111 -91 1.42'1 8335 -1152 62'!\nwloMagneta 3024 13561 102, 4482 67.47% 3021 1222 851 4328, 69.80'1. -a, 0 1341 .17 0 154 2 . .\u0026gt;.\u0026gt;\n, 53351 -1007 81% uoveraaIe JH 521 119 7 1\u0026gt;47l 110.5J'H\u0026gt; :u., /j ':I 6091 66.5411 6 ~ 2 -38 6.01:.. 668 -259 7~ ounoar JH\" 468 227 12! 707: 66.2096 440, 279 13 732! 60.I1'.II -28 52 1 2516.~ 8121 -80 90'J. Forest Hetgnts JH 565 197 18 7801 72.44% 576 165 16 7591 76.15% 13 -32 -2 -21 3.7D. ~'\"79 88% Henaerson JH  661 229 27 9171 72.08',1!\n623 152 17 7921 78.66',1!\n.381 .77 -10 -125? 6.~ 907 -115 87',1!\nMaoeIvaIe JH 417 161 7 5851 71.28',1!\n363 125' 3 491 I 73.93',1!\n-S. -36  -94 2.6511 614 -123 80'J. MannJW 456 366 23! 845: 53.96')!\n451 j 382 141 ~71 53.25',1!\n-5 16 -9 2 --0.72\" 850 -3 100',I!\nPU/aSKI Helgnts JH 431 334 61 7711 55.90,: 447 327 7 781 ! 57.23% 16 -7 I 10 1.33,i 745 36 105% soutnwest JH 487 1051 181 610' 79.84% 512' 841 16 6121 83.66% 25! -21 ! -2 2. 3.8~ 7371 -125 83% Sub-Total 40061 17381 118 5862 68.34/o 39'1 1587: 95! 5623 70.09\"1. -65 1 -151 1 -231-2391 1.75')1 6391' -768 88% wlo Magnets 35501 1372, 95 5017 70.76 3490 1205. 81: 4776 73.07 -o(), -167, -141 -241 2.31% 5541 -765 66% saagett 133 441 o. 177 15.14'6 1bti I 441 Oj 210, 79 .05% 331 01 01 33i 3.91% 257 -47 82% Bale 214 87' Bi 309, 69.2696 24J 85 19 I :w: 70.03% 29 -21 11 38\n0.77% 401 -54 87'J. 8ase/lne 245 77 4 326\n75.1596 247 75 51 327i 75.54% 21 -21 1 1 o.= 3901 -63 ~% sooKer 305 245 23 5731 53.23% 316 267 211 6041 52.32% 111 22 -2 311--0,91')1 656 -52 92% sraav 254 137 171 408 62.25')!\n2501 124 20 394( 63.45%  -131 3 -141 l.L\\J'Ji 4671 -73 ~% carver 309 267 12 588 52.55'\n11\n326 290 13 629~ 51.83% 17 231 1 411--0.7~ 613i 16 103% cnIcot 3441 151 I 81 503 68.3996 345\n99 \\ 8 452, 76.33% 11 -52 0 -51 7.94')1 558 -106 81% CJoveraaIe 312 74 6! 392 79.5996 384 64 5 453 84.77% 72 -JOI -1 611 5.1~ 492: -39 92% ooaa 193 971 8 298 64.7796 190 97 7 294 64.63% -31 01 -1!  1--0,14% 3281 -34 90% Fair ParK 204 73 5 282 n.3496 211 I 53 6 270' 78.15% 7! -201 1 -12: 5.81')1 351! -81 77% Forest ParK 198 228 61 432. 45.8396 205: 2221 8 435 47.1:r,\n71 -6j 2 3 1.29\\11 399 36 109% FranKfln 393 41 9f 443 88.7196 400i 241 7 431  9_2.81% 71 -17 -21 -121 4.Cl'1% 4341 -3 99% FU/Ortgnt 235 2891 18: 542 43.36')1 255, 2541 91 518' 49.23% 201 -351 -9 -24\\ 5.8~ 5401 -22 96% Gartamr 246 9( 271 282 87.2396 2351 21 181 255 92.16% -111 -7j .91 -271 4.92% 2981 -43 86% Gever sorlngs 223i 661 11' 300 74.3396 231  71. 8: 310 7 4.5.\n, 8' 5: -3: 10, 0.18% 328: -18 95~ GIOIJs 160 1211 12: 293 54.6196 165' 132: 10: 307 53.75'\n11\n5, 11: -21 14:--0.86% 3531 -46 87% 1,./efferson 218 279' Si 502, 43.43'll 210, 285j 6i 501, 41.92'.lo -Si 61 1 -1 -1.51% 492i 9 102% King- 309, 227 1 15 551 S6.D896 289 1 230 1 12r 531  54.43% -201 31 -31 -201 -1.65% 728! -197 73% Matlelvale 3401 1241 10: 474 71.7396 318 1 139 I 31 460- 69.13% -22! 151 -71 -141 -2.60% 5151 -55 89% McDermott 241 I 233, 201 494 .48.79')1 2591 213: !Si .487 53.18% 18\n-201 -51 -7 4.-w\n,, 5171 -30 94% Meaaowcllff 279 131\nI 411 67.8896 305 93 2, 400 76.25% 26, -381 I -111 8.37% 465i -65 86% MltcneIi- 260\ne: 4 272 95.5996 250: 7 o. 257 97.28% -10: -1\n-41 -15\n1.69% 298 -41 86% otter creeK 154: 196'. 9 359 42.90% 139' 193 7' 339 41.00'.li -15' -3 -2 -20' -1.89% 351' -12 97% PU1as1\u0026lt;HIe lgnts 197, 207' 16' 420 46.90')1 189 207 1 10 4061 46.55% -8, O -61- -14 --0.35% 374, 32 109% RigntseIi- 2251 41 0, 229 98.2596 210, 6, 3, 219 95.89'\n11\n-151 2\n3i -101 -2.36% 258: .39 85% ROCl\u0026lt;efeller\" 264 1241 15' 403 65.5196 259  131 16 406 63.79% -5! 7, 11 31 -1.72% 469 -63 87% Romine- 234, 73 16 323 72.4596 213  80 1 9! 302 70.53% -21: 71 -7! -21\n-1.92% 487 -185 \"62% Steonens- closed closed ' I Terry _ 234L .. 295, _ 30._ 559 41.86% 239 279 18 536 44.59\",\n5 -16 -12' -23 2.73% 515 21 104% wa1\u0026lt;efieIa 3271 731 13 .. 413\"79_18% 368, 51 ! 10  429 85.78% 41 I -22 -31 16: 6.60% - 492-~ -m wasnington - 443 211 I 33 687 64.48% 422, 210 24 I 656 ! 64.33% -21 ! -1: -91 -31\n-0.15% 836 -180 '\"\"78% Watson 341 81 I 6, 427 79.63% -tsr\n-84\n7\n444 79.5~ 131 3: I 17! -0.12% 492: -48 ~ western Hills 215 95: 7, 317 67.8296 208, 106 1, 315 66.03% -71 111 -6 -21 -1.79% 328 -13 -ra WIiiiams 250 214: 10 474 52.7 4% 264, 232, 12 508 51.97% 14, Ie: 2 34, -0.77% 517. -9~ WIison 254 83 8 345 73.6296 304. 72' 8 3841 79.17,\nso: -111 0 39\n5.54% 394, -10 -m\nwooaruff 1481 871 8. 243 60.91% 170 81, 3. 254 66.93% 22, -6, .5 11, 6.02% 324 -70 '\"\"78% soectaT\"scnoots- 15\\ 21 ! 0 36 41.67% 17 29 o, 46 36.96~ 2' 8 o: 10 -VI% - --  Sub-Total 89151 4772 400 14087 63.29/, 9155 4631 330 14116 64.86 240 -141 -70 29 1.57% 15717 -1601 90% w/o Magneta 7876, 3904 343 12123 64.97-J. 8067 3681 274 12022 67.1~ 191 -223 -69, -101 2.13% 13578 -1556 89% Grana Total 11,jl/U I 81':14 b57 L)L31 54.~L'n, 1b)04 7813 545, 24':IL\u0026gt; 55.4b..., 164- -381 -112, -309 1.5% 2844.5 -3521 88% wlo Magnets 14450, OOJL 540 21h.1.t 66.ISJ'H, 14~/l:I 6108 440 21126 69.01% 128 524 -100 -496 2.17% 1244)4 -3328 86%  Mognet  Magnet Program \"'1ncenf1ve  Interd1slricl Office of Student Assignment 10710/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIG1'1M PAGE 03 SCHOOL ~ENTRAL Sthool Total HALL School Total PARKVIEW --- School Total FAIR School Total MCCLELLAN ... School Tot  ! Total Sr Total Sr/KG Grade 10 11 12 1(f s LITTLE JtOCX SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, /995 ENltOLLMENTltEPORT WH BL OT 216 400 193 322 133 247 I 43 0 s 5-11\n,_ 543 91-'I 1017 30 Grade WH BL OT 10 81 241 II 70 204 12 95 156 KF 8 8 s 8 17 :J.51 262 Mil 626 31 Grade WH BL OT 10 138 16) II 117 136 12 118 132 1(f 0 18 ~3 373 1--1\n2~ 447 ~6 Grade WH BL OT 10 78 255 II 56 182 12 99 180 KF 2 13 s II 21 ~ 246 \u0026lt;\n.3'1S 651 ~ Grade WH BL OT 10 46 294 II 69 206 12 48 189 KF 0 19 s -8 19 --- --- t'/1 171 70~ 727 5 1595 3468 11 IOI 3. 3\u0026lt;,1 o/Black Total 9 625 64.00% 12 517 81.10% 9 389 83.60% I 45 96.58% 0 5 100.00% 31 1:5'-J(1, 591S \u0026amp;3.92% Total 8 330 73.03% 13 287 71.08% 18 269 67.99% I 17 47.08% 0 2S 88.00% 40 1,1 928 (,'!S87.48% Total II 310 51.94% 15 268 60.75% 9 2S9 50.97% 0 18 100.00% 3S '!37 855 ~162.28% Total 4 337 76.67% 3 241 76.62% 1 280 64.29% 0 15 86.87% 0 Jl 86.83% 8 ~\"IC\u0026gt; 905 7.,\n\u0026gt;71.93% Total 4 344 85.47% \" 0 17.S 74.91% 1 ---~- 238 79.41% I --- .....2._.0... . 96.00% 0 27 70.37% 6 \u0026lt;\u0026amp;~1 904 W,80.42% 120 5183 66.91% 3 11~ 87.83% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10i10/19'35 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 04 2 SCHOOL I I CLOVERDALE JR School Total DUNBAR School Total FOREST HT JR !khool Total HENDERSON School Total MABEL VALE JR - School Total MANN MIS School Total PULASKJ HT JR ,.._, ______ ----- ---- School TotI SOUTHWEST JR - ----- Ll1'TLE ltOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0CTOJJE/f 2, 1995 ENltOLLMENTREPORT I Grade WH Bl OT 7 17 179 I 33 156 9 23 188 s 0 4 73 .527 Grade WH BL OT 7 113 133 g 83 147 9 83 160 279 440 Grade WH SL OT 7 SI 185 8 43 174 9 65 200 s 6 19 165 578 Grade WH BL OT 7 39 192 8 49 19.5 9 59 214 s s 22 JS2 623 Grad WH BL OT 7 40 I II II 38 117 9 41 128 s 6 7 125 363 Grade WH BL OT 7 133 1.53 g 136 143 9 113 155 382 451 Grade WH BL OT 7 119 ISO 8 97 168 9 109 121 ., ...... s 2 8 327 447 Grade WH BL OT 7 25 170 8 32 ISO I I 3 3 3 0 9 5 4 4 13 s s 6 0 16 3 8 6 0 17 I 2 0 0 3 s 2 7 14 3 I 3 0 7 s ---- ----- 5 9 26 179 6 '----- .......,._ ..__. ..-. ----s-- . -----. -........ -- ---- I 13 0 ., -- .. -- - .. -- --- . -- School Total 84 512 16 Total JR 1587 3941 95 ' l/.Blck Total 199 89.96% 192 81.25% 214 ---8-7-.85% 4 100.00% 609 86.54% Tatel .251 52.99% 234 82.82% 247 64.78% 732 60.11% Total 241 78.76% 222 78.38% 271 73.80% 25 76.00% 759 76.16% Total 234 82.06% 2!'12 77.38% 279 76.70% 27 81.48% 792 78.88% Tatel 152 73.03% 1!'17 74.152% 169 75.74% 13 153.815% 491 73.93% Total 29t 52.58% 281 50.89% 27!'1- 66.38% 841 63.26% Total ----2-72 66.16% ---- 266 63.16% -- ...-..... 233 51.93% ----- 10 80.00% 78J 67.23% Total -- 200 85.00% ---' .. ..... -- 187 80.21% -~-- .. 211 84.83% -- - 14 92.86% - --.. 61'.2 83.66% 5623 70.09% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDEi'lTA SSI GNM PAGE 05 SCHOOL BADGETT School TotI BALE Stbool Total BASELINE ----- School Total BOOJ(EJl ------ ...... .., . . .. \"--------- .. ----- ............ --- --  ------ ------- ----- ----- -\" - -- ---- School Total Grde I 2 3 4 .5 6 E KF PK L/1TU /tOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT/tEPORT I I WH BL OT 6 16 8 1.5 3 14 6 22 6 14 I 17 0 8 .5 33 9 27 44 166 Grade WH BL OT I IC 34 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 ...-. - 3 2 9 35 2 3 13 35 2 4 8 26 2 5 10 30 0 6 6 34 I E t 7 0 KF 12 23 4 PK 11 19 s 85 243 19 Grade WH BL OT I 12 38 I 2 s 26 ( ---.-- 3 9 31 I 4 6 24 0 s 8 27 I 6 12 2.5 0 E I 5 0 l/Dlack I Total 22 72.73% 13 65.22% 17 82.35% 28 78,57% lO 70.00% 18 94.44% 8 ,00.00% 38 86.84% 36 76.00% 210 79.06% Total ----- 47 ___7 ,. 2._3_4_% 46 76.09% so 70.00% 36 72.22% 40 715.00% 41 82.93% 13 63.815% 39 58.97% JS 54.29% 347 70.03% Total 51 74.61% 31 83.87% 41 75.81% 30 80.00% -- 36 ~--7--6.00% 37 67.57% 6 83.33%  --- -- _____,. _ __ KF 12 47 0 59 79.66% -- ----- PK 10 24 -~----2 36 ----6-6-.-6-7% 75 247 5 327 76.54% Gnida WH 8L OT Total I 37 -----. 49 - 4 ..... 90 64.44% 2 37 40 2 79 50.63% ---- - . - . ----3-  ..... _., 4S 44 -I 93 47.31% ____ ----- --- ----- -----4- - 37 38 2 77 49.35% ,,_ _,, ..- ---... . ~. - . - ,, -- --- -- - ---. -- 5 36 54 2 9:2 S8.70% -----., ~---- --- ----- --- .. ----.- ------6- -- 44 49 2 95 61.58% --- --. .. . - ---- -- - ---. KF 31 ----. 42 5 711 63.85% - .. .., 267 316 21 604 52.32% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10\"/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 SCHOOL BRADY School Total CARVER School Total CHICOT School Total CLOVERDALE EL LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM Grade I 2 3 4 s 6 E KF PK Grade I 2 3 4 5 6 KF Lln'LE /UJCX SCHOOL l\u0026gt;IST/lJCT oeroaE1t 2, ,1195 EN/tOLLMENTREPORT WH BL OT 22 37 1, 39 14 37 I  21 9 39 7 34 4 3 28 32 ~ 8 124 250 WH BL OT 30 JS 37 49 46 S2 so S4 S2 52 48 53 27 31 290 326 Grede WH BL OT I 17 55 2 11 45 3 7 39 4 IS 4S s II 49 6 8 47 E 10 12 KF 14 42 PK 6 II 99 345 Grade WH BL OT I 7 61 2 8 46 3 9 42 4 4 46 TotI 3 62 8 64 2 S3 2 37 2 50 3 \" 0 7 0 60 0 17 20 394 Tatel I 66 s 91 I 99 3 107 I 105 0 101 2 60 13 619 Total 0 72 0 56 0 46 0 60 I 61 3 58 0 22 3 59 I 18 8 452 Total I 69 I 55 0 51 ~ .. -- 0 50 -- s 12 39 0 51 6 3 42 0 ---- 45 E 0 I 0 I --- - --- KF II 65 -2 - 78 ., ..... PK 10 42 I 53 - -- - ---- - ---- School Total 64 384 s 45.1 PAGE 05 o/oBltk 59.88% 60.94% 69.81% 68.78% 78.00% 77.27% 42.88% 63.33% 47.06% 83.46% 63.03% 63.86% 62.63% 60.47% 49.52% 52.48% 51.87% 61.83% 78.39% 80.36% 84.78% 76.00% 80.33% 81.03% 64.56% 71.19% 61.11% 76.33% 88.41% - 83.64% 82.3!5Cj(, 92.00% --- ----7-6.47% 93.33% ----\" --10 -0.00% - -- .8 3.33% 79.26% \" .. 84.77% OFrlCE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1~/10/1995 11:38 5013242281 SCHOOL DODD School Total FAIR PARK Scbool Tot I FOREST PARK School Tot I FRANKLIN ....  -M - - --OMO - ... ...... ----- -------- School TotI LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM Gr1d1 I 2 3 4 5 6 E KF Grade I 2 3 4 s 6 KF PK Gr dt I 2 3 4 s 6 KF Gr1d1 I 2 Lf'n'LE /10CK SCHOOL DISTIi.JCT OCTOBER 2, /99$ ENROLLMENTREPOll.T WH BL OT 7 25 17 20 17 27 8 19 12 32 17 31 \"'. OM 4 12 1, 24 97 190 WH BL OT 8 37 9 22 6 20 6 36 2 22 1 26 6 30 IS 18 S3 211 WH BL OT 37 30 JS 32 28 3S 24 26 3, 36 29 22 34 24 222 205 WH ISL OT 2 73 0 2 I 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 I 1 0 2 2 2 8 0 --- ----.- ----- 3 -,,_M ___ 47 ---- I 3 2 35 I 1.Bl ck Tot11I 32 --7-8-.13% 39 51.28% 45 80.00% 29 86.62% 44 72.73,C, so 62.00% ..-. ...... 16 76.00% 39 61.64% 294 64.63% Total 45 82.22% --- - 31 70.97% 26 76.92% 42 86.71% 24 91.87% 27 96.30% 39 76.92% J6 60.00% 170 78.15% Total 67 44.78% 68 47.06% 64 54.69% so 62.00% 73 49.32% SJ 41.51% 60 40.00% 435 47.13% Total 75 97.33% ------ -----. --~--- SI -- 92.1-6%-  ....... .......... --- 38 92.11% 4 I 41 --2 ---- -4~4 93.18% ..-. -----M-- s I 38 0 39 97.44% - --- -- ------ .. - 6 0 38 -----~----2 --~--- 40 96.00% f-- E 2 9 I 12 75.00% , .... --- -- . --__ ., __,, - ------ - -K-F- - 7 S6 0 63 88.88% ,., ______ ... ----P--K- - ---- 6 ... , ...._ _ ___63 0 69 91.30% , \"' ...._, .. --- 24 400 7 431 92.81% PAGE 07 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 10110/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGl'-IM PAGE 08 SCHOOL FULBRIGHT Srltool Total GARLAND Srbool Total GEYER SP School Total GIBBS - ..-. ....... '\"----- School Total LITTLE llOCK SCHOOL DIS't'ltlCf OCTOBE/l 1, /99$ EN/lOLLMENT~EPORT Grede WH BL OT I 35 31 2 36 35 3 21 41 4 36 28 \" 34 40 6 46 35 E 5 2 KF 41 36 254 255 Grade WH BL OT I 0 32 2 0 29 3 0 32 4 0 29 5 0 29 6 I 35 E 0 7 KF 0 29 PK I 13 2 235 Grade WH BL OT I 7 33 2 12 34 3 7 27 4 7 33 5 7 19 6 8 35 KF 8 29 PK 15 21 71 231 Grade WH BL OT I 21 24 2 19 24 3 21 21 4 16 23 5 21 25 3 0 2 I I I 0 I 9 5 I 3 0 3 2 0 0 4 18 I 0 I 3 0 0 2 I 8 3 2 0 I I --- 6 19 25 I --- KF IS 23 2 ------ -- - ..... 132 165 10 1.BJ1ck Total 76 60.00% 71 49.30'11, 64 64.08% 65 43.0B'lb 75 63.33% 82 42.88% 7 28.57'!', 78 46,15% 518 49.23% Total 37 88.49% 30 98.87% 35 91.43% 29 100.00% J2 90.63% 38 92.11% 7 100.00% 211 100.00% 18 72.22% 255 92.18% Total 41 80.49% 46 73.91% 35 77.14% 43 76.74% 26 73.08% 43 81.40% 39 74.38% 37 56.76% 310 74.62% Total 48 60.00% 45 53.33% 42 !i0.00-%- 40 57.50% ----- ., ~----.... -----,,. ...4.7.. .... .. 5_,3,,,..,1.,. 9.% , 45 55.66% -- ----- .... . 40 67.50% ' .... - 307 53.76% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Ht/.Hl/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 09 SCHOOL I.JEFFERSON School Total M LKING School Total MABELV ALEE L -- ------- Sthool Total MCDERMOT - --- --- -- --  -----  -------- School Total 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCT08EJ 2. J99S .ENROLLMENTR EPORT G,.d WH BL OT I 36 25 I 2 39 34 I 3 47 25 I 4 38 34 0 5 50 26 I 6 31 41 2 E 2 7 0 KF 42 18 0 283 210 6 Gr11d11 WH BL OT I 35 49 2 2 21 34 2 3 28 - 37 3 4 26 20 1 s 20 30 1 6 22 2S I KF 47 54 2 PK 31 40 0 230 289 12 Grade WH BL OT 1 20 54 0 2 19 39 0 3 IS 36 I 4 17 46 0 s 25 47 1 6 1.5 40 0 E 1 8 0 KF 19 39 1 PK 8 9 0 ---- 139 318 3 Grade WH BL OT I 31 36 2 2 35 34 4 3 32 37 ------ I 4 25 39 2 s 29 42 4 -----\"- --- ---  6 29 44 I --- ---- ----- ----- - ... -- _K_.F. _ _- - ----- 32 --- 27 ____ ., __I 213 259 IS t.lllack Total 62 40.32% 74 45.915% 73 34.215% 72 47.22% 77 33.77% 74 515.41% 9 77.78% 60 30.00% 501 41.92% Total 86 56.98% 57 69.86% 68 54.41% 47 42.66% 51 68.82% 48 62.08% 103 52.43% 71 56.34% 531 54.43% Total 74 72.97% S8 61.24% 52 89.23% 63 73.02'!(, 73 64.38% 55 72.73% 9 88.89% 54) 66.10% ---- 17 62.94% '\"   ',N   460 69.13% Total 69 62.17% ----- ------- 73 - 46.68% ---- 70 52.86% .. ------. .. --- 66 69.09~ --- --- 75 56.00~ . - -. . .. - '14 59.46~  --- -------6-0 46.00% 487 63.18% OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENT 10/.10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 10 SCHOOL MEADOWCLIFF School Total MJTCHELL School Total OTTERCREEK School Total PULASKI HT EL School Tolal L/7TLE JtOCK SCHOOi. DISTIUCT OCTOBE/t 2, /995 EN/tOLlMENTkEPOIT Grede WH BL OT I 13 so 2 13 47 3 II 39 4 14 52 s 14 39 6 17 32 KF II 46 93 305 Orde WH Bl OT I I 37 2 0 37 3 2 21 4 I 23 5 I 3S 6 0 34 E 0 10 .l(F I 36 PK I 17 7 2SO Grad  WH BL OT I 32 16 2 27 16 3 22 2.5 4 20 19 5 33 28 6 34 20 KF 25 IS 193 139 Grade WH BL OT I 29 32 2 38 25 3 34 32 4 25 29 5 25 22 , ___6,. ._. 23 27 KF 33 22 - 207 139 o/.Bt ck Total 0 63 79.37% I 61 77.06% 0 so 78.00% 0 66 78.79% I 54 72.22% 0 49 86.31'1(, 0 57 80.70% 2 400 78.26% Total 0 38 97.37% 0 37 100.00% 0 l3 91.30% 0 14 915.83% 0 36 97.22% 0 34 100.00% 0 JO 100.00% 0 37 97.30% 0 18 94.44% 0 157 97.28% Total 0 48 33.33% 2 45 35.56% I 48 62.08% 2 41 46.34% 0 61 46.90% 2 ~6 36.71% 0 40 37.60,C. 7 339 41.00% Tot111t 0 61 62.46% 4 67 37.31% I 67 47.78,C. 0 54 53.70,C. 2 ---- 4..9.. . ---4--4-.9--0% I ---- 51 ---6-2-.9-4% 2 S7 38.60% ----~ -- 10 406 48.65% OFFICE OF SfUOEN1' ASSIGNMENT 10110/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 11 SCHOOL RIGHTSELL .. School Total ROCKFELLER School Total ROMINE -- ----- ---- School To11I rERRY - --- ---- --- --\"- -------- ----- ----- ....... .... - --- School Tol I L/1TLE ltOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCiOIER 1, 1995 ENJtOLLMENTRE/'ORT Grad WH BL OT I 0 30 2 0 19 3 I 34 4 C 26 s 2 31 6 C 19 KF I 29 PK 2 16 6 210 Grede WH BL OT I IE 35 2 7 34 3 19 2E 4 17 22 s 9 30 6 8 24 KF 13 42 PK 42 46 131 259 Grade WH BL OT I 14 30 2 II 35 3 16 21 4 7 19 s 3 16 6 s 26 E 0 10 - KF 14 35 . P. K 10 .. 21 80 213 Grade WH BL OT I 37 32 2 41 28 3 SI 43 ----- ---- 4 37 29 - s 32 3..7 -- .... 6 - ,. ... _. __ 40 - 37 - - - - - l(f 41 33 0 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 3 2 I 2 l 0 2 3 s 16 I I 0 0 1 I 0 3 2 9 3 I 4 I 3 5 - --- --- I --- - ------- 279 239 18 1.Blck Total JO 100.00% 19 100.00% 37 91.89% 26 100,00% 39 94.87% lO 95.00% JO 96.67% 18 88.89% 119 96.89% Total 53 66.04% ,2 80.95% 47 66.32% 40 66.00% 39 76.92% 34 70.69% S8 72.41% 93 49.46% 406 63.79% Total 4~ 66.67% 47 74.47'l!\u0026gt; Ji !56.78% Zt 73.08% 20 80.00% 32 81.25% 10 100.00% 52 87.31% 33 63.64% ---- -- . - 302 70.63% Total 72 44.44% ----- 70 40.00% -- -- ....... - 98 43.88% ____ 6_,7.., --4 3.28% .. . - . . . 72 . . 51.39% .. 82 45.12% - 15 44.00% -- 5J6 44.59% OFFICI, OF STUDENT ASSIGNl,4ENT Black Black Total White White Class Male Female Black Male Female K 18 24 42 4 9 Pl 4 2 6 2 2 P2 2 4 6 4 4 P3 5 4 9 4 3 P4 13 12 25 14 9 TOTAL 42 46 88 28 27 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Total Other Other Total Total White Male Female Other Count 13 0 3 3 58 4 0 0 0 10 B 0 0 0 14 7 1 1 2 18 23 0 3 3 51 55 1 7 B 151 Black White Other Min.% Max.% Max. % % % Black Black Cap. 72.4 22.4 5.2 50.0 50.0 60 60.0 40.0 .o 50.0 50.0 10 42.9 57.1 .o 50.0 50.0 17 50.0 38.9 11.1 50.0 50.0 18 49.0 45.1 5.9 50.0 50.0 54 58.3 36.4 5.3 159 l~/.10/1995 11:38 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 12 SCHOOL WAKEFJELD Sebool Total WASHNGTON IScbool TotI WATSON ,., __ Srhool Total WESTERN HILLS --------- - --- ... _,. __  -------------- --- ..... -~ .. School TotI 10 LITTLE JlOCI\u0026lt;S CHOOLD ISiJIICT OCTOBE/]l, /995 ENROLLMENRTE PORT Grade WH BL OT I II 60 2 ' S4 3 6 37 4 8 58 s 5 S? 6 14 47 KF 2 S5 SI 368 Grade WH BL OT I 2S 68 2 27 51 3 2S ,c -- 4 3( 4C s 34 70 6 30 56 E 2 2 KF IS ss PK 22 3C 210 422 Grade WH IIL OT I II \" 2 II SC 3 12 42 4 13 4~ s 10 45 6 s 4( KF 12 47 PK 10 25 84 353 Grade WH BL OT - I 12 35 2 14 29 3 17 32 3 2 4 C I 0 0 10 3 s 4 I 1 I 0 8 I 24 I 2 1 C 2 1 C C 7 0 0 0 -- --..... ----- ------ ------ 4 21 27 0 '----- ----5 14 3S 0 . ~-.. -- ------6 -- 12 26 I --- KF 16 24 0 --- . .. --  106 208 I \"lBlark Total 74 81.08C!E, 61 88,152'M, 47 78,72-M, 66 87.88% 63 90.48% 61 77.05% 57 96.49'Mi 425 86.78% Total 96 70.83% 83 81.46% 79 63.29'M, 71 1515.34% 10!! 68.87% 87 84.37% 4 60.00% 78 70.61% 53 68.80% 656 84.33% Total 67 82.09% 63 79.37% S!l - 76.38% 62 79.03% 57 78.95% 4fi 86.98% 59 79.66% 35 71.43% ---- 444 79.50% Total ----47 --7-4-.-47% 43 67.44% ..... 4-9 -- 6_6_. 31% ,, __ - --- 48 68.25% - ---- 4-9 - 71.43% --- J'J -~6-6--.67--%- 40 60.00% --- ---------- 31~ 66.03% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CQ~RECTED SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON School Total WOODRUFF School Total Total Elem i Grand Total 11 Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 KF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT WH BL OT 32 38 38 36 34 38 37 41 31 42 31 39 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT 1 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 13 37 5 6 21 6 10 34 E 3 18 KF 7 47 PK 7 10 72 304 Grade WH BL OT 1 10 22 2 5 32 3 10 30 4 9 14 5 10 11 6 9 13 KF 12 28 PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 7784 16547 Black Total 3 73 52.05% I 75 48.00% 0 72 52.78% 3 81 50.62% 2 75 56.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 51.97% Total 1 61 77.05% 2 61 86.89% 2 46 80.43% 0 so 74.00% 1 28 75.00% 0 44 77.27% 0 21 85.71% I 55 85.45% 1 18 55.56% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.75% I 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 23 60.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 59.09% 0 40 70.00% 0 36 55.56% 3 25~ 66.93% 330 14070 64.95% 545 24876 66.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT w ~ a... ::\n: z l!) H UJ UJ \u0026lt;I fzw 0 ::J fUJ 0 UJ Cl'.'. _J ..... 00 N N v N (\") ..... ~ lf) 00 (\") .......... - -- - . - . - . - ~ . - - ' ', -. .. - . SAOGTI 114 0.l( USfl.N a\u0026gt;OUR illUY c.,..,'.(.J.l f-ci: NlflAl CHOJr --~ ~ ,o .. 11 ,. ,, . ii!I -.----,-,-\n i,-~ c\n10 ( 1 2 ' ' , i - ,. 20 \" TOTM.. ,., 41\u0026amp; Ma 385 1.al SH 51.l \u0026gt;n 1 n, IS\u0026amp; 111 6M UJ \"67 .,, lOS 311 um E 'AOCK SCHOOL DISTfllCl S,:t-100.. ATTVll:\u0026gt;i'-NCE i()N( SUMMARY OCTOBER l. 1 HS i ,o ,.  ,u, .U 4U SOI 1112 5-24 451 lll!i 551 ., . -,-- \" October 1 State Department Enrollment Report q!]- 9/tJ !All Enrolled Stud_ents: ( I 02-0ct-95 001 CENTRAL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 ~ 110 106 197 203 I 2 3 3 0 0 625 11 82 ~11 ~401g182 ~ 0 ~ 2 \\J. 4 5 0 1 ~ 527 12 't 62 ~ 11 f105 ijl42 '\\ 0 ..... 2 4 3 0 0 ~389 KF 1 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 45 s 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 002 HALL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF TQtal 10 37 44 124 117 3 3 1 0 o 330 11 ~27 \u0026lt;) 43 ~ 94 l(jl0 -.....3 ~ 4 3 3 0 0 287 12 ~ 43 t52 ~80 IX\\76 '\\)5--..5 6 2 0 .. 0 ~' 269 KF 1 7 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 s 7 1 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 003 MANNM/S Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 54 79 62 ~ 91  1 1 0 1 291 08 ~64 o'n ~64 79 ~ o \\) 1 0 0 0 ~281 09 \"55 '158 ....7._3 82 2 1 3 0 0 275 005 PARKVIEW Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 10 52 86 60 101 3 4 3 1 0 0 310 11 ~ 51 \"\"'~66 t61_ 0 15 ~2 ~ 3 3 5 2 0 ~268 ~74 --.: 12 44 74 58 0 ~ 6 0 3 0 0 259 KF 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 006 BOOKER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 20 17 24 25  0 3 1 0 0 0 90 02 20 17 17 23 0 1 1 0 0 0 79 03 -..,.22 0..23 '26 ~18 0 2 1 0 0 3 04 112 ):25 '!!22 ~ 16 ~ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ~77 05 18 18 23 31 0 1 1 0 0 0 92 06 19 25 25 24 0 1 0 0 0 1 95 KF 15 16 22 20 2 0 2 1 0 0 78 007 DUNBAR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 61 ~52 {70 63 2 0 1 2 0 0 r! 251 08 , 36 ...._47. 81 ~66 ~2 frt 1 0 0 0 ~234 ' 09 47 36 93 67 2 0 2 0 0 0 247 008 FAIR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 33 45 136 119 1 1 0 0 337 11 Os.. 28 ~28 .\u0026gt; 88 ~94 ~ ~~ 0 0 0 -5:)241 ( ....... 12 '- 54 \"'-45 ~91 ~89 I 0 0 0 0 ~2'8 0 KF 2 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 s 4 7 15 6 0 0 o 0 0 0 32 009 FORSTHT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 1 jAll Enrolled Students: 010 PULHTJ 011 SOUTHWST 012 MCCLELLA HENDERSN 015 CLOVRJR 016 MABELJR 017 BALE 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 10 11 12 KF s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 07 08 09 s Grade 01 02 03 04 05 06 LRSD Information Services Department 27 24 .98 87 1 1 \"22 ~21 --... 97 t\n-77 ~ 0 ~ 2 OQ37 ~28 ~101 'l,99 2 0 3 3 15 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 02-Oct-95 0 '241 0 ~222 0 \"'2 71 0 25 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 61 58 78 72 oo 48 ~9 !l 89 l,{)79 ~ 57 ~ 52 i6o '\\61 2 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 ~266 0 r-:233 0 10 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total  15 10 89 81 2 1 m13 ~19 ~75 ~5 \"\"-4 1.rt 1 1 \"\"'14 12 'l 90 \"[89 \" 1 'G 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 200 . 0 ~ 187 0 'S211 0 14 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 21 25 . 153 141 3 ~33 ~36 ~93 ~113 ~ 0 I' 16 0-:.32 '''89 ~100 0 0 6 0 11 2 15 8 4 1 0 0 0 'o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3\\.344 0 ()I:) 275 0 '\\) 238 0 20 0 27 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 27 12 95 97  0 l'-.._26 ~23 ~ 89 ~106 Oa5 \u0026lt;l3 1 ~ 28 4'11110l't \\104 2 3 2 16 6 0 . I 1 0 0 0 1 0 2. 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 234 o d252 0 f' 279 0 27 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 7 91 88 1 0 (!119 014 ~72 --...84 ~1 j20  14 tr\\ 9 '{90 ~98 1 'O 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 0 ~192 0 \\J 214 0 4 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 22 18 62 49 0 IV)18 J20 ~55 \"- 2 , 1 ,.j 1 \\l 19 \\J 22 ' 64 ' 64 0  e 0 4 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 0 \u0026lt;' \u0026gt;-..157.  0 ~ 169 0 13 WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 4 6 ~8 2 7 4 6 17 3 ~ 19 rs ~22 6 15 3 18 17 16 ~ 13 11 12 2 17 17 0 0 '-0 0 0 0 1 0 ~1 \"0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 46 ~50 ~36 40 41 2 !All Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 E 1 5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 KF 7 5 13 10 1 1 0 0 39 PK 6 5 8 11 2 1 1 0 0 35 018 BRADY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 9 17 20 0 0 2 0 1  0 62 02 9 8 22 17 0 0 4 4 0 0 64 03 9 5 18 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 53 04 10 4 14 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 \\ 37 05 ~ 3 ~6 ~4 ~5 ~o l\\\ni 0 0 2 0 0 V\\50 '.: 06 6 1 13 \" 21 0 1 2 0 0 0 /\\i)44 E 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 13 15 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 PK 6 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 019 BADGETT Grade WM WF .BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 02 3 5 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 03 0 3 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 04 4 ~ 2 d13 ~9 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~28 ~3 \" 'r. 05 3 CK 8 6 ~ 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 120 06 0 1 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 E 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 K. F 3 2 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 PK 5 4 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 020 MCDERMOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 15 16 17 19 0 0 0 0 69 02 18 17 19 15 0 0 1 3 0 0 73 03 d 16 16 18 ' 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~70 04 ........_.1.,4 Qll ~'019 (b20 \\}..o 0\\.0 2 0 0 0 ):66 --..: ~ 05 20 9 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 75 06 13 16 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 74 KF 16 16 13 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 60 021 CARVER Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 13 17 17 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 66 02 23 14 32 17 0 3 0 0  91. 03 28 11')18 ~31 }21 ).__0 0 0 0 0 '~ 99. 04 '~\\S2 4 ~-.\n::26~'- 24 30 0 \"-1 1 0 . 0 107 '- 05 '35 17 32 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 105 06 27 21 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 KF 17 10 17 14 0 0 1 0 0 60 022 BASELINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 8 22 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 \u0026lt;\\ 51 J\\3 \"\" ......... \" 0 02 ~2 I] 14 112 \u0026lt;ti 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 31 03 fl) 5 '14 '-22 -x 9 0 0 0 0 1 41 04 4 2 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 LRSD Information Services Department 3 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 05 3 5 11 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 36 06 5 7 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 E 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 KF 5 7 18 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 6 10 14 0 0 0 0 1 36 023 FAIRPRK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 4 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 5 4 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 03 3 3 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 04 ~3 \\J3 ~13 '123 \\o 1~ 0 0 0 0 R 42 05 1o 'o 2 , 11 ~ 11 0 0 0 0 0 ~24 06 0 1 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 KF 3 3 16 14 1 1 0 0 0  39 PK 9 .6 11 7 1 0 1 0 0 36 024 FORSTPK Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 17 20 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 19 16 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 68 03 12 16 17 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~ 64 04 ~14 '(}10 E 14 ~12 /\\)0 V)o 0 0 0 0 50 05 '15 ' 20 ' 13 '23 0 0 1 0 0 73 06 12 17 10 12 0 0 0 0 53 ( KF 18 16 10 14 0 0 0 0 60 025 FRANKLIN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM. AF . IM. IF Total 01 2 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 02 2 1 25 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 51 03 0 2 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 38 04 0 1 n 20 ~21 ,~\" ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 44 05 ~l ~ 0 ~ 19 \"tI9 0 0 0 0 ~39 06 'o 0 24 14 0 0 0 0 40 E 1 1 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 KF 3 4 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 PK 3' 3 24 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 026 GARLAND Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM. AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 16 16 4 0 0 0 0 37 02 0 0 17 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 .. : 30 03 0 0 18 ~14 1 2 0 0 0 0  . 35 04 0 0 ~15 ~14 !)) 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 -~ 29 05 ' 0 '- 0 ~ 17 12 \" 2 1 0 0 0 0 ~32 06 1 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 38 E 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ( KF 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 PK 0 1 .7 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 18 027 GIBBS Grade WM WF BM BF- HM HF. AM AF IM IF Total 01 16 5 14 10 1 0 0 0 48 LRSD Information Services Department 4 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-0ct-95 02 7 12 16 8 1 0 0 0 0 45 03 \\l 11 10 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 ( 04 (\\ 8 ~8 ~3 ~10 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 16 vis 12 13 ~o 1 0 0 0 lft47 06 11 8 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 45 KF 7 8 9 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 40 028 CHICOT Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 3 29 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 02 6 5 26 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 03 2 5 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 6 9 IY)2 1 rl24 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~60 05 ) 8 3'-~3 ~27 ~22 )o \")1 0 0 0 0 ')-- 61 06 f.{\\4 4 26 '--21 1 0 1 0 0 58 E 5 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 4 10 19 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 6 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 029 WESTHIL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 7 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 02 9 5 16 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03  11 6 ~15 C) 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1)-49 04 ~12 ~9 ~15 (:) 12 \\)0 \"-0 0 0 0 0 '-48 05 7 7 ' 21 '\\ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~49 06 8 4 15 . 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 39 KF 7 9 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 030 JEFFRSN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 21 15 13 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 02 17 22 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 74 03 23 24 13 ~12 0 0 0 0 1 0 73 04 ~21 ~17 ~17 017 1\u0026lt;J0 '- 0 0 0 0 0 \"'-72 05 '31 \"19 \"-11 '15 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~77 06 15 16 17 24 1 0 1 0 0 0 74 E 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF 25 17 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 031 CLOVREL Grade WM WF BM BF HM ~ AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 33 28 0 0 0 0 .. 0 . 69 02 5 3 20 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 55 03 6 3 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 04 1 ~3 ~19 '27 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti50 05 l'f8\\ 'J4 --.._20~ 19 -o 0 0 0 0 0 +.51 06 2 1 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 ( E 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 KF 6 5 35 30 0 2 0 0 0 0 78 PK 5 5 21 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 53 032 DODD Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LRSD Information Services Department 5 jAU Enrolled Students: . 02-0ct-95 01 3 4 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 02 3 14 12 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 03 7 IO 11 16 0 0 0 0 0 45 04 2 6 9 10 \\~ 1 0 0 0 0 ').._29 05 )... 9 t3 \u0026amp;11 ~15 1\\-JO 0 0 0 0 '44 06 13 4 '\\ 15 16 1 0 0 0 0 '150 E 2 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 16  KF 9 6 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 033 MEADCLIF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 7 31 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 8 5 29 18 0 . 0. 1 0 0 0 61 03 9 2  16 23 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 50 04 t\\.11 '\\l.3 ~ 25 '}-27 ~o .0 0 0 0 ~66 05 q 6 \"18 '14 \"25 1 0 0 0 0 0 54 06 9 8 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 KF 8 3 24 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 034 MITCHELL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 1 0 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 02 0 0 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 03 2 0 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 04 0 1 ~ 13  10 0 0 0 0 0 0 t',...24 ( 05 'rjo .11 12 4!2!3 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 I.f3l6 06 0 --.:: ' 1)34: 0 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 0 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 PK 1 0 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 035 MLKING Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 14 21 26 23 0 0 2 0 0 0 86 02 12 9 20 14 0 1 0 0 0 57 03 16 12 21 16 0 0 1 0 68 04 ~12 ~14 ~lO '\\)-10 \\J. 0 \\J. 0 0 1 0 0 --47 05 ''- 11 ~ 9 t14 1:16 0 0 0 0 0 q51 06 12 10 15 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 48 KF 22 25 18 36 0 2 0 .0 0 0 103 PK 14 17 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 036 ROCKFELR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 11 5 . 21 14 0 0 0 0 53 ----- 02 4 3 12 22 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 9 10 15 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 47 04 \u0026lt;la9 \"18 ~12 ~ 10 (\\, 1 bu0 0 0 0 0 \\tV-40 05 \"4 \"5 --q3 \"'17 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 06 5 3 14 10 1 0 0 0 0 34 KF 4 9 18 24 0 0 0 3 0 0 58 PK 22 20 24 22 0 0 3 2 0 0 93 LRSD Information Services Department . 6 jAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 037 GEYERSP Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 01 1 6 13 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 41 02 7 5 14 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 03 4 3 16 11 1 0 0 0 o 0 35 04 2 5 20 '\\J-.13 1 2 0 0 0 0 ~43 05 ~5 ~2 ~11 ~ 8 ~o~o 0 0 0 0 \"26 ~ 06 3 5 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 KF 4 4 12 17 1 0 0 0 0 39 PK 10 5 12 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 038 PULHTE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 16 13 18 14 o 0 ' 0 . 0 o 0 61 02 18 20 11 14 3 0 1 0 0 io 67 03 1{119').._15 \u0026lt;i 16~ 16 0 1 0 0 0\nQ '-'-67 04 ~ 9 C) 16 cy,...14(J '-15 ~o 0 0 0 - 0 0 )-54 '- ' 05 13 12 10 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 49 06 11 12 14  13 0 1 0 0 0 0 51 KF 17 16 9 13 0 0 0 0 57 039 RIGHTSEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 02 0 0 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 ( 03 0 21 13 1 0 0 0 0 37 04 \"} 0 ' 0 ~ 11 't--,.15 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 '26 ...... ...... ...... 05 2 0 'I9 ~18 o 0 o 0 0 \u0026lt;f\\39 06 0 0 10 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 KF 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 PK 2 0 10 6 O 0 0 0 0 0 18 040 ROMINE Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 7 7 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 5 6 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 7 9 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 04 5 \\,fl 2 1Y1J2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 26 05 ~2 l'(\\l ~ 8 a-- 8 '),.o \") 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 4 1 16 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 I\\'\\3 2 E 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 10 KF 9 5 15 20 0 1 0 0 52 PK 6 4 14 7 0 0 0 0 33 042 WASHNGTN Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 12 13 35 33 2 0 0 0 0 96 02 18 9 32 19 2 0 1 2 0 0 83 ( 03 16 ~9 ~~31 ~19 2 0 0 2 0 0 \"'19 04 ~ 9 ~1 21 ~19 ':Qo '-.o 0 1 0 0 ~71 05 17 17 40 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 105 06 21 9 28 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 87 E 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LRSD Information Services Department 7 IAII Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-95 KF 8 7 30 25 4 2 1 0 1 0 78 PK 14 8 13 17 0 0 0 0 0 53 ( 043 WILLIAMS Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF ll\\1 IF Total 01 15 17 16 22 0 0 1 1 0 73 02 17 21 20 16 0 0 0 0 0 75 03 14 C),20 ~8 ~ 20 \\0 0 0 0 0 0 00 72 04 120 ~17 '\\'. 9 12 0 l\\:, 0 0 2 0 I 0 81 05 '16 15 20 ~22 0 0 0 2 0 0 lf\\75 06 14 17 17 22 0 0 1 0 0 72 KF 16 13 14 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 60 044 WILSON Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 8 19 28 . 1 . O 0 0 0 0 61 02 2 4 31 22 1 :  ' 1 0 0 o , ... 0 : 61 03 5 2 20 17 1 0 0 0 0 . ' 46 04 ~6 \\~ ~ 22 0,.,.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 05 I'{\\4 7 t 14 ff\\0 I,{1\\ 0 0 0 0 ~28 \"-! ' 06 3 7 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 E 3 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 KF 4 3 19 28 0 0 0 0 0 55 PK 6 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 '45 WOODRUFF Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 5 14 8. 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 02 1 4 21 11 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 7 3 17 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~41 04 i! (J'l 0,..., 9 ...,__5 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 23 lt\\5 0---6 ~5 - 05 0 1 0 0 0 22 06 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 5 7 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK 7 9 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 046 MABELEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 12 8 34 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 02 7 12 20 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 03 4 11 19 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 04 i 1! I\"\\.. 9 R20 ~26 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 63 ~ 05 \"11 , 25 ,22 ' 0 0 0 0 1 ~73 06 6 9 18 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 E 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 KF 6 13 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 ()47 TERRY Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ( 01 24 13 18 14 1 0 0 0 72 02 '\\j, 22 ~ 19 Q 10 ~18 0 0 0 0 0 ~70 03 lQ 34 '- 17 ~ 21 \"- 22 \"'o '-.1 2 1 0 0 ~98 04 12 25 16 13 0 .0 0 1 0 0 67 LRSD Information Services Department 8 IAII Enrolled Students: 02-0ct-95 05 16 16 18 19 0 0 2 1 0 0 72 06 25 15 18 19 0 2 2 0 0 82 ( KF 23 18 19 14 0 0 0 0 0 75 048 FULBRIGH Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 15 20 24 14 1 0 2 0 0 0 76 02 17 19 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 03 13 8 23 18 0 1 0 0 0 64 04 ) 22 ~ 14 :::-,..,12~6 ~ 0 1 0 0 0 0 ~ 65 05 ~ 13 --.:2: 1 t22 --.\n:18 0 ~o 0 0 0 ~ 75 06 24 22 20 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 82 E 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 KF 17 24 20 16 0 0 0 0 0 78 050 OTTER CR Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM . IF Total 01 14 18 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 02 12 15 10 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 45 03 '\\J.-12 10 dl4 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~48 04 O'- 7 '13 \" 8 \\Ju \\). 0 'o 0 0 2 0 ,~41 05 22 11 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 06 19 15 9 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 56 KF 10 15 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 ( ''51 WAKEFIEL Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 5 26 34 0 1 0 1 0 74 02 2 3 29 25 1 0 0 0 0 61 03 3 3 '\\21 16 \\J2 \\...1 . 0 0 1 0 '\u0026amp;47 V.4 04 ~4 ~23 135 ~4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~66 05 1 27 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 63 06 5 9 19 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 KF 2 0 22 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 052 WA.TSON Grade WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 10 24 31 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 6 5 25 25 0 1 1 0 0 0 63 03 4 8 ~o '22  0 1 0 0 0 . 0 ~5 04 ~: ~~ 23 \"26 ~o )__o 0 0 0 0 I \\. \"\\. 62 05 5 28 17 0 0 1 1 0 0 57 06 2 3 19 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 KF 6 6 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 PK 4 6 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 ( LRSD Information Services Department 9 10/16/1995 15:20 5013242281 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM GIVa ~  ... :2 ............................... . OilEcrOoRfS rudoAos siGNM lifnNtJR ockS dtOODli mact ~O1 SloMM lJnlR ockA, R7 2202  Tdq,lto,Ej0 1 -} 24-2109  FAX~ 0 I .J 24-2281 DATI TO P@4Zta!lll!tf/10 BIIBBr PAGE 01 ~OM-~n---~-~~-fL:-~__~\n__ ____ _ SHCJAL. IHST'ltUCT10H$ 311- Q/00 ------------------- NUMIJU OF PA.GSIH. CLUOINGCOVER _ __.:i.:~---------- 5013242281 To: Mtfl1u hll4111 LRSDS TUDENTA SSIGNM umE ROCSKC HOODLIS TRICT STUDEANSTS IGNMOEFNFTIC E S01 SHERMAN LlfflE ROCKAR, 7 2202 o.. ., 16, 1995 Ftet11: ~N1111y A1n, Dlrtetor Su\u0026amp;Jtot: OetHtr 2, 1995 ENROLLMREENPTO R[jTy l PAGE 02 A minor. ,,or u 41nwettda fttt the paeket,0 , ll'lformatlarenl atedf o Otfo\u0026amp;e1r 1ntolh11ewn1fr 1 dllttl\u0026amp;uttcl.O n 01tol,e,2 , t 995, the eounft aken by Data Proeo1,l1w19u unt to the Student A1tl9nm1O11Mt 11,h to It u ~tiffedth at the numbtttw ett the nm, 11 then 9on1rat1bdy thl1 offl11. Ther eportw 11 11ntf o the Arkan11D1e partmeonft Edu11tl1ftNo1m D 1t1P tN111ln98. 111u11 the n11mb1ato1n tt o the D1p1ttm1o1t1 Et d11ottld1lNclnt oth 1v1to tal,, th, numhn thenh adt o bo h1nd t1bul1t1bdy t hlt oM11in d rtproduaeIdn th14 pa91d oeu111t1on wt hlohth lt 1111tt1tftt1,1 . P1911 1 of th1d ooumenent titled\"L lfflE ROCKSC HOODLI STRICOTC, TOBE2,R 1 99SE NROLLMENT REPOR0T, IHIII]\" h1t a 111lto1alotluofn . lh1 errorI  In the CrandT ot1tI1 bul1tlotni white1 h1d1ntt for Hl'llohr l9h, juniorh lth, ind 1l1111111TttJ,yi1t.o t1If ort he WHc olumnd touldb e 7714,l net11do f 6197. Then umb1Irn ,,,.,, 6197, 11a totalo f 1f1ment1aryn d 11nloht l9h,o nly. TheJ unloth igh totalw 11 t111clvmenlftfflylt tedft omt he1 1lo1d1tl01'1. Th, Ore11Tuolt el 1 111untefo rt he othtt eolumnh1, th dNu1111anntc, lt h Tofll ealumnle eorraeat nd 1111tehth1e1T otaol ntollmtnItn t hoo therd oe1tmentT1h. ltt tror It dNI notN Hr ht anro thtt doeument, andd  n,t hf tht o1tl1in 11ro ft ho theert loul1t1rde port, \"\"\" t1111oPvtt  11 of yoiadr oe1111a1nedn to plaooIt witht he 1tt11h1odo tt11t1pd1 9t 11. Th doeuMewntl llt henl tee o,tHt, Thanky ouf ory ouru nclmtndln9T. hieo ffice9 1nentecal l ot of d1t1I n a 1hotpt e,lodo f tl111tto ptoWltdloM elyre port.f or1 11 pernn1w aitingfo rf h, lnltnntlon, 1. 0/15/1995 15:20 ' 5013242281 LRSD STUDENTA SSIGNM PAGE 03 CO~RECTEO SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON Stbool Total WOODRUFF ---------- SthoolToUI Total Elem I Gr.nd Total I 11 LITTLE ltOCX SCHOOL DIST/tJCT OCTOaER 1, 199$ ENIOLJ.MENTlt!PO/tT Grad WH ISL OT I 32 38 2 38 36 3 34 38 4 37 --41 s 31 42 6 31 39 KF 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT I 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 1:3 37 .s ~ 21 6 IC 34 E 3 18 l(F 7 47 PK 7 JO 72 304 Grd WH BL OT I 10 22 2 s 32 3 10 30 4 9 14 .5 10 II 6 9 13 KF 12 28 ----\"' PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 I 77841 166471 !eBh,ck Total 3 13 62-.-0-6% I 15 48.00% 0 12 62.78% 3 81 60.62% 2 15 68.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 61.97% Total I 61 77.06% 2 61 88.89% 2 -46 80.43% 0 ~ 74.00% 1 2! 75.00% 0 \" 77.27% C ll 85.71% 1 55 85.45% I 18 66.66% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.76% 1 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 13 80.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 ~-6-9.09% ..., - --- 0 40 70.00% - --- --- 0 36 55.56% J ls.\u0026amp; 66.93% J30 14070 64.95% 6451 248761 86.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent~ Date: October 18, 1995 Subject: Desegregation Update- October, 1995 The attached information represents the revised desegregation update for the month of October. Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting October 26, 1995 LRSD BIRACIAL COl\\1MIITEE The Bi-racial committee for LRSD continues to hold the monthly established meetings. The committee elected to meet the 2nd Tuesday of each month in the LRSD Board Room. The October meeting was held bn Tuesday, October 10, 1995. The November meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, 1995. At the October meeting the Bi-racial committee received a report on recruitment from LRSD Parent Recruiters, Becky Rather and Essie Middleton. Dr. Ed Jackson, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, along with Dr. Paul Smith, LRSD monitor, presented an overview of the monitoring process. The committee decided to begin the monitoring of the Incentive schools in October. LRSDCOUNTS The official October 1, 1995 count (actually taken October 2, 1995) which was submitted to the State Department is attached (attachment 1). This official count compares the 1995-96 with the 1994-95 count. The enrollment comparison chart (attachment 2) shows the LRSD official count for the last seven (7) years. An enrollment report (attachment 3) shows the enrollment by school and grade at all LRSD schools on October 2, 1995 (note: page 11 is revised) .. Attached (attachment 4) is the 4 year old count for all schools which have a 4 year old program. This count indicates the number enrolled as of October 4, 1995, and the number of vacancies at each school. The school attendance zone summary chart (attachment 5) is attached for your review. The enrollment vs. allocation of the six original magnet schools is also attached (attachment 6). This chart indicates the number of seats allocated vs. the number filled as of October 10, 1995 by each participating district. ...... +-' C: (lJ E ..r::: u \u0026lt;tl +-' +-' \u0026lt;tl Comparison - October 3, 1994 to October 2, 1995 c:= October 3, 1994 0~ Cl) ..: ... ... ..: Cl) s 0 0 :E .t:. IO ... 0 IO in ~ 0 I- in - -------------- central HS* 1040 548 49 1637 63.53% -- ---- -- ---- --- -- ---- - - -- Fair HS 631 279 7 917 68.81 % Hall fis -- - --- --- - ---- ---- ----- 669 326 36 1031 64.89% .. ---- --- --- --- -- McClellan HS*. 684 203 10 897 76.25% Parkview HS -. - .. 435 328 37 800 54.38% Sub-Total 3459 1684 139 5282 65.49% w/o Magnets 3024 1356 102 4482 67.47% Cloverdale JH 521 119 7 647 80.53% Dunbar JH** -- -- I--- --- ---- 468 227 12 707 66.20% Forest Heights JH 565 197 18 780 - 72.44% Henderson JH** --- --- -- --- r-------- .. 661 229 27 917 72.08% --- ----- Mabe/vale JH 417 161 7 585 71.28% Mann1R ---- ---- 456 366 23 845 53.96% ------ ---- -- ---- ----- Pulaski Heights JH 431 334 6 771 55.90% southwesfjjj - ------- ----- -- -- - ... -- - - 487 105 18 610 79.84% Sub-Total 4006 1738 118 5862 68.34% w/oMagnets 3550 1372 95 5017 70.76% 95-96.XLS II Little Rock School District October 1, 1995 Comparison October 2, 199 5 ... 0~ ..: Cl) ..: 0 ... Cl) s 0 IO ~- .t:. IO in 0 ::. iii 1017 543 31 1591 63.92% ----- ---- ------ ---- --- 651 246 8 905 71.93% ---- -- --- - 67A6% 626 262 40 928 - - -- . .. -- ---- - - . -- -- 727 171 6 904 80.42% 447 373 35 855 52.28% 3468 1595 120 5183 66.91% 3021 1222 85 4328 69.80% 527 73 9 609 86.54% -440 --- ---- 279 13 732 60.11% --- --- ---- --- ---- 578 165 16 759 76.15% ----- e---- -- ------ --78.66% 623 152 17 792 ---- -- ---- --- ---- 363 125 3 491 73.93% -- --- --- 451 382 14 ---847 53.25% ----- ----- -- .. .. --- -- - 447 327 7 781 57.23% 512 84 16 612 83.66% 3941 1587 95 5623 70.09% 3490 1205 81 4776 73.07% Office of Student Assignment I Difference \u0026gt;, l\n- l\n- ... ..: u 0 u u IO ..: .! ... IO IO IO C. 0 Cl) s in IO IO ~ .t:. C. C. 0 iii 0. .. ::. ~ ~ ~i 'if!. -23 -5 -18 -46 0.39% 1891 -300 84% ------ ----- 20 -33 1 -12 3.12% 954 -49 95% 74 ~ ----- ------ -43 -103 2.57% 1291 -363 72% - -- - - ---- 43 -32 -4 7 4.17% 1199 -295 75% .. .. - - --- --- ----- - .. 12 45 -2 55 -2.09% 1000 -145 86% 9 -89 -19 -99 1.42% 6335 -1152 82% -3 -134 -17 -154 2.33% 5335 -1007 81% 6 -46 2 -38 6.01% 868 -259 70% -- ------ --- -28 52 1 25 -6.09% 812 -80 90% ~2 -3.72% 858 ---- 13 -2 -21 --- -99 88% --- ----- -38 -77 -10 -125 6.58% 907 -115 87% -- --- ---123 80% -54 -36 -4 -94 2.65% 614 - --- -5 16 -9 2 -0.72% -850 -----:3 100% -- ----- ---- - -- ... 16 -7 1 10 1.33% 745 36 105% ---- ----- - ---2 ----- - 737 - 25 -21 -2 3.82% -125 83% -65 -151 -23 -239 1.75% 6391 -768 88% -60 -167 -14 -241 2.31% 5541 -765 86% - - --------------- +' C: QJ E ..c: u ro ~+' .., ro 95-96 XLS Comparison October 3 1994 to October 2 1995 Badgett aaie  -- ----- Baseline Booker. . --- Brady Carver - ----- ciiicot - c1ove,aaie ---- i5octii - -- -------- Fair Paik ___ - Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland -- Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King- Mabe/vale McDermott Meadowcllff Mltche,,.- ------ otter creek Pu/ask/ Heights Rlghtse11 Rockere,ie, ---- Romine-terry _____ --- Wakefield Washington - Watson western HIiis w\niiiams  - .. . .. Wilson woodruff Speciai Schools .. Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/oMagnets  Magnel \" Magnet Prograrr \"Incentive - lnlerdislricl Oclober 3. 1994 0~ ! ... .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; G) s .u\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u :E s ('II\n(\n'I\nI 0 ~ 0 I- iii . 133 44 0 177 75.14% - ---- -- . - - - -- --- -- 214 87 8 309 69.26% i45 77 4 jii\n75.15% -- - -- - 23 .. --- 53.23% 305 245 573 ---- -jj7 ---- ---- --62.25% 254 17 408 ---- -- --- -- i2 ----- 309 267 588 52.55% j,j,j 1si .. - - - -- -- 8 503 68.39% -- - - - ------ - - -6 ------- 19.59% 312 74 392 ----- ----- -8 ----- --- -- 193 97 298 64.77% --20,i- 73 5 --- 282 -7fi4% -198 -228 --6 ----432 7s:s.3% --- --- - ---- -ss:1i% 393 41 9 443 -- -~--- ----- -- 0 235 289 18 542 4.3.36% -- --- --- -282 ----- 246 9 27 87.23% --- -66 - ---- 223 11 300 --74J3% -160 --i21 12 -293 -54:i\nf% ---- --279 --5 --- --4fiJ% 218 502 --- 227 - --- 309 15 551 56.08% -340 -m --10 ----4-74 - 1i.T3% ---- -m -- . -- ----- .. 241 20 494 48.79% --- -jjj -j ------- 0 279 411 67.88% ---260 ----- 8 --4 212 -95.59% -- -196 -9 ---- - 42.90% 154 359 -197 --w1 n --,\n20 -- --- 46.90% -22.s --4 -o --229 98.25% --264 --i24 --is ---403 -- -- - -- 65.51% ----- -73 - ii\n-3ij -72.45% 234 ------ 295 -30 -- --\ni.B6% 234 559 - 'j27 ---- -- ---- - --- 73 13 413 -1iJ.1B% - . - . - jj -- - 443 211 687 64.48% ----- ----- 6 ----- -- . -- 340 81 427 79.63% --- --95 - 1 ------ - - --- 215 317 67.82% . -- - -- ii4  io - - - . - 250 474 52.74% 254 8.l 8 j45 7.1.62% i48 87 ii 24.1 60.91% is -- 21 0 36 41.67% 8915 47721 400 14087 63.29' 7876 3904 343 12123 64.97/. 1638018194 657 25231 64.92% 14450 6632 540 21622 66.83% Little Rock School District October 1, 1995 Comparison October 2. 1995 ... 0~ .,. ! .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u G) s ~ ~ u ('II ('II\n~\n166 44 0 210 79.05% - -. - - - - - 19 ---- --  70.03% 243 85 347 247 75 5 - -- 327 75.54% ---- 316 ------ :ii .. 267 604 -5fi2% ----- 124 -- -394 -63.45% 250 20 ----- \"290 13 --629 --51.83% 326 - - - -- - -- - - - --- -76.33% 345 99 8 452 - 384 64 5  \"453 -84.77% --- --- ---- 190 97 7 ~4 -64.63% -2it -53 -6 --270 78.15% \"ws 222 --- --- - 47.13% 8 435 ~00 --24 -- 7 -431 92.81% --255 -254 -----9 --518 49.23% -235 -- -- ---- 2 18 255 92.16% -- --7i ---- ----- 231 8 310 -74.52% ----1-65 ---132 - to ----307 -53.75% -- 210 285 --- 6 -501 -41.92% --289 -230 -12 ------ ----- 531 54.43% --- - ---- 318 139 3 460 .. 69.13% --- -- - -2i3 15 --- 259 487 - 53.18% --- --93 - -- - 305 2 400 76.25% --- 250 -7 - - -0- -----257 -97.28% --- 139 193 ---7 -----339 -4iooi -- - . -- -- --- --406 --46.55% 189 207 10 - --- 210 6 3 -219 -95.89% --259 - 131 --i6 --406 -63.79% - --- - --- _ _._ 4'---- ----- 213 80 9 302 70.53% --239 ---- --- 279 18 -536 -:59% ---- --- - - - - - . ---- ------ - 368 51 10 429 85.78% - --- 24 -- . 422 210 656 64.33% ----- - - -- --- -- --- -79.50% 353 84 7 444 --- 208 ----- -- --- -315 --66.03%. 106 1 264 --- 12 - - ... 232 5011 51.97-X, 304 72 ti 384 79.17% 170 -- 3 -- 81 254 6693'X, j7 29 .. 0 46  36.96% 9155 4631 330 14116 64.86' 8067 3681 274 12022 67.10' 16564 7813 545 24922 66.46% 1457816108 440 21126 69.01% Office of Sludent Assignment Difference .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ! ... u G) s ('II ~ g\ne. 33 0 0 33 -- -- --- --29 -2 11 38 -- ----- -- 2 -2 1 1 11 -22 ~ 31 -- -4 -13 3 -14 -17 --- -- -- 23 1 41 -1 72 --0 71 --~n 7o --1 -61 -3 0 .1 -4 7 -20 1 -12 7 -6 2 3 7 -17 -2 -12 20 -35 -9 -24 - -11 -7 -9 -27 8 5 -3 to 5 11 -2 14 -8 6 1 -1 -20 3 -3 -20 -- '----- -- -- -22 15 -7 -14 18 --:w-- 5 -7 - 26 -38 1 -11 -to -1 -4 -15 -15 -3 -2 -20 --8 --0 ~ ---:f4 -=is -2 --3 -=to -- -- ~ ,_ -5 7 1 3 ---21 7 -7 -21 s --=-i6 -=ii ~ 41 -=22 - -3 ~ --21 7 --9 -:31. 13 3 1 17 -:7 -11 ~ ~ 14 -lii --2 74 50 .. -- --ii 39 -II 22 ----=6 ----5 --11 '\"2 - ... 8 --o -10 240 -141 -70 29 191 -223 -69 -101 184 -381 -112 -309 128 -524 -100 -496 .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ?\n- u u ('II ('II iii 0. ~ c'J 3.91% 257 0.77% --451 ------ -- 390 0.38% -:0:91% -656 --- 1.20% 467 ---- -6i3 --0.72% 7.94% ---558 S.i8% 792 --0.14% 328 5.81% -351 -1.29% ~ 4.09% ~ 5.87% -540 4.92% 298 0.18% ~ii --0.86% 353 -1.51 % 492 -1.65% -728 --- -515 -2.60% 4.40% -517 8.37% --465 Im 298 -1.89% 351 -0.35% -374 -2.36% -258 --- -469 -1.72% --- -1.92% 487 2.73% -515 6.60% ---492 --0.15% ... 836 --0.12% -492 -1.79% -328 --=o.n?i. - .m 5.54-X. 394 6.02% ---324 ''-4J1%-- --- 1.57% 15717 2.13% 13578 1.54% 28443 2.17% 24454 ?\n- u ('II 0. c'J- .47 ---:54 -----63 --.:s2 --_73 -----ii, ---IT\u0026gt;6 --~39 -34 --:a. --36 ---3 ---22 --:-43 ---fa ---46 9 ----197 --.55 -75 ---=7is -41 -12 \u0026gt;--32 --:-j9 --:7\n3 \u0026gt;------- -185 ----- 21 ---:1,3 ---180 --:.jij -:j3 ---9 -io - --- -70 -1601 -1556 -3521 -3328 ?\n- u ('II 0. ('II 0 ~ -8-2% 87% '\"7r.i% '\"\"\"\"92% 84% 103% 'ai% '\"72% 90% -m\n109% ~ ~ ~ -~ 87% 102% -m \"'\"89% -m .~ 86% '97% 109% ~ .8_7 % ._ 62% 104% .,__8 7% 78% 90% -m ~ \"77% -~ 90% 89% 88% 86% PJ r+ r+ PJ n :::T 3 (l) ::::, r+ ,._. - -- -- ----------- ...... C Cl) E C u ,U ...... ...... \"' CenlralHS .. Fa,rHS f-lal/HS At,.\nC/eUan HS .. October 1, UH October f, 1190 1110 120 33 1863 60% 917 617 35 1629 60\" SIT oo -, 92 56% sis --- 355 -ii - -BTii sii,i ii12 sti\n,1 ,ii2 s2ii foj -- 5i2 16 m, s,ii 6-47 442 s J09\n59% 6jo j82 11 102j 62% PJrlo-iew HS 448 j59 ,B 825 s4% 447 350\ng B,6 55% Sub-TotI 3354 24H 71 5921 57% 3272 2211 to 5571 5'% wlo Mgnefs 2901 2129 11 5091 57% 2125 UH 71 47'2 59\" Clovemale JH 10 ?~f 10 131 64\" 535 224 ~ 764 70\" Dunbar JH .. 4s ,20 -i s\ni, 1iiii -J?J - zjii  -- iiii\n:\n\" Fo,esl He9hls JH fltmdenon Jll 0 Mabe/vale JH Mann JII\" PulasN Heighls Jtl Soulhwesl JII s1a 2s\"4 ,ii 80ii 67% s10 m ii --,,2 ~~ii 680 2~ 20 i~ ,,,. i12 2,i \nii 902 ,s,,. 372 :_ ?~~ 2 ~~ i\nj,i --,o, 2i4 - 2 620 -65% 476 m ?~ m s,ii -sis --35ii-,s -iisii-ss% 454 256 ,, 72, 63% s -262 6 - 722 63% .jgj 198 -9 ,oo ,o\n-,92 --,s\n12 -m Hii Sub-TotI 39J7 U51 tO 5971 HY. 4025 1171 If 5H4 17\" Bad9ett Bale aalseine Book.a,,\nBrady Can-r - e\"io\"W' ntile Dodd -- - Frank.hn\" Fulbrlf/hi G~tland\n,, Geye~S~! q,o~~- Jelturson King- MJbe/vale 4fc0ttonott M,tcht1JI\" Ott8rCre~~ Pul slu He~hls R,ghlsell\"' Roc1o:eie11er Rom,neSl pheM\" Torry Wa.liefield W.ishmgt0/1- w.iisM  - wSr~m~! W\"'1ams IWson Woodl\\llf , .. 1 1510 10 5101 \"\" 1510 1522 H 5091 19 180 51 0 237 16\" 166 56 -~ 222 75\" iiii -- ii - s .iis 1iii : ]~? ---ii 1 :::___p~ _ i,\niii - 100 7 ~J!! -,iii _?7? =]j 7 370 7.j,i m -2io --s ___ 610 _sjii m 260 -\n-i\n-, siiii 2~? ---1\u0026lt;2 --, -~~! _.!~ JJO -- f2f - 5 - 456 72\" ?7! -.JOii --, 589 6\" --j27 --267 i -6oj 54\" 339 181 4 531 64\" -262 110 2 444 59\" 2ii, -- - 122 - 3 - 419 10\" m --\" 2 -,,ii ~ isj - 118 1 194 \"\" 19 134 1 11, s9\" ?1ci -ii - o - \"jjz - nii 219 65 , 345 \"\" 221 --ii5 4 -,ii2 - s1ii 20s m s n1 s1\" 364 --- -,i -,2 - 448\n,ii 10 sg 9 4,, u\" J?~ 242 -i 576 56% 293 - - 259 - 552 SJ\" 268 15 2 285 94\" 211 II ff 20 \"\" jj5 69 0 205 --~'!! 145 56 0 201 72\" i12 --159 -, --338 51\" -,., - 140 -6 -333 56\" is1 1 o 164 96\" 142 4 o 16 97\" i~~ 211 1 419 so\" _ 211 225 _ L 469 _ s1\" cloHd cloed Jf, ---222 - 2 --5j5 -~'! - 321 --235 --~ ~ii 57\" ji4 190 10 Si 61\" Jij 193  524 ~?~ 268 i~? 2 ~~? 62% 287 ii.4 j 4\u0026lt;4 65\" 220 1i O ?~~ i2X iil  2 --~ 20\n,,~ i10 ~!!? - 0 342 50i jjQ 119 0 JS9 SO\" 2ii __ !? ~1- jo, -,,ii ~u ~-=-1-P-6! - m -\"\" 194 16 1 2ft 92\" 191 f --, --,iii ii9ii 215 - Ji 2 - 250 -,iii - iii5 -,\n--5 -2,, -nii j.2 -- - !! ~ 425 ioii -i?~ --:-66 3 - jii2 !?~ 22s I q 226 ,ooii 190 - ,i o - 202 ,.,. 1i2 - 191 ~  sij -ii iii iiii --227 -i -522 55% 301 -- iio J  464 ~~~ -_j?~ - iiii _1 --502 ~~ sio _::_:_] -:-___1 5iii 98\" m -1TI ,, - ni s1\" 29, 1ao 2 ,si - G\" 31 m , -m -i,i iia - 140 -- 1 - ,,, - 58\" 20 -\n,\n- 4 -.m aoi iss u, 5 so, s,\" 211 211 6 -505 sii 2\u0026lt;ij - ij4 o - _\ng\n- oi6ii -2iii ---\n2 :\n7iii jj7 s2 -  iiij\n\" -,20 -- ii2 4 i8i i\nisii Spcc,al Schools 27 jg i 61 40\"  22 49 0\nji% Sub-Toll/ 9426 4592 125 1414J 61\" 9259 4714 154 14111 65% wlo Magnets 1401 JCi04 100 12105 \"\" 1111 JIii 125 12U2 ,,,, G,.nd Tofil 16717 9031 294 26042 64\" 16556 H61 325 25149 64\" Lillie Rock School Dislfict Enrollment Comparison October 1, 1991 330 12 ,ooo 66% j\n, 2s ,s\nsj\" JJU 2170 114 2H1 1793 U 429 235 _ ! 49j - - ji,5 16 -m468 -2m91 2\n5120 47U \"\"' 4112 1H2 U IOU \"\" 3121 1517 52 5190 7\" 1~! 59 0 ??q ?J'!! 295 60 -5 -~ 82\" ::__1-~-, . --5 331 77% 347 -275 -,2 - 5j4 : ~~ 286 128 6 420 68\" 325 271 5 601 54\" 341 187 J 531 6\" JO U  J92 18\" -- 166 --134 -3 -- ,OJ 55\" - 257 -- 60 - 3 - 120 !B'!! 191 206 5 02 48\" 428 ,, 8 507 \"\" 2Ji 264 - i1 506 46% - 262 --15 - -i - 279 94i - ,io --- 74 --0 - 25\u0026lt; 71% -\niii -,41 -- i -339 --56% - m =\"l :-::-1,i .i - uii - 209 270 5 -444 - :_j\n~loud - --266 ---23 --~ -~5 53\" i9i 206 ,. m ~\n,. 252 i\n4 1 427 S9\" 2BS  2\n~ ji2 9JK - i60  -191 s 356 4SX -,,s ,s, --i - 342 ~~ - 282 -- -- 6 I -- 289 98\" - 2i2 -1-16 - 5 - 403 -Toi -m ---ss 1 - m -ii,ii \"235 9 , us ~~'!! - 243 253 --\ni\n512 ~?'!! - J2ii ,,\n-ii ~7~ ~~~ - 410 jsi\n5  , 57\" -ii, ---iii --:-1- ,i\n-72% ,iii ----\n.io 3 m -:siii -m -m --~ ,is ssii - 2ii ios 1 1i4 fai 145 -77 J 225 iHl\u0026lt; 24 :.o o 64 js% 1321 40U 10 12550 66% 16904 9041 356 26101 64\" 1182 -S80 568 656 soi 29H 511 410 October 1, 1992 761 311 400 313 359 56 1999 JI 2144 121 1715 112 192 12 281 12 ??q -ij 215 ,. 226 --3 327 17 jig 3 i66 6 -905 994 985 87i 5754 4HJ 175 705 1s\n91~ 667 849 114 695 59\" 1228 64% -596 51% 586 67% 666 58\" 463 .,,,. 353' .,,,. 1071 October 1, 1993 i ,. 618 33 1819 65\" -- 314 ~ 91~ ~~~ ~~2 28 976 60% ?13 7 8s6\ns% 315 10 788 59% 1122 H 5447 UY. 1507 71 4659 \"\" ,.,, 566 110 ~ 58% m - \"is, ,, 70% 5\n5 jg5 18 1sii 678 --::_:-~io? 7 66% 45j 59% 494 58% 43 Hii si.j 701 !1'!! 7~f 61% 788 7.l\" 9is rn~ 197 34j 351\n:\n,  16 ,s . 654 ssi 790 679 October 1, 1994 ,q~~ 548 .9 1631 64\" 1017 631 --279 -, -9i7 69% 651 669 326 16 ,oii iisii 626 684 2oj io 897 16ii\n21   35 328 j7 800 S.% .f47 ~59 1614 139 5212 15Y. , .. 1 1024 1351 102 4412 .,,,. J021 ~?' 119 1 647 !!'!! _ ~27 468 - -227 12 107 66% 4\u0026lt;0 _ -~~ -=~ J~1 ia ,ilo ,2,. s18 ~, 229 27 g,\n72% 623 411 -,tfi - -,  585 71% J6J 56 - ji\ni\n23 '45 54% 451 ,j, -334 -6\n56% 447 - - ,i, -,os ,i -- i\nio soi fo October 1. 151515 543 31 1591 64% 246 8 905 12,. 262 40 928 67% 111 6 904 ao, 373 35 855 52% 1595 120 5fl3 '7% 1222 15 4321 70% 13 9 609 \"\" 279 fl 165 Hi is2 11 125 J 362 14 327 7 732 60% 759 76,~ 192 79\" 491 14% B47 s1, 7BI 51% 4131 HMI 10 ,1u 61 41U 111' 100 ,019 HY. 4001 1731 111 5H2 HK l!M1 1517 SIS 5123 70 3UJ 1121 13 5317 \"\" 3669 1475 14 5221 70\" 3550 U72 95 5017 11% 3490 1205 If 4771 73 154 48 0 202 76\" 13? 57 0 189 70\" 133 44 0 171 !~'!! 166  0 210 79% u8 - 62 ! ! iii 17% 22s  -- 68 ,O  jOJ\n4\" J~~ - e\n! 309 ~~~ _ ~~ is ,9 141 10% 262 - 74 3 3j9 77% ?~~ -- 76 _-_? -34j 77% us - 71  _J?~ 75\" ?7 75 5 327 76Y. -.i,s - 26i\n-- iii ~~~ _12, ---2iis _! --:~~ s.ii 10s us 2, s11 sjii 116 261 21 604 52\" __ ?7~ ~=-\nii -,iii ~'!! _?~ _1?? 12 397 -66% 254 m 11 =~! ~~ --250 ii io m 6J\" 329 __ ?~ -7 ~ 598 55\" 325 263 -, -sj5 -55% -}oj -267 12 ,_ 5H 53\" --326 iio fJ 629 52Y. --.iso 111 8 s1s ,s\" 1s6 141 s 509 10\" 1.. 1s, 8 ,_ so, 61\" --j,5 - - -iii 8 ,s2 16\" - 291 - 7j --. - 366 BO% 304 -75 - 7 386 79\" 312 14 6 392 10\" -J!~ 64 -5 SJ 15\" -\n,j .:-~ i?i o - JO\u0026lt; 60% 180 97 5 292 65\" - 193 97 - a 298 - 65\" 190 9\n7 29 55\" - iii2 49 2 -- 243 1iix 200 - 60 j 263 76%  204 7J 5 282 12\" --iii 53 ~ 270 78\" iiii -- 2,2 --, ~~ ~~ 200 --zsi s -:\nsii -\"\" t98 221 G m 6\" - 205 222 8 415 1\" - js2 - -50 ii ~,, 86\" joii ---:\nii --s --14s i1ii 191 __ !! 9 40 89\" - 400  2\nm 91\" 22s 295 i s10 ,2i 211 - - 212 ,s s20 45% -2js 289 \" - 542 43\" zss 2s.i 9 511 \"\" - m ~ -~1~ -i ?~ eiii -,\n---.i -21 --:~~ iiii -2,ii ----9 21 212 \"\" -??~ --2 18 ?5~ n\" - 177 105 - ~ 282 ~~ 108 - -- 11 -2 2\" _!?i! :-22! =~ ff JOO 74\" 23f Ti 8 310 75\" - 191 - - 134 ,, - ii6 ~?~ _ _Tr _ili ~- -299 51\" 160 ,2, -\n2 - 293 55\" 165 iii ,g j(i7 54% --\n2 -5 -o -ii, 97\" closed cloud c,-oa\nd 20 211 _ ~ j!~ 2\" 211 217 4 504 42\" -21i -279 -5 \"siiz Tlil  2iil  -2is 6 cloHd 351 119 1 553 -~~~ -,oii --227 15 -551 -56% - zag ijo iz so, 2\" 5j, 54\" ?!~ ---ii9 ~ 500 ~~~ 3\n1 -- i14 3 488 64% 340 124 10 41.\n12i jjj 139 J ,ii,o 69Y. 215 220 !~ so9 54\" 262 f,2 !s ~~ s1\" 2\n-- iJj 2q 494 :.\nx 2s9 292 232 i4j iiii iiii 250 - 21\n?~? 238 347 -.1j ii2 209 -- 275 265 i,1 28 H7 !  40 66\" j{)5 127 1 434\n\" 2\ns, j3j 1 41' 6i\" jo5 28 4 264 ii\" 2,S -i2 J 2il 9j\" ~~ \n~ _ }!~ iii 250 2oj\njsj ,ix\n., --- i95 ---~  34i \u0026lt;ix 154 --\n9i __ ! 159 4ji ,.ii -- ,,j\n379 siil iiio ___ i!r ,, --398 48% -,ii, -201 16 -.20 -,7% _:i!! - --ii ---, -]4! ~~~ !!~ -- ! -\n-7~ _!7~ __ ??~ 4 0 -22ii-iiiii 210 --,04 -, 161 69\" 240 91 - -, 340 71\" 264 -,24 15 -403 i6ii 259 - - \n--,o 16, 11i 2:-, ---rj 14 -15, 14\" __ -2j4 - - --,j 16 123 ,2\n2,1 \no 209 ~7~ !~! -- 3 , 145 97% __ _ __ C10ffd -- 286 17 541 !!1' 243 292 26 561 O\" 21 295 JO  -~~-!- ~i! 219 _ ,., s ~ ~~~ ~~\n- ,06 ~ --.,, t~~ _: m -_-~_f ~ -,3 _ ~!~ 79\" J~! ,12 --, 822 s9\" .s, --zio ,o 12i ,1\" 441 2,, jj \", i,ii 22 --,\n--2 451 -,:\n-x iii --,ii -o --i iox - 340 --\n6 ---,i, ,oii -E.i i24 2 -,H is2x 2is --,,. - 3 .ij2 is\n2is --- is - , - ,\n-,,i m -~'! i 502 ssii is, --ici1 i 472 :S,ii 250 - ii, ,ci -,\n4 :Si\n 254 90 o j55 75ji iii - ii 4 j~ 74% ?54 - -,j i j45 74% - jci4 il 4 2j4 6.)%\n4\nj4 5 236 62% 148 ~\ni 243 6 i 170 o ii 1, 19\" 21 i1 , s, s1\" is 21 b -16 42% 11 9101 4990 201 14292 64Y. U72 4845 251 14068 64 UIS 4772 400 14017 U\" 1155 7751 4059 161 11977 65\" 7172 JUI 211 12056 65!1 7871 J904 ~3 12UJ 15\" 10'7 16126 9082 404 26212 64\" 16614 8483 01 25594 65\" 16380 1194 651 25231 65\" 16564 2JJ 15 91 7 193 2 0\n?~i ,o j 80  87 53\"  OD 76% 257 97\" 3j9 41% 406 ~7% 219 96\" 406 64\" 302 71\" closed 2?9 '8 536 45% S! 10 429 86\" 2 ,o 24 656 6\u0026lt;'!  ,4 \n 4 80\" 106 , 115 66\" in 12 508 s2\" 72 8 384 ,si,~ II J 254 67:. 29 0 -16 37\" 4U1 310 1,11, '5 3511 274 12021 \"\" 1113 545 24922 66\" wlo l.lagnels 14168 1103 2JI 22302 66\" 1453 7277 262 21992 66\" 14823 1391 282 22503 66\" 14310 165 342 22171 65\" 1617 6948 371 2190 61\" 14450 6632 540 21622 61\" 14511 6108 440 21126 69\" t4_8S XlS Offtee of Desegregation I. i SCHOOL CENTRAL School Total HALL School Total PARKVIEW School Total FAIR School Total MCCLELLAN School Total Total Sr Total Sr/KG ! I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 10 216 400 II 193 322 12 133 247 KF 1 43 s 0 5 543 1017 Grade WH BL OT 10 81 241 11 70 204 12 95 156 KF 8 8 s 8 17 262 626 Grade WH BL OT 10 138 161 II 117 136 12 118 132 KF 0 18 373 447 Grade WH BL OT 10 78 255 II 56 182 12 99 180 KF 2 13 s II 21 246 651 Grade WH BL OT 10 46 294 II 69 206 12 48 189 KF 0 19 s 8 19 171 727 1595 3468 11 101 I ! I i I I I attachment 3 Black Total 9 625 64.00% 12 527 61.10% 9 389 63.50% I 45 95.56% 0 5 100.00% 31 1591 63.92% Total 8 330 73.03% 13 287 71.08% 18 269 57.99% I 17 47.06% 0 25 68.00% 40 928 67.46% Total II 310 51.94% 15 268 50.75% 9 259 50.97% 0 18 100.00% 35 855 52.28% Total 4 337 75.87% 3 241 75.52% I 280 64.29% 0 15 86.67% 0 32 65.63% 8 905 71.93% Total 4 344 85.47% 0 275 74.91% 1 238 79.41% I 20 95.00% 0 27 70.37% 6 904 80.42% 120 5183 66.91% 3 115 87.83% I i OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL CLOVERDALE JR School Total DUNBAR School Total FOREST HT JR School Total HENDERSON School Total MABEL VALE JR School Total MANNM/S School Total PULASKI HT JR School Total SOUTHWEST JR School Total Total JR ' 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, /995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 7 17 179 8 33 156 9 23 188 s 0 4 73 527 Grade WH BL OT 7 I 13 133 8 83 147 9 83 160 279 440 Grade WH BL OT 7 51 185 8 43 174 9 65 200 s 6 19 165 578 Grade WH BL OT 7 39 192 8 49 195 9 59 214 s 5 22 152 623 Grade WH BL OT 7 40 111 8 38 117 9 41 128 s 6 7 125 363 Grade WH BL OT 7 133 153 8 136 143 9 113 155 382 451 Grade WH BL OT 7 119 150 8 97 168 9 109 121 s 2 8 327 447 Grade WH BL OT 7 25 170 8 32 150 9 26 179 s 1 13 84 512 1587 3941 ' Black Total 3 199 89.95% 3 192 81.25% 3 214 87.85% 0 4 100.00% 9 609 86.54% Total 5 251 52.99% 4 234 62.82% 4 247 64.78% 13 732 60.11% Total 5 241 76.76% 5 222 78.38% 6 271 73.80% 0 25 76.00% 16 759 76.15% Total 3 234 82.05% 8 252 77.38% 6 279 76.70% 0 27 81.48% 17 792 78.66% Total 1 152 73.03% 2 157 74.52% 0 169 75.74% 0 13 53.85% 3 491 73.93% Total 5 291 52.58% 2 281 50.89% 7 275 56.36% 14 847 53.25% Total 3 272 55.15% 1 266 63.16% 3 233 51.93% 0 10 80.00% 7 781 57.23% Total 5 200 85.00% 5 187 80.21% 6 211 84.83% 0 14 92.86% 16 612 83.66% 95 5623 70.09% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL I i BADGETT School Total BALE School Total BASELINE School Total BOOKER School Total 3 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT I I I Grade WH BL OT I 6 16 2 8 15 3 3 14 4 6 22 5 6 14 6 1 17 E 0 8 KF 5 33 PK 9 27 44 166 Grade WH BL OT I 10 34 2 9 35 3 13 35 4 8 26 5 10 30 6 6 34 E 6 7 KF 12 23 PK II 19 85 243 Grade WH BL OT 1 12 38 2' 5 26 3 9 31 4 6 24 5 8 27 6 12 25 E 1 5 KF 12 47 PK 10 24 75 247 Grade WH BL OT I 37 49 2 37 40 3 45 44 4 37 38 5 36 54 6 44 49 KF 31 42 267 316 Black I : Total 0 22 72.73% 0 23 65.22% 0 17 82.35% 0 28 78.57% 0 20 70.00% 0 18 94.44% 0 8 100.00% 0 38 86.84% 0 36 75.00% 0 210 79.05% Total 3 47 72.34% 2 46 76.09% 2 50 70.00% 2 36 72.22% 0 40 75.00% 1 41 82.93% 0 13 53.85% 4 39 58.97% 5 35 54.29% 19 347 70.03% Total I 51 74.51% 0 31 83.87% I 41 75.61% 0 30 80.00% 1 36 75.00% 0 37 67.57% 0 6 83.33% 0 59 79.66% 2 36 66.67% 5 327 75.54% Total 4 90 54.44% 2 79 50.63% 4 93 47.31% 2 77 49.35% 2 92 58.70% 2 95 51.58% 5 78 53.85% 21 604 52.32% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL BRADY School Total CARVER School Total CHICOT School Total CLOVERDALE EL School Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 22 37 2 17 39 3 14 37 4 14 .-21 5 9 39 6 7 34 E 4 3 KF 28 32 PK 9 8 124 250 Grade WH BL OT I 30 35 2 37 49 3 46 52 4 50 54 5 52 52 6 48 53 KF 27 31 290 326 Grade WH BL OT I 17 55 2 11 45 3 7 39 4 15 45 5 11 49 6 8 47 E 10 12 KF 14 42 PK 6 11 99 345 Grade WH BL OT 1 7 61 2 8 46 3 9 42 4 4 46 5 12 39 6 3 42 E 0 1 KF 11 65 PK 10 42 64 384 Black Total 3 62 59.68% 8 64 60.94% 2 53 69.81% 2 37 56.76% 2 50 78.00% 3 44 77.27% 0 7 42.86% 0 60 53.33% 0 17 47.06% 20 394 63.45% Total 1 66 53.03% 5 91 53.85% 1 99 52.53% 3 107 50.47% 1 105 49.52% 0 101 52.48% 2 60 51.67% 13 629 51.83% Total 0 72 76.39% 0 56 80.36% 0 46 84.78% 0 60 75.00% 1 61 80.33% 3 58 81.03% 0 22 54.55% 3 59 71.19% 1 18 61.11% 8 452 76.33% Total 1 69 88.41% 1 55 83.64% 0 51 82.35% 0 so 92.00% 0 51 76.47% 0 45 93.33% 0 1 100.00% 2 78 83.33% 1 53 79.25% 5 453 84.77% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL DODD School Total FAIR PARK School Total FOREST PARK School Total FRANKLIN School Total 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 7 25 2 17 20 3 17 27 4 8 19 5 12 32 6 17 31 E 4 12 KF 15 24 97 190 Grade WH BL OT 1 8 37 2 9 22 3 6 20 4 6 36 5 2 22 6 1 26 KF 6 30 PK 15 18 53 211 Grade WH BL OT 1 37 30 2 35 32 3 28 35 4 24 26 5 35 36 6 29 22 KF 34 24 222 205 Grade WH BL OT 1 2 73 2 3 47 3 2 35 4 1 41 5 1 38 6 0 38 E 2 9 KF 7 56 PK 6 63 24 400 Black Total 0 32 78.13% 2 39 51.28% 1 45 60.00% 2 29 65.52% 0 44 72.73% 2 50 62.00% 0 16 75.00% 0 39 61.54% 7 294 64.63% Total 0 45 82.22% 0 31 70.97% 0 26 76.92% 0 42 85.71% 0 24 91.67% 0 27 96.30% 3 39 76.92% 3 36 50.00% 6 270 78.15% Total 0 67 44.78% I 68 47.06% 1 64 54.69% 0 50 52.00% 2 73 49.32% 2 53 41.51% 2 60 40.00% 8 435 47.13% Total 0 75 97.33% I SI 92.16% 1 38 92.11% 2 44 93.18% 0 39 97.44% 2 40 95.00% 1 12 75.00% 0 63 88.89% 0 69 91.30% 7 431 92.81% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL FULBRIGHT School Total GARLAND School Total GEYER SP School Total GIBBS School Total 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER l, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 35 38 2 36 35 3 21 -41 4 36 28 5 34 40 6 46 35 E 5 2 KF 41 36 254 255 Grade WH BL OT 1 0 32 2 0 29 3 0 32 4 0 29 5 0 29 6 1 35 E 0 7 KF 0 29 PK 1 13 2 235 Grade WH BL OT 1 7 33 2 12 34 3 7 27 4 7 33 5 7 19 6 8 35 KF 8 29 PK 15 21 71 231 Grade WH BL OT 1 21 24 2 19 24 3 21 21 4 16 23 5 21 25 6 19 25 KF 15 23 132 165 %Black Total 3 76 50.00% 0 71 49.30% 2 64 64.06% 1 65 43.08% 1 75 53.33% 1 82 42.68% 0 7 2B.57% 1 78 46.15% 9 518 49.23% Total 5 37 86.49% 1 30 96.67% 3 35 91.43% 0 29 100.00% 3 32 90.63% 2 38 92.11% 0 7 100.00% 0 29 100.00% 4 18 72.22% 18 255 92.16% Total 1 41 80.49% 0 46 73.91% 1 35 77.14% 3 43 76.74% 0 26 73.08% 0 43 81.40% 2 39 74.36% 1 37 56.76% 8 310 74.52% Total 3 48 50.00% 2 45 53.33% 0 42 50.00% 1 40 57.50% 1 47 53.19% 1 45 55.56% 2 40 57.50% 10 307 53.75% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL JEFFERSON School Total M LKING School Total MABELY ALE EL School Total MCDERMOT School Total 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 36 25 2 39 34 3 47 .25 4 38 34 5 50 26 6 31 41 E 2 7 KF 42 18 285 210 Grade WH BL OT I 35 49 2 21 34 3 28 37 4 26 20 5 20 30 6 22 25 KF 47 54 PK 31 40 230 289 Grade WH BL OT I 20 54 2 19 39 3 15 36 4 17 46 5 25 47 6 IS 40 E I 8 KF 19 39 PK 8 9 139 318 Grade WH BL OT 1 31 36 2 35 34 3 32 37 4 25 39 s 29 42 6 29 44 KF 32 27 213 259 Black Total I 62 40.32% I 74 45.95% I 73 34.25% 0 72 47.22% I 77 33.77% 2 74 55.41% 0 9 77.78% 0 60 30.00% 6 501 41.92% Total 2 86 56.98% 2 57 59.65% 3 68 54.41% I 47 42.55% I 51 SB.82% I 48 52.08% 2 103 52.43% 0 71 56.34% 12 531 54.43% Total 0 74 72.97% 0 58 67.24% I S2 69.23% 0 63 73.02% I 73 64.38% 0 5S 72.73% 0 9 88.89% 1 59 66.10% 0 17 52.94% 3 460 69.13% Total 2 69 52.17% 4 73 46.58% 1 70 52.86% 2 66 59.09% 4 75 56.00% I 74 59.46% I 60 45.00% 15 487 53.18% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL MEADOW CLIFF School Total MITCHELL School Total OTTERCREEK School Total PULASKI HT EL School Total 8 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 13 50 2 13 ,47 3 11 39 4 14 52 5 14 39 6 17 32 KF 11 46 93 305 Grade WH BL OT 1 I 37 2 0 37 3 2 21 4 I 23 5 I 35 6 0 34 E 0 10 KF 1 36 PK 1 17 7 250 Grade WH BL OT 1 32 16 2 27 16 3 22 25 4 20 19 5 33 28 6 34 20 KF 25 IS 193 139 Grade WH BL OT 1 29 32 2 38 25 3 34 32 4 .. 25 29 5 25 22 6 23 27 KF 33 22 207 189 Black Total 0 63 79.37% I 61 77.05% 0 so 78.00% 0 66 78.79% 1 54 72.22% 0 49 65.31% 0 57 80.70% 2 400 76.25% Total 0 38 97.37% 0 37 100.00% 0 23 91.30% 0 24 95.83% 0 36 97.22% 0 34 100.00% 0 10 100.00% 0 37 97.30% 0 18 94.44% 0 257 97.28% Total 0 48 33.33% 2 45 35.56% I 48 52.08% 2 41 46.34% 0 61 45.90% 2 56 35.71% 0 40 37.50% 7 339 41.00% Total 0 61 52.46% 4 67 37.31% I 67 47.76% 0 54 53.70% 2 49 44.90% I 51 52.94% 2 57 38.60% 10 406 46.55% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL RIGHTSELL School Total ROCKFELLER School Total ROMINE School Total TERRY School Total 9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT I 0 30 2 0 19 3 I -34 4 0 26 5 2 37 6 0 19 KF 1 29 PK 2 16 6 210 Grade WH BL OT 1 16 35 2 7 34 3 19 26 4 17 22 5 9 30 6 8 24 KF 13 42 PK 42 46 131 259 Grade WH BL OT I 14 30 2 11 35 3 16 21 4 7 19 5 3 16 6 5 26 E 0 10 KF 14 35 PK 10 21 80 213 Grade WH BL OT 1 37 32 2 41 28 3 51 43 4 37 29 5 32 37 6 40 37 KF 41 33 279 239 Black Total 0 30 100.00% 0 19 100.00% 2 37 91.89% 0 26 100.00% 0 39 94.87% 1 20 95.00% 0 30 96.67% 0 18 88.89% 3 219 95.89% Total 2 53 66.04% 1 42 80.95% 2 47 55.32% I 40 55.00% 0 39 76.92% 2 34 70.59% 3 58 72.41% 5 93 49.46% 16 406 63.79% Total I 45 66.67% I 47 74.47% 0 37 56.76% 0 26 73.08% 1 20 80.00% 1 32 81.25% 0 10 100.00% 3 52 67.31% 2 33 63.64% 9 302 70.53% Total 3 72 44.44% 1 70 40.00% 4 98 43.88% I 67 43.28% 3 72 51.39% 5 82 45.12% I 75 44.00% 18 536 44.59% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL WAKEFIELD School Total WASHNGTON School Total WATSON School Total WESTERN HILLS School Total 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT Grade WH BL OT 1 11 60 2 5 54 3 6 37 4 8 58 5 5 57 6 14 47 KF 2 55 51 368 Grade WH BL OT I 25 68 2 27 51 3 25 so 4 30 40 5 34 70 6 30 56 E 2 2 KF 15 55 PK 22 30 210 422 Grade WH BL OT I II 55 2 II 50 3 12 42 4 13 49 5 JO 45 6 5 40 KF 12 47 PK 10 25 84 353 Grade WH BL OT I 12 35 2 14 29 3 17 32 4 21 27 5 14 35 6 12 26 KF 16 24 106 208 Black Total 3 74 81.08% 2 61 88.52% 4 47 78.72% 0 66 87.88% 1 63 90.48% 0 61 77.05% 0 57 96.49% 10 429 85.78% Total 3 96 70.83% 5 83 61.45% 4 79 63.29% I 71 56.34% I 105 66.67% I 87 64.37% 0 4 50.00% 8 78 70.51% I 53 56.60% 24 656 64.33% Total I 67 82.09% 2 63 79.37% I 55 76.36% 0 62 79.03% 2 57 78.95% I 46 86.96% 0 59 79.66% 0 35 71.43% 7 444 79.50% Total 0 47 74.47% 0 43 67.44% 0 49 65.31% 0 48 56.25% 0 49 71.43% 1 39 66.67% 0 40 60.00% I 315 66.03% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT SCHOOL WILLIAMS School Total WILSON School Total WOODRUFF School Total Total Elem I Grand Total 11 Grade I 2 3 4 5 6 KF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT REPORT WH BL OT 32 38 38 36 34 38 37 41 31 42 31 39 29 30 232 264 Grade WH BL OT I 13 47 2 6 53 3 7 37 4 13 37 5 6 21 6 10 34 E 3 18 KF 7 47 PK 7 10 72 304 Grade WH BL OT I 10 22 2 5 32 3 .. 10 30 4 9 14 5 10 11 6 9 13 KF 12 28 PK 16 20 81 170 4602 9138 i I I 7784 16547 Black Total 3 73 52.05% 1 75 48.00% 0 72 52.78% 3 81 50.62% 2 75 56.00% 2 72 54.17% I 60 50.00% 12 508 51.97% Total I 61 77.05% 2 61 86.89% 2 46 80.43% 0 50 74.00% I 28 75.00% 0 44 77.27% 0 21 85.71% I 55 85.45% 1 18 55.56% 8 384 79.17% Total 0 32 68.75% I 38 84.21% I 41 73.17% 0 23 60.87% I 22 50.00% 0 22 59.09% 0 40 70.00% 0 36 55.56% 3 254 66.93% 330 14070 64.95% 545 24876 66.52% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT attachment 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT OCTOBER 4,1995 Cl) \u0026gt; jS ::i::: I- ~ w ' a: i _, ca (.) c3 I~ '= \u0026lt; \u0026lt; I t:: :~ I ca 1\nI\u0026gt; _, ' c.. SCHOOL ':: 3:c:: I I- IO I\u0026lt; a:i :\u0026lt; iO I I- l:it ~0 (.) BADGETT I 27! 81 11 36i 01 75.00%i 36 BALE 19\n10j 6i 35i 1 i 54.29% 36 BASELINE 24! 101 21 36i 01 66.67%1 36 BRADY 81 9i 0! 17! 1 i 47.06%1 18 CHICOT 111 61 1i 181 0i 61.11%, 18 CLOVERDALE 42i 91 2! 53i 1 ! 79.25%1 54 FAIR PARK 181 151 31 36i 01 50.00%: 36 FRANKLIN 641 31 3i 701 2 l 91.43%, 72 GARLAND I 13i 0i 5i 181 0i 72.22%i 18 GEYER SPRINGS ! 201 15! 11 361 0i 55.56% 36 KING I 40\n31 i 0i 71 i 1 I 56.34% 72 MABEL VALE i 9, 81 0! 171 11 52.94%' 18 MITCHELL 17: 1! 01 18i 01 94.44%, 18 RIGHTSELL 16 21 0! 18i 0! 88.89%, 18 ROCKEFELLER 25: 22: 5l 52i 2: 48.08% 54 ROMINE 211 10! 21 331 3: 63.64% 36 WASHINGTON I 301 191 5! 541 0, 55.56% 54 WATSON 25: 101 0i 35i 1: 71.43%  36 WILSON 10 T 1\n18'. 0 55.56% 18 WOODRUFF 20: 14i 2: 36l 0 55.56% 36 TOTAL 4591 2091 391 7071 13 64.92%1 720 As of 10/4/95 Page 1 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT LO +' c:: QI E .c u +\"' ' +' \"' School BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CENTRAL CIIICOT CLOVR EL DODD FAIR FAIR PAK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS HALL JEFFRSN ML KING MABEL EL MCCLELLA MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCIIELL OTTER CR PARKVIEW PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WEST HIL WllllAMS WILSON WOODRUFF ELEM TOTAL E IU z 8 ~ IiI)i i ~ ~ ~ 124 1 1/ 221 220 10 15 19 11 15 8 2 5 3 18 2 2 2 10 1 1 4 - -- 11 3 1 3 5 12 2 8 1 3 6 2 . .. 4 15 3 5 8 2 2 i ii 2 7 2 1 2 13 7 11 9 6 2 .. 5 14 8 1 11 7 2 10 5 I I I I 1:1 2 I 160I416I360 Iii I-  I a 0 ~ u li 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 17 26 12 14 20 199 3 15 18 9 4 302 13 1 30 318 8 3 \"j - 2 1 6 .. 2 - - 5 - 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 13 7 11 4 8 -- - 2 6 1 1 7 1 3 -- - .. 23 20 i 6 8 3 3 2 7 1 1 16 -- . 6 2 4 4 4 2 4 14 8 7 1 1 7 1 1 2 13 14 .. - 8 12 ii 38 11 2 34 8 3 8 6 1 2 1 385 559 512 C .. .. \"\" ~ \"' ... I 0 ... I- g \"' ~ ~ 1 4 3 5 3 9 3 1 1 2 11 9 4 6 . 5 4 3 9 :\nj 11 ii 4 3 3 1 179 1 i - - - - 1 165 9 11 1 5 286 11 - . - 7 - - - 6 4 249 .. s 8 --- 4 1 11 2 1 .. 1 1 8 10 -- 1 2 2 6 7 6 3 5 9 2 - - -- . --- 5 .. .. - 1 2 7 30 2 1 15 .. - 1 6 - 6 ---- - - i 1 6 6 6 1 6 1 2 5 4 28 1 2 7 3 2 10 2 2 1 - . 4 15 10 4 2 6 5 3 9 52 6 14 8/ 2 1 10 I 2 17 6 3061 321 418 467 - ,. .. .\n-. -. ~ r ..\n. :c a ... \" ~ II) z i.i: . \"' r l\u0026amp;I ~ ~\" ' tio:i  :\n2 10 5 2 3 1 5 11 1 12 19 17 4 1 8 .. 19 2 3 41 1 1 4 2 8 1 2 1 7 .. 5 3 1 -- 1 2 2 3 i\n8 1 17 4 -- - 2 24 4 385 .. 6 3 ... -- 164 1 1 3 203 9 2 9 5 - .. - 6 7 352 10 7 1 5 -- - - i ------ 1 1 --- - . - 1 21 j 3 4 15 9 2 6 4 .. - i --- ---- 4 9 3 2 3 9 .. 1 1 4 1 5 4 9 25 15 2 18 8 5 9 3 16 4 -- 4 16 1 1 3 5 6 1 12 1 2 5 13 2/ 1 j 6 61 6 615 3051 311 555 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE S~MMARY OCTOBEO 2, 1995 ., ' l .-, i\ni ~ . g II :/ : i ' ~ \"' IL -a ~ CJ ill ~ g ~ ~ Iii' I\"U ' :c ~ 1} \"\" u .c ..\n... ~ t t: 1: !111 f\n: ~- 2 4 4 1 2 5 7 2 1 11 3 1 18 11 15 18 5 102 14 26 3 5 1 i1 6 -- 2 2 10 16 105 6 5 1 j 7 12 18 1 2 5 23 1 1 i 1 9 4 --- --- 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 14 4 2 10 4 2 s -- -9 - 2 2 ---- 1 19 6 15 6 .. 1 3 i 3 8 4 ... 1 2 3 14 6 7 2 8 3 j 46 - 3 2 4 14 6 1 10 4 221 4 10 2 12 5 ---- ------ 1 4 329 2 3 2 1 i 1 1 1 318 1 7 4 4 2 274 3 5 4 5 3 173 i --- 5 ...i . ---- 6 4 2 6 1 13 3 4 6 11 1 14 3 1 5 3 3 7 5 6 2 8 2 i 4 1 2 2 11 2 3 2 4 4 7 2 1 9 12 11 i1 8 15 1 1:1 3 1 9 2 3 1 51 14 10 4 62 4 I 7 4 1 11 6/ 4 9 3 35 424 484 5241458 326 368 .., .,.., r . i,- .. -. \" .. ' .- ' i ,\n_, ): ., .,. ,,. !i , . .., . s Ii, : \"' IU 8. Iii I: u II) ~ IU \"' .... j'\n..... z  ~- :c tj. :i \"' ~ :c. CJ,- E ~\nn\n: S! 2 1 5 1 1 1 6 7 2 4 2 4 4 2 11 144 9 6 3 2 i3 5 3 i 5 14 j 29 ---- 2 2 . - ... 1 5 186 11 1 22 4 4 :i i - i 5 3 2 1 9 4 3 1 2 2 -- .. ii -- 5 - 7 1 27 2 -- -- .. - - 2 1 3 4 1 2 5 1 3 i 9 13 5 5 2 --- -- ----- -- ---- ----- - ----- ---- 4 1 5 3 45 1 6 8 i -- 2 7 2 15 -- 1 2 ... 1 3-5- 3 2 1 4 1 3 3 -- - 6 -- i 4 2 18 67 18 4 ... 1 3 1 12 5 9 5 5 13 8 .. 2 .. 7 140 7 6 23  ... ---- ---- --- - 15 2 1 1 2 --- -- -- i 1 .. 1 ii 1:i 19 6 6 2 6 7 10 3 -- 2 3 3 268 --------- 2 ---- ------ ------- 3 1 1 4 240 6 9 4 2 7 3 -- .. 161 3 1 4 4 25 7 170 4 8 1 1 4 1 2 190 4 2 1 2 4 26 6 392 6 1 39 15 is 8  2 16 1 1 2 2 4 10 6 sJ j i - 4 139 1 24 18 11 3 6 5 19 12 2 21 16 7 1 2 1 5 6 3651 343 774 321 269 396 190 619 \"'-=1-!f {:~\n~:, ~ ':t. :t,p. ~., ti 'J\u0026gt; ,(\\' :t~.. _f. i f 1- ... z ::I - It,\n~\n:c' wlie,' I!: l\n4 u  I 1-i(\nIi~\nii' ~Li 1 42 2 9 7 3 11 11 5 6 3 18 26 11 1 6 1 --- - - 6 8 34 5 .. 11 ii \"j4 22 4 15 2 19 3 - - i --3 3 7 - - ----  2 i 4 5 4 1 3 .. -- 17 3 ----- . ii ----------- 7 2 1 --- - . 1 10 1 3 -- -- . ... 1 1 3 12 5 5 5 3 4 ... - -' 2 14 2 - 11 2 ---- ---- .. .. --- 4 3 17 -- --- - - 1 5 1 1 i\n4 2 8 16 6 1 13 -2 --3 ... --- 1 2 14 2 2 - i ----- 2 2 4 17 5 1 1 4 1 2 3 .. 340 2 12  14 295 .. 16 7 1 349 5 1 213 -- 5 7 12 8 2 7 4 15 9 3 :i 496 634 531 298 ,!r :,~ . ii ... IL z :\"::,' t a -' 0 .\". . i e 1 1 210 18 1 347 327 24 3 604 10 394 24 1 629 452 - - 453 - 9 294 :i .. 3 1 - 270 - . 4 2 435 --- - ...  - . 3 431 7 .5.1 8 4 255 -- ... 310 - 8 8 307 2 1 5 2 501 --- . 4 2 531 --- 1 1 460 -  9 487 2 ..4 00 -3 257 .. 339 4 7 11 406 i .. 219 4 6 406 17 302 ..1 6 5..3 6 3 429 21 2 656 444 20 315 20 2 508 ii:1 - 1 384 1141 254 48511631 14070 w z 0 N ~ .,,_ 59.05% -63.69% 67.28% \u0026gt;- \u0026gt;- ~ - \u0026gt;- 66.81% \u0026gt;- 70.20% \u0026gt;- 60.88% -- 61.11% \u0026gt;- 65.75% \u0026gt;- -57.77% -74.32% 64.31% -65.48% --- 70.26% - 41.62% -71.52% -- 65.30% --68.50% -67.32% ~ -59.11% 73.52% --41.87% -62.91% ~ -79.25% ~ 78.60% --67.62% 58.85% \u0026gt;- 44.68% Ill rt rt Ill n ::T 3 ro :::I rt 1.71 H-~' I .,...., ~:\\:).~\n,. rl l . 494 62 DUNBAR 38 443 --------- ----- ----- FORST HT 23 45 --- -- HENDERSN 21 36 - - ------- MABEL JR 73 50 MANN M/S 90 57 ----------- ----- --- - PUL HT J 21 21 SOUTHWST 17 23 JR TOTAL 777 737 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 {: !:r1 - ! -f.( -\" '.~::\n~ -.\n-~t,' _: ~.\nu , -l.\n,\u0026lt;. 0 \u0026gt;- a: . /\n' .,, I,, z  C o, ., ::I I- Ill .a.: , ::: .., u0 a:' :.::\nI- .c :z: ~. . ~ -'' tQ z0 '.\n~{f. :i 4. 3 4 23 1 6 1 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 --- - ------ -- ------ - - ---- 483 50 20 72 7 - ------ 34 588 11 1 19 11 ---  ----- 4 4 333 7 3 ... 54 114 3 66 109 67 220 ------- ---- -- --- ------ ------ 36 48 1 15 2 ~70 8 18 20 25 ! 1 4 I 696 892 7 508 123 767 271 mf\nii . ,'~t:. Jf{:~t C3l):.  w I ' z ::c \u0026gt; J- 0 ! b ., ~-~\\ i\n\n:fi ~o :.,Cl)  J~~\\\n,,\n:.,. 15 609 81.12% - --- - ... 53 732 60.52% ----- -- 59 759 63.64% -------- 71 792 74.24% --------- 17 491 67.82% ------- 67 847 ------- ------- 59 781 72.98% 504 612 82.35% 845 5623 orncE OF SllJl)fNI ASSl(\ntlf'.1fNf -,~ il,_ '!'f'YM :1\n,  ~:,\n31i1\n.- .. 1}!1 li 1 ~!1J ii\nI j:1\n,. !., , f f ~-\ni~ ,,, v-\n~'. '11 ~ '-~ ,.! ~-:.'~fi - i ik -.~: J' t}~\" 1' ... ' .... ' , ..... .\nl\\ !! ~ ... Cl ~ '~ ~ f i I .... ... ...  !:t ~ ..f \u0026amp;1 1- $. I ~ i - ~ .:.\nf ,, School 1:f CENTRAL 2 I j 1150 I 67 4 1 ! - FAIR 1 84 1 620 1 HALL 1 2 155 33 1 2 2 MCCLELLAN 3 33 2 6 61 PARKVIEW 2 260 85 9 SR TOTAL 3 3 5 1682 2 6 1 866 1 6 3 10 --------- ----- - .l~ i e.n.,. f 0 .. z j l5 ~- 1 1 1 2 1 LITTLE ROCK SCIIOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 ,p ., ..:.. ,ti~,\n\n~j,!!r' _ ' .:~:,_ \\'l' !-, : \"t1 i~ 1 !f\n' ,., 1-~~:.i~~li .!:~:! ~ ~ I 1, ~i ~ '1 ' C iii' /-1!~ ! :i .. !! Cl i!i I ,... GI J\\ 1-l_' f'. l .\". .. ., o .... 1:11 ~ :\n-::11,: I i 166 4 6 5 105 1 3 37 1 1 1 130 1 - 615 2 86 3 9 2 1 771 136 6 80 963 4 17 6 2 1172 5 3 ... t,t . \"'ii~ u .,1 0 cc ,. i ul ::I !i: .c t: 0 Ii! z 7 2 4 1 1 i 65 I 79 1 ..!:.!.!._TL_\n_BOCJS...SCHOOOII STRlrT *' I' ~i~f ~(,.\nr llf' I~\n~~ ~:r\\.\n- . ~t~ . t' 1.'  \"i' i~t ~ ~:-\n'11: c 'i},\n.~ ~ ' i.' .,'.i.q  i1. il t ~\\ \"' W. f\n- 1 t r ' ' ll:. u a\"i', 'ij 'J~ ~ \"' .. z ~- .... ~i ir ~ %J ~- 0 :\ni !! It .... .. !.:, .., N :II!. ~. .\u0026lt;..( .' i{ 0 ~ . ~} ~- ' i Sl 2 !!!.'' :~ au i.\n~' ,\ne ~ 47 4 4 2 1 11 !I 1591 72.28% -- ... .. 17 - 2 2 1 2 905 68.51% - - -- .. - 15 3 - . 2 1 ! 928 66.27% -~-.. --7 1 -5 1 I 904 85.29% 206 1 1 4 i 855 292 4 4 2 2 5 1 16 3 2 8 1 15183 -- -- -- -- ------------- IO +-' i:: QJ E .c: u +\"-' ' +-' \"' Little Rock School District Original Magnet Schools - Enrollment v. A/location October 10, 1995 Booker ------- --- Settlement Capacities 660 ------ ---- ~ :s i\"ii ' District ~ ~ LRSD . . .. .. ----- ------- --- 95-96 Seat Allocations 382 - --- ---------- ---- ---- Actual Enrollmenl 337 58.8% - - Difference -45 PCCSD - .. 95--96 Seal Allocations 190 --.. - - ------ --- Actual Enrollment 152 38.8% --------- ----- Difference -38 ------ NLRSD - ... ---- 95-96 Seat Allocations 84 -  -------------- ------- --- Actual Enrollmenl 110 52.7% - Difference 26 --- --- TOTALS .. - ---- - ---- -- --- --- - --- - 95-96 Seat Allocations 656 Actual Enrollment 599 52.6% - Difference -57 Walling Lists Black 427 Non-Black ----- 0 Total 427 MAGNETS Xi.S Carver -- - - -. --------- 613 --------- --- ~ \"iii i\"ii ' ~ ~ ------ ---- 357 328 64.3% -29 ---- -- 177 ------- -- 190 33.2% 13 --- ----- -- 79 ---- -- ... 108 29 613 626 13 400 12 412 47.2% .. 51.9% Gibbs ------ - - . 351 -------- ----- -u\" :s i\"ii ' ~ ~ ----- _ _._ . -- 191 ------- --- 192 55.7% 1 ---- ------ 95 ---------- --- 63 49.2% -32 ------ 42 ------ --- 48 ---- 6 328 303 -25 377 16 393 --- -- -- 56.3% ----- 54.5% Williams -- --- --- ---- .. - 615 ----- :s ~ ---- --- 287 ---- 307 20 ---- -------- 142 ----- ---- 140 -2 --- ----- 63 ------ 63 0 492 S10 18 317 365 682 ---- -u\" i\"ii' ~ -- --- ---- 61.9% ~--- --- ------- 32.1% -- ---- -- 49.2% ---- 52.2% Office of Stutlent Assignment Mann ---- --- . - ------ 935 --------- ~ ------- 522 ------ 504 -18 ---- 261 ------ --- 229 -32 ----- 11..7 111 -6 900 844 -56 1381 167 1548 ------ -u\" i\"ii' ~ ------ 55.8% ---- -------- 49.3% --- --- ---- 51.4% --- 53.4% Parkview --- ------- 991 ----- :s ~ ------- 604 ---- 577 -27 ----- 289 ----- 209 -80 ---- 100 63 -37 993 849 -144 717 110 827 --- ~ i\"ii' ~ ---- -- 53.7% -- ------ 48.3% ----- 57.1% 52.7% ni 0 I-lJ ---- .. 2343 ------ 2245 -98 ---------- ----- - .. ---- --- ----- ----- 1154 983 -.1 -7 1 ... 485 503 1..8 3982 3731 -251 3619 670 4289 11\u0026gt; rt rt 11\u0026gt; n ::T 3 It) ~ rt O'I .. ~ il/08/95 12:54 FAX 501 771 8069 LR School Dist .,~~ N~a.lJIR ffunff. ~/1. ~ \"1f HfflJ \u0026amp;rm4 IJNIU, MruJilaM ,m~ 1fl/!4HJ'MlrJ1~ H Tf-lJJI~: ~ fFtJJ~'U 'fl}IJl/$,YJUWIJ\u0026amp; 1 J--e re p. fo7 (?1uw.,, ,j ))A(/ -721- 4 l(rO TFMJl'll: (d,\na\n,d~ :~~) IJ)IJ(U$: -~l.,,,ljh\"\"\"\"r.-,,11a11S1--N-C#lla--#llfff.-.,--- Qi(J: '1Jil5' J) f74r,/4,,,,7 14)001 C\\I 0 0 ~ ...... 0 0 ..c:: u \u0026lt;J) P::: ,-..l z C) \"' 0 00 .,. m.. C\\I ..... m C) ...... 00 0 ...... .......... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 : 08 09 10 11 12 Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Totals 1 1 4 1 3 2 ,3 1 4 4 2 5 4 8\n(/ 40 ---- - 12 North Little Rock Public Schools Baring Cross Center 6002-078 K-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 C 1 I 0 ..\n0 .1 0 0 0 ~ 0 1 u :l 1 u 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 ~ 10 ,-1 5 ti 15 '( 9 (J) 0 t:J 0 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% 22.5% 0.0% 0.0% - 5 1 4 2 0 0 41.7% 8.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 u u u u 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 p 0 C\u0026gt; 0 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .., 0 0 ~ +-' \"' -.-\u0026lt; 0 ...... 0 0 .i::: u Cl) 5 z 0, (0 0 0() in 0, '- 0() 0 '...... ...... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals : Percentages - Grade 1-6 Percentages - North Little Rock Public Schools Amboy Elementary 6002-050 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Totals M F M F M F M F 66 15 18 21 12 0 0 0 0 67 11 13 21 22 0 0 0 0 69 17 12 20 20 0 0 0 0 55 11 20 12 12 0 0 0 0 62 20 10 20 12 0 0 0 0 65 25 6 18 16 0 0 0 0 55 12 15 14 14 0 0 0 0 439 111 94 126 108 0 0 0 0 25.3% 21.4% 28.7% 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ~0.5 ~ 0 ---=5..~ /Z\u0026gt; 373]-- 96 76 105 96 0 o - of o 25.7% 20.4% 28.2% 25.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -----~ Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% j..) .\"..'. . 0 .... 0 0 ..c:: u V} 5 z 0) 0\" ' 00 .... rt- .... 0 ,n .. \".I ... t.n 0) '- 00 0 '........ - Grade Totals K 11 01 16 02 18 03 21 04 19 05 19 06 22 Totals : 126 Percenta~es Grades 1-6 115 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Belwood Elementary 6002-053 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 3 1 3 4 0 0 2 1 7 6 0 0 5 1 6 6 0 0 4 8 5 4 0 0 4 8 2 5 0 0 4 6 3 6 0 0 6 6 6 4 0 0 28 31 32 35 0 0 22.2% 24.6% 25.4% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% --59 C7 0 25 30 29 31 0 0 21.7% 26.1% 25.2% 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ..:53\n,. 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ir., 0 0 ~  rn ..... 0 ...... 0 0 .c: u V) :3 z c\"o' 0 00 .... r--r--- .... 0 ir., .. .\".\". . ir., '\" ' 00 0 '.. ...... Grade J g\n-7. K 01 02 03 04 05 06 : Totals Percentages Grades 1-6 Percenta es Totals 33 97 60 42 55 46 55 41 429 North Little Rock Public Schools Boone Park Elementary 6002-054 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F .5 3 2 -11 9 18 I 0 1 12 14 35 32 4 0 10 3 24 23 0 0 8 10 14 10 0 0 10 7 21 16 0 1 8 7 12 18 0 1 12 8 18 15 2 0 6 7 12 15 1 0 69 58 145 147 7 3 16.1% 13.5% 33.8% 34.3% 1.6% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 299 54 42 101 97 3 2 0 0 0 0 18.1% 14.0% 33.8% 32.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00 0 0 1 ...... 0 0 .uc : en p:\n...J 7. 0) co 0 00 ...... rr- ..... 0 on .., o.n. ~ ...... on 0) '-- 00 0 '.-.... ..... Grade Totals J ~77.., 36 K 87 01 42 02 45 03 47 04 47 05 51 06 : 48 Totals 403 Percentages Grades 1-6 280 Percenta es M -i North Little Rock Public Schools Central Elementary 6002-059 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 1 3 ~14 18 0 0 2 8 40 37 0 8 8 15 11 0 6 10 14 15 0 9 8 15 14 1 12 10 20 5 0 4 19 11 16 1 14 6 14 13 1 56 72 143 129 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9% 17.9% 35.5% 32.0% 0.7% 0.0% .3 53 89 74 3 0 18.9% 21.8% 31.8% 26.4% 1.1% 0.0% . Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% +-' rJl ..... A ,-s 0 0 .c: u rJ) 0:: ,_J z C) (C 0 0() .... t-t-- .... 0 lt) \"\" lt) lt) C) ...... 0() 0 .......... .... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals : Percentages Grades 1-6 Percenta es Totals 30 34 31 - 30 39 46 33 - 243 \"' 213 M North Little Rock Public Schools Crestwood Elementary 6002-055 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 15 7 5 3 0 9 6 11 8 0 10 7 7 6 0 8 7 9 6 0 14 8 8 9 0 12 10 10 14 0 3 11 9 10 0 71 56 59 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29.2% 23.0% 24.3% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% / 49 54 53 0 0 26.3% 23.0% 25.4% 24.9% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 0:: ...l z c\"o' 0 00 ...... tr- ...... 0 tr.\u0026gt; tr.\u0026gt; '\"- ' 00 0 '...... ...... Grade Totals K 31 01 32 02 30 03 33 04 24 05 34 06 25 Totals ' 209 Percentages Grades 1-6 178 M North Little Rock Public Schools Glenview Elementary 6002-056 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 2 6 10 13 0 3 8 11 8 0 5 5 10 9 0 8 9 8 8 0 6 3 5 10 0 3 8 17 6 0 8 3 9 5 0 35 42 70 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7% 20.1% 33.5% 28.2% 0.0% 0.0% 77 ....3 33 36 60 46 0 0 18.5% 20.2% 33.7% 25.8% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1 0 2 0 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% ..... 0 0 ..c:: u V) z~ C) ' 0 00 .... iI- .... 0 u:, u:, C) '- 00 0 '.... .... Grade Totals K 53 01 69 02 52 03 55 04 41 05 46 06 66 Totals : 382 Percentages Grades 1-6 329 Percenta es M North Little Rock Public Schools Indian Hills Elementary 6002-057 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 17 24 5 5 0 14 22 15 15 0 12 11 17 11 0 14 11 16 13 0 7 9 8 15 0 8 7 14 16 0 13 19 17 14 0 85 103 92 89 0 Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 6 2 1 22.3% 27.0% 24.1% 23.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 68 79 87 84 0 0 4 4 2 1 -,--+---+---=--,....,....,.----l----,--+---+----1----+----+----l 20.7% 24.0% 26.4% 25.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 0.3% .., rn ...\n0 ...\n0 0 .c: () Cll Ct: ....J z 0) to 0 00 .... r-r-- .... 0 '\" \"'1' ,.r.., ..\".. ll) 0) 0'0 0 ..' ...... Grade Totals K 22 01 39 02 31 03 23 04 29 05 44 06 - 36 Totals ' 224 Percentages Grade 1-6 202 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Elementary 6002-058 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 4 9 4 5 0 0 7 9 16 7 0 0 10 3 10 7 0 1 6 6 5 6 0 0 7 7 7 8 0 0 8 13 10 11 2 0 11 7 7 10 1 0 53 54 59 54 3 1 23.7% 24.1% 26.3% 24.1% 1.3% 0.4% /07 //3 -Y 49 45 55 49 3 1 24.3% 22.3% 27.2% .24.3% 1.5% 0.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .,,,So)i:, 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ,- 0 0 I .... 0 0 ,Q u VJ ~ ,--l z Cl) cc 0 00 .... t... .... 0 tn .. .\".\".. tn Cl) 0'0 0 ..' ...... -Grade Totals K 63 01 57 02 66 03 59 04 63 05 75 06 52 Totals : 435 - Percentages Grades 1-6 372 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lynch Drive Elementary 6002-060 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 11 10 20 22 0 0 10 12 20 15 0 0 15 14 22 15 0 0 13 13 19 14 0 0 12 11 25 15 0 0 19 13 22 21 0 0 9 4 16 23 0 0 89 77 144 125 0 0 2o.5o/~ 17.7% 33.1% 28.7% 0.0% 0.0% /C,~ ,\nice\n0 78 67 124 103 0 0 21.0% 18.0% 33.3% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C..\nJh 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -~ ----------~ 0, 0 0 ~  VJ ..... 0 ...... o 0 .c: u en P::: ,-..l z 0, (0 0 00 ,.... r-- .... 0 u:, .. .N. .. 0\", ' '- 00 0 '........ Grade Totals K 23 01 33 02 32 03 26 04 32 05 41 06 40 Totals : 227 Grades 1-6 204 M North Little Rock Public Schools Meadow Park Elementary 6002-061 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 3 2 8 10 0 2 8 14 9 0 7 5 9 11 0 6 6 9 5 0 5 6 7 14 0 6 9 8 18 0 7 11 11 10 0 36 47 66 77 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15.9% 20.7% 29.1% 33.9% 0.0% 0.4% ?3 H'~ / Asian/Pl Arnl/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C.37o 33 45 58 67 0 1 0 0 0 0 16.2% 22.1 % ,_2_8_.4+_-o3/i-_2o-. 8-l%-0 -. 0-o/+c--o0 -.50--1./.o_ 0_ _0_ -1/o-+-0---%o- .- -0-.0-%1 --0-.0-o/c-lo 0. ... 0 (1 ...... 0 0 .c: u en P:: ..J z a, co 0 00 .... iI'- .... ,0 ,, .. \u0026lt;.'.I .. u:, a, 0'0 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals K 64 01 67 02 58 03 52 04 50 05 53 06 54 Totals ' 398 Percentages Grades 1-6 334 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools North Heights Elementary 6002-063 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 17 20 16 10 1 18 13 18 17 0 12 14 7 24 0 8 13 16 14 1 13 5 10 20 1 13 8 17 14 0 12 10 17 12 2 93 83 101 111 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 23.4% 20.9% 25.4% 27.9% 1.3% 1.3% /7(,, c,)/,\n /v 76 63 85 101 4 5 22.8% 18.9% 25.4% 30.2% 1.2% 1.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ._,_a,/4 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  .\"..'. . Cl ...... 0 0 .c u VJ 0,: ..J ,'\n0) \u0026lt;D 0 0() .... \"' C\\I ..... ,r., 0) 0'( ) 0 ..'.. ...... Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 06 Totals ' Percentages Grades 1-6 Percentages Totals 36 45 - 46 45 46 39 46 303 267 North Little Rock Public Schools Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 10 13 6 7 0 0 12 6 11 14 1 1 10 11 12 10 1 0 10 8 11 14 2 0 11 12 16 7 0 0 10 9 7 11 1 1 13 11 9 13 0 0 76 70 72 76 5 2 25.1% 23.1% 23.8% 25.1% 1.7% 0.7% /J/(,, /-\n/8' 9 66 57 66 69 5 2 24.7% 21.3% 24.7% 25.8% 1.9% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% --1\"'7'?o 0 0 2 01 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% ,., ....., 0 ~ ...... 0 0 .uc : en o::\n..J z a, (0 0 00 ....., r-- 1- ....., 0 u, .. I.N.. .., u, a, 0'0 0 .'. ..., ....., Grade Totals K 52 01 58 02 40 03 41 04 57 05 50 06 48 Totals : 346 Percentages Grades 1-6 294 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Pike View Elementary 6002-065 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 11 8 20 12 0 0 12 12 20 14 0 0 10 5 10 14 0 1 7 12 10 11 0 1 10 15 13 18 1 0 15 7 17 11 0 0 14 .7 11 15 0 1 79 66 101 95 1 3 22.8% 19.1% 29.2% 27.5% 0.3% 0.9% /-~6 /'Jc,, ..5 68 58 81 83 1 3 23.1% 19.7% 27.6% 28.2% 0.3% 1.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% .\"77o 0 0 0 01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% t-..... 0 ~ ,...\n0 0 ..c:: u Vl 0:: ,_J z a, (0 0 00 ...... t-t-- ..... 0 ir., .... If.) . .\"..\"... ir., a, 0'0 0 .'. .... ...... Grade Totals J 7'(qJ., 25 K 26 01 35 02 22 03 24 04 28 05 33 06 ' 30 Totals 223 Percentages Grades 1-6  172 Percentages M I North Little Rock Public Schools Redwood Elementary 6002-067 K-06 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 0 1\nl../ 15 9 0 0 0 0 15 11 0 6 5 14 9 1 4 4 7 6 1 4 6 7 6 1 4 6 6 11 0 7 9 5 10 1 6 3 12 7 0 31 34 81 69 4 - Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 13.9% 15.2% 36.3% 30.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33 51 49 4 4 0 0 0 0 29.7% 28.5% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% co 0 0 rll ...-f 0 0 ..c: u VJ i:i:: ,-l z C7) co 0 co ........ .... .... 0 \"' .. \"..\". . \"' C7) ' co 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals K 55 01 47 02 50 03 40 04 54 05 78 06 53 Totals ' 377 Percentages Grades 1-6 322 Percentages --- - North Little Rock Public Schools Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 K-6 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 1 1 20 33 0 6 4 20 17 0 9 13 13 14 1 7 11 14 7 0 18 16 11 9 0 18 19 22 19 0 20 11 5 17 0 79 75 105 116 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 21.0% 19.9% 27.9% 30.8% 0.3% 0.3% /51/ .,\nJc\n\u0026gt;-/ .,\nl- 78 74 85 83 1 1 24.2% 23.0% 26.4% 25.8% 0.3% 0.3% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cff'jT- 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- .., rJl ..... ~ ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 5 z a, co 0 co ...... t-t-- ...... 0 tt:) .. \"I ...... tt:) a, ' co 0 .'. .... ...... Grade Totals 09 27 10 60 11 653 12 506 Totals 1246 Percentages M North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus 6002-076 11-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic F M F M F 7 2 11 6 0 10 4 26 18 2 162 170 159 158 1 136 127 100 130 1 - 315 303 296 312 4 1 0 1 7 9 25.3% 24.3% 23.8% 25.0% 0.3% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% ..... 0 0 .c: u \"' z~ a, (0 0 00 ..... ,,_ ..... 0 ti') ,.,.,. . .. ~ ..... ti') a, '- 00 0 .'.... ..... Grade 07 08 09 10 11 12 Totals Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-West Campus Annex 6002-076 07-12 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic Totals M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 3 2 0 16 2 1 9 3 0 27 3 0 15 9 0 20 1 0 10 9 0 9 1 0 7 1 0 80 9 1 44 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3% 1.3% 55.0% 31.3% 0.0% 0.0% I Asian/Pl Ami/A~ M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 \"\" 0 t'J ..., \"' T-1 A ..... 0 0 .d u C/l Cl) \u0026lt;O 0 00 ..... t-t-- ..... 0 I() .. .\"..\".. (I') Cl) '- 00 0 '..... ..... - - - -- -- Grade Totals 09 --- 691 10 607 Totals 1298 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools NLRHS-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 October 2, 1995 White Black _ljispanic M F M F M F 163 181 148 186 3 5 161 147 148 139 4 4 324 328 296 325 7 9 25.0% 25.3% -22.8% 25.0% 0.5% 0.7% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 4 4 1 0 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%  .\",.'.. , A ..... 0 0 .d u en 5 z C) (0 0 00 .... it- .... 0 u:, .. .\".\". . u:, C) '- 0() 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals 07 249 08 236 Totals 485 Percentages North Little Rock Public Schools Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 98 55 50 45 0 64 59 57 55 0 162 114 107 100 0 0 0 0 33.4% 23.5% 22.1% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% .... 0 0 .c: u ti) 0::: ...l z \"' (0 0 00 .... tr- _, 0 u:, .... u:, .. C\\\nj .... u:, \"' ' 00 0 '.. ...... Grade Totals - 07 302 08 301 Totals 603 North Little Rock Public Schools Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 October 2, 1995 - White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 71 62 86 78 3 70 51 79 94 3 141 113 165 172 6 2 4 6 23.4% 18.7% 27.4% 28.5% 1.0% 1.0% Asian/Pl Ami/A~ M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ...... 0 0 .c: u \u0026lt;I) P::: ,-..l z C) co 0 co ...... ..... r- ...... 0 II) '\u0026lt;t' ti) .. .\"..\"... ti) C) 'co 0 '...... ...... Grade Totals 07 169 08 177 Totals 346 PercentaQes North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F 42 32 52 43 0 34 29 59 52 2 76 61 111 95 2 0 0 0 22.0% 17.6% 32.1% 27.5% 0.6% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 00 ..... 0 11  .\"...'. . Cl ..... 0 0 .c: u en 5 z 0) cc 0 00 ..... iI'- .... 0 IQ \"\" IQ IQ 0) '- 00 0 '..... ..... -- Grade Totals ------ -- 05 8 06 10 07 5 08 16 Totals 39 Grades 1-6' 18 - North Little Rock Public Schools Rose City Middle Annex 6002-077 05-08 October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F M F M F ---0 - 1 7 0 0 1 0 7 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 0 9 2 0 8 0 25 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 20.5% 0.0% 64.1% 12.8% 2.6% 0.0% \u0026lt;ii\n0 I 2 0 14 2 0 0 11.1% 0.0% 77.8% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%\n:,7 ~ . 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  \"' ~ 0 .-\u0026lt; 0 0 .c:: u \u0026lt;I) 0,: ,-.l z C) (0 0 00 ..... iI'- .... 0 ,n .. .\".\".. . IQ C) '- 00 0 '..... ..... Grade --- Totals Elementary 4795 Percentages Grades 1-6 3984 Percenta es Seconda : 4106 8901 District 1-12 8090 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY October 2, 1995 White Black Hispanic M F 1)/ M F,,vf M F --999 7~3 1414 1?-'1350 29 20 20.8% 20.1% 29.5% 28.2% 0.6% 0.4% 871 816 1148 1089 24 19 21.9% 20.5% 28.8% 27.3% 0.6% 0.5% 1037 924 1041 1039 20 24 25.3% 22.5% 25.4% 25.3% 0.5% 0.6% 2036 1887 2389 49 22.9% 21.2% 27. 26.8% 0.6% ..3\nf.\n8 '-yj/ 1908 1740 21 2128 23.6% 21.5% 0.5% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M,q F M F !.(l 5 8 6 1 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 5 5 6 1 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 13 6 1 1 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14 7 2 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% ~ 11 7 2 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% ' (0 \"' 0 ~  (/) ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ..c: (.) U) 0,,: ...J z a, (0 0 00 ..... r-r-- ..... 0. ,, .... '.\". .\".'.. . .,, a, ...... 00 0 ...... .......... Grade Totals Pre-school 94 Kindergarten 717 01 702 02 : 636 03 607 04 640 05 739 . -- 06 660 07 730 08 741 09 736 10 699 -- ---- 11 677 12 523 North Little Rock Public Schools SUMMARY BY GRADE October 2, 1995 White Black Hisoanic M F M F M F /0 4 6 ~~ 38 45 I 0 1 4.3% 6.4% 40.4% 47.9% 0.0% 1.1% 124 141 228 216 5 0 17.3% 19.7% 31.8% 30.1% 0.7% 0.0% 130 130 237 196 2 2 18.5% 18.5% 33.8% 27.9% 0.3% 0.3% 142 126 179 178 3 3 22.3% 19.8% 28.1% 28.0% 0.5% 0.5% 125 145 178 150 5 3 20.6% 23.9% 29.3% 24.7% 0.8% 0.5% 152 133 172 176 23 1 23.8% 20.8% 26.9% 27.5% 3.6% 0.2% 166 151 206 205 7 3 22.5% 20.4% 27.9% 27.7% 0.9% 0.4% 156 131 176 184 5 5 23.6% 19.8% 26.7% 27.9% 0.8% 0.8% 213 149 192 169 4 2 29.2% 20.4% 26.3% 23.2% 0.5% 0.3% 176 141 207 206 5 4 23.8% 19.0% 27.9% 27.8% 0.7% 0.5% 173 184 168 195 3 6 23.5% 25.0% 22.8% 26.5% 0.4% 0.8% 174 151 191 169 6 4 24.9% 21.6% 27.3% 24.2% 0.9% 0.6% 164 171 170 168 1 1 24.2% 25.3% 25.1% 24.8% 0.1% 0.1% 137 128 113 132 1 7 26.2% 24.5% 21.6% 25.2% 0.2% 1.3% Asian/Pl Aml/Als M F M F ~/o 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 3 0 0 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2 1 2 0 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 1 1 3 0 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 3 0 0 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 1 0 1 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 4 2 1 0 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 2 2 0 0 __ a.._ ___ 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 1 0 0 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 10-2-95 ENROLLMENT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC SCHOOL BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS Adkins ,::,?1:5 116 99 66 59 /d- ) 1 l Arnold Drive.,.111 146 135 47 46 q~ J 2 Baker :?'3~ 128 104 40 45 'H.~ Bates ~/.\nJ. 127 85 134 139 -Yi j Bayou Meto ,~g 303 305 5 5 /4 D 6 5 Cato :V...a1 229 202 73 46 // 7 Clinton -:(/7 174 143 159 170 ~ C, 6 3 Coll. Sta. /7/ 115 62 76 52 /.\nl ~ 2 1 Crvstal Hill -VIC 204 212 185 182~ 7 2 1 Dupree. ::B'i 184 153 58 61 /, 'f 1 Full~r Elem. ~4i 98 67 118 98 ~, ~ Harris /:SF{ 92 66 81 80 A:: I/ 5 J'ville Elem . ..J,Q 7 215 212 153 158 3, / 3 4 Landmark ..:)~..Y 14.7 137 108 92 ...:,, Ill? Lawsou _J.'~ 127 121 29 31 /.. ~ Oak Grove El.-::H- ~ 183 163 46 57 /~ '.~ l Oakbrooke ~v 176 168 55 4 9 /(_ )...,/ 3 1 Pine Forest ....sJI J 210 180 49 53 /t G\\- 1 Pinewood =1'5\u0026lt;\\\" 196 189 88 89 /~ 17 3 4 Robinson Elem . ...:F: JJ 159 132 53 43 c\nV : Scott R 7 41 46 27 22  !9 Sherwood 3~ Iv 180 154 72 54 .1,,:~. 2 1 s. Hills Elem.2 ~} 179 152 57 52 /( ,9 2 2 Tavlor _:] t'.? 125 145 89 60 / VJ\" Tolleson ..u-f\u0026lt;j 216 213 50 65 h l\"5 TOTAL ELEM. 7, 7.1-' 4 070 3.645 1. 918 1. 808.3 l:Y.. 39 24 Fuller Jr. ~ st 2~6 188 238 194 ~ ~ 1 J'ville North4 w 234 200 98 103-:2 i:\u0026gt;/ J'ville South\n:. bl~ 172 151 101 80 J ,\nJ 2 J 'ville High /,\n, J/ 325 289 187 181 .~ K 1 1 Mills ~I-~  230 153 196 163 ~-D'=J 2 1 North Pulaski 5 ,9 310 289 118 88 _-:',l C. 3 3 Northwood 7\n[/_ 373 363 108 124 .:1 u 3 5 Oak Grove Hiqh/.: r/~ 359 284 125 119 ....::wS 5 1 Robinson Jr. .::(dl 175 181 53 58 l,V Robinson Sr. ::J\" o 144 126 62 28 l in 1 s. Hills Jr. \"\"i'' !.\nl. 323 269 138 117 ol 155 6 3 s. Hills Sr. .e:\n~/ 278 293 112 113 ...:l\n:)5 5 2 TO'rAL SECOND. 3,179 2,786 1. 536 1,368 27 18 -59( 5 ~ 0- TOTAL DIST. 7.249 6.431 3,454 3,176 66 42 ASIAN/PAC.ISL. AM. IND/ESKIMC BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS 1 -~ 3 .l (, 1 I 0 l 1 2 2 I-? 2 .,,.,:2. 3 J /5 1 ..J/ 1 2 1 7 2 3 ~ tr) l C. 1 1 5 /~ 0 0 l c\u0026gt; 1 1 , ..I. 7 l 4 C, 2 6 2 1? r 0 ~~ - l I rJ 21 19 12 6 /,,:J, 3 3 7 F, 3 3 ~ 8 6 JC, 1 6 IC 1 4 II 4 I 1 1 /~ 3 2 l /,\ni 1 I I 1 1 // 4 /) 28 27 1 2 /02 49 46 ' 13 8 . TOTAL 343 380 318 485 635 552 661 309 790 462 381 325 752 484 308 451 455 498 579 387 136 463 444 420 544 11. 562 883 635 512 998 752 816 983 899 468 361 858 807 8,972 20.534 5,. S3 . .\nn l5G. .. :t?. ..:,g ~o -/ ~ ~(p ' ~o --ti/ -II 19 ~.3 ~3 'I,\n/ ~ ~G, bl1 l..:\u0026gt;!i i55 L.,/ ~ L~~ ~1 -\u0026gt;IK ~ ~~ ~o 30. LI I.Jg N 3 .. NOV 08 '95 15:03 c: ~ .... P.1 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr DtxoN ROAD Lmu Rooc,A RKANSAS7 2206 (501) 4902000 Date: 11/4/4s Time: To: From: Numbero f Pages {includingc overs heet): _..=....\n.__ __ Message POST Oma Box 8601  Lmu ROCKA, RKANSA7S2 216 FAX(501)490--0483 i-!OV 09 '95 14=01 P.1 ANNUASIC,. ROOuLr o:a:r- mn. ENROUMNBTY SCROOFLO RM- ocroaza1 . 1995 -scaooL CROIC2 BY SCROOL - 60 03 090 PULr~SKI PULASKCI OUNTSYP EC HOMEARD KINSE LEMENTARY GRADSEP AN PK-06 ~I Jora I 114 09-00-010 11'2 I.- 10 - USC l21ll-1 X!dup:-:c A..k. Zi:dqar.:c:t. p .!!. I: !\"qll l\u0026gt;ay Oa.17 G\"ad l Gt'aci 1 Crad.-3 Gracie 4 \u0026lt;:~\u0026amp;d 5 C.t'acle6 j\nude. 7 C:t-ade 8 n-. ua.sr. S_51ccu.t Ed. ?m:oll I O:i.oic:eH . !~ou C:11\nt,.,\ne Lsi:-ou 51 Cboic:11.,_ .Ettt'oll* 4 Cboic:a** !croll* Cbo:f.~ilr !Dt'oll* ~1.c.,. ?ni:-oll* Choic:\"\" !n?'oll* O:i.oic:* !~~u:J To Dept. Fax# U.S. Depc. of ld\u0026amp;aca.CioaP. DD6 \u0026amp;/92 J.\u0026amp; .... - \"-l,la tt 111\u0026amp;:k -t.oa\u0026amp;IMILM .... lolc Ut.-w U.,....,.,.OW~ U..-~a i.,i,.. .. I~-- a.c,.- \"' ~ loTf C.1..\nh i.i,. Cl.rtr . s..,. GL:!.s la7 G~ a.a,. C4'1s '- I 5 5 I 6 r I I 11 Iii l ?\"l,A\nI I l l f1----++-J+-- F-+ -f -1---f --1J--tr-Ef :-r-rI= l l I .. f I .I E I I 141 8 -fol 9 14, 12 13[ 8 151 7 2 f 12 6 --1- f I l I I 2 (\\ I I. t . I I Phone# Fax 11 I f J I I .I { I f t t l ....... 11- f~ -c illcl.- all a.:. .... --oclaa la Sclloo1 a.im. \"~ ..ir -u ,-rti\u0026lt;i'\"SA\u0026amp; la .a.ate.a f..., tlla Unc a-.. Marilyn Nowlin llw of IM'nmr ..UOt,uJ. r.~c,: Tl.a,i-. 490~2@0 .NOV 09 '95 14:01 P.2 ARNUALS CBOOLR EPOR!-l' PtJPII. ENROLI.MEN\nSTY SCHOOLF ORM- OCTOBERl, . 1995 -SCHOOL CHOICZ BY scaoot. - ----- 60 03 095 Pill.ASKI PLIL, CO, SPEC. WM+Ji CLINTONIN TR-DISTE LE GRADSEP AN PK-Ob Cz:acl 'I'oi:a.l. ?z:e-Uderprem !i:raU 69 CMi~-- 83 [  ... - ADI Pom I l'1ll 09-00--010 l/92 1- %0  use llll:\u0026amp;-1 11S. . Depti. ot lch1catiG11 1.uu6 1/92 ... --- u.-\"' Mi.M  1...C.:ic -u.,a ~Ma ., ~ft~ ~-\"\" ~ ... 1.u..-..-.- ~ lo)'11 G.L=!.a ..,.. CL:l.a So1 GL=~ J.711 G1t!.a Jo1a ~=!.a 16 I ll .d I 21 t I J w1 1-f..1, lC/l.f I I 4 l I :t t . I l I I :I I f l 18 I 23 -l 25 f2 I I If I 1 s  1 4 17 I 18: l 22 I l J l l t 1 f ~~\n:.[~ 9 1 [ 15 221 20 t 19 f l I 1: I 1 I I ( 23 f 20 t 24 1 13 I I I I I Gl:'ade 4 u . Ucsr .. S_peci\u0026amp;l Ed.. !croll* 80 Choic: !!nroll* 72 Enroll* 83 Cl:ioic:.a t I .I E:3: I I I. J. ~~~~::._f -----iJ I I I I l t . f I  Choic:a.,.. f 1 I l 1 I I f l psa. C 132 l 13a 114::f 6 . l l I l. I I f =1 ... ,.u- .u- -4 b,tl- aU ,c ... u -~111 la ScllaD1 a..u ... ~ -,,,. at..._.. ,-~1c:1.,....1.q 1- caot\u0026lt;a tor tM u .. c u.o. ~..arilyn Nowlin 3 3 4 11- of penm .-a1 ~ tepon: ?!~-------- NOV 09 '95 14:02 P.3 ~ saooz. IUOB: - PWn. DJOttMDT n scmor.! OllM - oc.roBBJt 1. _1 _9__ 9_5_ _ -SCICOL cao::a IT SC300L - 60 03 093 PULASKI PULASKI CTY SPECIAL ADS Fora I 11a 09-00-010 11'2 r.., 10  tJSC 1221\u0026amp;,-1 CRSTAL HILL ELEME.i.''l'AFY GFADES PAN PK-06 11.s. Da\". of Uneet1 1.\u0026amp;nl 1192 C~ad Toe.al. ln-1Dd~ ~~1!:.:. :(] ... - ~Oft\u0026amp;Y le79 Gk.ta 13 J l_A l,~1 N,-.11 .... \"--'4-.sa ~ Cfzl.a 16 I 12 j.\n:l 8 .. --,~ a,,-..,. -MM :.,s.- Ia~ / .1.1,w- .. _ ... ,..\n4,u ~\nu!.t a.,. cut. r J. I I I I 50?.1 I ~- A.1'. I ~~::._(!i\"f\" '\"- 1-- -4----4-1 --if~t----+tJ-f~- JtJ--t -----, .... ., a- 3 Z1z1Mq\u0026amp;ft1'-~. ~~1\n~c::l: ~'-~-1.. .J.~F1== -.s:=_ -+lf=_-.:=.:1~:.E. -:1-- ~:--t--1. :-r--f_.\n:--J: _ k1l Da,. \"1.J ~~1\n:. 101 .L.1 2 _s...1.1_._24...1.f__22_92_...!J.f.l._ ::_:1_. ....t,.r[._ .f ...I. ~- .J .__._ __ \".\"\"!\"\"\"_ ~ .1 5 G:ue 1 . .. . ~~1!:.L.o,.._\nf::\nP\n...i.j-3\n+..l\n-\n1.1:..-.+....J.\n.-t. t.-.-..+.\n:.{\n._-' -.t.-.: .r .fl:-: --~1{r ---\"'r--:--t ,_ .4r I I 1-.-. . f. I I [:~:,.4.-. I :  I 5 [ 1 4 I 4 ~~~=,-,1\n:.=-t--tll 1 39 r ==r : 1f 2 : , 1 i :r 1 1 f I 4 -\n!!={I. [',I .I I 1 I J f I .r ... , I: 3 ~:: 14\"11\"=t-:.{_ ----i_ J f I :1 1 I :1 ==I I I I ~ ~!:=E-~ t LI,I l [ I l I t j f:\n::XOtll,-) =~uE\n. 1 L.:.f_ f9_1_-9Ja-1fft ....1-_6191.._10.,./. L..f. ...if2~ 1_[L...---J.[_2. .,.Jf_ I. .f_ _30 ... ,._ He-- - ..... \u0026amp;U ...._. .-w.a. la ..... ,~ ~ ~ ..-.. ,. ..... _.,. lia - ,.. - a- - Marilyn Nowlin is- ot pena aiWIC ::llU .. ,..n tei._.., _______ _ NOV 09 '95 14:02 P.4 ANNU~ scaooL REPOR:r- Pm'II. ENROLI..'!ENn'I ' SCBOOLF ORM OC'!OBER1., _1\n:.::9:_.._\n9_5_ SC!DOL CROICEB Y SCKOOL- 60 03 lOO PULASKI PULASKCIO UNTSYP EC FULLER-ELEMENTARY GRADSEP AN PK-06 Ci:ade Toi:al. he-Ea4qanei:i !nroll* 35 ~oii:a .... 11,l ~ lloc ~o.41,a ~~$11 u..- s..,ra Cub ao,. C:~lJ . a..,. cac-b 6 I 6 10 I 13 t I i:J- l.\n23 ,~, 7. Al\u0026gt;E Fom I fin 09--0().oOlQ l/91 Will 20 - QSC 12lU-l 11.s. De~u. of Uucaei P.41D6l/ 92 -w-%Mi.a ...... MMa d he~:l,o t l,o.r.-,lar / AM,lia. kd,,,,e ci..- \"\"1 Gula '1 G.t:1.a I I I I 2 f l t f I I: l I I l:1Z2ilqu,:-. , .~ ~~1\n:~_L f l l I I --I I -1 f f I Gnda 1 Gn.da .S t.rada 6 El.cm. T1is1.:r : S_ped.\u0026amp;1 Eel. Enroll* Cbo.1.ca119 Et1:ooll* Cbcica,.,. Enroll\" Choi~ Enroll* Qioic~ !nrau Cho.1.ea\"' !\nroll* Cbc:Lca\"' !:11r0ll Cbou- !iu~ou  Cho:Lc.- I-:'.-! 6~4!-=-=--21_~120-4--l-+l~-Jr--t--lt -!---r-3---,-l 8 56 j.1.5.l-l-l4 -[..w.J..1 .4i4o1 ~12 \"+-{ --r-l--+-1-+ 1-----\n-t---if l 2 [ f -.I f I I t I - I I [II If If I I l I LI I I l l ~ t~ - lad .... all -ca ~d .. ct., I.a Scllool 01111.co, ~ ..i, .~ .. ~:l.\"1,-ciq la CMl.ca lo,: !:lie Une u-. Marilyn Nowlirl ii- ol ~- MkiAS ellia r,eporc !alo\n,boaa, _______ _ ~ov 09 '95 14:03 P.s ADNU~ SCHOOLR EPOR:r - PUPll BNlWU..\"\\IENBTY SCBcOt. FORK - OCTOBER1 , 1995 -sc::aooL CHOICE BY SCHOOL - ----- 60 03 108 PULASKI PULASKCI OUNTSYP EC OAKG ROVEL EMENTARY GR~DES PAN PK-06 - .. c 1.1.M.11 .... AJ:\u0026gt;C1' ora I 11A 0~10 1/91 1.\u0026amp;v 20  use 122is-1 IJ.s. Dai,11. oi ldw:atioa. l'.\u0026amp;PD16/ 92 ...... u.-\"\" M\u0026amp;.M ff JL:~ --ta,,148 ., ~~ ~\"'I\u0026amp; i..-  J .u..- '4d.- c:r.u- Jo~ C:u-h \"17 l.it.:1, :S.01 l.iL:-!:\u0026amp; ..,,,, l.ibu ,.,,..~ :.. 28 I l9 1..:: l 11 ~ l I I I.J/7 1..::)3 I I .3\n)7- I I 4 } f f I t I I I [ l I f [ f  I l X  7ull tl~y 01il.y ~::ou 68 I 32 I . 2~ I 6 I Cl2cica\"\" I 3.E l f I I 1 1. 4 21 6{ . I l Gude 1 f 241 20 i. l I~ l 2.5 Guel 2 !a:-oll* f 25 I 24 t 31 10 I Clioiu*\" [ I f l i 2.s. \u0026lt;il:'ada3 !a:-oll* f ~9 l 16 l 5 I 4 f I Cl:.oica I f I 2 f 161 t 61 6 f I l Gtade 4 !crot!. 22 Cho:!.c t I I I 2 I 16 l l 5 f 8 l l I C:rad .5 !nroll 20 Qoica~ I t 3 2 t 9 l I I C:r:\u0026amp;4 6 Enroll* t 231 16 7 I O.Oic f { t 2 E I .J I f I : I Gl:'ada. 7 !nroli Choica.,, I I . [ l ~ I C:rade 8 !:i~ll l I I Cb.oic.,. I I f l I ::i I I !.lem. trcs=. !nrotl* I ' t I 1 } S_pecial Ed.  C:~ic.,. l l I 'tO,t:.U. ~  Zni:oU* eg pss 1144 f 341 46 f ~, (~ H oa.ly) Oioic..., t f 17 ..,...,,_c ftc- - .I.KL..., U t,....c,, ...,,1.c1,um1 1a Sc.bool Qol.o,. \"tuu.\u0026amp;a 0\u0026amp;17 c- pudd.-Ca I.a .-.,. f tu Unoc u... Marilyn NCMlin ?11..- at jMra\u0026lt;\u0026gt;II ..iu.a. i:Jl1a NPoft. TeJApao,1_4_1_, ___ _ ---- ---...- OCTOBER 1, ENROLLMENT. 1995-96 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BLACK BLACK% WHITE WHITE% TOTAL Adkins 125 36 218 64 343 Arnold Drive 93 24 287 76 380 Baker 85 27 233 73 318 Bates 273 56 212 44 485 / Bayou Meto 10 2 625 98 635 Cato 119 22 433 78 552 Clinton 329 50 332 50 661 College Station 128 41 181 59 3Q_9_ Crystal Hill ? b~6 ) 46 1- J r425 ) 54 I f/ 77 91 ,_ ,'/ ~ ~ Dupree 119 26 343 74 462 Fuller 216 57 165 43 381 Harris 1 61 50 164 50 325 Jacksonville 311 41 441 59 752 Landmark 200 41 284 59 484 Lawson 60 19 248. 81 308 Oak Grove 103 23 348 77 451 Oakbrooke 104 23 351 77 455 Pine Forest 102 20 396 80 498 Pinewood 177 31 402 69 579 Robinson 96 25 291 75 387 Scott 49 36 87 64 136 Sherwood 126 27 337 73 463 Sylvan Hillls 109 25 335 75 444 Taylor 149 35 271 65 420 Tolleson 115 21 429 79 544 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 3,725 32 7,838 68 1/ff,563- /0~\nu - OCT 1'3 \"35 14: 04 r P,4/4 OCTOBER 1, ENROLLMENT 1995-96 SECONDARY SCHOOLS BLACK BLACK% WHITE WHITE% TOTAL Alternative Learning Center 17 36 30 64 47 Fuller Junior High 430 49 449 51 879 Jacksonville Jr. North 198 31 433 69 631 Jacksonville Jr. South 179 35 329 65 508 Jacksonville High 367 37 629 63 996 Mills 358 48. 393 52 751 North Pulaski 206 25 609 75 815 Northwood 232 24 748 76 980 Oak Grove High 243 27 649 73 892 Robinson Jr. High 109 23 355 77 464 Robinson High 90 25 268 75 358' Sylvan Hills Jr. High 251 30 597  70 848 Sylvan Hills High 225 28 578 72 803 TOTAL SECONDARY 2,905 32 6,067 68 8,972 DISTRICT TOT AL 6,630 32 13,905 68 (zo,53~  2 - OCT 19 '95 14:03 MEDIA TIP SHEET Pulaski County Special School District PO Box 8601/925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72216 (501) 490-2000 October 19, 1995 Thursday, October 19: Officiale nrollmentf iguresf or the 1995-1996s chooly ears how an increaseo f 118 students in the Pulaski County Special School District over the official count for the 1994- 1995 school year. Figures released today by the PCSSD Pupil Personnel Department show an official October1 , 1995e nrollmento f 20,535s tudents. PCSSO'so fficiale nrollmentf igure last year was 20,417 students. (Enrollmenfti gures attached.) (Contact Marilyn Nowlin, pupil personnel, 490-2000.) -30- . ' ' .. OCT 19 '95 14:02 DATE: TO: FROM: Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/ P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-490-2000 FAX 4900483 October 19, 1995 Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette North Pulaski Leader Arnold Smith, Arkansas State Press North Little Rock Times Stephen Steed, Little Rock Free Press Our Neighborhood Judy Gallman-Arkansas Times Maumelle Monitor Jacksonville Patriot KAAK-TV-Channel 4 KATV-TV-Channel 7 KTHV-TV-Channel 11 KARN Radio Associated Press Office of Desegregation Monitoring PACT Ron Standridge, Information Services Specialist 490-2000 NUMBER OF PAGES: e ( including transmittal page) P.1/4 .. . .... SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT October 1 7, 1 995 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 5~~ /2 99~.~ SCHOOL CAPACITY 94S 73'7 '727 1014 514 _, 1 2~ Aq~1 s2y4, SCHOOL CAPACITY 420 420 328 768 664 600 800 340 820 465 526 S25 785 599 365 478 555 440 656 500 280 492 S19 444 570 --t'IOV 08 '95 11:41 .... 4 ... P.1 PULASKI CouNn SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAsr OlxON ROAD l.rrn.ER OCI\u0026lt;A,R KANSAS7 2206 (501) 4902000 Date: Time: To: - r. -- . From: 73\n/ Iv 'btw\u0026gt;i ll 7 Number of Pages (including cover sheet): ____ _  / / Message 5,CJR,Ry_ , POST OFFICE Box 8601  Lrm..ER OCKA, lu\u0026lt;ANSA7S2 216 FAX(501)490--0483 I iulc Rock - - -- --- FORM NO. FAPD-3B 77-01 .l!lL.l1fil .LILJ.Ofil 1 _ UA Number - --~ Qlbnu Ending Date Dale Submitted Quarter Number 1\\1 to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ADT - ADA - ADM This n:poni s due withia fifteen( JS) days aftert he C:Dodf the quarter( Ari::C. odeA nn. 6-IS-213, Supp. I 991). Sendo ne copy to the office of LocalF isal Services.#, 4 CapitolM all, Room 202-A. LittleI t.ad:A. ri::an.su72 201 and one copy 10 the CountyB oardo f Education.E achq uarteris to be no les.i than f01ty (40) and no more than fifty (SO) days. I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I ' RECEi~fF.D ----------------- SEP 11 19Lv .. OA:icEOt DESEGREMGOAlTllITOONR IUG 10 II ,, Supcnn1mdcn(sS ignarure Phone# ~ 13 .. KINDERGARTEN GRADES 1 -12 COMBINED TOTAL DAYS IN A TIENDANCE DAYS ADM DAYS IN A TIENDANCE DAYS GRADESK 12 DAYS ABSENT' TOTAL TOTAL ABSDff TOTAL ADT ADA AD~i Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the IN TOTAL COL TOTAL T COL  -+S TOTAL , T+NT COL 9 10 /COL COL 2+7 lCOL COL 4+9 /COL COL. 4S,. nearest whole number QTR. T' NT\" 2+3 +NT /COLI T NT COLUMNS 7+8 I I I !HO/COL I C. Resident pupils sent to other dist{sl under '\"M to M\" transfers list Districts LfA NO. Pulaski County 40 //3.Z Pulaski County P4 40 North Little Rock 40 7422 7422 393 195 186 186 195 D. Total Cot columns 12.13, 14. These will be used for MFP/T\"ransp. Aid purposes E. Non-resident pupils received from other district(sl under \"M to M' transfers. List Districts LEA NO. Pulaski County 40 1327 1327 20 34 11534 11534 426 299 322 333 North Little Rock 40 78 78 2 2 2420 2420 104 63 62 65 Pulaski County  P4 40 1609 1609 61 42 40 42 G. Total E 40 1405 1405 22 36 13954 13954 530 362 424 440 H. Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: 50 Full-time: Half-time: Additionailn structionos n back. FIN--O\u0026lt;J=ssm W/P4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: To: From: Subject: October 12, 1995 Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor PCSSD Capacity Figures 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 I am currently working on our annual racial balance report. This year we are adding a chart to the report that compares each school's capacity to its total enrollment. In order to complete this report I will need the capacity figures your district is currently using for each PCSSD building. Please forward this information to me by October 20, 1995. Thank you for your help. SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT October 1 7, 1 995 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HICH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 737 727 1014 514 125 92S SCHOOL CAPACITY 420 420 328 768 664 600 800 340 820 465 526 525 785 599 365 478 555 440 6S6 500 280 492 519 444 570\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1425","title":"Report: ''Status Report on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1995-09-15"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School employees","School management and organization","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Status Report on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1425"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_772","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School attendance","School enrollment","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/772"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey Introduction, Recent Trends in Enrollments, Factors Influencing Future Enrollments, Enrollment Projections, and Exhibits August 30, 1995 Volume No 2 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026amp; Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership DemographersM k k COPY 18 OF 30 kp RECEIVED 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994/1995 1 . 1 Linda Pondexter President Fuller Junior High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501)490-1503 SEP ? 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 3 O a c a o i  3 [1 rI I \u0026lt; r Patricia Gee Vice President 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)562-0571 Judy Magness Secretary 708 Hall Drive Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 (501)666-0923 Stephanie Johnson 8701 130, Apartment 206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)340-6681 Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501)374-6305 T. Kevin OMalley Arkansas Board of Review Tower Building - Suite 700 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-9038 John A. Riggs J. A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501)570-3528 Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District Slowest Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 o 3 a a o w 0 Q O o 3 \u0026gt;o oA 3 X FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY RESOURCE TEAM 1994/1995 Little Rock School District Dr. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton Director of Facilities Charles Neal Director of Procurement I Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent Mark Millholen Comptroller il o o. c a o 3 O 3 a w p Suellen Vann Public Information Lucy Lyon Media I Dennis Glasgow PTA Representative Marie A. McNeal Learning Resource Center Dr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Children Susan Chapman Exceptional Children Gene Parker, Jr. English Community Resources Chris Heller Attorney for the District Debbie Glasgow President PTA Council Tim Polk Neighborhoods and Planning Mark McBryde Senior Vice President n a o S D .0 Q O o 3 M \u0026gt; o D O 3 X Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I TABLE OF CONTENTS o a c a o 3 i. INTRODUCTION RECENT TRENDS IN ENROLLMENTS FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Page 1 16 27 (D 3 p 5 I 2 j..  I I ! APPENDIX Change in Enrollments by School, Level and District - 1987 to 1994 Total Enrollment Projections by Grade and Level - 1995 to 2005 Provisional Projections by School, Level, and Race - 2000 and 2005 Page I tt oa 5 1994 Attendance Zones - Elementary Schools Attendance Zones - Junior High Schools Attendanze Zones - Senior High Schools 1 -14 1 -13 1 -11 1995 Projected Attendance Zones by Option Option M Option T Option C Table AZ - 2 Table AZ - 3 Table AZ - 4 A O O 3 M \u0026gt; o 75 A 3 JT Introduction Trends Factors Projections Appendix I llWW1ltF| I Iwwnwl1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 4 V J  INTRODUCTION Purpose and Method of Study   3 1, The demographic study of the Little Rock School District, undertaken by The Grier Partnership, is part of an overall examination of the School District's existing facilities by 3D/lntemational. It is intended to assist 3D/I in its assessment of the District's current physical facilities and its recommendations for new and improved facilities for the future. While the study has drawn on a wide variety of data sources for its information, its ultimate objective has been to determine the future size and characteristics of the pupil population these facilities will serve. 3   The study began with an examination of recent trends in school enrollments and the changing characteristics of the pupil population. Particular attention was given to trends since 1987 when the District's overall enrollments increased by more than one-third with the absorption of several schools and 7,000-plus pupils formerly in Pulaski County Special School District. At that time or thereafter, the District made a number of changes that substantially altered the pupil population served by the Little Rock District. Specifically, it: A  Q. W I (1) altered the attendance zones from which individual schools drew their pupils. (2) I I a (3) I 3 (4) designated several schools as \"magnets\" which could be attended by pupils without regard to location of residence. designated others as \"incentive schools\" which could also be attended by out- of-zone pupils. n fi) a o w added classes for children below kindergarten age in several schools, and I I a (5) exchanged some pupils with Pulaski County Special District and the North Little Rock School District.  The study also included examination of independent data for the District's total population and economy, drawing on federal, state and local sources of information. These included various public agencies in the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and the US Department of Education's School District Data Book, an electronic compilation of extensive demographic data from the 1990 Census specific to the geography of every public school district in the nation. The data from these sources was supplemented by interviews with a number of persons, from both the public and private sectors, who are believed knowledgeable about the demography and economy of Little Rock. TJ o a o 3 W M Results of an Earlier Study The Grier Partnership conducted a similar analysis for the Little Rock School District at the time its territory was expanded to take in schools and pupils formerly assigned to the Pulaski District. The study was part of an overall assessment by Stanton Leggett and Associates of the District's existing and recently-added physical facilities with \u0026gt; o o 3 Q. X Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI I I recommendations made for meeting future facilities needs. Since the District was also under court order to maintain racial balance within its schools, as it remains today, the demographic study and facilities plan gave consideration to this requirement. Projecting future enrollments in the newly-expanded District posed particularly difficult problems. Most serious was the lack of any reliable historical data on school enrollments in the territory being added which would permit a clear understanding of recent trends. It was known that there had been substantial new residential construction in the annexed territory since the last decennial census was taken, and that there had also been a substantial gain in population. However, much of the new construction had been of apartments, which typically yield fewer children per unit than single family homes. Furthermore, much of the growth in population had gone into one census tract where the 1980 census had found that many parents sent their school-age children to private schools. The most recent detailed demographic data for the annexed area, as well as for the territory within the old School District boundaries, dated back to the 1980 census. Metroplan had made recent estimates of the population for all census tracts within the Little Rock metropolitan area, but these were for all ages and races combined and did not single out school-age children. Data on the number of births, which are important in projecting enrollments more than five or six years into the future, were reported only for entire counties in Arkansas at that time. Yet in 1987, when they were first broken out separately for the city of Little Rock, only 54 percent of all births in Pulaski County were to residents of the city. For white births, it was only 44 percent. For nonwhites (the term used by the State to classify Blacks and members of other groups), the proportion was higher, but still only 69 percent. (D 3 Q. W a\u0026gt; a om fl fl How close did the projections come to what actually happened? Leaving out prekindergarten classes which were not begun by the District until 1990, we compared the projections made in 1988 (using data for the 1987 school year) with the actual enrollments in fall 1990 (three years ahead) and in fall 1994 (seven years ahead). The projections came within 0.8 percent of the actual enrollments in 1990 and within 1.5 percent in 1994. In both years the overall projections were on the low side-204 pupils below the actual enrollments in 1990 and 361 pupils below in 1994. Table 1 Comparison of 1988 Projections with Actual Enrollments Grades Kto 12, 1990 and 1994, Little Rock School District TJ ,3 oo o3' Actual Projected Discrepancy Number Percent 1990 25,509 25,305 1294 24,131 23,770 -204 -0.8% -361 -1.5% Is i The Grier Partnership Page 2 3 Q. X ( Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI The New Projections  I I There are fewer uncertainties affecting the projections made this year for the total Little Rock School District. The boundaries of the District have not changed again since the annexation. Nor have attendance areas serving most of the schools changed, although exceptions have been granted for enrollment in the magnet and incentive schools and, until this year, for pupils who, either themselves or their siblings, formerly attended a school outside the current zone of residence. The magnets, the incentive schools, and the interdistrict schools, as well as the early childhood program-all instituted as part of the District's desegregation plan-have now been in operation long enough to have established trends in most cases. Although two elementary schools have been closed and one new school constructed since 1987, a reliable record of past trends within the entire Little Rock District now exists to assist in the projection of future enrollments. A 3 I rI The current projection series indicate that enrollments in all grades combined will continue to decline as they have over the past several years. The loss is projected to be about 3,600 pupils between the 1994-95 school year and the year 2005-06. This represents a projected decline of about 14.2 percent over the next 11 years. I Enrollments are also projected to decline in all three levels. The largest percentage drop will occur in the high school grades where enrollments, which totaled more than 5,100 in the last school year, are projected to be more than one-fifth smaller in 2005, with only a few more than 4,000 pupils. However, the lowest point will come in 2003, with enrollments increasing somewhat in the final two years. I The largest numerical decline will come among elementary school pupils, who will decline from nearly 14,200 in 1994 to fewer than 12,800 in 2005-a drop of 9.7 percent over the next 11 years. The lowest enrollments will occur at the end of the projection period in 2005. a ow  The junior high grades are also projected to decline, with a loss of about 1,100 pupils (18.6 percent) over the next 11 years. However, the drop will not be continuous. After sustaining losses for several years, enrollments will pick up in the three years from 2001 to 2003, then drop back thereafter. fl fl The projections indicate that enrollments of both Black and white/other pupils will follow similar patterns during the next 11 years. As a result, the racial composition of the District will remain close to its recent level at about 67 percent Black. However, assuming present attendance boundaries for elementary schools are not altered, the racial composition of most schools are likely to diverge substantially from these percentages-some schools becoming much more heavily Black in student enrollment while others will have much larger proportions of pupils who are either white or of other races than Black. 0 o A o o 3 W The new projections are discussed in greater detail in a succeeding section. The chart below presents a summary of the annual projections for total enrollments. D D A 3 Q. X Page 3 n I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Projected Total Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 I 26,000 21,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 25,000 ft 3 Q. tt / / / / 125,195 ] 24,494124,048 123J73 123,127122.7M |2X51g j 2X317 ] 22,123121.910 j j 21,605 ) The Grier Partnership I I p Page 4 tt os tt 0 S ft o o 3 W \u0026gt; o o ft 3 Q. X Trends Factors Projections Appendix 1 1 1 1 iMwmwwl I*Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 3 RECENT TRENDS IN ENROLLMENTS 3 Total Enrollments I Like most school systems in established central cities across the nation, the Little Rock School District has experienced a drop in its pupil population since the heady days of a generation ago when the post-World War II baby boom children were making their way through the nation's classrooms. As recently as 1980, the District had an enrollment of more than 20,000 pupils in a land area that was about two-thirds the size of the present District. Every year thereafter until 1986, enrollments declined. In that year, there was a small increase of fewer than 200 pupils. But in 1987, the District suddenly gained more than 7,000 additional pupils who had previously been assigned to the Pulaski County Special District. I1L Since 1987, however, school enrollments have again fallen, albeit slowly. In only one year, 1991, did the District register an increase when enrollments rose by 462. Almost two-thirds of the gain was attributable to the newly instituted pre-kindergarten program in several schools which was designed in part as a tool to promote racial balance. However, there were also small gains in most of the grades from kindergarten to 11th grade. 1 ! Total Enrollment, 1987-1994 Little Rock School District a o 5 p 28,000 I  27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 5 0 ft o o 3 (/)  i 26,834! 26,633 j 26,022125,856126,318126,212125,594 j 25,195 | The Grier Partnership Source: Little Rock School District The largest decline occurred in 1993, when total enrollments fell by 618 pupils, despite an increase of 152 pupils in the pre-k program. They rose in only three other grades. The overall drop in total pupils since the annexation is more than 1,600, or 6.1 percent. o D 3 Q. X Page 5 r r Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I S3 Racial Differences in Enrollment Change Ih During the first six years of the 1980s, the number of pupils who were white or of other nonwhite races gradually declined while the number of Black pupils rose. As a result, the proportion of all pupils who were Black increased from 63.6 percent in 1980 to 71.3 percent in 1986. The addition of the 7,000-plus pupils from Pulaski County reduced the Black percentage to 60.6 percent in 1987. Since then, the Black proportion has increased somewhat, but has stayed between 64 and 65 percent of the total for the past six years. Since 1987, losses have been experienced by both white and Black pupils in most years. Still, Blacks made a slight overall gain. 103 pupils, between 1987 and 1994. This increase would not have occurred except for the addition of pre-kindergarten in 1991. however. White pupils declined in number by 2.096. The number of pupils of other races, usually of Asian. Hispanic or Native American origin has grown in every year since 1989. with a sharp rise in 1994. Nevertheless, their numbers are still small, and they comprised less than 3 percent of total enrollment by 1994. I Enrollments by Race, 1987-1994 Little Rock School District Number Percent Black 80 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 \u0026lt;6 (4 14 64 65 65 60 16.2(2 10.36\u0026gt; \u0026gt;.M7 3M 282 16,717 9,010 2 16,6S6 8,868 6, MS 332 357 16,726 \u0026gt;,062 404 16,674 8.490 430 16,36S 0,170 6S7 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 The Grief Partnerthip 40 20 *0 Block - Whtre * \"Other Pct Block 5 5 o o o 3 (A Source: Little Rock School District I 0 63 a o 5 Enrollment Change at Different Levels Excluding kindergarten and pre-kindergarten enrollments, all three levels-elementary, junior high, and senior high-now have fewer pupils than in 1987. The loss has been especially large in the high schools, where enrollments were nearly one-fifth lower in fall 1994 than in 1987 when the annexation took place. In the seven intervening years, the number of pupils in grades 10 through 12 fell by almost 1,300, for a drop of 19.9 percent. The decline was especially sharp between 1987 and 1990, when enrollments fell by almost 1,000 pupils. They then leveled out and climbed slightly before beginning to drop again. O o \u0026lt;D 3 Q. X Page 6 LIB Bl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I n The loss from 1993 to 1994 was the smallest of any year, and the number of 10th graders in fall 1994 was actually larger than in two previous years. H n Enrollments by School Level (Elementary, Junior High, Senior High) Little Rock School District, 1988-1994 Fl 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Elementary Junior High Senior High 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Elementuy Junior High 14.149 6.138 14,179 6,068 14,076 14,223 14372 5.978 5,984 I 6,062 14,221 6,166 14,017 6,079 14,051 5,862 Senior High 6,444 6,172 5,802 | 5,465 | 5,509 5,632 5,320 5,162 1 5 1 9 j B *  (Elementary Figures Include 4-Yr-Olds Beginning in 1991) The Grier Partnership Source\nLittle Rock School District  Elementary school enrollments fell the least, with a loss of only 98 pupils overall in the seven-year period. a S o 3  However, the elementary grades were helped by growth in kindergarten and by the addition of pre-kindergarten classes in several schools, beginning in the 1990-91 school year. These two grades combined added nearly 1,000 pupils to the i 1 school rolls from 1987 to 1994. As a result, elementary enrollments as a whole remained almost flat despite losses in grades 1 to 6. There was a small increase from 1987 to 1990, a small increase in 1990, a somewhat larger gain in 1991, small losses again for two years, and then a gain of 31 pupils in fall 1994. Junior high enrollments fell by 306 pupils or 5 percent. Like the high schools, junior high classes lost nearly 1,000 pupils from 1987 to 1990, but enrollments climbed again during the next two years, then fell back in 1993 and yet again in 1994. Enrollment changes in the individual junior high grades have been quite erratic. In 7th grade the number of pupils was actually higher in five of the seven years than it had been in 1987. In 8th grade, enrollments were higher in three of the intervening years than in 1987. w  TJ OQ O o3  W Overall, enrollments for both Black pupils and those who are white or of other racial origin have tended to follow the same trends as those for all pupils combined. The widest divergence between the races has been in the high school grades. Both groups entered the high schools of the expanded system in 1987 with almost exactly the same number of pupils -about 3,200 apiece. Thereafter, while the number of Black pupils grew slightly, an increase of only 83 in the seven years, the number of whites and pupils of \"other races\" dropped by more than 1,400 by 1994. Despite losses in every following year, nearly two- \u0026gt; o o A 3 Q. X Page 7 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 3 thirds of the white decline occurred during the first three years. Over the entire period, the entire loss in white pupils was spread more or less evenly among the three high school grades. In the elementary grades, the two groups have actually grown closer together since 1987, with Black losses over the entire seven-year period outstripping white/other losses in each grade from 1st to 6th. Both groups added to their numbers in kindergarten and prekindergarten classes. Overall, the number of whites/others has grown slightly since 1990 while the number of Black pupils began dropping after 1991. At the junior high level, the two groups first moved apart after 1987, but then began to follow a similar pattern from 1991 on. Enrollment Changes in Individual Schools fl School assignment has generally been determined by place of residence within the school system. A series of small \"zone blocks\", often comprising no more than one or two city blocks, have generally determined the school to which a child is sent. Exceptions have been granted for enrollment in magnet or incentive schools, for attendance at out-of-district schools, and for those who wish to continue in schools previously attended by the pupil or his siblings. Zone blocks have been clustered into larger attendance areas, with some schools drawing from only one area while others draw from as many as two or three areas separated from each other by other attendance areas. fl Enrollment change has varied from school to school during the past seven years. While some have lost pupils, others have gained. In general, the gainers have usually drawn many of their pupils from neighborhoods of Little Rock to the west and northwest which have also been growing in total population, while the losers have more often drawn from areas in the central and eastern parts of the city where population has declined. \u0026amp;\u0026gt; gs w fl There have also been racial differences in enrollment change in the individual schools. In some schools, both Black and white pupils declined in number. At others, both groups gained. And in still others, enrollments of one racial group increased while enrollments of the other dropped. fl High Schools: Four of Little Rock's five high schools have lost pupils since 1987. The sole exception has been Fair, which is also the second smallest high school in the District with only 917 pupils on its rolls in 1994, including kindergarten pupils. Overall the school's net gain since 1987 is a grand total of 35 pupils. TJ 5 \u0026lt;D O o' 3 W I 4 Central High School, the District's largest high school, has lost almost 500 pupils during the past seven years, falling from an enrollment of more than 2,000 in 1987 to about 1,600 (including kindergarten) in 1994. Its largest decline occurred between 1993 and 1994. The overall percentage drop has been 22.9 percent. Another big loser has been Hall High School, which started with a much smaller base than Central's, but has lost nearly as many pupils since 1987. Unlike Central, however. Hall's enrollments picked up in 1994. Whether this is a temporary upswing or indicates a reversal j\u0026gt; o O \u0026lt;0 3 X Page 8 A Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I J of past trends we cannot tell at this time. McClellan High School, where enrollments have declined in every year since 1987, also showed a tiny increase in 1994. So did Parkview, whose enrollments had a brief growth spurt in 1991 and 1992, but fell the following year. White enrollments have fallen in all of the District's high schools since 1987, and Black enrollments in three of the five. The exceptions are Fair (a gain of 210 Black students) and McClellan (an increase of 189). High school pupils of other races grew in three of the five schools, but their numbers still remained small and did not make up for losses among the other groups. I 1 Table 2 Change in Enrollments in High Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District fl a Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No. Pct. Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2123 882 1449 1260 833 1637 917 1031 897 800 -486 35 -418 -363 -33 -22.9% 4.0% -28.8% -28.8% -4.0% 1 I I Junior High Schools-Five of the District's junior high schools also lost enrollments over the seven-year period while three gained. The largest loser was Southwest where enrollments fell by 194 pupils in seven years. Other junior highs whose enrollments declined were Henderson, Mabelvale, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale. Mann Junior High, on the other hand, gained nearly 200 pupils between 1987 and 1994. It was by far the largest gainer among the junior highs, with the two remaining schools, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights, registering only small increases. ft) a o 5 fl fl The number of white pupils grew in three of the junior highs-Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Dunbar-but declined in the other five. Mann also experienced a substantial increase in Black enrollment over the entire period, although its numbers had dropped over the past two years. Black gains at Cloverdale, smaller than those at Mann, also dropped in 1993 and 1994. fl Three more schools, with a net increase in Black pupils since 1987, also saw their growth halt and reverse in 1994\nthese were Forest Heights, Henderson, and Mabelvale. Only Dunbar registered a gain in 1994-but only five pupils over the 1993 figure. Black enrollments were actually lower in 1994 than they had been in 1987 in two schools-Pulaski Heights and Southwest. 5 Q O O 3 (0 4 All but one junior high had a tiny increase in pupils of other races. District-wide, the growth for this group was 47 pupils. Page 9 D o 3 Q. X Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 Table 3 Change in Enrollments in Junior High Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District  Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No.Pct. Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hts. Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hts. Southwest 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 -31 25 -82 -116 -87 192 17 -194 -4.6% 3,7% -9.5% -11.2% -12.9% 29.4% 2.3% -24.1% Elementary Schools-The picture was equally mixed in the District's elementary  schools. A total of 20 schools lost enrollments between 1987 and 1994, two completely when they were closed. Other elementary schools with enrollments that fell by 100 or more were Badgett, Baseline, Chicot, Dodd, and Romine. H 1 A total of 17 schools gained. The largest increase by far, nearly 500 pupils, was registered by Washington after it re-opened as a magnet school in 1989. The new King school also gained substantially over its predecessor-an increase of almost 300 pupils-in part at least by transfers from other schools. Enrollments at Carver Elementary, also a magnet, grew by more than 200 pupils. fl D) a o 5 In 14 of the elementary schools, enrollments of both white and Black pupils declined between 1987 and 1994, and in four more schools, enrollments of both groups grew during the same period. In the remaining schools, one racial group increased in number while the other fell. In 11 schools, the number of Black pupils increased while the number of white pupils declined. But In eight other schools, racial change was the reverse. fl fl Generally, enrollments in individual schools have followed the same route as the total population of the attendance area. In areas where the population has been growing, enrollments in the District's elementary schools have also risen. Where the general population has been declining, so have enrollments. Thus, those schools located in the west and northwest sections of the District have usually grown since 1987-even when these schools have also drawn pupils from satellite zones located in neighborhoods with declining population. \"D *3 O o o' 3 (0 On the other hand, enrollments in several of the elementary schools located in the District's southwest neighborhoods have dropped since 1987. These are usually in neighborhoods which lost total population between 1980 and 1990, and which are expected to continue to lose throughout the current decade. The only exceptions are the Otter Creek and Geyer Springs schools. (See Table 4 on the following page.) o o (0 3 Q. X Page 10 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table 4 Change in Enrollments in Elementary Schools 1987 to 1994, Little Rock School District Enrollment 1987 1984 Change 1987-94 No. Pct. I II 1 3 I. I 3  Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 290 397 448 636 424 362 642 408 398 315 426 403 503 329 235 265 214 462 269 546 471 449 256 325 340 246 289 484 218 481 467 214 491 314 496 407 229 14,149 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14,051 -113 -88 -122 -63 -16 226 -139 -16 -100 -33 6 40 39 -47 65 28 -214 40 282 -72 23 -38 16 34 80 -17 114 -161 -218 78 -54 473 -64 3 -22 -62 14 -98 -39.0% -22.2% -27.2% -9.9% -3.8% 62.4% -21.7% -3.9% -25.1% -10.5% 1.4% 9.9% 7.8% -14.3% 27.7% 10.6% -100% 8.7% 104.8% -13.2% 4.9% -8.5% 6.3% 10.5% 23.5% -6.9% 39.4% -33.3% -100.0% 16.2% -11.6% 221.0% -13.0% 1.0% -4.4% -15.2% 6,1% -0.7% a\u0026gt; ag 5 D ,3 ft oo 3 o o ft 3 Q. X Page 11 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Impact on the Desegregation Plan I u I What has been the impact of these enrollment changes on the basic objectives of the District's desegregation plan? At the time of the annexation of schools and pupils from the Pulaski District in 1987, an effort was made to balance enrollments racially in as many schools as possible. Several schools, which might be difficult to desegregate, were designated as magnets or incentive schools with special programs intended to help draw pupils from throughout the city as well as some who lived in the adjoining Pulaski and North Little Rock Districts. p I I The evidence indicates that, as a result of racial differences, overall and in specific neighborhoods, the District may now be even farther from achieving racial balance in its schools under the current desegregation plan than it was in 1987. But the failure to do so has not always been in the direction of an increased Black percentage in each school. Even where a school appears to have become \"balanced\" over time, this may merely be a transitory phase with imbalance merely changing from one direction to another, with a brief \"balance\" occurring at some point in the process. fl fl fl fl High Schools. In 1987, high school enrollments^ in the District as a whole were 50.6 percent Black\nthe rest of the pupils were almost entirely white, with only a handful of other races. The five individual high schools varied by no more than 11.3 percentage points from this figure, with McClellan having the smallest black proportion (39.3 percent) and Central High School the highest (56.9 percent). The span between the highest and lowest Black percentage was 17.6 percentage points. Between 1987 and 1994 the number of both Blacks and whites dropped in three of the high schools, but at different rates. In two schools, Black enrollments grew while white enrollments declined. As a result, the overall percentage of Black pupils rose to 65.5 percent, and the range between the highest and lowest Black proportions in individual schools was 21.9 percentage points. The largest change occurred at McClellan, which in 1994 had an enrollment that was 76.3 percent Black. Parkview High School, where enrollments of both racial groups declined, was 54.4 percent Blackan 11 percentage point deviation from the District-wide figure, and a slight drop since 1987. (See Appendix for detail for individual schools.) Junior High Schools. The eight junior highs were close to meeting the criteria for being racially balanced in 1987. As a whole, the junior high population was 61 percent Black and 39 percent white and other. Enrollments in the individual schools ranged from 68-32 to 50-50. Four of the junior highs were less than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the District-wide 61-39 percent figure. Three more were within seven points or less. Only Mabelvale deviated by more than this. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black was 17.8 percentage points. \"n a o w T O O O o' 3 (A r s  High school enrollment figures used here are for grades 10 to 12 only and do not include kindergarten and pre-kindergarten pupils housed in high school buildings. a o o 3 X Page 12 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl During the next seven years, enrollments of both racial groups climbed at two junior highs, and both fell at one. In three schools. Black pupils gained while white pupils declined, and at one school the reverse occurred. As a result, the overall Black percentage in junior high schools rose to 68.3 percent by 1994. The percentage of Black pupils now ranges from a low of 54.0 percent at Mann (a magnet school) to a high of 80.5 percent at Cloverdale~a span of 26.5 percentage points. (See Appendix.) fl Elementary Schools. At the elementary school level with its smaller attendance areas and enrollments, the District found it much more difficult in 1987 to achieve its objective of no more than a 60 percent enrollment of one or the other race. All four magnet schools met the more demanding requirement of 45-55 percent, with the Black percentage ranging from a low of 49.1 percent at Gibbs to 51.4 percent at Booker. However, none of the incentive or interdistrict schools were able to achieve the racial balance goal of the desegregation plan. Despite efforts to pair some primary attendance areas for the remaining 25 schools with satellite areas with a different racial composition, only eight were able to keep enrollments to no more than 60 percent of one race or the other. The span from lowest to highest percent Black was 44.6 percentage points. fl  By 1994, the four magnet schools all remained racially balanced. They were aided in doing so by the enrollment of more than 800 pupils, of whom about 60 percent were white, from Pulaski Special School District and North Little Rock School District. Of the five incentive schools, only Rockefeller came close to achieving a balance between the races at 65.5 percent Black. Two of the three interdistrict schools, which included a new King school with new attendance boundaries, also improved. Among the remaining 2^ elementary schools, the number with a racially balanced student body increased from eight to nine, with the rest outside the limits of racial balance. *n w a o w I fl fl Although these figures may suggest that racial balance has improved over the seven-year period in the Little Rock School District, a closer examination suggests that the improvement could be illusory. While the percentage of Black pupils rose in some schools, the percentage of pupils who are white or other races increased in others and the Black percentage fell. Among the elementary schools, a total of 22 had a higher Black percentage in 1994 than in 1987, but in 13 the Black percentage had fallen. In some cases, the change was small-a few percentage points at most. These included the four magnet schools plus one of the interdistrict schools. In four of the five incentive schools, the Black percentage rose in spite of efforts to encourage enrollment of children from other races. TJ A O o' 3 fl In most of the other elementary schools the shift was much larger. At Mabelvale Elementary, where the drop in number of white/other pupils exceeded a tiny increase among Blacks, for example, the Black percentage grew from 59.3 percent in 1987 to 71.7 percent in 1994. This brought the school's enrollments well past the 60 percent of one race that is the present goal for a racially balanced school. At Terry, on the other hand, the white/other percentage rose from 43 percent to 58.1 percent during the same period as a 2 Two schools. Ish and Stephens, have now been closed. Enrollments in both schools had been more than 80 Black in 1987. \u0026gt; \"S 3 Q. X Page 13hi   S' 1 fl  I fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I result of a substantial increase in their number while Black enrollments declined. At present, the white/other proportion is still below the 60 percent limit, but dangerously close to rising above it. A continuation of present trends for just a year or two more will almost certainly take it over the line. The span from lowest to highest percent Black has increased from 44.6 to 56.4 percentage points. If present attendance areas are preserved and recent trends in enrollment continue, then it is likely that more racial imbalance will occur in the public schools of Little Rock over the next several years. This topic is discussed further in the sections of this report covering demographic shifts in the District's total population and the enrollment projections made for individual schools from 1995 through 2005. The Role of Private Schools Many people concerned about the future of Little Rock public schools believe that private schools have drawn off many of the white children whose presence would help to maintain racial balance in the public schools. This is a difficult view either to confirm or to counter with hard numbers. Certainly if all children now enrolled in schools within the district, public or private, were attending public schools. Little Rock's predominant racial groups would be close to equal in size. Some parents, of whatever race they may be and if their economic situation permits, will always elect a private school education for their children regardless of requirements for racial balance or any other condition of the public school system, and it is difficult to identify the motivation in every case. Accurate and up-to-date information about enrollments in private schools is often hard to come by. These schools are usually not held to the same requirements of reporting of their pupil enrollments as the public schools. In any event, some are reluctant to share this information. And since they seldom limit their student bodies to specific geographic areas as do public schools, they do not keep enrollment information separately for those pupils whose residence is within the boundaries of the public school district. The most recent data on private school enrollments are from the 1990 Census. At that time, the census found a total of about 7,900 children residing in the city of Little Rock and attending private schools. This was an increase of almost 900 since 1980. During the same period, public school enrollments in the city fell by almost 3,100 pupils--more than three times the size of the growth in the private schools. In 1980, 79.5 percent of all children enrolled in school in Little Rock were attending public schools\nby 1990, the figure was 75.4 percent. The most recent data on the racial distribution of pupils attending private schools in the Little Rock School District come from special tabulations of the 1990 census prepared for the US Department of Education. They show a total of 31,12^ children, ages 3 to 19, who 3 The number of children said to be enrolled in school in 1990 may vary somewhat from one source to another and the universe which is included in the numbers. The figures on public/private enrollments by race are limited to children between the ages of 3 and 19 who were enrolled in school below the college level. Other figures are for all children enrolled in school regardless of age and may include some below three years of age or more than age 19. Page 14 a o 5 D s. m o o' 3 D o O 3 Q. X fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl resided within the Little Rock District and were enrolled in school below the college level. Of this number nearly one-fourth were attending a private school in 1990\nnearly nine out of 10 of the children were white. Fewer than 10 percent were black, with the tiny balance of private school pupils made up of children from other races. fl Table 5 Public vs Private School Enrollment Children Ages 3-19 by Race, Little Rock School District, 1990 Public No. ! Private Total Enrolled 23,369 EsL No. EcL 75.1% 7,760 24.9% 15 kI LI I Nonhispanic White Black Other Hispanic 8,262 14,713 274 120 54.8% 95.1% 76.8% 58.0% 6,824 7,66 83 87 45.2% 4.9% 23.2% 42.0% S  Source: Special tabulations, 1990 Census, School District Data Book I Other census tabulations provided to the school District by Metroplan indicate public and private school attendance by census tract in the Little Rock School District. The tabulations also show the number of pupils enrolled in school, public and private combined, by race for each tract. They do not distinguish between public and private school attendance by race, however. a\u0026gt; oa w fl fl The tabulations indicate that the highest rates of private school attendance were in six census tracts located to the northwest of the city center. These are also areas where general population growth, as well as white growth, has been most vigorous in recent years and where median incomes are most likely to permit private school attendance. In 1990 these tracts contained 32.4 percent of all white children enrolled in school, 37 percent of all enrolled children of other races, but only 2.4 percent of the District's Black school children. fl TJ S Q O o' 3 fl 4 Nationally, nearly 15 percent of all school children ages 3 to 19 were enrolled in private schools in 1990, according to the federal census taken that year. Whites comprised 80 percent of the total, Blacks 8 percent, and other races, including Hispanics, 12 percent. In the state of Arkansas as a whole, about 7 percent of all school children were in private schools in 1990\n92 percent of these children were white, 6 percent were Black, and other races made up only 2 percent. \u0026gt; o o o 3 g. X Page 15 Factors Projections Appendix 'W.n'.V' IlWWi  1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS I I I  There is no crystal ball that can foretell with absolute certainty the future of enrollments in any school district. Many factors can influence the direction in which they are heading, causing the rate of change to speed up, slow down or even reverse. I The most reliable guidance to future enrollment trends, at least for the short term, can be found in the most current data on existing trends in the population-not only in its size but also in its characteristics such as age, migratory patterns, and fertility rates. These, in turn. are often related to local economic conditions. A change in the local economy, for 1 s example, may cause families to leave the district if the turn is for the worse, and their children (or the children they may have in the future) will move with them. A growing economy will usually attract families to the district if economic conditions are better here than elsewhere, and add children to the school rolls. Or it may be a mixed bag, with a change in the area's economic base sending some families away while bringing in different kinds of jobs and different kinds of jobholders.  1 3 A change in state or national policy may also influence enrollments. A re-allocation of state funds for education or family services or economic development may impact directly or indirectly on the schools. A shift in federal policy toward immigration may also make a difference to a local district. I I I  I s I  I  Not all of the factors that influence enrollments come from outside the school system itself. Some may result directly from changes in school system policy. If an intensive \"stay-in- school\" effort is launched, for example, it will almost certainly bring an increase in high school enrollments. Conversely, if the school board decides to set higher standards for promotion and graduation, it will probably lose some pupils. The addition of new programs, such as the pre-kindergarten classes instituted by Little Rock in 1990 and 1991 increased enrollments at the schools where these were placed above what they would otherwise have been. I 3 3 The nature of some factors can be foreseen, at least for a short time into the future, but others are more difficult to identify, assess or predict. Recent Population Change I Changes in the City's Population. The city of Little Rock, whose boundaries are now virtually contiguous with those of the Little Rock School District, has grown throughout the 20th century. The most recent increases, however, have been due in large part to annexations of adjoining territory. Between 1980 and 1990, the city added more than 17,000 people for an overall rate of increase of 10.9 percent. Without the annexed territory, there would have been a small loss. Metroplan estimates that the city gained somewhat 5 o A O o 3 W over 5,600 additional residents between 1990 and January 1993. occurred as a result of annexations to the city's land area. This increase also Page 16 o D O 3 Q X I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Population Change in Little Rock 1900-1990 III 200,000 Pi 150,000 100,000 50,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 I 3.7O7 I 45.941 | 6i.l\u0026gt;2 | ll.t?? | 8.03\u0026gt; 1102.213 | IO7.13 1132.483 1139.024 | 17S.7M | s 3 5 IB 0 I i If5 The Grier Partnership k Source: City of Little Rock and Census Bureau The net gain from 1980 to 1990 was almost entirely made up of adults, however. The total child population, 14 years of age and younger, barely grew at all. There was a small increase of 175 in the number of children below age five, and a slight decrease of 23 children between the ages of 5 and 14. I Table 6 Changes in the Population of Little Rock, 1980 to 1990 I. Population 1980 1990 Change No. IPct. 9 Total White Black Other Under Age 5 Total White Black Other Ages 5 to 14 Total White Black Other 158,461 105,504 51,093 1,864 175,781 113,723 59,864 2,194 17,320 8,219 8,771 330 10.9% 7.8% 17.2% 17.7% 12,605 6,096 6,313 196 12,780 6,969 5,641 170 175 873 1.4% 14.3% 0 5 OQ o3' -672 -10.6% -26 -13.3% 24,012 12,920 10,843 249 23,989 11,406 12,272 311 -23 -0.1% -1,514 -11.7% 1,429 13.2% 62 24.9% Note\nFigures in this table may vary slighly from those in text and charts due to differences between Census Bureau source tables. Source: 1980 \u0026amp; 1990 Census a 73 o 3 Q. X I I Page 17 J p Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   I I Numerically, the overall 1980-90 growth was almost evenly divided between Blacks (8,771) and whites and members of other races (8,219). But there were sharp differences in the changes experienced by the two groups of children. Among the youngest children, the number of whites increased by almost 900 while the number of Blacks declined by almost 700. The number of children of other races in this age group also dropped. The reverse occurred among children aged 5 to 14. The number of white children in this age group fell by more than 1,500 while the number of Black children grew by almost the same number. Children of other races also increased. The virtual stability of the combined number of children in each age group during the 1980s makes it highly unlikely that enrollments could grow during the 1990s, absent a fairly large influx of new families into the city. I ! ' a I 1 The large gain among Black children of school age during the 1980s, and the concurrent loss among whites in the same age group, undoubtedly contributed in some part to the growing ascendancy of Black enrollments in the schools of the Little Rock School District during the decade. At the same time, the large increase among whites in the youngest age group who have now entered school could contribute to a more balanced enrollment overall during the '90s decade. I a s I ! i Changes within the City. While the city of Little Rock as a whole gained population during the 1980s, many individual neighborhoods experienced losses. Of the 42 census tracts located wholly or in part within the 1990 city limits, 28 lost population between 1980 and 1990. This was the case with every one of the tracts located on the eastern and central sections of the city as well as some of the tracts extending westward and southwest from the city's center. This included a number of the areas annexed by the Little Rock School District in 1987. I L Almost all of the city's population growth, on the other hand, was absorbed by the northwest sector of the city, its western fringes, and its far southwest corner. Much of the growth shown, on the maps which follow occurred in census tracts which are only partly located within the city's boundaries. Hence, some of the growth shown by the maps may actually have gone outside the city, and the District, limits. I. i L Black children of school age were heavily concentrated in a number of census tracts where the total population declined. Close to 7,100, out of a total of almost 16,000, resided in just 12 tracts in which they made up 90 percent of all children between the ages of 5 and 17 years. At the other extreme, there were also 12 tracts in which white children predominated and in which Blacks were less than 10 percent of their age group. These tracts were located mainly on the northwestern and western borders of the city. Little wonder that the District faced difficult odds in maintaining racial balance in its schools. .0 o o o' 3 w -3 L \u0026gt; o T3 O 3 a X Page 18 IHRUINRg Qi S!h h^m Sm JSb ^^3 Loss 25% or More CHANGE IN POPULATION OF LITTLE ROCK CENSUS TRACTS, 1980-1990 Loss 10-24% Loss Under 10% 0 w (O o (O S' / xipuaddv SUOIl39|OJd No Change Gain Under 10% Gain 10-24% Gain 25% or More a\u0026gt; ::d o o (fi o zr o o O w* a n 03 O o' (/) fi) 03 3 5 S.   Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i Future Population Change    .4 According to the \"1994 Urban Development Report\" of the city's Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Little Rock as a whole is expected to grow slowly if at all over the next several years. If growth does occur, it is likely to come mainly from additional annexations to the city, but these will not affect enrollments in the Little Rock School District unless its boundaries are expanded as well. Thus, the District's enrollments are not likely to benefit from increases in the city's population. The report states further that \"the existing parts of the City are expected to lose population. The westward shift in population should continue.\" 1 \u0026gt;  This conclusion is borne out by projections of total population change made by Metroplan, and shown on the map that follows. The projections for each of the city's census tracts indicate continued losses in most of the tracts in the city's central core and on the east side, with new growth going mainly to the west and northwest.  1 I No more detailed projections are available for the city of Little Rock which would indicate how the specific age groups served by the schools are likely to change over the next several years. Data on recent births in Little Rock (now reported for larger Arkansas cities as well as for counties) and for Pulaski County, however, offer some clues. Projections of population by age group and race for Pulaski County may also be helpful. At the time of the 1990 Census, about 50 percent of Pulaski's total population resided in the city of Little Rock. 3 n Information on births to residents of Little Rock has been recorded by the state's Health Department only since 1987. They indicate a drop in the number of total births between 1987 and 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available. In 1987, they totaled 3,274. The number fell by nearly 200 in 1988, then climbed slightly above the earlier level in 1989. Since then they have declined every year, reaching a total of 3,021 in 1993. In 1987, births to white residents of the city exceeded those of Black and other nonwhite residents by more than 300. By 1993, the numbers were much closer-1,501 for whites and 1,518 for nonwhites. I L The decline in the city of both total and white births was not matched by a rise in the remainder of Pulaski County. Rather, the trends there matched those of the city. White births declined by 188 from 1987 to 1993 while nonwhite births increased by 110. The net result was a drop of 76 in the total number of births to residents of all races combined. Thus, it is unlikely that enrollments in the interdistrict schools will grow from an increase in the number of pupils from the Pulaski or North Little Rock Districts, unless there is a concurrent loss of pupils by one or both-absent, of course, a major but now unanticipated increase in the number of new residents to the county. \"0 Q O O* 3 Other data which may shed some light on the possible future of Little Rock's school age population come from the population projections made for each county in Arkansas by the Arkansas Institute for Economic Advancement at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. D D Q 3 Q. X Page 20H i.rbulk. Loss 15% or More PROJECTED CHANGE IN POPULATION OF LITTLE ROCK CENSUS TRACTS 1990-2000 Loss 5% Loss 2% No Change Tl 0) (a n\u0026gt; M xipuaddv suoipajojd Gain 2% Gain 5% Gain 15% or More a (B :3D O o X\" ay o o o D cz\u0026gt;' o -n a\u0026gt; o o' U) Vt CD 0 0) 3 O) W f 2 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI fl The most recent projections were made in 1993. No projections are made for cities in Arkansas. fl fl fl The Institute prepares three projection series by age and race, varying their construction only with regard to assumptions about future age-specific migration patterns in the county. Series A assumes that the individual age groups will continue to migrate in and out of the county at the same rates as in the 1980s decade. Series B assumes that each group will resume the higher migration rates of the 1970s. And Series C assumes that there will be no net gain or loss from migration-that is, there will be no net migration. Fertility and mortality rates used in the projections, the only other elements affecting population change, are the same as those found in 1990. Both are age- and race-specific. The differences between the three series are believed to indicate the most likely range within which the actual change will fall. fl I9 I Two of the three series project decreases in the youngest age group, children below the age of 5, between 1990 when their numbers were actually counted and 2005-one of fewer than 200, but the other of almost 2,800. If either of these projections actually comes to pass, neither the Little Rock School District nor the other districts serving Pulaski County residents are likely to have much if any increase in their elementary schools. Under the third series which projects a gain of more than 4,100 children in this age group, a return to the higher migration patterns of the 1970s would be required. However, most of this growth would have already taken place by 1995, with only modest increases projected thereafter. There is little apparent evidence that this has occurred. II III I Under one series the number of children ages 5-9 and 10-14 would also drop, although the size of the decline would be smaller for the older age group. This is the series that assumes the migration patterns of the 1980s would continue. The \"zero net migration\" series projects a decline of children ages 5-9, but growth among those ages 10-14. Only the series which assumes return to the '70s migration rates shows an increase in both groups. I -3 All three series project a decline in the number of white children in the age group under five years of age. Two project a decline in the number from 5 to 9 years old. But only one projects a loss in the number ages 10-14. In one series the increase turns into a loss after 1995, and in the other the rate of loss slows. Nonwhite children, on the other hand, increase in all but one age group under one series~a loss of 52 children ages 10-14 under the \"80s migration\" series. TJ A O o* 3 W II Altogether, the projected size of the change in total child population, 14 years of age or younger, in Pulaski County ranges from a gain of almost 8,700 to a loss of about 4,500. For whites the range of loss is from nearly 1,100 to more than 6,600. For nonwhites, the projected increase is from about 2,100 to almost 9,700 from 1990 to the year 2005. What is one to make of these projections? And how to relate them to the future of enrollments in only one of Pulaski County's school districts? Given what other information is available about current trends and future prospects of the school districts, we are inclined to believe that the projections which continue the recent migration patterns are most likely to come closest to the actual numbers. This is the series which projects an overall loss in a D A 3 Q. X Page 22  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I child population in Pulaski County, a larger loss among white children, and a relatively modest increase among nonwhites. Both the losses and the increases will be spread throughout the county although the longer-established cities are likely to sustain a disproportionate share of the losses and fewer of the gains. The table on the page that follows shows the alternative UALR projections. I M   o A O o' 3 o o o 3 Q. X Page 23 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table 7 Projections of Child Population (UALR) Pulaski County, 1990 to 2005 1990 1995 2000 2005 Change 1990-2005 ss 3 I I.a IH Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 White Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 Nonwhite Total \u0026lt;5 5-9 10-14 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 349,660 27,020 25,786 24,605 253,393 17,531 16,056 14,392 96,267 9,489 9,730 10,213 Series A - Migration at 80-90 Rates 353,000 27,961 24,920 24,118 352,911 25,944 25,835 23,280 350,494 24,262 24,032 24,208 834 -2,758 -1,754 -397 250,830 17,329 15,813 14,428 244,832 15,032 15,631 14,211 236,773 13,354 13,559 14,047 -16,620 -4,177 -2,497 -345 102,170 10,632 9,107 9,690 108,079 10,912 10,204 9,069 113,721 10,908 10,473 10,161 17,454 1,419 743 -52 Series B- Migration at 70-80 Rates 372,262 30,411 26,444 25,850 393,546 30,547 29,890 26,503 414,695 31,154 30,155 30,085 65,035 4,134 4,369 5,480 262,577 18,358 16,577 15,526 268,827 17,051 17,357 16,034 273,525 16,475 16,121 16,786 20,132 -1.056 65 2,394 109,685 12,053 9,867 10,324 124,719 13,496 12,533 10,469 141,170 14,679 14,034 13,299 44,903 5,190 4,304 3,086 Series C - Zero Net Migration 363,744 29,752 26,948 25,702 374,584 27,769 29,672 26,861 383,247 26,841 27,693 29,577 33,587 -179 1,907 4,972 D s \u0026lt;0 o o'  (A 259,933 18,348 17,471 16,007 263,175 16,041 18,306 17,348 264,449 15,013 16,005 18,251 11,056 -2,518 -51 3,859 103,811 11,404 6,457 9,695 111,409 11,728 11,366 9,423 118,798 11,828 11,688 11,326 22,531 2,339 1,958 1,113 o o Q 3 aX Page 24 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i i Changes in the Economy With a backbone of government, medical facilities, and educational institutions. Little Rock has enjoyed a steady rate of economic growth over the years. Unlike \"boom and bust\" economies, rates of both growth and decline have usually been modest. Pulaski County's labor force and its population actually holding jobs have often moved together in synchrony. Between 1991 and 1993, for example, annual unemployment rates moved no more than one percentage point apart, varying between 5.7 percent and 4.7 percent. For 1994, the unemployment rate was lower still at 4.0 percent. The most recent rate (for July 1995 and unadjusted) is even lower, at 3.3 percent. I Pulaski County Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rate Annual Averages 1990-1994 and July 1995 :a 210.000 200.000 190.000 180.000 170.000 160.000 150.000 140.000 Unemployment Kate ------ 14 Thousands \u0026gt; I Labor Fore* Eaployneot UiMBployBt Rate 1990 185.475 175.575 5.3 1991 ^2^25 172.225 5.7 1992 1U.500 177.875 5.6 1993 189.425 180.575 4.7 1994 Jul 1995 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6.S7S 202.500 I 1.625 195.775 _____ 3.3 i 196.575 US.625 The Grier Partnership Labor Force Employment lUnemploymt Rate Source: Arkansas Employment Security Dept. Asked about prospects for expansion or contraction of employment sectors in the Little Rock area, knowledgeable sources said they saw little likelihood of major changes within the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County over the foreseeable future, although other jurisdictions within the four-county metro area such as Maumelle and Conway are experiencing substantial growth in both jobs and industry. Recent construction along the waterfront to the west of downtown probably has relatively few children. 0 Q O O 3 (A The issuance of building permits, an indicator of activity in the construction industry, rose from 1991 through 1993. The number declined somewhat in 1994, but was still almost as high as it had been during the peak year of the 1980s. It is too early to tell whether the decline represents a real drop in construction activity and whether the drop will continue or whether building is simply playing \"catch up\" with the permits. The number of permits for single-family buildings, more closely indicative of change affecting family households, was also down in 1994 in both the city of Little Rock and \u0026gt; o o o 3 Q. X Page 25 I3 I a I [ f VI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 j Pulaski County. Nevertheless, the number of permits issued for units in the city that year was higher than it had been in any year since 1986. i Single-Family Building Permits 1980-1994 Little Rock and Pulaski County 4 J I i I 0 400 200 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 I B 11 I IW I 1 I J33 I 437 I 7 I \u0026gt; I 5W I 7 I 1 I 4 I MS I 7 I M I I I ns I \u0026lt;72 I 3M I 74 J37|13|1.173[ 773 | 777 | 7\u0026lt; | 434 | 71 |l.in4|l jw] Little Sack PttlJMfcl Co. ~ Little Rock + Pulaski Co. The Grier Partnership I Source: Metroplan 5 o \u0026lt;D O o 3 W \u0026gt; D D O 3 Q. X Page 26 1 r Projections Appendix WW\" RMTOW*Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 4 I1! J I i 4 $ 1 All projections are fallible. None is the product of a crystal ball. Even when alternative projection scenarios are postulated, they assume that present trends or at least modifications of present trends that appear reasonable will continue throughout their term. All assume also that present policies will remain in force, or at least that any possible future policy changes can be predicted with present knowledge. Thus, any major change in the demographic and economic forces that exist at this time in Little Rock could cause enrollment projections made at this time to be in error-as could any drastic change in current policies affecting the schools, such as the desegregation plan. In addition to being affected by overall shifts in trends and policies, enrollment projections are also subject to random factors-e.g., unpredictable variations in birthrates and patterns of population movement. These random factors will usually tend to wash out when the projections are for a fairly large population, such as a school district. The smaller the population, however, the riskier the projection. Even a modest change in school policy or program or the demolition or addition of a few dozen housing units could alter the picture. Hence, projection errors for individual schools are more subject to error than those for the entire school system, and allowance made for these when interpreting the results. The chance of projection error also increases the farther a projection extends out in time. A projection for the year to come will typically be more accurate than one for ten years in the future, since the latter is affected by events which were not anticipated when the projection was made. As one example, there was a sharp and temporary rise in nonwhite births recorded for both Pulaski County and the City of Little Rock in 1989 and 1990 which has since subsided but is just beginning to be reflected in enrollments in the earliest grades. White births also rose, but for one year only. These events affect the projections as well, creating a sudden and short-lived increase which will continue to move through the enrolled population for the next decade, but will have only a slight effect on the trend overall. I Projections made prior to 1989 probably would not have reflected these events. We recommend that projections be updated often, preferably annually, to detect changes that otherwise might alter the outcome significantly. With these caveats in mind, we present our current projections for the Little Rock School District.^ Total Enrollments 5 I Enrollments in the Little Rock School District are projected to continue their recent pattern of slow decline through the year 2005. By that year, the number of pupils will total 21,605 - lower by nearly 3,600 or 14 percent than in 1994. The rate of decline will slow gradually, from 701 pupils between 1994 and 1995 to 169 between 2004 and 2005. Hence nearly 2,700 of the 3,600 loss projected by 2005 will have occurred by the year 2000. ' The projections for the District as a whole and for the various levels, and the 1994 numbers from which the changes are measured, include ungraded students at the level in which they are enrolled. \u0026gt; D o A 3 Q. X Page 27 aa Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI aa a All three school levels-elementary, junior and senior high schools-will lose pupils, but at different rates. Enrollments in the elementary grades will decline by 1,379 or 9.7 percent. At the junior and senior high levels, the numerical loss will be almost identical. They will differ by only 30 pupils, from a drop of 1,091 for junior high to 1,121 for senior high. But because there are fewer pupils in the senior high schools, the percentage rates of decline will be quite different: 18.6 percent for junior high students, and 21.7 percent for those in senior high. Projected Total Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005  26,000 21,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 25,000 / 125,195 124.494 j 24.M8123.573123,127 j 22,764122.5H 122J17122,12} 121,910 j 21,774121.605 | The Grier Partnership Elementary Schools Ia I 1 \u0026gt; Looking at all three levels on a single chart, the trends appear quite similar. Losses are of roughly the same magnitude for all three. But when the elementary schools, whose total enrollment is greater than the junior and senior high levels combined, are separated out and shown on a different chart, it becomes possible to look more closely at the trends. Here we can see that the decline in elementary enrollments will begin at a fairly rapid pace, then will moderate between 1997 and 2000, but after that will return close to its initial rate. Between 1994 and 1997, the loss will average 155 students per year. From 1997 to 2000 the average will drop to 63 per year. But between 2000 and 2005 it will accelerate again to 145 per year. Page 28 -O Q  X T Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I I i I Projected Enrollments by School Level Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 J4 3 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 I *** Eleawataiy ^Sr Hiflx + + + + + + *  0 Flmininn [l\u0026lt;.nill4.021H3.S81|13.70an.Mai3.57iH.511ll3.JHIH.12il3.00ll2.9iai2.TO JrHlch SrHl^ 5,882 5,162 5,500 4,973 5,24915.174 4.919(4.694 5,042 4.423 4,959 4432 4.827 4,173 4,933 4.065 4,999 3,999 5,005 14,871 3,897(3.992 4,771 4,041 The Grier Partnership I Projected Elementary Enrollments Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 J3 14^00 Ii 3 3 L 13,500 13,000 14,000 / / 114.171 114,021 ! 13,881 113,705 j (13.573 113317 113.319113.125 113.008 112.912 112,792 | I I 12,500 The Grier Partnership Junior High Schools The year-to-year trends for the junior and senior high levels will be quite different, both from the elementary level and from each other. In the junior highs, the decline during the first two years is projected to be steep, an average of 307 per year. Then from 1996 through \u0026gt; o o A 3 Q. X Page 29 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 2000 it will moderate sharply to barely more than one-third that rate-106 per year. Between 2000 and 2003, junior high enrollments will actually increase. The gain will be modest, however, only 59 students per year, returning enrollments to not quite where they were in 1998 . Then the decline will resume at an average pace of 117 per year between 2003 and 2005. 1 Projected Enrollments in Jr. and Sr. High Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 13 I 3 3 K a 6,000 3,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 5,500 / / / / / / +jf Hitb *Sr High fI I Jr I S,M2 i S.500 I S.:49 t S.174 I 5,042 i 4.9S9 14.S27 14,933 i 4.999 I S.OOS I 4.S71 I 4.77} I I Sr 15,162 14,973 I 4,919 (4,694 | 4,423 14.232 14,173 14,065 | 3,999 | 3.B97 | 3,992 | 4,041 | The Grier Partnership I I Senior High Schools J I Senior high enrollments will decline at a fairly moderate rate at first, 122 per year between 1994 and 1996. Then the loss will accelerate to nearly twice that rate, 229 per year, from 1996 to 1999. This will be followed by a deceleration to an average loss of 84 per year from 1999 to 2003. Finally, as the junior high increase of 2000 to 2003 hits the senior high school years, they too will gain moderately at about 72 pupils per year.  I  Individual Schools^ I A total of 19 elementary schools, more than half of the 35 in operation in 1994, are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollment by 2005. Eight of these will lose 50 percent or more. Another three schools will lose between 10 and 25 percent, and one will 2 The projections for individual schools do not include ungraded students. \u0026gt; o o A 3 Q. X Page 30 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I I J lose less than ten percent, for a total of 23 elementary schools or 66 percent that are projected to lose enrollment by the year 2005.   A total of 12 elementary schools are projected to gain enrollment by 2005. Six of the 12 will gain by 25 percent or more, and three of these six will gain by 50 percent or more. Another three schools will add between 10 and 24 percent to their present enrollments, and three will add less than ten percent.  In the great majority of these elementary schools, the decline will be clearly apparent by the year 2000. All of the 19 schools that are projected to lose 25 percent or more in the next decade will have experienced over half of that loss by 2000, and many will have lost well over half. Eight will already be in the over-25 percent loss category. Similarly, all of the schools projected to be big gainers will have gained more than half of those amounts by 2000.  Among junior high schools, three of the eight (38 percent) are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollments by 2005\none more will escape their fate by a mere three- tenths of a percentage point. One of these schools, Cloverdale Junior High, will see its enrollment decline by 54 percent. No junior high will gain enrollment\nbut one, Mann, will lose by only one-tenth of one percent, and a second, Dunbar, will come nearly as close with a loss of four-tenths of one percent. Several schools - Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and Pulaski Heights - will be further in the loss column in 2000 than in 2005, and will recover somewhat thereafter. Two of the five high schools. Hall and McClellan, are projected to lose by over 25 percent, and Hall will lose by 51 percent. None will gain enrollment but Fair will drop by only a modest four percent. As with the junior highs, some of these schools will be deeper in the loss column by 2000 than by 2005. I I 5 A table in the appendix shows the projected change in enrollments for each school. Racial Changes in Enrollments L- Overall, black pupils are projected to decrease in number by somewhat over 1,800 or 11 percent over the next 11 years. Pupils of white and other races will decline by close to the same amount-nearly 1,800 or about one-fifth in the same period. The Black percentage of the total will increase only slightly as a result, however, going from 65 percent in 1994 to 67 percent in 2005. 1 I Both Black and white/other enrollments will also decline in each of the three levels. For Black pupils the decline will be about four percent at the elementary level, 19 percent in the junior highs, and 21 percent in the high schools. The comparable losses for the white/other group will be 19 percent in elementary grades, 17 percent in the junior highs, and 24 percent in the high schools. Page 31 \u0026gt; o Q O 3 a XLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   Projected Enrollments by Level and Race Little Rock School District, 1995-2005 Elementary 9300 8300 \u0026lt;  7300 a 6300 3300 4300 5300 MM W t.m ack (.m \nN* I M I .( I I (,r I M\u0026gt;* WMiatk S^tt MM tJU MH M 4^ MM MM 44W 440 I I Junior High 1 4300 3 I I 4,000 3300 3,000 2300 4 2,000  1300 Blkck White/Othet 1300 / ^4* ^4** ,j5S / ack 44M VM 4a M41 MO 4n MM U MW MM (4 WMliHlIWi LB* l.Tff L7 !,? 1.M* 1,W 141 l.M 14W 14M 14S tM\u0026gt; D D A 3 O. X Page 32 *  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I II II Senior High  4,000 I 3,500 II 3,000 II 2300 2,000 1300        1,000 500 Bl4 Wbite/Other BMe MM J4U Un KUl UM UWIITM WMUWa\u0026lt; 1.7M 113M I MM 113t I 1.W I MM I UM I M I LWl I MsTI I yu 11,O I MM I t4i II4WI  The racial changes in the system as whole, however, mask widely different patterns of racial composition at the individual school level. The percent of students who are Black will actually increase in 22 of the individual elementary schools and decrease in the remaining 13 where the proportion of pupils who are white or of other races will grow. In the junior highs, the Black proportion will increase in five of the eight schools, white and other pupils in the other three. In the senior highs, there will be an increase in the Black percentage in three schools, an increase in white/other in two. 'I 'I p As a result of these changes, few if any schools in the Little Rock School District are likely to be racially balanced by the year 2005 without substantial changes in program and policy. *0 T3 3 Q. X Page 33 f' L fl fl fl I I L I o D A 3 X Ifl Change in Enrollments by School, Level and District -1987 to 1994t itttMOk) IlitUS- Wl M I  I H H H H HL g CHANCE IN ENROLLMENTS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL AND DISTRICT - 1987 TO 1994 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987 1994 PCT. CHANGE 1987 TO 1994 TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I TOTAL BLACK WHITE/ I OTHER I CHANGE IN RACIAL COM,POSITION PERCENT BLACK PERCENT WHT/O 1987 1994 1987 1994 HIGH SCHOOLS Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUH 2123 882 1449 1260 833 6547 1207 421 727 495 462 3312 916 I 461 I 722 I 765 I 371 I 3235 I 1637 917 1031 897 800 5282 1040 631 669 684 435 3459 597 I 286 I 362 I 213 I 365 I 1823 I -22.91 4.01 -28.81 -28.81 -4.01 -19.31 -13.81 49.91 -8.01 38.21 -5.81 4.41 -34.81 I -38.01 I -49.91 I -72.21 I -1.61 I -43.61 I 56.9% 47.7% 50.2% 39.3% 55.5% 50.6% 63.51 43.11 36.51 68.81 52.31 31.21 64.91 49.81 35.11 76.31 60.71 23.71 54.41 44.51 45.61 65.51 49.41 34.51 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Hann Pulaski Hgts Southwest SUM 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 429 463 532 617 337 349 477 529 3733 249 I 219 I 330 I 416 I 335 I 304 I 277 I 275 I 2405 I 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5862 521 468 565 661 417 456 431 487 4006 126 I 239 I 215 I 256 I 168 I 389 I 340 I 123 I 1856 I -4.61 3.71 -9.51 -11.21 -12.91 29.41 2.31 -24.11 -4.51 21.41 1.11 6.21 7.11 23.71 30.71 -9.61 -7.91 7.31 -49.41 I 9.11 I -34.81 I -38.51 I -49.91 I 28.01 I 22.71 I -55.31 I -22.81 I 63.31 67.91 61.71 59.71 50.11 53.41 63.31 65.81 60.81 80.51 36.71 19.51 66.21 32.11 33.81 72.41 38.31 27.61 72.11 40.31 27.91 71.31 49.91 28.71 54.01 46.61 46.01 55.91 36.71 44.11 79.81 34.21 20.21 68.31 39.21 31.71 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale El Dodd 290 397 448 636 424 362 642 408 398 208 276 318 327 274 177 365 260 243 82 I 121 I 130 I 309 I 150 I 185 I 277 I 148 I 155 I 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 133 214 245 305 254 309 344 312 193 44 I 95 I 81 I 268 I 154 I 279 I 159 I 80 I 105 I -39.01 -22.21 -27.21 -9.91 -3.81 62.41 -21.71 -3.91 -25.11 -36.11 -22.51 -23.01 -6.71 -7.31 74.61 -5.81 20.01 -20.61 -46.31 I -21.51 I -37.71 I -13.31 I 2.71 I 50.81 I -42.61 I -45.91 I -32.31 I 71.7% 69.5% 71.0% 51.4% 64.6% 48.9% 56.9% 63.7% 61. U 75.U 28.3% 24.9% 69.3% 30.5% 30.71! 15.2% 29.01 24.81 53.21 48.61 46.81 62.31 35.41 37.71 52.61 51.11 47.41 68.41 43.11 31.61 79.61 36.31 20.41 64.81 38.91 35.21 aojono i I W V k'lWtx*-' CHANGE IN ENBOLLMENTS BY SCH(L, LEVEL AND DISTRICT - 1987 TO 1994 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) I 1987 1994 Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale McDeniiott Headoncliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff SUM TOTAL 315 426 403 503 329 235 265 214 462 269 546 471 449 256 325 340 246 289 484 218 481 467 214 491 314 496 407 229 14149 BLACK 217 253 290 289 280 156 130 174 260 217 324 263 293 219 196 256 189 251 343 196 274 290 200 309 192 246 288 174 9217 WHITE/ I OTHER I 98 I 173 I 113 I 214 I 49 I 79 I 135 I 40 I 202 I 52 I 222 I 208 I 156 I 37 I 129 I 84 I 57 I 38 I 141 I 22 I 207 I 177 I 14 I 182 I 122 I 250 I 119 I 55 I 4932 I TOTAL 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14051 BLACK 204 198 393 235 246 223 160 closed 218 309 340 241 279 260 154 197 225 264 234 closed 234 327 443 340 215 250 254 148 8900 WHITE/ I OTHER I 78 I 234 I 50 I 307 I 36 I 77 I 133 I I 284 I 242 I 134 I 253 I 132 I 12 I 205 I 223 I 4 I 139 I 89 I I 325 I 86 I 244 I 87 I 102 I 224 I 91 I 95 I 5151 I GRAND TOTAL 26834 16262 10572 I 25195 16365 8830 I PCT. CHANGE 1987 TO 1994 TOTAL -10.5% 1.4% 9.9% 7.8% -14.3% 27.7% 10.6% BLACK -6.0% -21.7% 35.5% -18.7% -12.1% 42.9% 23.1% -100.0^ -100.0% 8.7% 104.8% -13.2% 4.9% -8.5% 6.3% 10.5% 23.5% -6.9% 39.4% -33.3% -16.2% 42.4% 4.9% -8.4% -4.8% 18.7% -21.4% -23.0% 19.0% 5.2% -31.8% -100.0% -100.0% 16.2% -11.6% 221.0% -13.0% 1.0% -4.4% -15.2% 6.1% -0.7% -14.6% 12.8% 121.5% 10.0% 12.0% 1.6% -11.8% -14.9% -3.4% WHITE/ I OTHER I -20.4% I 35.3% I -55.8% I 43.5% I -26.5% I -2.5% I -1.5% I -100.0% I 40.6% I 365.4% I -39.6% I 21.6% I -15.4% I -67.6% I 58.9% I 165.5% I -93.0% I 265.8% I -36.9% I -100.0% I 57.0% I -51.4% I 1642.9% I -52.2% I -16.4% I -10.4% I -23.5% I 72.7% I 4.4% I CHANGE IN RACIAL COM,POSITION PERCENT BLACK PERCENT WHT/0 1987 68.9% 59.4% 72.0% 57.5% 85.1% 66.4% 49.1% 81.3% 56.3% 80.7% 59.3% 55.8% 65.3% 85.5% 60.3% 75.3% 76.8% 86.9% 70.9% 89.9% 57.0% 62.1% 93.5% 62.9% 61.1% 49.6% 70.8% 76.0% 65.1% 1994 1987 1994 72.3% 31.1% 27.7% 45.8% 40.6% 54.2% 88.7% 28.0% 11.3% 43.4% 42.5% 56.6% 87.2% 14.9% 12.8% 74.3% 33.6% 25.7% 54.6% 50.9% 45.4% 18.7% 43.4% 43.7% 56.6% 56.1% 19.3% 43.9% 71.7% 40.7% 28.3% 48.8% 44.2% 51.2% 67.9% 34.7% 32.1% 95.6% 14.5% 4.4% 42.9% 39.7% 57.1% 46.9% 24.7% 53.1% 98.3% 23.2% 1.7% 65.5% 13.1% 34.5% 72.4% 29.1% 27.6% 10.1% 41.9% 43.0% 58.1% 79.2% 37.9% 20.8% 64.5% 6.5% 35.5% 79.6% 37.1% 20.4% 67.8% 38.9% 32.2% 52.7% 50.4% 47.3% 73.6% 29.2% 26.4% 60.9% 24.0% 39.1% 63.3% 34.9% 36.7% -6.1% 0.6% -16.5% I 60.6% 65.0% 39.4% 35.0% J fl 11 tl Total Enrollment Projections by Grade and Level -1995 to 2005TOTAL ENROLLHENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PRE-K 726 I 575 564 566 562 557 552 546 541 536 531 526 Kindergarten 2060 I 2056 1951 1911 1923 1898 1882 1865 1849 1833 1818 1802 1 1990 I 2146 2126 2017 1976 1989 1962 1945 1928 1911 1894 1878 2 1914 I 1855 2000 1982 1880 1842 1853 1829 1812 1796 1780 1764 3 1796 I 1824 1768 1906 1888 1791 1755 1766 1742 1726 1710 1695 4 1895 I 1770 1798 1743 1878 1861 1765 1730 1740 1717 1702 1686 5 1842 1 1844 1722 1749 1696 1828 1811 1719 1684 1694 1672 1657 6 1797 I 1795 1797 1678 1704 1652 1781 1765 1675 1641 1651 1629 7 1949 I 1847 1843 1847 1724 1749 1697 1831 1815 1723 1686 1698 8 1966 I 1798 1702 1698 1703 1589 1611 1564 1688 1674 1589 1555 9 1843 1 1791 1638 1550 1546 1551 1447 1467 1424 1537 1524 1447 10 1930 I 1897 1844 1687 1596 1592 1597 1489 1510 1466 1583 1569 11 1601 1 1620 1593 1545 1413 1341 1338 1341 1252 1271 1232 1329 12 1548 I 1403 1419 1395 1353 1237 1175 1173 1175 1097 1114 1080 Ungraded Elei 151 I Ungraded Jr Hi 104 I Ungraded Sr Hi 83 I 156 64 53 154 65 63 154 78 66 155 69 60 154 71 63 154 73 63 154 71 62 154 71 63 154 72 63 154 71 63 154 71 63 TOTAL 25195 I 24494 24048 23573 23127 22764 22518 22317 22123 21910 21774 21605 SUMMARY OF TOTAL PROJECTIONS BY LEVEL Eleientary Junior High Senior High 14171 I 14021 13881 13705 13662 13573 13517 13319 13125 13008 12912 12792 5862 I 5500 5249 5174 5042 4959 4827 4933 4999 5005 4871 4771 5162 I 4973 4919 4694 4423 4232 4173 4065 3999 3897 3992 4041 TOTAL 25195 I 24494 24048 23573 23127 22764 22518 22317 22123 21910 21774 21605 I I I I I ii i a BLACK ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 H PRE-K 451 1 352 339 347 347 346 345 344 343 342 341 340 d KINDERGARTEN 1332 I 1349 1292 1242 1274 1274 1270 1266 1262 1257 1254 1250 1 1268 I 1385 1384 1325 1274 1306 1306 1303 1298 1294 1290 1286 2 1189 I 1172 1281 1279 1225 1177 1208 1208 1204 1200 1196 1192 3 1128 I 1129 1113 1216 1214 1163 1118 1147 1147 1143 1140 1136 4 1211 I 1112 1113 1097 1199 1197 1147 1102 1130 1130 1127 1124 5 1160 I 1189 1092 1093 1077 1177 1175 1126 1082 1110 1110 1107 6 1155 I 1133 1161 1067 1067 1052 1150 1148 1100 1057 1084 1084 7 1333 I 1219 1196 1226 1126 1127 1111 1214 1212 1161 1116 1145 8 1349 I 1243 1137 1116 1143 1050 1051 1036 1132 1130 1082 1040 d n 9 1243 I 1234 1137 1040 1020 1046 960 10 1311 I 1285 1276 1176 1076 1055 1082 961 993 947 1035 1034 994 990 980 1071 1069 11 1022 I 1058 1037 1029 12 Ungraded Elei Ungraded Jr Hi Ungraded Sr Hi 957 I no I 81 I 65 I 883 114 46 39 914 113 50 47 896 113 59 50 948 889 113 52 45 868 819 113 54 47 851 750 113 55 47 872 801 736 754 113 53 47 113 54 47 802 692 113 54 47 790 693 113 54 47 864 683 113 54 47 TOTAL 16365 I 15943 15681 15370 15091 14872 14739 14668 14620 14549 14541 14523 Eleentary Junior High Senior High 9004 1 8936 8887 8778 8790 8806 8832 8756 8679 8647 8654 8631 4006 1 3743 3520 3441 3342 3276 3177 3264 3345 3380 3286 3229 3355 1 3265 3273 3151 2959 2790 2730 2648 2596 2521 2601 2663 TOTAL 16365 I 15943 15681 15370 15091 14872 14739 14668 14620 14549 14541 14523 I Q I IWHITE/OTHER ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY 6RADE AND LEVEL - 1995 to 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 y PRE-K Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Elei Ungraded Jr Hi Ungraded Sr Hi 275 1 728 I 722 I 725 I 668 I 684 I 682 I 642 I 616 I 617 I 600 I 619 I 579 I 591 I 41 I 23 I 18 I 222 707 760 683 695 658 656 661 627 555 557 612 562 520 42 18 14 226 659 743 719 655 685 631 636 646 565 501 568 556 505 41 16 16 219 669 692 703 690 645 656 612 621 582 510 511 516 499 41 19 16 215 649 702 655 674 680 619 637 597 560 526 521 465 464 41 17 15 211 625 682 665 628 664 651 600 622 539 505 536 473 417 41 17 16 206 612 656 646 637 619 636 632 586 561 486 515 487 425 41 18 16 202 599 642 621 619 628 593 617 617 528 506 496 468 438 41 17 16 198 587 629 608 595 610 602 575 603 556 477 516 451 421 41 17 16 194 576 617 595 583 586 584 584 562 543 502 486 469 405 41 18 16 190 564 604 584 571 574 562 567 570 507 490 512 442 421 41 17 16 186 552 592 572 560 562 550 545 554 514 457 500 465 397 41 17 16 TOTAL 8830 I 8551 8368 8203 8037 7892 7779 7649 7502 7361 7233 7082 Elementary Junior High Senior High 5167 I 5085 4994 4928 4872 4767 4685 4563 4446 4360 4257 4162 1856 I 1757 1728 1733 1700 1683 1651 1669 1653 1625 1585 1542 1807 I 1708 1645 1543 1464 1442 1443 1418 1403 1376 1391 1378 TOTAL 8830 I 8551 8368 8203 8037 7892 7779 7649 7502 7361 7233 7082 u I a r I 1 I Jifl H 11 11 d Provisional Projections by School, Level, and Race - 2000 and 2005L SHB B H fi H H H H PROVISIONAL PROJECTIONS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL, AND RACE - 2000 AND 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS - 1994 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I TOTAL BLACK OTHER PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2000 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I HIGH SCHOOLS Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUH 1637 917 1031 897 800 5282 1040 631 669 684 435 3459 597 286 362 213 365 1823 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hgts Southwest SUM 647 707 780 917 585 845 771 610 5862 521 468 565 661 417 456 431 487 4006 126 239 215 256 168 389 340 123 1856 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 177 309 326 573 408 588 503 392 298 133 214 245 305 254 309 344 312 193 44 95 81 268 154 279 159 80 105 BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2005 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH 63.5% 36.5% I 68.8% 31.2% I 64.9% 35.1% I 76.3% 23.7% I 54.4% 45.6% I 65.5% 34.5% I 80.5% 19.5% I 66.2% 33.8% I 72.4% 27.6% I 72.1% 27.9% I 71.3% 28.7% I 54.0% 46.0% I 55.9% 44.1% I 79.8% 20.2% I 68.3% 31.7% I 75.1% 24.9% I 69.3% 30.7% I 75.2% 24.8% I 53.2% 46.8% I 62.3% 37.7% I 52.6% 47.4% I 68.4% 31.6% I 79.6% 20.4% I 64.8% 35.2% I 1405 825 655 624 664 4173 829 600 440 561 299 2730 576 224 215 63 366 1443 59.0% 41.0% I 72.8% 27.2% I 67.2% 32.8% I 90.0% 10.0% I 45.0% 55.0% I 65.4% 34.6% I 1451 880 505 535 669 4041 816 669 358 535 255 2633 635 211 147 0 414 1408 56.2% 43.8% 76.1% 23.9% 70.8% 29.2% 99.9% 0.1% 38.1% 61.9% 65.2% 34.8% 407 653 672 796 454 667 714 463 4827 400 427 493 515 348 294 317 383 3177 8 226 179 281 106 373 397 80 1650 98.0% 2.0% I 65.4% 34.6% I 73.4% 26.6% I 64.7% 35.3% I 76.7% 23.3% I 44.1% 55.9% I 44.4% 55.6% I 82.7% 17.3% I 65.8% 34.2% I 300 704 688 821 426 636 770 426 4771 299 481 539 515 369 242 301 387 3133 1 223 149 306 57 394 469 39 1638 99.8% 0.2% 68.4% 31.6% 78.3% 21.7% 62.8% 37.2% 86.6% 13.4% 38.1% 61.9% 39.1% 60.9% 90.8% 9.2% 65.7% 34.3% 106 202 248 486 320 536 420 375 237 95 103 223 266 162 303 341 365 204 11 99 26 220 158 233 79 10 33 89.7% 10.3% I 50.9% 49.1% I 89.7% 10.3% I 54.8% 45.2% I 50.7% 49.3% I 56.6% 43.4% I 81.2% 18.8% I 97.2% 2.8% I 86.2% 13.8% I 52 120 186 411 249 485 349 353 187 51 11 185 230 85 293 331 353 186 1 109 1 181 164 192 18 0 1 98.4% 1.6% 8.8% 91.2% 99.6% 0.4% 56.0% 44.0% 34.1% 65.9% 60.5% 39.5% 94.9% 99.9% 99.7% 5.1% 0.1% 0.3%1 u1 fc-j in -'Aw\nOJOJOttO PROVISIONAL PROJECTIONS BY SCHOOL, LEVEL, AND RACE - 2000 AND 2005 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ENROLLMENTS - 1994 PROJECTED EHROLLMEHTS - 2000 PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS - 2005 TOTAL BLACK OTHER Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff SUM 282 432 443 542 282 300 293 502 551 474 494 411 272 359 420 229 403 323 559 413 687 427 317 474 345 243 14051 204 198 393 235 246 223 160 218 309 340 241 279 260 154 197 225 264 234 234 327 443 340 215 250 254 148 8900 WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I WHITE/ PCT. PCT. I WHITE/ PCT. PCT. BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH I TOTAL BLACK OTHER BLACK WHT/OTH 78 234 50 307 36 77 133 284 242 134 253 132 12 205 223 4 139 89 325 86 244 87 102 224 91 95 5151 72.3% 27.7% I 45.8% 54.2% I 88.7% 11.3% I 43.4% 56.6% I 87.2% 12.8% I 74.3% 25.7% I 54.6% 45.4% I 43.4% 56.6% I 56.1% 43.9% I 71.7% 28.3% I 48.8% 51.2% I 67.9% 32.1% I 95.6% 4.4% I 42.9% 57.1% I 46.9% 53.1% I 98.3% 1.7% I 65.5% 34.5% I 72.4% 27.6% I 41.9% 58.1% I 79.2% 20.8% I 64.5% 35.5% I 79.6% 20.4% I 67.8% 32.2% I 52.7% 47.3% I 73.6% 26.4% I 60.9% 39.1% I 180 471 464 490 325 421 222 521 1281 332 426 344 347 340 529 266 564 211 580 268 547 279 270 406 226 309 63.3% 36.7% I 13549 111 201 463 168 312 348 132 205 312 331 140 286 346 127 190 265 379 123 171 267 479 278 245 222 208 197 8567 70 270 1 322 13 72 90 316 969 1 286 58 1 213 339 1 184 88 409 1 68 1 25 184 18 111 4982 61.3% 38.7% I 42.6% 57.4% I 99.9% 0. I 34.2% 65.8% I 96.0% 4.0% I 82.9% 17.1% I 59.4% 40.6% I 39.4% 60.6% I 24.4% 75.6% I 99.8% 0.2% I 32.8% 67.2% I 83.1% 16.9% I 99.7% 0.3% I 37.4% 62.6% I 35.9% 64.1% I 99.4% 0.6% I 67.3% 32.7% I 58.2% 41.8% I 29.5% 70.5% I 99.5% 0.5% I 87.5% 12.5% I 99.7% 90.6% 0.3% I 9.4% I 54.7% 45.3% I 92.0% 8.0% I 64.0% 36.0% I 103 486 466 439 347 495 166 520 1767 221 367 286 391 317 592 286 663 125 580 158 433 166 229 347 135 347 63.2% 36.8% I 12824 33 199 465 110 346 443 107 191 308 220 55 286 390 103 180 285 465 30 117 157 432 165 228 195 134 234 7603 70 287 1 329 1 52 59 329 1459 1 311 1 1 215 411 1 197 95 463 1 1 1 1 152 1 113 5220 31.8% 68.2% 41.0% 59.0% 99.8% 0.21 25.0% 75.0t 99.8% 0.2% 89.5% 10.5% 64.3% 35.7% 36.7% 63.3% 17.5% 82.5% 99.4% 0.6% 15.1% 84.9% 99.7% 99.7% 0.3% 0.3% 32.4% 67.6% 30.5% 69.5% 99.7% 0.3% 70.2% 29.8% 23.9% 76.1% 20.1% 79.9% 99.3% 99.8% 99.5% 99.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 56.3% 43.7% 99.1% 0.9% 67.3% 32.7% 59.3% 40.7% TOTAL 25195 16365 8830 65.0% 35.0% I 22549 14474 8075 64.2% 35.8% I 21636 13370 8266 61.8% 38.2%  B 0 I a Attendance Zones Elementary SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. ZONE-SCHOOL Badgett (20) Subtotal UI z o U 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3640 Of lU z H  X o 3 co z UI S O 0 Z UI 177 0 35 17 4 0 0 56 4 32 21 24 0 23 104 4 67 38 28 0 23 160 I Bale (21) 309 Subtotal 521 531 532 534 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 9 23 5 5 34 21 24 14 3 138 29 40 29 18 48 12 12 65 4 257 38 63 34 23 82 33 36 79 7 395 Baseline (41) 326 Subtotal 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 3652 14 5 21 2 5 4 13 18 14 5 101 55 90 7 51 17 19 4 5 12 8 268 69 95 28 53 22 23 17 23 26 13 369 Page 1 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Brady (7) lU z o n 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 Subtotal oc UJ z - o I o 03 JS o hL Z UJ S O K z UJ___ 408 7 33 28 12 38 9 39 9 6 12 0 193 3 10 1 0 7 0 8 45 6 22 16 118 10 43 29 12 45 9 47 54 12 34 16 311 Brady (31) Subtotal 540 591 592 593 4 2 1 0 7 7 52 2 0 61 11 54 3 0 68 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Chicot (45) lU z oe lU z H  o CD Subtotal z tu  O DC Z UJ___ 503 3435 3440 3445 3464 5408 7401 7405 7410 7415 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7476 7479 7480 10 5 0 29 7 33 6 10 14 5 1 13 2 3 2 3 6 1 2 152 7 7 1 29 40 25 21 31 39 20 13 28 24 16 13 15 13 0 16 358 17 12 1 58 47 58 27 41 53 25 14 41 26 19 15 18 19 1 18 510 X o Cloverdale (42) 392 Subtotal 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 10 12 9 2 4 2 4 8 9 3 2 3 2 4 74 31 16 20 0 46 17 32 22 17 64 28 9 23 96 421 41 28 29 2 50 19 36 30 26 67 30 12 25 100 495 I Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Dodd (34) LU z o N 1722 1728 4001 4010 4017 4020 4025 4046 4049 4052 4053 5467 Subtotal Q Itt  o u} t z A 16 5 21 12 0 18 11 21 11 21 1 4 141 43 31 0 43 0 3 29 1 22 1 0 0 173 JS o 59 36 21 55 0 21 40 22 33 22 .1 4 314 I- z LU s o O' z m___ 298 O 3 m Fair Park (9) 282 Subtotal Forest Park (1) Subtotal Forest Park (4) Subtotal 511 512 513 554 920 1110 1111 1120 1121 6110 6125 6610 811 821 910 13 1 5 5 38 43 42 4 11 162 66 9 1 76 40 59 75 174 9 11 76 59 8 0 29 2 0 194 7 1 0 8 0 1 5 6 22 12 81 64 46 43 71 6 11 356 73 10 1 84 40 60 80 180 432 I t I I Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Forest Park (12) lU z o u 411 412 413 420 Subtotal IX UI z I-  z o 3 m \u0026lt; t- o hL z UI S O IX z tu 0 0 1 9 10 0 3 1 14 18 0 3 2 23 28 z 5 Forest Park (18) I I Subtotal 553 556 63 42 105 71 42 113 8 0 8 Franklin (23) 443 Subtotal Fulbright (2) Subtotal 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 539 571 575 1210 1405 1410 1440 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 8 1 4 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 4 0 25 51 61 64 40 22 30 40 5 18 29 10 46 33 449 59 62 68 42 22 31 43 5 18 31 10 50 33 474 542 33 26 114 35 31 0 15 24 44 322 4 1 12 1 14 0 3 4 3 42 37 27 126 36 45 0 18 28 47 364 Page 5 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Fulbright (15) UI z o 0^ lU X o Ui I- z UJ S Subtotal o 3 CD ! o o q: z UJ 1714 1810 1811 1812 14 12 0 5 31 137 38 30 40 245 151 50 30 45 276 X Garland (30) 282 Subtotal Geyer Springs (38) ___________________Subtotal Geyer Springs (47) Subtotal Jefferson (3) Subtotal 581 582 584 585 586 587 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 3405 1220 1230 1231 1240 5 2 5 14 0 0 26 3 9 10 9 12 5 5 53 11 56 40 220 327 45 57 89 55 23 44 313 35 19 22 12 28 36 20 172 54 54 1 1 0 6 8 50 59 94 69 23 44 339 38 28 32 21 40 41 25 225 62 62 12 57 40 226 335 300 502 8 8 Pagesi . 4 f i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Jefferson (13) lU z o U 111 112 121 122 210 Subtotal it ui Z H o a t z 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 Z ID  u 3 co 19 26 14 47 76 182 19 26 14 47 77 183 O a z tu s Jefferson (19) ( 431 Subtotal 36 36 37 37 1 1 Jefferson (22) t| Subtotal 434 435 0 11 11 18 6 24 18 17 35 King (17) 551 Subtotal 432 433 438 439 4 0 0 0 4 23 41 43 70 177 27 41 43 70 181 King (36) Subtotal McDermott (5) 473 476 477 479 480 485 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 63 49 40 44 26 56 278 63 49 40 46 26 57 281 494 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 32 3 36 42 118 20 13 29 20 0 2 1 38 3 4 7 52 3 38 43 156 23 17 36 Page 7I f Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o tu z  X 293 z UJ S tie o 5 (0 75 O Jz. 368 O O' z lU McDermott (16) Subtotal 552 561 562 4 0 0 4 63 46 53 162 67 46 53 166 Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Mabelvale (44) LU Z s. 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5462 5465 7420 7475 Subtotal DC LU Z H  X 5 4 10 12 7 25 11 14 8 13 19 4 7 16 4 9 163 69 46 9 0 1 10 1 9 6 0 1 0 7 30 33 222 z LU S \u0026lt; I- o 73 56 21 7 26 21 15 17 19 19 5 7 23 34 42 385 o q: z LU___ 474 O \u0026lt; m Mabelvale (48) t Subtotal Meadowcliff (32) Subtotal 7325 7383 7388 7390 533 535 536 537 0 2 1 1 4 0 5 3 5 13 33 14 30 57 134 41 41 41 56 179 33 16 31 58 138 41 46 44 61 192 411 Page 9Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Meadowcliff (39) UJ z O U 2110 2120 4015 4048 Subtotal DC UJ z o tu t X 77 41 19 20 157 60 60 8 9 137 z UJ S \u0026lt; I- O hL 137 101 27 29 294 O z UJ o 3  Mitchell (28) 272 Subtotal 442 443 444 445 446 451 452 453 457 458 459 3 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 31 25 19 17 9 24 40 26 50 37 39 317 34 30 19 17 9 25 41 26 50 37 40 328 Otter Creek (35) 359 Subtotal 471 472 475 30 48 48 126 30 48 48 126 60 96 96 252 Otter Creek (43) Subtotal 5460 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 31 2 0 56 45 41 25 10 210 3 0 0 7 12 6 1 5 34 34 2 0 63 57 47 26 15 244 Page 10 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT p ZONE-SCHOOL Pulaski Heights (6) UJ z P Nl 610 620 630 640 641 651 660 710 Subtotal K UJ z o U} I 34 46 10 16 14 73 24 37 254 o \u0026lt; _1 m 1 2 0 2 0 0 78 9 92 35 48 10 18 14 73 102 46 346 z tu S _i o It z UJ___ 420 \u0026lt; O Rightsell (29) 229 Subtotal 448 449 450 454 455 464 1 1 0 0 14 2 18 101 54 55 19 42 45 316 102 55 55 19 56 47 334 Rockefeller (25) 403 Subtotal Romine (27) Subtotal 232 440 456 460 461 462 463 1715 1717 1721 1723 1724 1727 1 4 13 3 2 4 0 27 2 0 3 0 22 7 34 7 17 35 32 42 54 35 222 8 21 48 35 44 58 35 249 323 75 98 49 38 44 86 390 77 98 52 38 66 93 424 I Page 11Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .1 ZONE-SCHOOL Stephens (26) UJ iZ o N 441 572 573 574 583 Subtotal Terry (8) 1510 1511 1512 1515 1530 1532 1550 1610 1620 3330 Subtotal Terry (24) 436 437 563 Subtotal DC UJ z o in t z 0 01 0 01 38 96 26 98 9 18 44 23 19 47 418 45 48 46 139 o CD 24 56 34 45 48 207 6 33 55 4 19 8 2 35 90 45 48 46 139 \u0026lt; I-o Jz 24 56 35 45 48 208 44 129 31 103 13 37 52 25 22 52 508 90 96 92 278 z UJ S o DC Z UJ 559 1 1I L 0 Page 12 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Wakefield (40) lU z o It tu I O iu z \u0026lt; m z LU 5 IOt tzu __ 413 _____________Subtotal Washington (14) Subtotal 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 123 124 125 126 127 220 240 301 474 478 481 482 483 484 16 10 69 12 2 7 13 6 14 551 106 71 15 9 30 51 16 73 50 21 12 21 9 16 394 87 25 15 39 63 18 80 63 27 26 26 14 17 500 687 01100 10 0 001210 0 16 42 80 25 39 17 107 29 7 14 36 85 69 86 30 666 42 81 26 39 17 117 29 7 14 37 87 70 86 30 682 Page 13 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study fl 3D/I   5f ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Watson (46) Subtotal Western Hills (37) Wilson (10) Wilson (33) Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal UJ z O N 7301 7305 7315 7330 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7384 7385 7490 7495 1725 1726 1822 2010 2015 2020 1711 3301 3312 3316 1813 1821 1823 1824 a: UJ I 9 UJ Z hoe 3 co o t-t-z UJ S o O' z UJ___ 427 7 13 22 3 16 49 12 4 12 116 110 1 15 19 23 47 17 122 18 36 40 27 121 16 8 32 25 81 71 9 51 4 60 15 42 27 63 40 27 1 17 427 78 22 73 7 76 19 51 39 67 52 28 2 23 537 317 29 14 92 12 28 18 193 30 29 111 35 75 35 315 345 1 14 10 9 34 19 50 50 36 155 57 59 107 30 253 73 67 139 55 334 Page 14 dd Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI  ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  ZONE-SCHOOL Woodruff (11) UJ z o N 650 662 670 Subtotal TOTAL o: UJ z H-o uj _j \u0026lt; o z UJ S o O' z UJ___ 243 5 4 51 60 5 29 51 85 10 33 102 145 4592 8965 13557    Z 5 o 3 m I I Page 15 h fl Attendance Zones Junior High SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O' 2 - z UJ S s ZONE-SCHOOL Cloverdale UJ z o N ULI t- 5S o o DC z UI 647 240 301 474 478 480 481 482 483 484 485 3435 3440 3445 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 5408 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 0 5 7 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 6 3 0 4 5 4 0 8 0 1 1 7 0 4 12 4 12 12 16 29 22 16 11 20 5 2 1 10 8 4 6 3 15 17 10 9 4 10 8 21 26 7 7 18 11 3 2 14 3 24 12 4 12 13 16 29 23 16 11 20 9 5 1 15 15 6 7 6 16 18 10 9 10 13 8 25 31 11 7 26 11 4 3 21 3 28 I Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal ui z o hl____ 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7474 7476 7479 7490 7495 oc lU z I-  _i i5 S z UJ S -I o z z 1 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 15 3 4 3 1 7 0 4 6 1 1 0 1 127 14 17 7 17 21 27 5 17 13 7 20 13 5 14 12 11 10 12 0 0 13 657 15 17 7 20 22 27 8 18 28 10 24 16 6 21 12 15 16 13 1 0 14 784 z u  Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT i ZONE-SCHOOL Dunbar UJ z o O' UJ z I- o z z UI S o a: z Ly___ 707 126 412 413 420 431 433 434 435 439 445 446 448 449 450 650 670 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3625 3640 3652 4401 4405 4410 4415 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 19 0 11 2 1 0 2 5 5 3 1 3 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 8 1 18 2 0 3 15 13 5 4 25 7 9 28 26 28 1 13 4 13 12 12 0 18 33 34 2 11 5 9 2 6 11 3 11 13 4 7 18 2 1 8 15 13 6 9 25 7 9 28 26 28 5 32 \"4 24 14 13 0 20 38 39 5 12 8 9 4 13 11 4 12 13 12 8 o 3  o Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UJ z o JSl____ 4420 4429 4430 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 or UJ z t- o UJ t X \u0026lt; I- o I- z UJ s J o z z UJ 1 5 2 6 0 2 4 1 2 3 7 2 10 3 0 0 136 8 17 5 34 8 2 14 14 11 13 15 7 8 12 0 6 581 9 22 7 40 8 4 18 15 13 16 22 9 18 15 0 6 717 o 3 m Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT -1 ZONE-SCHOOL Forest Heights UJ z o U 511 512 513 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 554 561 562 571 572 573 574 575 620 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1321 1331 1405 ce. UI z I- o 12 I- I 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 20 2 6 12 13 4 4 11 15 9 15 8 5 3 19 29 21 32 6 11 14 10 2 7 17 16 40 27 28 25 19 16 13 2 1 4 0 11 0 0 11 2 0 5 5 I- z LU S -I i* O z. 6 3 22 30 21 33 6 11 14 10 2 7 19 16 40 28 31 25 19 16 13 22 3 10 12 24 4 4 22 17 9 20 13 o z jy___ 780 u 3 m Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o Nl____ 1410 1450 1451 1430 1440 1910 O' tu z t- o is 42 22 15 32 9 1 252 I- z lU S y: u \u0026lt; -1 EQ i* o h- O O' z 14 5 1 16 1 14 452 56 27 16 48 10 15 704 z Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Henderson UJ z o n Ct UJ z I- o in t X -1 o H Z UJ S o Ct z tu___ 915 432 436 437 438 441 442 443 444 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 464 563 1210 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1712 1713 1714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 12 12 23 6 29 7 1 4 5 7 20 5 6 16 3 3 1 8 27 23 13 12 8 10 3 17 13 8 15 13 17 22 18 20 16 24 1 4 6 8 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 1 0 7 23 8 48 8 27 23 13 12 8 10 3 17 13 8 15 18 22 22 18 21 16 24 13 16 29 14 33 9 5 6 9 10 22 6 6 23 26 11 49 u m Page 7Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UJ z o ___ 1715 1716 1717 1721 1723 1724 1727 1810 1811 1812 3330 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 6610 Q UJ X o X !5 o z UJ s u o X z 2 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 6 4 13 0 11 12 5 7 8 0 247 38 16 33 36 19 24 34 13 13 30 3 1 0 4 3 0 0 4 0 685 40 19 34 36 20 26 35 13 13 36 7 14 0 15 15 5 7 12 0 932 u m Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Mablevale lU z o Jti 471 472 473 475 476 477 479 540 582 583 584 585 586 587 591 592 593 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5425 5455 5460 5462 5465 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 a^ tu X I- o X o \u0026lt; _l m -J O hL z tu s _1 o X z tu___ 585 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 5 3 8 4 4 4 3 0 14 1 3 0 0 9 14 23 10 12 26 26 20 6 16 1 30 20 31 15 8 23 22 0 1 19 23 5 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 6 10 12 27 26 20 6 17 4 30 20 31 22 8 23 22 0 1 23 28 7 5 5 9 4 8 5 3 0 14 1 6 0 0 10 17 29 Page 9I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal lU z o N 5478 5492 7415 7420 7471 7475 7480 QC UI X o is t X 2 4 6 4 3 3 7 3 148 1 0 28 13 16 18 4 415 5 6 32 16 19 25 7 563 I- z UJ S 21 O X z o 3 m  Page 101B r. 1 I I. I I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Pulaski Heights ui z o 111 112 121 122 123 124 125 127 210 220 232 440 460 461 462 463 552 553 556 610 620 630 640 641 651 660 662 710 811 821 910 1220 1230 1231 1240 Subtotal a: UJ z  i U 2 m JS o I-z UJ s-J o oc z UJ 771 0 0 00 00 00 31 05 01 0012 0 14 19 752 23 17 5 15 19 15 28 5 27 22 78 314 __ 6 12 89 20 29 10 11 27 59 2 11 10 21 17 12 33 31 25 12 0 200 40 10 2 0030111 416 __ 6 12 8 __ 9 20 29 10 11 30 60 2 16 10 22 17 12 34 33 25 15 21 77 2 23 57 15 17 19 15 31 5 28 23 79 730 Page 11 i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Southwest lU z o IU X o a I- I- z UJ S O O' z lU 610 521 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 539 581 1711 1722 1725 1726 1728 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 2301 3312 3316 4001 4010 4015 4 4 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 8 7 1 5 0 7 7 8 15 6 22 12 9 2 3 10 12 10 27 15 11 15 10 4 9 3 35 19 18 15 3 15 27 33 4 20 4 7 13 14 15 25 22 25 35 15 27 7 8 33 1 8 13 9 14 12 5 2 4 1 47 1 39 23 19 15 6 15 30 33 4 21 12 14 14 19 15 32 29 33 50 21 49 19 17 35 4 18 25 19 41 27 16 17 14 5 56 4  O m \u0026lt; O Page 12u Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL lU z s____ 4017 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 5457 UJ z - o t3 H I z UJ S mV Subtotal 0 3 1 3 12 4 3 1 0 281 o \u0026lt; _l  \u0026lt; O I- o Q Z lU TOTAL 1505 0 0 19 0 2 14 0 0 0 591 0 3 20 3 14 18 3 1 0 872 3797 5302 L 3^ Page 13Li Attendance Zones Senior High SchoolsLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a ZONE-SCHOOL Central tu z o JI 110 112 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 210 220 411 412 413 420 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 448 451 452 453 457 O' UJ z I- o iD t z -J O z UJ S o z z UJ 1637 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 16 18 13 7 17 6 13 35 0 0 0 4 13 5 4 4 0 16 13 14 23 5 7 9 5 7 3 6 17 4 7 10 13 7 6 7 16 18 14 7 17 6 14 36 0 0 0 7 14 6 4 4 4 16 13 14 23 5 7 9 6 1 3 6 17 4 1 10 13 o 3 m Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL UJ z o U Q UJ Z l- o Qj 458 459 521 531 532 534 535 552 563 610 620 630 640 641 650 651 660 662 670 710 811 821 910 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 3640 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 8 5 2 2 7 15 11 2 14 15 16 21 21 10 10 22 18 44 0 14 27 6 29 7 1 6 5 17 16 18 16 17 8 8 22 19 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 21 10 14 2 0 1 2 5 0 1 0 1 11 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 4 i5 o hi z UJ S _i -J o z z UJ 17 16 19 17 18 9 9 24 20 8 9 5 3 2 7 15 32 12 28 17 16 22 23 15 10 23 18 45 11 18 33 9 31 8 4 7 9 z U 3 a Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL IU z o ___ 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1715 1717 1721 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3301 3312 3316 oe IU z I- o a 4 16 4 1 13 3 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 4 2 12 3 6 14 5 2 3 3 9 4 1 7 4 3 0 18 10 7 2 3 0 0 2 2 29 40 44 14 20 9 12 32 23 15 36 28 17 21 8 3 22 1 5 8 12 4 6 4 15 0 15 3 0 !5 o I- z lU S d oe z UJ 6 19 4 1 15 5 31 42 45 15 22 9 12 33 28 19 38 40 20 27 22 8 24 4 8 17 16 5 13 8 18 0 33 13 7 I u m Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal tu z o N____ 3330 6110 6125 O' tu z 1- o a 9 25 2 575 4 2 0 1030 _t J5 o - z tu S _i -I o x z tu 13 27 2 1605 X O 5 m r r Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT rj ZONE-SCHOOL Hall ui z o U 511 512 513 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 553 554 556 591 562 571 572 573 574 575 578 920 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1312 1321 1331 UI z H o in JS o Jtz I- z UI S O Q Z JU__ 1031 2 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 5 10 19 17 5 5 3 27 0 8 20 1 5 23 17 35 27 1 9 4 8 0 0 21 20 18 17 18 17 21 15 14 11 8 0 0 1 4 0 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 3 5 26 21 35 30 1 9 4 8 0 0 21 20 18 19 20 17 21 15 14 11 9 1 15 6 14 19 23 5 5 8 28 0 8 21 z u Page 5IT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal UI z o hl____ 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1712 1713 1714 1716 1810 1811 1812 1910 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 UI z I- o a t z z lU S 9 23 57 16 25 37 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 5 0 18 0 9 7 20 404 1 3 10 2 0 23 2 27 6 46 7 16 21 25 10 3 0 1 1 3 535 \u0026lt; I-  o Of z m 10 26 67 18 25 60 16 30 9 49 10 16 21 30 10 21 0 10 8 23 939 o 3 m Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI p ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Fair UJ z o U 471 472 473 475 476 477 479 533 536 537 539 540 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 591 592 593 1722 1728 2110 2120 3630 3656 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4017 4020 4025 UJ X o a t z 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 1 25 10 0 3 2 2 5 8 0 0 6 0 11 23 16 19 23 12 11 19 17 20 6 4 13 16 20 37 15 8 19 26 1 0 17 24 19 6 0 19 13 4 0 46 1 0 1 21 o hl 11 23 17 19 23 12 11 19 17 23 6 6 14 16 20 39 16 8 19 28 1 0 23 25 44 16 0 22 15 6 5 54 1 0 7 21 I- z UJ S o z z JU__ 917 1. o 3 m t ! I t I Page 7Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal IU z o 1____ 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 5467 5470 5472 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 7415 7420 7471 7475 7480 0* tu X t-  X JS o z IU s O X z IU 5 13 2 2 0 2 7 11 7 5 5 6 0 8 3 1 1 1 0 19 18 31 8 4 7 0 2 6 3 257 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 10 9 12 10 4 579 6 13 9 2 0 2 7 13 7 7 7 6 0 9 3 4 1 1 0 19 23 35 8 4 17 9 14 16 7 836 O m Page 8Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL McClellan UJ z o UJ I 1- O iD z UJ S O 0^ z UJ___ 897 240 301 449 450 454 455 456 460 461 462 463 464 474 478 480 481 482 483 484 485 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3445 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 3 0 1 2 0 5 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 1 4 7 10 13 5 11 5 10 15 14 10 13 8 10 11 16 13 20 5 13 10 24 20 1 12 4 6 2 5 2 0 6 8 4 8 2 4 7 10 13 5 16 8 11 17 16 10 13 8 10 11 16 14 20 5 13 14 27 23 1 13 6 6 7 7 6 0 7 9 8 10 3 X 5 o \u0026lt; m O h: Page 9Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL ui z o N 3625 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5408 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 O' lU z I-  z z UJ S 4 0 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 0 4 6 3 0 0 3 1 8 3 0 2 0 4 1 6 0 2 3 2 0 3 3 2 12 1 6 2 6 13 7 5 8 5 16 4 1 13 11 3 4 3 7 6 11 18 12 4 13 10 7 12 10 4 8 6 5 1 26 1 5 14 7 2 1 10 13 8 9 11 7 18 5 3 13 15 g 7 3 7 9 12 26 15 4 15 10 11 13 16 4 10 9 7 1 29 4 1 26 8 8 3 u m I o z z Page 10Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Fl ZONE-SCHOOL Subtotal TOTAL tu z o ____ 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 8384 8385 8387 8388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7474 7476 7479 7490 7495 oc tu X H o X 3 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 6 4 2 7 1 6 0 7 3 2 1 2 10 211 14 6 18 9 10 9 23 18 22 14 11 12 16 18 6 6 13 7 7 4 9 0 1 13 882 i5 o hi z tu S J O flC z m 1447 3026 17 6 23 9 10 10 24 19 23 14 16 18 20 20 13 7 19 7 14 7 11 1 3 23 1093 4473 u m Page 11Projected Attendance Zones Option TLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION \"T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE-SCHOOL BADGETT (1) (*) Rockefeller - 27 (TRock-27/Wash-32 (*) Washington - 32 Subtotal Adjustments Table AZ-3 N IU O \u0026lt; o in a + z \u0026lt; o z IU Of lu z I-  1- z s w Z UJ Z o 3 co  o z JiL. 177 nrr 112 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 210 220 240 301 3201 3250 3251 3253 3255 3640 0\" 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 35 17 4 0 0 63 26 14 47 42 80 25 39 17 38 53 14 7 4 32 21 24 0 23 525 nT 26 14 47 42 81 26 39 17 38 58 14 7 4 67 38 28 0 23 588 Assigned to Booker Magnet Assigned to Carver Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total I BALE (2) 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1823 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total {) Indicates split attendance blocks. 14 38 5 6 I 42 115 39 329 I 56 153 44 335 I 309 12 0 5 16 8 32 34 21 24 14 3 169 11 158 38 30 40 57 59 107 48 12 12 65 4 472 38 434 50 30 45 73 67 139 82 33 36 79 7 641 49 592 Table AZ-3 Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION \"T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL BASELINE (3) N lU U  o IO U + Z \u0026lt; Q Z tu t A 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3435 3440 3445 3464 7325 7330 7375 7383 7384 7385 7387 7388 7390 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total I i BRADY (5) (*) Terry - 30 1010 1020 1110 1111 1120 1121 1310 1311 1312 1321 1331 1332 1541 1910 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Williams Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total () Indicates split attendance blocks. o\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; O' tu z I- o a t z O 3 m -I s z UJ S o a z 111 326 14 8 5 21 2 10 5 0 29 0 3 2 2 12 1 4 1 1 120 12 108 I 7 33 43 42 4 11 32 28 3 12 38 9 14 0 276 47 17 212 55 54 90 7 51 7 7 1 29 33 4 23 14 40 27 96 30 57 625 33 592 I 3 10 0 29 2 0 20 1 0 0 7 0 3 16 91 76 11 4 69 62 95 28 53 17 12 1 58 33 7 25 16 52 26 100 31 58 745 45 700 I 408 10 43 43 71 6 11 52 29 3 12 45 9 17 16 367 123 28 216 Table AZ-3 Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION \"T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL CHICOT (7) Adjustments Subtotal N UI O r\u0026gt; o in Q + Z \u0026lt; o z UJ 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 7401 7415 7420 7425 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total O) z UI z H s t z z lU S i* o i=. o z z UJ 503 4 10 12 7 25 11 14 8 13 19 4 31 7 16 33 14 4 5 2 3 9 6 1 2 260 17 343 69 46 9 0 1 10 1 9 6 0 1 3 0 7 25 39 30 20 13 15 33 13 0 16 366 73 56 21 7 26 21 15 17 19 19 5 34 7 23 58 53 34 25 15 18 42 19 1 18 626 37 32? 54 371 u 3 m ( ) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 3r Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION \"T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL CLOVERDALE (8) N UI U  o o O + z \u0026lt; Q Z UI t Of UI z I- o a t z A O\u0026gt; I- z UI s Adjustments Subtotal 3420 3425 3430 3601 3605 3615 3620 3625 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 5 4 13 10 12 9 18 14 2 4 2 4 8 9 3 2 5 T5T o 3  o z UJ 392 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 11 TTT DODD (9) () Romine - 28 1722 1725 1726 1728 4001 4010 4025 4046 4052 4053 Subtotal 16 1 15 5 21 12 11 21 11 1 114 Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 8 106 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. 17 19 4 31 16 20 5 12 0 46 17 32 22 17 64 28 8 w 33 32F 43 29 14 31 0 43 29 1 1 0 191 37 1S4 22 23 17 41 28 29 23 26 2 50 19 36 30 26 67 30 13 ISS 44 w 298 59 30 29 36 21 55 40 22 12 1 305 45 260 Table AZ-3 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION \"T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL FOREST PARK (11) (*) Pulaski Heights - 2 (*) McDermott - 2C Subtotal Adjustments N UJ U \u0026gt; O in U + z \u0026lt; Q Z UJ t 710 811 821 910 1240 O' UJ X  - X 18 40 59 75 55 247 24 O 3 m 4 0 1 5 2 12 J* O 22 40 60 80 57 259 o\u0026gt; O) z UJ s -I o X z UJ 432 f^ftAKikLlKi \u0026lt;12) Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 8 239 13 246 443 5 7 () 39/40 () 39/40 () 39/40 () 39/40 Subtotal 511 512 513 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 538 554 561 571 575 13 1 5 9 6 1 4 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 55 9 11 76 29 39 31 64 40 22 30 40 5 18 29 59 46 35 17 600 22 12 81 38 45 32 68 42 22 31 43 5 18 31 64 46 38 17 655 Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 7 48 39 561 46 609 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF BLOCK ZONES - OPTION T\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table AZ-3 ZONE-SCHOOL FULBRIGHT (13) N UJ U o IO U + z \u0026lt; a z UJ A 1210 1405 1410 1440 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 6610 Subtotal Adjustments Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total a: UJ z 1- I i 33 26 114 35 66 31 0 15 9 24 44 1 398 16 382 at at J- Z UJ S O q: z JU_ 542 4 1 12 1 7 14 0 3 1 4 3 0 50 11 39 37 27 126 36 73 45 0 18 10 28 47 1 448 27 421 O  O 6VfeR spriN6$(15) 300 Subtotal Adjustments 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 3 9 10 9 12 5 5 16 10 6 9 12 2 7 13 6 14 5 5 1 159 35 19 22 12 28 36 20 71 15 9 30 51 16 73 50 21 12 21 9 16 566 38 28 32 21 40 41 25 87 25 15 39 63 18 80 63 27 26 26 14 17 725 Assigned to Magnet Projected Enrollment Decrease Projected Net Total 11 148 47 519 58 667 (*) Indicates split attendance blocks. Table AZ-3 Page 6Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Stu\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_762","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Survey,'' 3D/International, Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/762"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary Introduction, Recommendations, Cost Factors Demographic Study Summary Tabulations Educational Facility Study, Attendance Zone Options Facility Perceptions Summaries and Public August 30,1995 Volume No 1 Prepared By: 3D/ International Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026amp; Interior Architecture Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants The Grier Partnership DemographersCOPY 18 OF 30 I B II II II P P D  H B Ba II RECESV^ //J i' BOARD OF DIRECTORS A SEP 4 7 1995 41? ' S'/? oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation Monitoring A 1994/1995 A A Linda Pondexter President Fuller Junior High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501)490-1503 ii i| 39) Oo 3 3 3 o 3 W A Patricia Gee Vice President 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-0571 oo aft) 3I A A Judy Magness Secretary 708 Hall Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 (501) 666-0923 I I 3 A Stephanie Johnson 8701 130, Apartment 206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501)340-6681 I I A Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501)374-6305 ) laio* A T. Kevin OMalley Arkansas Board of Review Tower Building - Suite 700 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-9038 O  II\nA 1 John A. Riggs J. A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501) 570-3528 A ?I Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 I 1 a 11 a FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY TEAM II oo. c oo LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II 1995 a 33 o o 3 o3 3 S' o3 a ti 3D/lnternational Facilities Master Planning, Program Management, Engineering, Strategic Planning, Architecture \u0026amp; Interior Architecture 112 East Pecan Suite 2350 San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 227-2500 oo n ao 3 n II Educational Planning Consultants Educational Consultants TASA Building 406 East 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2617 (512) 477-6361 y aa The Grier Partnership Demographers 6532 East Halbert Road Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (301)229-4454 ' m - a /.I c s*o  0 1n Cromwell Architects Engineers Facility Sunzey Manager 101 South Spring Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)372-2900 II a Matrix IV Architects, Incorporated Facility Survey Manager 100 South Main Street Suite 408 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 376-7326 n!?  James Mitchell Architects Facility Survey Manager 5117 Sherwood Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72225-1364 (501)661-9322 ?I A FACILITIES MASTER PLAN STUDY RESOURCE TEAM 3 O Q. C O o 1994/1995 tai Little Rock School District  Dr. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton Director of Facilities 3D s o 3 o3 a3 (U O3 W / Charles Neal Director of Procurement a Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent o o 21 os 3 a Mark Millholen Comptroller a Suellen Vann Public Information c 4 ifl Lucy Lyon Media 5 J Dennis Glasgow PTA Representative a Marie A. McNeal Learning Resource Center d iDr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Children m a o 39 d Susan Chapman Exceptional Children d Gene Parker, Jr. English Community Resources d Chris Heller Attorney for the District Debbie Glasgow President PTA Council Tim Polk Neighborhoods and Planning Mark McBryde Senior Vice President iNf 1: ? I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 3 a Table of Contents Executive Summary 8 CL I O a H Facilities Master Plan Study Little Rock School District 30 O o o 3 3 Q 3 3* o 3 W a a Tabs Introduction Introduction Pages 1-5 a -3 1 a Recommendations Basis Conditions of Existing Buildings Financial Condition of District Demographics Survey Findings School Attendance Zones Closures of Facilities Initiatives Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 a a a a a Cost Factors General Cost Estimates By District Cost Priorities Inflation Options Funding Tables: Cost Summaries by Groups and Priorities Unit Cost of Renovation Cost Options Option M Option T Option C Analysis of Discontinued Use Demographics Executive Summary Page 1 Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 ' if ri I ' o o sa n fi) a o 5 4 e 4 m a c s 0 3 9 Educational Study Education and Facility Evaluations Capacity Utilization Page 1 CST-1, Pages 1-3 CST-2, Pages 1-2 CST-3, Pages 1-5 CST-4, Pages 1-4 CST-5, Pages 1-3 CST-6, Pages 1-3 CST-7, Page 1 Pages 1-4 Pages 1-2 Pages 2-3 Page 3 sit \u0026lt; i? Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  a   School Size School Assignment Impact of Middle School Organization Tables: Projections Value Scores Closures The Middle School- Planning For Young Adolescents Tables: Ranking Evaluation Capacity Utilization Ratios Distribution of M to M Building and Site Areas Pages 4-6 Page 6 Page 6 Tables 1-4, Pages 7-10 Tables 5-6, Page 11-12 Table 7, Page 12 Pages 1-5 Table ES-1, Pages 1-2 Table ES-2, Pages 1-2 Table ES-3. Pages 1-2 Table ES-4, Pages 1-2 Table ES-5, Page 1 Table ES-6, Pages 1-2 a Attendance Zones General Table AZ-1 Maps: Pages 1-2 Pages 1-9 a a a Option M, Elementary Schools Option M, Exhibit Option M, Junior High Schools Option M, Senior High School Option T, Elementary Schools Option C, Elementary Schools Option C, Junior High Schools A A A A Facility Summaries Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Elementary Cloverdale Elementary David 0. Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Incentive Elementary Fulbright Elementary Garland Incentive Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary Ish Incentive Elementary Jefferson Elementary M.L. King Magnet Elementary Mablevale Elementary McDermott Elementary Page 01 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 2 3 8 Q. C O o a 0 O o 3 3 o 3 a. 0 5 3 (0 o o a 0 a q S' m a I 1111 S' ,, I 3 0 i\nILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I If a If a fl fl dddd Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Incentive Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Incentive Elementary Rockefeller Incentive Elementary Romine Interdistrict Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Magnet Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Henderson Junior High Mablevale Jr. High Mann Magnet Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Junior High Alternative Learning Center Metropolitan Vocational Technical Center Central High School J. A. Fair High School Hall High School McClellan High School Parkview School Administration Building Administration Building Annex Cashion Building Plant Services Purchasing Safety and Security Transportation Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 38 Page 40 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 46 Page 48 Page 50 Page 52 Page 56 Page 58 Page 60 Page 62 Page 65 Page 67 Page 69 Page 71 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 O a c o 6 33 (0 o o 3 3 Q 3 Q. O 3 M oo a ttn oS S F  i m ' a 0 o T, 03 2r Il N d Public Perception Survey Strategy Results Table: Page 1 Page 2 fl Survey Graph Exhibits I Page 3 i 1 Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors '*~?9rnhtc Study Educational g^aa\u0026amp;ieoAMfc SI Zones 1^9 BBI  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI INTRODUCTION:   In February 1995, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) engaged the services of 3D/lntemational to perform a facilities assessment of approximately 50 school buildings including high schools, jr. high schools, and elementary schools.  The scope of services was later expanded to include a facilities survey of the Districts administrative buildings. (30) oo 3 A3 3 tt  w )  To accomplish the survey goals, 3D/lntemational engaged the services of five team members: K Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership provided demographic studies and information. oo a tt o\u0026amp; 3  Ben Graves of Educational Planning Consultants contributed the educational facility ratings along with studies and information on school sizes and the middle school concept. ? B To assist in gathering survey information on individual school sites, three local architectural firms joined the 3D/I team: Cromwell Architects Engineers Matrix IV Architects, Inc. James Mitchell, Architect 9 ^3 B Assessment Goals: Goals of the Project were: am If: C s o I  Survey Existing District Facilities I II n On-site facilities surveys were conducted for all the school sites and the administrative buildings as listed in the RFP and as later added to the project scope. Original survey sheets, with annotations, reflect the general conditions encountered and list deficiencies, including life safety and code compliance issues. These surveys are included in a series of volumes identified by school or administrative building. Summaries of this information are included in this volume. * i: I The survey reports established a priority listing relating to time of implementation for the improvement of all deficiencies including HVAC, grounds, mechanical/electrical, and athletic facilities. An evaluation of each building was conducted and a scoring system established to provide ranking of facilities based on the condition of the facility and its site. This ranking is presented along with a separate evaluation result performed by the educational consultant, Ben Graves. Each evaluation and ranking has been based on a 1000 point scoring system. pI Page 1 u I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H  Determine Educational Capacity n Each building has been analyzed and evaluated not only the building, but also the to determine the capacity of spaces within the building based on their who^'iTb^ number of studen'ts I n Pf*''  summary of current adjusted operating capacity detailed information is provided under each school tab.  Survey Demographic Data 33 s O 3 3 ( 3 Q\u0026gt; fl  i (A I \u0026lt; 11 The demographic study focused on trends since 1987 to the current oeriod with projections include populatioS k? V changes in school attendance zones and birth rates In addition, the economic factors, growth of the Pblaski CounVv construction trends, and national economic trends werp economic trends were considered. area, o o a Tl fil I 3 If ^ \"^ster plan study was provided as a basis for the development of recommendations ......... and additions. zone options. of building improvements new construction, and school consolidations and attendance J si a  Recommend Overall Capital Improvements a This report includes a projected cost of El th/fpriNtip a projected cost of capital improvement needs based on the facilities survey, school capacities, and demographic analysis. Included is a recommendation structured for implementation includes estimated costs to bring the schools with the educational mission of the District. over a period of 10 years. This to a level of quality consistent m I a i\nS d I Consistent with the scope of this include estimates provided by the District'for hazardous material abatement, and ADA compliance. These cost estimaVpQ were previously provided to the District by others. project,^ projected costs used in this report 'oof replacements, asbestos and  Provide an Executive Summary and Recommendation N If i: I Options and recommendations relate to meet the changing needs of the city and have Desegregation rio,,. ,c ,epon aiso includes scS elementary, middle or junior highs, and high general courses of action for LRSD to considered the impact of the Plan. The report also includes I I Recommendations are included for: new facilities, renovation and/or expansion of existing facilities, school consolidations student population General recommendations are also included for existinq Dislnct (ac,l,l,es with regard to their capabilities of providing for smairTroup and redistribution of I Page 2 Ia B Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI B instruction, large group requirements, special educational services, physical education, general administrative requirements, and community needs. BB The analyses have considered: current educational programs offered by the District, its desegregation initiatives, the directions in which the school system is moving, the use of alternative learning settings, the development of new educational programs, desired staffing ratios, new technology, and federally-funded programs as these issues impact upon utilization of building space within the District. fl Assessment Process: \u0026lt;393 OO 33 (9 3 fi) O 3 M I The approach to assessing Little Rock schools has been in three phases: fl  Phase 1 - Organization and Planning fl 1J Following the award of contract in February, 3D/I initiated a fact-finding meeting with representatives of the Little Rock School District to ascertain the parameters of the overall master plan study. During this meeting an approach was selected, contacts were established, and the general logistics of the survey were developed utilizing both 3D/I and LRSD resources. oo % w s o5 I 4 Cl fl At this meeting, plans for the charrette were established and attendees were selected to represent all aspects of the District's education program: population, census, and objectives. II 1 fl It was also determined that community involvement would be through the auspices of PTA councils, community town meetings, and public input surveys. Resources were established to interface with these activities. I' m rt Program Definition Charrette On March 10 the one-day Program Definition Charrette was held in the Administrative Board Room at District offices with the following attendance. fl fl fl 3D/I Core Team: Gene Rutherford, Program Manager Glenna Peterson. Project Resource Barbara Trammell, Project Administrator and Communications Ben Graves, Educational Consultant Eunice Grier, Demographer Joe Johnson, Survey Coordinator and Planner Bill Woodsmall, Mechanical Engineer Ron Ross, Survey Team Leader N *  i! fl LRSD Administrative Representatives: Dr. Russel Mayo, Associate Superintendent Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities Charles Neal, Director of Procurement Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent I a I I i I Page 3 I I p I II n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a Mark Millhollen, Comptroller Suellen Vann, Public Information Chris Heller, Attorney for the District II I II LRSD Educational Program Representatives: Lucy Lyon, Media Dennis Glasgow, PTA Representative Marie A McNeal, Learning Resource Center Dr. Patty Kohler, Exceptional Children Susan Chapman, Exceptional Children Gene Parker, Jr., English 3) S O 3 3 \u0026lt;0 3 Q. 0) o 3 W M n II a City of Little Rock Tim Polk, Neighborhoods and Planning The charrette included discussion to identify programs, build constructive communication, determine methods and procedures, establish logistics, and anticipate problems and solutions. This all-day meeting provided the initial opportunity for client-consultant team building. The agenda included a thorough description of the process being implemented and provided a forum for dialogue among staff and core team members. In addition, presentations and discussions were held on: the City of Little Rocks long-range plan and desegregation issues\nconstruction trends\nand legal ramifications/expectancies of LRSDs court order. It also included assignment of LRSD resources for the core team, established points of contact, and definition of communication goals. [ EM EM The charrette provided several hours of direct interface among core team members and LRSD personnel to better understand conditions in Little Rock as well as available resource centers of information pertinent to the study. Milestone dates were confirmed and the general housekeeping issues to effect an orderly start of the survey was accomplished. I I I IM  Phase 2 - Inspections and Surveys: EM The core team met prior to the charrette to develop a definitive understanding of each participant's role. Following the meeting a general critique of the d charrette process was held, dates were established for team training and the model survey exercise, and participants set goals and deadlines for each phase of their responsibilities. d Team Preparation: Model Survey Exercise Following the charrette, the survey teams were formed and on March 20, a presurvey workshop that included LRSD staff was held. The session, led by 3D/I project resource, Glenna Peterson, was held to familiarize team members with forms and procedures, and to provide general information regarding the survey process. Page 4 o o a n tt S o 5 I t II J m a 3 fit si ( I: h 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl Following the workshop, the two teams conducted a complete walk-through and facilities survey of the Bale Elementary School. This effort served as a laboratory project and was critiqued following its completion to allow for any fine-tuning of the forms or process before proceeding to other school locations. fl fl Facility Site Survey During the period from March 20 through May 4, the two survey teams completed the facilities survey at all school locations. The resulting forms are included in this report as a part of each school summary. 33 A O O 3 3i fl fl Educational Facility Survey During the same time period (March 20 through May 2), core team member, Ben Graves, (EPC) conducted similar educational evaluations of each school building. This survey establishes the condition of the space, its present use, and other pertinent data required to render an opinion of adequacy, capacity, and utilization. Q. a\u0026gt;o 3 W  4 fl The facility survey instrument used on this project has been tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States. Its scoring is based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I fl Scores from the educational survey provide three areas of comparison\n1) within an individual school, each feature can be compared with established norms or minimal standards\n2) for the entire district, schools have been sorted according to characteristic features, and 3) a graphic profile is included for each facility as a summary reference. I fl fl Capacity and Utilization: Analysis of Facilities During the educational facility survey process, information was gathered to provide the following evaluation criteria\n1. Educational adequacy of facility. ,'l fl 2. Current use of space. 3. Current operational capacity. fl 4. Current utilization fl The work described above has been completed and is included under the appropriate school tab. Demoqraphic Survey 3D/I team member, Eunice Grier of The Grier Partnership, has completed the demographic survey of the LRSD area and her analysis is provided with this report. fl The study considers the impact of recreation\nzoning\ncity planning: highway construction\neconomic projections, and the effect of residential, commercial, and industrial developments on public school facilities. h i\nh I Page 5 oo a ! ttn   I Iih J1 ma I I o. I 3  Mi I d d Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d Since the basis of the demographic study is district-wide and is the predicate for projections with suggested realignment options, it has been included in its entirety in this volume. d d d Community Involvement 3D/I core team member Barbara Trammell worked closely with LRSD staff member Suellen Vann to develop a survey that would allow input from parents, neighbors, and employees. This form was distributed through the school system via students and made available to the general public at town meetings and through a mailing to neighborhood groups. A summary of the district-wide data gathered is included with this executive summary and the responses and comments particular to the individual schools are located with the site-specific information. 3D o o o 3 3 o 3 Q O 3 W d  Phase 3 Analysis and Reporting d Review and Consistency of Survey Data During this final phase, core team members reviewed the findings of each task area to ensure accuracy, consistency, and completeness. Trends were d reviewed, \"what-if scenarios were examined for the purpose of providing recommendations and/or options that would best serve the students in the Little Rock School District. d This process was employed to integrate the facility, education, and demographic survey data to provide continuity. d d District-wide Summary Report This volume summarizes the findings and evaluations of schools and administrative facilities, the cost to correct deficiencies, construction costs for new facilities, school and administrative consolidations, and options for realignment of school attendance zones. I 1 d The following Page 7, of this section, entitled \"ORGANIZATION OF REPORT, HOW TO READ IT' is included as a tool to help the reader move through the various sections and better understand the logic of the text, tables and maps. The index also locates topics for convenience. d d Page 6 o o a w a o S / ^3 m i! LI n a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a ORGANIZATION OF REPORT HOW TO HEAD IT a ORGANIZATION The Demographic Survey, Educational Survey, and Facility Survey, each are investigatory endeavors that lead to recommendations and options. The cost factors are estimates of the cost to renovate and repair existing facilities and provide additions a or new construction based on the options considered. Recommendations are the M resulting conclusions of investigation of population and enrollment trends, the condition of existing facilities, costs to the district, and other factors observed during the facility master plan process. 33 S O 3 3 Q 3 Q. fi) O 3 W The Executive Summary of this report has been organized in the following manner: II Tab_____________ Introduction Recommendations Cost Factors Demographic Study Educational Study Attendance Zones Facility Summaries Public Perception Surveys Description_______________________________ A brief introduction of the process Recommendations for action Cost of Implementing recommendations Summary of demographic study materials Study of school size, capacity, impact of middle schools and the number of required facilities Zone configuration options with maps and tables Summaries of each facility with itemized cost priorities Summary results of public opinions o o a S' a g 3 fl n a a d m - c a Demographic details are provided in Volume 2. Facility details are provided in Volumes 3 through 13. f !  ' fl d d TIPS School Sizes and Number Required Are located under the Educational Study tab in the Executive Summary These include the trends of population and student enrollment forecasts with the resulting quantity of schools required displayed on three bracketed size ranges as set out on tables 1-3.  ! I: d d Attendance Zone Options The attendance zone options are located under the Attendance Zone tab in the Executive Summary and describe the sizes of existing schools and their present capacity. These include recommendations for additions to increase their capacities, based on a projected enrollment capability of the area. These options have been illustrated by the Summary table AZ-1, Option M, T, and C maps. This information is located in the Attendance Zone section, as well as Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 in the Cost Factor section. i Page 1a a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I II a School Closures and Other Uses The attendance zone options, illustrated on the maps described above, indicate schools recommended for closure, which have been based on condition, location, size, and cost to renovate or repair the facility. These factors were a part of the evaluation^ score and ultimate ranking of the facilities which are found under the Educational Summary tab in tables ES-1 and ES-2 and illustrated on Table CST-7 under the Cost Factors tab. a a Facilities available for other uses, are schools that are recommended for functions other than their initial purpose, generally because of the surplus of facilities in a particular attendance zone area. Table CST-7, under the Cost Factors tab illustrates these facilities and recommendation No 5, under the Recommendations tab elaborates on these buildings. 3) o o o 3 3 \u0026lt;0 3 fi\u0026gt; O 3 \u0026gt; a a a a d Cost Factors Tables CST-4, 5, and 6 show ethnic composition for each school in each option studied with resulting total enrollment capability used. The operating capacity of each school is subtracted from the enrollment capability to produce a difference (delta) in capacity which is shown. A negative number indicates additional capacity is required, and a positive number indicates that sufficient capacity is available. The negative capacity numbers are then multiplied by the factor of 107 (square feet required per student) and result in a deficit area expressed as a negative number in square feet required. These space requirements are multiplied by a assumed cost factor of $65 per square foot for additions to buildings or $55 per square foot for new building construction. Totals of costs for each option for renovation additions and for new school construction are carried forward to the summary sheets Table CST-3 under the appropriate option. I d Cost Factors Table CST-3 indicates the cost of renovating each facility, except those recommended for closure which appear as a gray line with costs removed. d d This data comes from Table CST-1 and is summarized near the bottom of (CST-3 Page 2) at the line labeled TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT. The amount under each column, totals and priorities, is then added to the cost of each option, including escalation, from table CST-3, Pages 3, 4, and 5 to obtain the total projected cost of each option by totals and priorities. d Cost Factors Table CST-1 indicates the cost of renovating every facility currently in the Little Rock School District, whether recommended for closure or not. This cost summary has been organized by type of schools and includes the seven administrative facilities within the district. This is the basis of the data used to develop the total cost under each of the three options (Options M, T, and C) presented within Table CST-3. Page 8 o o fa a o w I'rt' m a c s I 3 ' ii n 3 * J?a a II Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I The line total entitled SUBTOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN on page 2 represents total costs as a whole and priorities 1-5, in their respective columns. To this number is added those estimates of costs, provided by the district, for ADA, Roof Replacement, and Asbestos Abatement, by facility, which produces non-escalated costs in each column. H a H A A A Escalation Impact is summarized at the bottom of Page 2, is developed in depth on Page 3, and projects the total program costs (renovations of existing facilities) from one through ten+ years by whole and by priority. These numbers do not include new construction cost estimates or options, which are developed in CST-3. Implementation of the Plan The Facilities Master Plan Study has been approached as a study of the facts and data available regarding the Little Rock School Districts facilities, projected enrollments, and needs, over the next 10 years. This information has been summarized with options and priorities for consideration and implementation by the Board and its Administration. The logistics of the implementation, are therefore dependent on policy decisions of the Board and were not a part of the study. The plan, however, considered implementation in the development of its options and recommendations and is viable, if executed in a careful systematic manner following an implementation schedule. This schedule is dependent on four undetermined factors: 33 ( O o 3 3 \u0026lt; 3 a w o' 3 (A o o \u0026amp; m S o s 1. A 2. 3. A 4. Approval of available options {which could involve adjustment of the selected option to meet boa nd policy.) Acceptance by the Court (the plan and the selected option). Acquisition of Financing (adequate to support the plan or meaningful components of the plan). Selection of an implementor (Skilled in development of capital schedules and programs along with district counterpart) ^4 4 I m I : a . A I '/I I .It I ' I AT A *\u0026lt;10 3 'i I 1*1 A A \u0026lt;1 N A 5? 3 7 Page 9Cost Factors .1 r . X 6 f-' I I I I a  -\u0026gt; -  I  I  J  I* .1 ' e  Recommendations  t . . a fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl RECOMMENDATIONS Basis of Recommendations The 3D/I team approached the facilities master plan task with four specific targets: 1) assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation, 2) assessment of  a demographics and changes in population and enrollments, 3) analysis of all school capacities with their current and projected utilization, and 4) alignment of the study with the desegregation court order components. Each step of the survey was undertaken with attention to these factors. 2' 9 fl Therefore, conclusions have been thoroughly considered, reconsidered, and evaluated with the resulting recommendations and options being in harmony with and influenced by the four specific targets outlined above. An implied directive, and perhaps the most important, influencing recommendations is What is in the best interests of the children being served.\" o o Ji w I By Conditions of Existing Buildings I fl As the 3D/I teams visited and noted the conditions of over 50 individual buildings, it became very obvious that the District is in need of a substantial preventive maintenance plan, endorsed and supported by the Board of Directors. The I 7^ 4 40 fl d consequences of failing to implement such a plan, are a cycle of never-ending unchecked damage and deterioration. Lack of a substantial preventive maintenance does not serve the public, and creates the appearance of frequent calls on funds with no visible results. I I 4 fl d Experience has shown that institutions that consider their facility improvement requirements too costly to be accomplished, continue to allow the depreciation of their assets by lack of action. On the other hand, institutions that have addressed their capital needs in a manner that the public could support and at the same time have established a preventive maintenance program are able to manage the facility issues and maintain their assets. I I I 1 jni ' a 4 C 'iBL  0 1  i  I ri fl The secret to this success is the establishment of an escrow funding account where the unspent dollars remaining from the annual maintenance budget accrue to the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund without penalty to the next years budget negotiation process. This eliminates the historical urgency of spending to justify the budget, typical of most institutional and government entities. The annual contribution to this fund is established by the Board of Directors as a sinking fund with sufficient policy directives to protect it from any other non related uses and pet programs. Where this is an established procedure, the system works. Major capital replacement cost can be dealt with without affecting operating budgets as well as unexpected costs such as storm damage etc. it *  N Si g I, An important element of preventive maintenance is an effective housekeeping system. Whether out-sourced or in-house, custodial services should be directed by the physical plant department, but accountable to the school principal. The teams observed that I Page 1fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl where the principal took an active role in ownership of his or her facility custodian and maintenance functions were improved and the facility presented a more appealing environment to students, staff, and the public. fl fl  Recommendation Number 1 is the establishment of a preventive maintenance program with a policy-protected escrow funding account that is incrementally funded each year, as a part of the annual budget process, but not used for normal day to day maintenance items. Disbursements from this account could have board oversight to insure its designed purpose. fl Financial Condition of the District During the course of the public meetings and subsequent meetings with the Districts fl financial representatives, the revenue shortfall was thoroughly discussed. The fl presumable reason for this shortfall is tied to the simple axiom of too much cost, too little income. This apparently results from a low utilization of the Districts physical plants and a high cost of education due to the various special programs established as a result of the current desegregation plan and the high cost of administering that program. other considerations may be the traditional concern of the ratio of fl administrators to the number schools and students. Since District budgeting of operations was not one of the tasks of the 3D/I team, no detailed analysis has been made as a part of this facilities master plan. However, it is important to note that the recommended closure and alternate use of certain facilities, based on condition and enrollment factors, could have a positive affect in reducing the operating costs of the school district while improving the quality of the basic facilities. z' 3 o o a \"n 0) I 3 a ) \u0026lt; m a c  Recommendation Number 2 is the establishment of a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by an adjusted millage program that accomplishes, in the shortest period practical, the renovation, repair, and proposed new construction of the Districts schools and administrative facilities. (Five years is the optimum building period for a project of this nature.) Refer to the cost projections set out under the Cost Factors tab. o I I 3 I I  i / Based on the recent opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General, it would appear that a capital improvement millage issue could be accomplished on its own merits. Notwithstanding this opinion, it is recommended that any millage brought before the public should include a major capital improvement package as an element as well as the seed for the Preventive Maintenance Escrow Fund. Demographics During the course of examining the population changes and the influences of economic factors operating in the Little Rock area and their affect upon the families living in the LRSDs enrollment area, it became evident that sufficient information for projection was not readily available. Due to the lack of established reporting zones, (District enrollment blocks and federal census tracts do not align.) it is difficult to measure the migration and school attendance of potential students living within District boundaries. Page 2 J S iiLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I \"!* =.? \"f on the day o, school enrollment each year. Historical detailed records of this \u0026amp;., for past years, thus making detailed projections by attendance blocks enrollment were not available difficult. . Recommendation Number 3 is the formation of a database, maintained by nictnrt ___. .............. the district, consisting of a survey of school-aged children residing in the a vanous areas of the district and updated on an annual basis. This database should also include specific details of those children who attendance block as well schools. are students by as those leaving the district to attend other 2 9  An additional record to facilitate using this information is an annual a accounting of students entering LRSD on the M to M program. The magnet shadow-zone attendance should also be recorded and tracked. While this recommendation involves personnel and effort on an annual o o \u0026amp; tt I t a basis, its benefit would be invaluable in budgeting, long-range planning, and the resultant capital decisions. I i a Survey Findings and Desegregation Plan a At the beginning of the facilities master plan study, the importance of the court order for desegregation was emphasized and has remained as a key factor in planning and ha s master plan study. The components of the court^order are basically summarized as follows\na A. Basis of Facility Needs: Trends in student population Trends in staffing Impact of trends on demographics geographies student assignment zones B, Analysis of Facility Resources: Capacities Location Campus size Special features Limitations c. Additional Factors For Proposed Facilities Use: (five to ten year plan) District goals and objectives Desegregation requirements (includes interdistiict obligations) Decisions criteria for facility actions Identification and analysis of options Proposed facility changes Page 3 I u 3 4 , m o % t'r I 'H o JI ' h'- 5? n IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan study 3D/I  M Impact of programmatic changes (i.e. middle schools) Reassignment of students (' (impact on enrollment and racial I 1 I I Burden of busing on students Impact on financial stability D. Includes\nbalance at receiving schools) ^amination of buildings used for administrative Requisite plan modification Community involvement All of the applicable aspects of the this master plan assessment process space court order have been considered and addressed programs, double funding, and other incentives plan, were proposals of the district '-UI laiueieu ano aooressed as nT understand that many of the special currently a part of the desegregation approved by the court in years past. Current the population shifts and the continuing decrease i --------- in enrollment of white In Also, the burden of bussing and disruption of the \u0026lt;.......... childs home environment created by to these problems, options unitary status for Little Rock School District based of education currently being offered an appeal to the court for program to systematically complete on continuing the quality to students, a capital improvement renovation, upgrading, and the constmction of new sohccis in the areas reoommentied by ms Sport as the preventive maintenance plan to adequately on a continuing basis. as well maintain these facilities Itudenirfn^^V'J provided for all attendance areas along with a unified available to every student with sufficient flexibility gifted and talented, accelerated and program of education and opportunities through magnet school programs. School Attendance Zones As a part of the master plan study, zones, closure of schools, and and capital program analysis, the school attendance recommended construction of new facilities were given Page 4 I 1 I 2 Q o o a \u0026amp; g 4 g ^4 ft 0 I m \u0026amp; I fig 3 \u0026amp; 3 M If II fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl thorough consideration. One common element that emerged was the recommended closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school, over a period of time, with additions and new construction resulting in the consolidated attendance zones.  fl Three options were developed to examine the effective linkage of elementary to junior and senior high schools. This process also considered the effect of middle schools when the sixth grade is moved from elementary school and the ninth grade is shifted to the high school. Attendance zone options considered were\n2 fl  Option M where the recommended closure of elementary and junior high school distributed students to existing facilities with the least disruption to the district. Under this option, the current split attendance zone system would remain. I 2 ' 9   Option T considered the effect of trying to align the current attendance blocks and schools, both existing and new, into a zoning system aligning with the federal census tracts. This option was found to be difficult and of questionable value based on the current census tract configurations. o o 21 w S o S fl  Option C considered the corridor approach where the major highways, railroad tracks, river, and other physical barriers created natural divisions of the city. This approach largely developed a method of attendance zones that allowed students to attend an elementary school within reasonable I o J I L fl distance from their home. This option provides a more cohesive school/home environment although enrollment ethnic ratios under this plan 8 1 reflect the makeup of the area surrounding the school. To offset this fl imbalance, however, the burden of bussing is reduced and the magnet shadow zones are utilized. I m a c SI fri o 3 fl As the system progresses from elementary through junior high or middle school to senior high, the number of options decline and are less distinctive. However, tracking from elementary to senior high can be clearly defined. 'I fl fl fl In addition to the eight schools recommended for closure, four additional elementary schools are not used, generally because of a surplus of schools in a particular attendance zone. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the districts inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools.  Recommendation Number 5 is the closure of seven elementary schools and one junior high school along with four additional elementary schools to be slated for alternate uses by the district and the community. These closures and reassignment of functions are predicated on the premise that the alterations, additions and construction of new school or schools is accomplished as a part of the plan. Savings resulting renovation expenses and reduced, if not eliminated, operating expenses can significantly reduce the cost of new construction. Reduced operating expenses, even with Page 5 ii hi o li IS 3 7 iffl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I i  inflation, can retire the capital debt on paper, assuming these savings are not spent elsewhere. fl  Recommendation Number 6 is the consultants opinion, that of the options considered, Option C is preferred. The preference is based on fl considerations of the school experience for the children, a more- favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities, diminished burden of bussing, comparable cost to the district, and the more effective value to the public. 2* Q  Recommendation Number 7 notwithstanding, the consultants  Recommendation Number 5, is the formation of a representative committee of the board of directors, the administration, the court, and the public, to consider each of the options, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each and effect a conclusion that best serves the children of the Little Rock school system in their pursuit of the learning experience. o o a w \u0026amp; o S  b  fl Initiatives \u0026lt;G 'll a J I fl In every dynamic community, city, and state the importance of education is placed high on the list of priority considerations. Decisions of businesses considering localities for establishing their home or branch office is always influenced by the available school system serving the area and the level of education offered. This is true of elementary schools through colleges. 5 1'^ 1 m a fl Little Rock has suffered in this area due to the unfortunate political decisions of the past and the fact that it remains under the courts desegregation management. While the level of education has substantially improved in all schools (the outstanding reputation of Central High School is a good example), the stigma of operating without unitary status tends to cast a shadow over the quality of the school system, whether it is deserved or not. I ' A I 11 B 2  S. I* I N During the course of the survey, the 3D/I team found a positive attitude among most of the faculty and patrons which was demonstrated by the public opinion survey responses representing almost 20 percent of parents and employees of the district. Considerations yet to be developed are alternate uses of facilities recommended for closure. Possible uses include: neighborhood library and learning center sites. community centers, and neighborhood alert centers. Since these types of uses require city and citizen support, both actively and financially, two initiatives are recommended for consideration.  Recommendation Number 8 is that initiatives be taken to reverse decreasing enrollment patterns by active, visible involvement of a task force to promote and support the Little Rock School District, its academic program, its capital needs, the possibility of adult continuing education programs for the community, the support of preventive maintenance, and Page 6 8, I Ffl fl fl fl fli Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I support of unitary status. A part of this recommendation is the formation of a representative committee of the city, board of directors, district administration, and patrons to actively pursue a feasible plan for the alternative use of those facilities recommended for closure and other uses. This plan should provide for a use that benefits the community, is supported by the taxpayers, and does not become a burden to either the district or the city. These facilities, at the Boards discretion, could remain in operation with modifications to adjacent school enrollment assignments. The recommendation, however, is that a more efficient use of the district's inventory and personnel would eliminate these facilities as active schools.  Recommendation Number 9 is a deliberate effort, on the part of the Board of Directors, of the Little Rock School District, to cultivate and encourage a representative group of leaders and professional men and women in the Little Rock community to become interested and involved in the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies. This would include important committee assignments, PTA offices, and, if elected, service on the Board. In addition to the dedicated board members of today, this effort would continue the development of community awareness and respect of the school system and be a positive building block for the boards of tomorrow. These recommendations are offered with the sincere thought that their implementation will enhance the stature and improve the operation of the Little Rock School District as well as improve the credibility of the district as perceived by the public. I fl Page 7 2 Q -I o o a 9 \u0026amp; o 9 r '1 R fl If fl I I ni 1 a 'll 3 9 N O I 9* i\nn 3 7 JCost Factors Study Zones oauvnniHrwv   * . 11 k r II ' (T h h I hP'  r rI I i r 11 1 J J  * Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H COST FACTORS N General  a a a The facilities survey conducted at fifty schools and seven administration buildings was limited to a period ranging from a partial day to two days per facility, depending on its size and condition. The projected estimate of cost, therefore, becomes an order of magnitude estimate that deals with broad base cost allowances to correct deficiencies described in broad terms. Detailed specificity and quantification was not permitted within the scope and time allowed, however, it is believed that the estimates portray an accurate allowance of cost that the district should expect in executing corrections and updates to the conditions found. In some cases, conditions found warranted further study or detailed structural solutions and these were so noted in the field notes and summarized under the tab Facility Summaries. Cost Estimates Provided by LRSD 2| 3 S y I 8 a a H  8 8 a a a 8 While the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, roofing repair and replacement, and ADA compliance were provided to the district as a result of studies that preceded this contract, allowances have been included in the estimated costs tables, as provided by LRSD. to more clearly define the scope and magnitude of capital cost requirements. With the exception of the cost of asbestos and hazardous materials abatement, these costs have been removed, along with other estimated costs, provided by 3D/I, in the following studies showing the affect of school closures. It was assumed that abatement would be the responsibility of the district regardless of disposition of the facility. Cost Priorities Facility surveyors approached the examination of each building with a pre-established priority index, district wide: Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 5 m ! I 11 I \u0026amp; I ^8 0 Included life safety issues, serious code compliance issues and those critical items and others that need to be accomplished during the first year. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1995 and 1997. Brackets that work that needs to occur in the second and third years Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur in 1998. Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be done in a 3 to 5 year period. Table CST-1 assumes this work will occur between 1998 and 2001. Page 1 N tf i i! i: a n 3 I 9 * fi \u0026amp; I-? rLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan fl Study 3D/I fl Priority #4 Brackets that work that the surveyors felt could be extended to be 521?JCST.1 assumes this win occur between 2001 and 2006. fl Priority #5 Includes all technology updates. -- This basically provides conduit communication outlets, cable racks, cabling   t coaxial wiring, and associated items, except equipment, to provide communication and interactive teaching system a state-of-the-art dHu interactive teaching system. TABLE CST-1 \"O 2011\nhowever, ih 2 fl todays information explosion, it is likely that these earlier installation. needs will dictate an 0 Inflation fl iltXl^c'sriTav^:^'^'??! loearing in the summary set out fl during each priority phase.  such as adding or removing schools from total should be adjusted to reflect those changes. project totals If the order presented in those priority phases is changed consideration, then the inflation factor Additions and New Construction 1 ii J ^'13 I I Xm7MdinL*''a7?''  'I''\"\" 1\" d^dhlished far both additions to cron  construction. The unit costs used for thP S P\" ^or new construction and structures. Both amounts are bX on 95 dollar values, and the inflation formula should be applied as may be appropriate. construction. I Table CST-2 provides  a *  summary of unit costs for each of the 50 schools   - ' '\"rt ^0'\"19 redUiring renovation and replacement work These unit co'sts can be indicators of when new constniction Is preferred to renovation 0^ and 7 I 'I t'il is i 1 3 J s. A Options Funding While it was not within the presented under this tab in Tables CST-3 CST-4 and CST scope of this report to establish a detailed funding program ft nhta nod Xi________ri* ... .  Stai'lmDr^ve??' feasibill^^f'TecimmZ^^ahOT capital improvement program approaches. , along with the District financial officer, available within a realistic millage rate. 3D/I consulted with the Stevens Company to explore and examine realistic possibilities Using prelirninary broad-based estimating assumptions, $1 514 M per mil oer vear for s to 7 years have bean considered as a workabte c^p,isf base Lm which mis Page 2 f I 11 \" .1 N 1 'Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I program can be executed. While it is our understanding that the property values and taxing base has been relatively flat in the Little Rock area while inflation has risen, the District feels the need to request millage increases to offset the increased costs of operations. I This report recommends that either a capital improvement millage request and resulting bond issue or a dual-purpose millage request covering both capital and operating costs be effected. Operating cost increases without improvement of physical facilities, would be less likely to receive enthusiastic support from taxpayers. The most effective approach to the improvement schedule set out in this report would be a single bond issue approval for renovation, improvements, and new construction that could be accomplished within a 5-year period with the sale of bonds occurring in stages during that same period. I 4 It is also important that a capital program, when executed, unilaterally covers work in all attendance zones throughout the District. To have the least impact on the operation of schools, new school construction and major renovations to buildings temporarily taken out of service should occur prior to general renovation work throughout the District. Those schools slated for closure could serve as temporary facilities during the building program. e i Careful attention and prioritization should be exercised if the district elects to undertake a project of less magnitude than is set out in this report to avoid new work that must be destroyed to later accomplish delayed priorities. The detailed programming of projects and the resultant cost estimating, accomplished by architects and program managers, during the course of the Districts capital program is the first step that needs to be taken before design is completed or construction contacts are awarded. ' a Professional management of the capital endeavor should be considered to provide economy in contracting, less disruptive scheduling, and in come cases pre-purchasing and value engineering options available to the school district. nI? 3 S' i\nr \u0026gt; s  4 Page 3H Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EM ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL EM EM IM iM I HI NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME 1 CENTRAL (Main Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central TOTAL BASE COST Idas $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 2 3 4 5 McClellan J.A.FAIR HALL PARKVIE\\A/ (Building 1) _______ (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HlOH SCHOOLS $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,987,995 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN Total VTS $3,488,387 $3,488,387 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2008-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 $153,017 $3,224,480 $579,059 $411,771 $453,800 $6,690 $0 $0 $8,690 $4,677,800 $412,381 $412,381 $922,092 $172,597 $10,158 $69,536 $1,174,383 $1,397,303 $235,246 $800,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 $505,588 $605,688 $172,319 $7,328 $3,616 $162,128 $345,393 $1,076,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $1,567,873 $1,567,873 $0 $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 $18,586 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 $3,567 $3,567 $753,466 $0 $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $415,286 $545,629 $523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $996,969 $998,969 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,716 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,067 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 1 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 4 1 'Jl \u0026lt;1 CLOVERDALE_________________ DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET ( Building #1) __________________(Building tf2) PULASKI HEIGHTS (Building #1) __________________ (Building #2) __________________ (Building #3) SOUTHWEST________ ________Total Junior High Schools ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC Total ALC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS t 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BADGETT BALE ^SELINE booker MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK_______ forest PARK franklin________ FULBRIGHT $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666.504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 $461.989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $228,836 $1,476,235 $822,810 $219,472 $277,011 $99,054 $21,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 $18,690 $3,453,981 $415,614 $415,614 $145,216 $341,296 $156,719 $154,780 $220 $5,026 $0 $45,062 $12,275 $35,836 $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $819,091 $70,719 $348,274 $379,487 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $3,565,459 $474,524 $474,524 $145,305 $423,784 $351,026 $25,820 $170,862 $121,554 $0 $56,127 $183,633 $538,790 $373,162 $626,040 $43,096 $228,017 $1,442,690 $722,897 $191,157 $944,741 $326,736 $37,185 $211,865 $11,088 $35,202 $548,199 $4,701,777 $133,401 $133,401 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $68,787 $45,033 $0 $241,614 $474,315 $47,995 $190,839 $650,595 I $129,202 $0 $86,423 $6,415 $0 $24,526 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 $220,540 $182,264 $790,338 $40,658 $40,658 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 $1,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $0 $0 $136,192 $71,761 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $197,872 $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,669 $2,068,798 $119,074 $118,074 $74,594 $107,175 $193,869 $237,544 $108,027 $205,943 $0 $139,166 $156,315 $92,005 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $687,369 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 14,680,354 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $347,917 $376,889 $0 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 Table CST-1 Page 1 15 7 9 13 16 3 am 10 11 14 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 f'o 3 ( J N J{?f i: 2 2* - h I 'll r l 'N 3s r3- J  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District Table CST-1 TYPE OF SCHOOL  fl fl fl NO 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NAME GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MABELVALE McDermott_______ MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_________ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON__________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON___________ WOODRUFF ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS Total Etementary TOTAL BASE COST 1996 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660.421 $498.742 $1.238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $650,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,271,352 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 $63,502 $36,657 $5,446 $10,800 $953,937 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71.174 $139,245 $0 $48,281 $302,995 $61,724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $126,957 $7,607 $308,388 $89,413 $211,937 $23,358 $37,892 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 $620,356 $96,646 $12,684 $328,091 $601,600 $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 $258,663 $0 $422,872 $429,235 $264,764 $11,695 $499,837 $194,583 $734,402 $7,206 $252,213 $304.581 $294,576 $440,444 $11,315 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 $431,070 $51,671 $39,627 $216,525 $120.203 $0 $561,070 $231,863 $27,798 $37,943 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89,765 $60,406 $253,058 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $38,301 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 $26,034 $2,588 $38,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,913 $2,540 $4,489 $0 $0 $5,537 $0 $101,260 $3,476 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 $230,695 $133,255 $116,662 $101,360 $138,791 $239,042 $197,964 $154,481 $117,706 $143,666 $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260,247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $119,186 $266,212 $171,619 $133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $121,114 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $1,568,674 $689,136 $1,138,095 $579,516 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $4,621,163 $10,449,353 $6,482,514 $1,383,323 $6,205,997 $29,142,350 ) DIST SITE NO 26 37 27 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 \u0026lt; rj r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING TRANSPORTATION PLANT SERVICES PURCHASING SAFETY/SECURITY _____________Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 $66,182,630 $274,848 $54,724 $17,576 $47,649 $53,716 $41,951 $20,563 $511,026 $14,091,965 $110,770 $54,714 $19,625 $47,959 $126,004 $24,594 $313,590 $697,256 $19,657,383 $128,376 $172,268 $32,380 $113,938 $215,840 $115,296 $34,671 $812,769 $15,982,850 $1,981 $187,670 $27,469 $12,736 $39,574 $26,403 $759 $296,693 $2,644,228 $81,673 $70,339 $20,280 $25,425 $63,760 $63,760 $18,292 $343,530 $12,677,090 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,173 $66,063,629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : I a II03 district estimates_________ ADA COSTS ROOF REPLACEMENT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT ______ total SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN N2 Sn escalation impact COST escalation e 4%/ YEAR L $6,386,000 $3,462,000 $3,185,000 $77,205,630 $1,386,000 $674,000 $1,587,000 $17,738,965 $1,000,000 $261,000 $1,500,000 $22,418,383 $1,000,000 $406,000 $17,388,850 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5.069,228 $1,000,000 $686,000 $0 $14,363,090 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,087,000 $76,978,529 I? 3 2 $77,206,530 1 Year 1995 $3,088,221 $80.293,751 $17,738,966 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,447,500 $19,186,464 $22,418,383 3 Years 1998 $2,799,249 $26,217,632 $17,388,860 3-5 Years 2000 $3,767,345 $21,166.195 $5,069,228 5-10 Years 2005 $2,434,468 $7,603,696 $14,363,090 10-15 Years 2010 $11.504,023 $25,867,113 $76,978,629 $21,952,685 $98,931,113 Table CST-1 Page 2\n1 I i\nI u Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  ICOST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Table CST-1 fl Renovation and Repair, Existing Buildings Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl [fl fl NO NAME ESCALATION DETAIL 4- 1 1 1996 ___ 2 1997 3 1998 ____4 1999 ____5 2000 6 2001 7 2002 ____8 2003 9 2004 ___10 2005 11 2006 ___ 12 2007 ___ 13 2008 14 2009 15 2010 i TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3*5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 6-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-16 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $3,088,221 $80,293,751 $709,669 $18,448,523 $737,941 $19,186,464 $767,459 $19,953,923 $798,157 $20,752,080 $830,083 $21,582,163 $863,287 $22,445,449 $897,818 $23,343,267 $933,731 $24,276,998 $971,080 $25,248,078 $1,009,923 $26,258,001 $1,050,320 $27,308,321 $1,092,333 $28,400,654 $1,136,026 $29,536,680 $1,181,467 $30,718,147 $1,228,726 $31,946,873 $896,736 $23,315,118 $932,605 $24,247,723 $969,909 $25,217,632 $1,008,705 $26,226,337 $1,049,053 $27,275,391 $1,091,016 $28,366,406 $1,134,656 $29,501,063 $1,180,043 $30,681,105 $1,227,244 $31,908,349 $1,276,334 $33,184,683 $1,327,387 $34,512,071 $1,380,483 $35,892,554 $1,435,702 $37,328,256 $1,493,130 $38,821,386 $1,552,855 $40,374,241 $695,664 $18,084,404 $723,376 $18,807,780 $752,311 $19,660,092 $782,404 $20,342,495 $813,700 $21,156,196 $846,248 $22,002,443 $880,098 $22,882,541 $915,302 $23,797,842 $951,914 $24,749,756 $989,990 $25,739,746 $1,029,590 $26,769,336 $1,070,773 $27,840,109 $1,113,604 $28,953,714 $1,158,149 $30,111,862 $1,204,474 $31,316,337 $202,769 $5,271,997 $210,880 $5,482,877 $219,315 $6,702,192 $228,088 $5,930,280 $237,211 $6,167,491 $246,700 $6,414,191 $256,568 $6,670,758 $266,830 $6,937,589 $277,604 $7,215,092 $288,604 $7,503,696 $300,148 $7,803,844 $312,154 $8,115,998 $324,640 $8,440,638 $337,626 $8,778,263 $351,131 $9,129,394 $674,624 $14,937,613 $597,505 $15,535,118 $621,405 $16,166,523 $646,261 $16,802,783 $672,111 $17,474,895 $698,996 $18,173,891 $726,956 $18,900,846 $756,034 $19,656,880 $786,276 $20,443,155 $817,726 $21,260,881 $850,435 $22,111,317 $884,453 $22,995,769 $919,831 $23,915,600 $956,624 $24,872,224 $994,889 $26,867,113 i DIST SITE NO r Table CST-1 Page 3 J '! 2' a :1 e-3 5J ac o 5) N O 3  ( fl II I If j I J?Ha fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI fl UNIT COST OF RENOVATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-2 TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET fl NO HIGH SCHOOLS NAME CLASSRMS AREA TOTAL COST COST $/SF fl fl  fl 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL_____________________ HALL___________________________ PARKVIEW______________________ J.A.FAIR_________________ _______ McCLELL^_____________________ TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 111 59 61 49 48 328 55 55 266,823 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 835,693 129,546 129,546 $5,763,718 $2,182,064 $837,872 $1,725,309 $3,489,032 $13,997,995 $3,488,387 $3,488,387 $21.60 $14.32 $5.03 $13.11 $29.46 $26.93 2* 3ml CLOVERDALE___________________ DUNBAR________________________ FOREST HEIGHTS_______________ HENDERSON____________________ MABELVALE_____________________ MANN___________________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS_______________ SOUTHWEST____________________ TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 322 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 683,818 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $2,263,241 $1,414,500 $1,620,183 $1,483,632 $14,580,354 $8.39 $38.79 $34.37 $8.19 $37.73 $12.52 $22.13 $17.88 a ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER ALC 27 37,360 $1,183,270 $17.88 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 BADGETT________ BALE____________ BASELINE________ BOOKER_________ BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN_______ FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 14 21 open space 38 24 31 open space 18 open space 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,530 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0.00 $481,989 $954,119 $714,626 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $1,373,658 $321,017 $215,003 $656,776 $1,814,531 $239,042 $28.48 $35.70 $22.04 $11.98 $13.15 $6.14 $0.00 $14.49 $20.43 $24.76 $23.58 $26.94 $7.24 $35.56 $7.68 $5.77 $20.65 $41.67 $3.19 i TABLE-2 Page 1 i m ac  \u0026amp; 3 ii !  iU NIT COST OF RENOVATION little rock school district TYPE OF SCHOOL PERMANET NO NAME fl fl 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ' ROCKEFELLER ROMINE_________ TERRY__________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON ' WATSON________ WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS_______ WILSON_________ WOODRUFF CLASSRMS 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 AREA 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 774 1,693,447 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADMINISTRATION________________ ADMINISTRATION ANNEX________ CASHION BUILDING______________ TRANSPORTATION______________ PLANT SERVICES_______________ PURCHASING___________________ SAFETY/SECURITY Total Administration 1,479 3,342,504 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 126,809 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3DZI Table- CST-2 TOTAL COST $689,136 $1,568,674 $1,138,095 $579,516 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $1,238,092 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 $212,098 $29,032,310 $61,099,046 $597,648 $539,715 $117,330 $247,707 $498,894 $272,004 $387,874 $2,661,172 COST $/SF $14.35 $28.23 $30.82 $14.78 $18.45 $23.85 $17.16 $6.19 $39.24 $11.01 $33.11 $3.49 $17.41 $20.24 $15.34 $25.18 $5.58 $22.31 $20.54 $18.28 $11.84 $23.85 $45.33 $19.89 TABLE-2 Page 2 zl  i 4 a 51 1 c :il \u0026amp; o C a Ji !r 5o 3 B N Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ri ri  COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 (CENTRAL NAME I (Mam Building) (Gymnasium) (Library) (Quigley Stadium) Subtotal Central 2_ 3 I McCLELWN iJ,A.FAIR 4 (HALL 5 (PARKVIEW T T 1 TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2008 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DIST SITE NO $2,942,332 $77,225 $51,905 S153.Q17 ! $922.092 t $172,597 I $10,158 ! $69,536 I 53.224,4fl0 I $1,174,383 | $172,319 $7,328 $3,618 $162,128 $345,393 I T I I SO $33,467 $0 $0 $33,467 I $753,466 SO $135,580 $96,948 $985,994 $4,790,209 $290,617 $201,263 $481,629 $5,763,718 1 Q (Building 1) (Building 2) (Building 3) Subtotal Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 6 I metropolitan T 1 Total VTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS____________ 7 (CLOVERDALE_________________ 8 (DUNBAR______________________ 9 (FOREST HEIGHTS_____________ 10 (HENDERSON__________________ 11 IMABELVALE__________________ 12 'MANN MAGNET ( Building#!) I__________________(Building #2) 13\nPULASKI HEIGHTS (Building#!) ' _________________( Building #2) (Building #3) ! 14 I SOUTHWEST__________________ Total Junior High Schools i ALTERNATE LEARNING CENTER I 15 lALC Total ALCI $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,995 I $3.488.367 $3,488,387 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 $12,317,113 I $1.183.270 $1,183,270 $579,059 $411,771 5453,800 58,690 $0 SO 58.690 $4.6n.800 i T I I i T $1,397,303 $235,246 $600,095 $314,469 $24,087 $19,621 $358,177 $3,965,204 I $1,078,795 $454,968 $404,394 $967 $0 $0 $967 $2,284,516 $18,588 $77,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,750 I T T 5415,286 $545,629 5523,775 $400,263 $0 $69,775 $470,038 $2,940,722 $3,489,032 $1,725,309 $2,182,064 $724,389 $24,087 $89,396 $837,872 $13,997,994 12 8 2 5 $5 $27 I $412.381 $412,381 I $505.588 ( $505,588 J___________ i 1 i J S228.836 I T $1,476,235 I $822,810 $219,472 i $99,054 521,565 $43,756 $12,890 $233,662 518.690 $3,176,970 1 t $1.567,873 I $1,567,873 ! $3,567 $3,567 $996,969 $998,969 $3.488.387 $3,488,387 I 4 TQ\nI 5415,614 $415,614 $73,850 $533,350 $632,646 $105,842 $70,719 $348,274 $379.467 $12,786 $120,624 $468,791 $2,746,368 $474.524 $474,524 ! $228,017 1 $1,442,690 +i I 1 $722,897 $191,157 $328,736 537.185 $211,865 $11.088 $35,202 $548.199 I $3.757.036 $133,401 $133,401 i 1 so $86,423 $8,415 $0 $125,146 $26,257 $111,557 $5,211 I 5220,540 $182,264 $765,812 $40,658 $40,658 I7 $156,684 $316,970 $223,542 $328,960 $687,389 $3,855,668 $2,410,310 $845,431 J. I $306,569 $50,996 $179,454 $32,101 $9,960 $265,689 $1,870,926 I $119,074 $119,074 $930,224 $484,276 $926,119 $74,076 $619,988 $1,483,632 12.317.113 $1,183,270 $1,183,270 15 7 9 13 16 3 10 11 14 m I a Pl N O a  M 12^* i  I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 16 :badgett 17 :BALE 18 IBASELiNE 19 BOOKER MAGNET 20 iBRADY___________ 21 'CARVER MAGNET 22 iCHlCOT 23 CLOVERDALE 24 DAVID O DODD 25 iPAIR PARK________ 26 I FOREST PARK 27 FRANKLIN 28 I FULBRIGHT_______ 29 1 GARLAND_________ 30 (GEYER SPRINGS 31 'GIBBS MAGNET $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 $0 S481.989 $954,119 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 $321,017 $215,003 I St i\n5145,216 5341.296 5156,719 5154.780 $220 55.028 so $45,062 $12,275 19 17 22 6 18 21 27 31 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 $666,504 $1,200,466 $1,111,915 $892,564 $476,919 $378,889 SO $481,989 $954,119 $74,594 $107,175 $193,889 $237,544 $136,713 $205,943 so S139.186 $156,315 $21,651 $178,047 $8,001 $1,557 $0 51,332 $0 $0 $127,580 $279,738 $150,163 $402,280 $472,862 $76,074 $45,033 SO $241,614 $474,315 5145,305 ( $423,784 S351.026 $25,820 j $263,912 $121,554 $0 $56,127 I $183,633 I I?, 3 21 s .4M $91,391 $214,024 $26,102 $373,162 $626,040 $43,098 I $190,839 $650,595 $129,202 I SO $136,192 $71,761 $97,295 $218,324 $213,856 $752,687 $1,845,175 $484,019 I $36,857 $5.446 $96,646 $12.684 $51,671 $39 827 $2,588 $38,364 $133,255 $116,682 $321,017 $215,003 Table CST-3 Page 1  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI  COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO 32 33 34 NAME ISH___________ JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING 35 ! MABELVALE 36 i McDermott 37 38 39 40 41 42 MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL_______ MARTIN L KING OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL 43 [ROCKEFELLER 44 I ROM INE 45 ItERRY 46 [WAKEFIELD 47 iWASHINGTON 48 [WATSON__________ Tg [western hills 50 [WILLIAMS MAGNET 51 iWILSON IWOODRU^ ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS_______ Total Administration SUBTOTAL SHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN TOTAL BASE COST 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS NoEscalition DIST SITE $239,042 $1,568.674 5689,136 $1,138,095 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399,444 51.660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 5933.698 Total Elementaryi $22,682,055 ' $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $0 $334,844 $94,614 $71,174 $0 $48,281 5302,995 561.724 $133,487 $233,762 $96,792 $7,807 $308,388 $89,413 5211,937 $23,358 $3.252,993 $511,026 $12,446,784 I I7 T IT $0 $474,776 $208,177 $921,415 so $422.872 5429.235 I $264.764\n$11,695 : 5499,837 [ $194,583 I I TI $7,206 $252,213 5304.581 5294.576 S440.444 $7.449.167 $697,256 $15,838,106 t T so $561,070 i $231,863 IT i i $27,798 $0 $86,664 $175,058 $58,917 $48,492 $89.785 $60,406 $12,597 $205,311 $316,702 $67,012 $198,818 $5.344.706 $812,769 $13,900,301 T T I X $0 $0 so so ITI $239,042 $197,984 $154,481 $117,708 $239,042 $1,568,674 5689,136 $1,138,095 DISTRICT ESTIMATES__________ ADA COSTS :ROOF REPLACEMENT__________ ASBESTOS ABATEMENT TOTAL SCHOOLS \u0026amp; ADMIN I I OPTIONS OPTION M escalation Deduct District Costs TOTAL BASIS AMOUNT option t escalation option c escalation $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,000 $68,352,991 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 I $12,821,275 TOTAL PROJ, COSTI TOTAL PROJ, COSTI S3.198.051 $83,149,317 $24,259,575 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 __________________ ' 519,317.245 __________________ ' 53,457,869 total PROJ, COST! $89.905.125 51,386.000 5674.000 51,685.000 $16,191,784 51.000,000 $261,000 $1,500,010 $18,599,116 $1,000,000 $406,000 I $15.306.301 ($1,223,000)  $14,968,784\nso ' 51.270,373 ! $16,239,157 SO 51,541.862 $18,599.116 $15.306.301 ~S12.821.275~r 52.877,060 ' $34.297.451 I $13,412.985 $3.602.387 $16.510,646 i $35.614,489 i so ! $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $12,584,805 i $4,526.826 $35,710,748 SO 53.316,155 $18.622,456 58,537,530 54.816,234 $28,660,065 $6,732,440 56.317,360 $28,356,101 I $0 SO $0 so so $650,913 $2,540 $0 SO $5,537 SO $101,260 $1,347.324 $296,593 $2,583,704 $1,000,000 $1,425,000 $5,008.704 $5.008.704 $0 52.405.401 $7,414,105 $2,309,060 $3.434,366 $10,752.150 SO 54,564,758 $9,593,462 I [ T t I $239,042 $116,496 $481,858 $260.247 $205,770 $186,123 $144,419 $286,212 $171,619 5133,834 $150,437 $169,818 $5.287,865 $343.530 $11,561.085 $1,000,000 5686,000 SO $13,247,085 $13.247.085 $0 S10.610 167 $23.857.252 SO $14.713,150 $27.960.235 so 520.328.367 $33,575,452 $239,042 $674,313 $1,389,146 $645,652 $399.444 $1,660,421 $498,742 $313,822 $937,532 $850,067 $723,963 $933,698 ,682.055 $2,661,172 $56,329,991 $5,386,000 $3,452,000 $3,185,010 $68,352,991 S12.821.275 520.479,155 $100,430,421 I NO 49 30 35 46 20 33 34 35 10 38 39 50 40 47 51 42 32 29 43 44 45 ($1,223,000) $67,129,991 1 ! $24,259,575 | I $28.108.019 i T $119.497.585 [i $19,317,245 $37.670.724 $124,117,960  + il_ p- Table CST-3 Page 2 2l J .J 11 1 ma ' 2. Jo I? 3 I \u0026lt; 1 fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl   fl I COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District Table CST-3 TYPE OF SCHOOL NO______________ OPTION M NAME I ADDITIONS____________________ I NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION :total option cost ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL TOTAL BASE COST 1995 $5,417,945 $7.403.330 $12,821,275 i PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-201i PRIORITY TOTALS Ho Escalation SO I 55.417,945 I $7,403,330 1 $12,821,275 I 1T 1 r SO SO $0 $5,417,945 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 ! DIST SITE NO J 1 $79,951,266 1 Year 1995 53,196,051 $83,149,317 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,270.373 $16,239,157 $31,420,391 3 Years 1996 52.877,060 $34,297,451 I_____________ ! 11 $3,198,051 19961 $71,551,042 ___ Z 1997 31 19981 4| 19991 ___ 5I_ 20001 if 20011 zzr 20021 81 20031 ol 20041 101 20051 ___11l_ 2006 i M. 20071 13l 20081 141 20091 ___1^ 20101 t I I $15,306,301 I i 3-5 Years S 2000 ' 53.316,155 ! I $18,622,456 | $5,008,704 5-10 Years 2005 52,405.401 $7,414,105 !I $13,247,0'35\" ! 10-15 Years I 2010 i 510,610.167 I $23,857,252' $79,951,266 $20,479,155 $100,430,421 I nl $598,751 , $16,790,536 $671,621 $1,256,816 $612,252 $19,855,932 I $15,918,553 I $794,237 I $636,742 $17,462,157 : $20,650,169  $698,486 i $18,160,643 ! $726.426 I $826,007 : $21,476,176 I $859.047 I $18,887,069 I $22,335,223 I $755,463 $893,409 i $19,642,552 j $23,226.632 $785,702 I $929,145 $16,555,296 I $662,212 $17,217,507 $688,700 $17,906,208 $716,248 $18,622,456 $744,898 I\n$20,426,254 j $24,157,777 ! $19,367,354 $817,130 $966,311 $774,694 1 S21.245.364 I 525,124,086 3849,815 51,004,964 522,095,199  526,129,052 : 520,142.048 I I 5805,682 i\n520,947.730 5883,808 i 522,979,007 1 5919,160 , $1,045,162 j 527,174,214\n$1,086,969 I 5837,909\n521.785.640 5871,426 523,896.166 528,261,163\n522,657,065 $955,927 524,854.094 5994,164 ' 525.848,258 : $1,033,930 i 526.882,189  51.075,286 527,957.476 $1,118,299 529.075.775 51.130.447 i 529.391.630 $1,175,665 5906,263\n523.563,348 5942,534 ' $30,567,295 I $24,505,882 j $1.222.692  531.769.967 51,271.599 $33,061,586 51.322.463 534.384,050 5980.235 : 525.486.117 I 51.019,445 526.505.562 . 51.060,222 527.565.784 $200,348 $5,209,052 $208,362 $5,417,414 $216,697 $5,634,111 $225,364 $5,859,475 $234,379 $6,093,854 $243,754 $6,337,608 $253,504 $6,591,113 $263,645 $6,854,757 $274,190 $7,128,948 $285,158 $7,414,105 $296.564 57.710.670 $308,427 $8,019,096 5320,764 58.339.860 $333,594 $8,673,455 $346,938 59.020.393 $529,883 $13,776,968 $551,079 $14,328,047 $573,122 $14,901,169 $596,047 $15,497,216 I I t 1 MF $619,889 $16,117,104 $644,684 $16,761,789 $670,472 $17,432,260 $697,290 $18,129,551 $725,182 $18,854,733 $754,189 $19,608,922 $784,357 $20,393,279 $815,731 $21,209,010 $848,360 $22,057,370 $882,295 $22,939,665 $917,587 $23,857,252 Table CST-3 Page 3 h m 4 I Q N O 2* :i\n5? I 1 II 1   COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 fl By Options and Priorities Little Rock School District TYPE OF SCHOOL fl fl fl fl fl fl  TOTAL BASE COST NO OPTION T NAME 1995 PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 3 Years 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-10 Years 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation DiST SITE NO lADDITIONS !NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION total option cost $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 $8,116,485 $5,296,500 T 1 ESCALATION IMPACT iCOST I t ESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL I I L $0 I $13,412,985 ! $3,241,030 $5,296,500 $8,537,530 i $2,309,060 I $2,309,060 $0 $13,666,575 $10,593,000 $24,259,575 i I I i 1 1996 2 1997 ___ 3 1998 4 1999 5 2000 I T T T IT T iT iT iT 6l 2001 7 20021 ___ 8I_ 20031 ___ 9 2004 __ 10 2005 11 2006 12 2007 i| TT __ 13[ 20081 __ 14 2009 J. T tsi 20101 BASE COST $91,389,566 1 Year 1995 $3,655,583 $95,045,149 $3,655,583 $3,655,583 PRIORITY 1 I PRIORITY 2 i PRIORITY 3 I PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 $14,968,784 1-2 years I $32,012,101 I 1995-1997 I $1,541,862 i 3 Years 1998 $3,602,387 I i T $23,843,831 3-5 Years 2000 $4,816,234 I $7,317,764 5-10 Years 2005 I $13,247,085 TOTAL 1-5 $91,389,566 2I fl $16,510.646 I $35,614,489 | $28,660,065 i $3,434,386 I $10.752.15'0 I 10-15 Years 2010 $14,713,150 I $27,960.235 $28,108,019 $119,497,585 I i $598,751 $1,280,484 $23,577,759 i $28,454,698 $943,110 $24,520,869 I $980,835 ! $1,138,188 $29,592,886 i $1,183,715 I $25,501,704 ! $30,776,601 $1,020.066 $1,231,064 I $953,753 I $22,739,393 $909,576 $23,648,969 $945,959 I $24,594,927\n$983,797 I I $26,521,772 i $32,007,666  $25,578,724 1 $1,060,871 I $1,280,307 $1,023,149 $27,582.643 j $33,287.972 i $26,601,873 ' ! $1,103,306\n$28,685,949 ' $1,147,438 i $29,833,387 I $1,193,335 $1,331,519 $1,064,075 ! $34.619,491 ] $27.665.948^ ~ ! $1,384,780 i $1,106,638 ' $36,004,271 $1,440,171 I $31,026,722 ! $37,444,441 i $1,241,069 $32,267,791 ' $1,290,712 I $33,558,503 $1,342,340 $1,497,778 I I $26.772.566 I $1,150,903 ! $29,923,490 1 I $1,196,940\n$38,942,219 1 $31,120,429 $1,557,689 $40,499,908 $1,619,996 : $1,244,817 i $32,365,246\n$1,294,610 $292,711 $7,421,658 $296,866 $7,718,524 $308,741 $8,027,265 $321,091 $8,348,356 $333,934 $8,682,290 $347,292 $9,029,582 $361,183 $9,390,765 $375,631 $9,766,396 $390,656 $10,157,052 $406,282 $10,563,334 $422,533 I $34,900,843  $42,119,904 1 $33,659,856\n$10,965,867 $1,396,034 $1,684.796 I $1,346,394 I $36,296,876 | $43,804,700  $35,006,250 $1,451,875 $37,748,751 $1.509.950 $39,258.702 $1,570,348 $1,752,188 $1,400,250 $439.435 $11,425,302 $457,012 : $45,556,868 I $36,406,500 $1.822.276 T $1,456,260 i $47,379,164 ! $37,862,761 $1,895,167 $1,514,510 $40,829,050 I $49,274,330 I $39,377,271 I $11 882,314 $475,293 1 $12,357,606 $494,304 i $12,851,911 $529,883 $19,384,616 $775,385 $20,160,001 $806,400 $20,966,401 $838,656 $21,805,057 $872,202 $22,677,259 $907,090 $23,584,349 $943,374 $24,527,723 $981,109 $25,508,832 $1,020,353 $26,529,186 $1,061,167 $27,590,353 $1,103,614 $28,693,967 $1,147,759 $29,841,726 $1,193,669 $31,035,395 $1,241,416 $32,276,811 $1,291,072 $33,567,883 1ir III II ma I T I Table CST-3 Page 4 I' 3 \u0026amp; s i:}t i: I r 1 I.   a  a a a a a COST SUMMARY OF BUILDINGS By Options and Priorities Little Rock SchooL District TYPE OF SCHOOL NO OPTION C NAME jADDITIQNS____________________ (NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ! total option cost I ESCALATION IMPACT I t IcOST lESCALATION @ 4%/ YEAR ESCALATION DETAIL 1 19961 21 19971 19981 4? 19991 20001 6 2001 7 20021 ___8|_ 20031 91 20041 101 2005) 11( 20061 I2I 20071 131 20081 __ 2QQ9| __1^ 2010\nTOTAL BASE COST 1995 I i Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-3 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 BASE COST $86,447,236 1 Year 1995 $3,457,889 $89,905,125 $3,457,889 $3,457,889 i I PRIORITY 1 1-2 Years 1995-1997 PRIORITY 2 SYears 1998 PRIORITY 3 3-5 Years 98-2001 PRIORITY 4 5-1OYaars 2001-2006 PRIORITY 5 10-15 Years 2006-2011 PRIORITY TOTALS No Escalation $0 PRIORITY 1 $14,968,784 1-2 years 1995-1997 $1,913,413 $16,882,197 I $598,751 $32,866,542 : $1,314,662 ' $34,181,204 I 51.367,248 DIST SITE NO I $8,394,685 I $4,190,120 f i $12,584,805 I I PRIORITY 2 i P$31,183,921 I I 3 Years 1998 $4,526,826 1 T $6,732,440 1 $6,732,440 PRIORIPr 3 $22,038,741 3-5 Years 2000 $6,317,360 $35,710,748 I $28,356,101 $1,247,357 i $40,189,576 ! $1,607,583 ( $41,797,159 ! $1,671,886 [ T $881,550 I i I SO $0 i PRIORITY 4 1 PRIORITY S I S5.008.704 I 5-10 Years 2005 $4,584,758 $9,593,462 I i $13,247,085 10-15 Years 2010 $20,328,367 I T $200,348 ! $32,001,979 I $10,357,400 $1,280,079 $414,296 $33,282,058 I $10,771,696 $1,331,282 1 $430,868\n$35,548,452 | $43,469,045  $34,613,340 [ $11,202,564 S1.421.938 I $1,738,762 $1,384,534 $448,103 I $33,575,^ i I $36.970.390 I $45.207.807 j $35,997,874 j $11,650,666 I i S1.478.816 i S1.808.312 $1,439,915 ' $38,449,206 | 547,016.119 j $37,437,789 I S1.537.968 ! $39,987,174 I S1.599,487  541,586,661 i $1,663,466 I $1,880,645 $1,497,512 i $48,896,764 | $38,935,300 i I $1,955,871 I $50,852,635 ! $2,034,105 $1,557,412 $40,492,712 $1,619,708 i $43.250,128\n$52,886.740 i $42,112,421 $1,730,005 I $2,115,470 $1,684,497 ! $44 980.133 i $55.002.210 I $43,796,918 i $1,799,205 : $46,779.338 : $1,871,174 i S48.650.511 ' $1,946,020 I $50,596,532  52.023,861 ! $52.620,393 $2,104,816 554,725.209 ! S2.189.008 $2,200,088\n557,202,298 ' $2,288,092 $1,751,877 $45,546.795 $1,821,952  $59.490,390  $47,370,746 $2,379,616 I $1,894,830 $61,870,006 I $49,265.576 I $2,474,800\n$64,344,806 ' $2,573,792  $66.916,596 S2.676.744 I $56,914,217 : $69,595,342 $1,970,623\n$51,236,199 $2,049,448 $53.285.647 ! $2,131,426 ! $55,417,073 I $466,027 $12,116,693 $484,668 $12,601,360 $504,054 $13,105,415 $524,217 $13,629,631 $545,185 $14,174,817 $566,993 $14,741,809 $589,672 $15,331,482 $613,259 $15.944.741 $637,790 j $16.582,531 I $663,301 ! S17.245.832  $669,833 ! $17,935.665 $529,883 $27,059,069 $1,082,363 $28,141,432 $1,125,657 $29.267,089 $1,170,684 $30,437,773 $1,217,511 $31,655,283 $1,266,211 $32,921,495 $1,316,860 $34,238,355 $1,369,534 $35,607,889 $1,424,316 $37,032,204 $1,481,288 $38,513,493 $1,540,540 $40,054,032 $1,602,161 $41,656,193 $1,666,248 $43,322,441 $1,732,898 $45,055,339 $1,802,214 $46,857,552 I $15.127,125 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 I I TOTAL 1-5 $86,447,236 $37,670,724 $124,117,960 ...... I II i! Table CST-3 Page S 1 7 I ir *1 m a 3 \u0026amp; I. Io ' b* S\n3 f \u0026gt; Iia  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I a a a ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 Bi ui X I- 9 UI X  X o 3 m _J o X u 3 m z UJ o x UJ Q. in 3 _l X X 3 tn O \u0026lt; X \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; X UJ X o u iZ UJ Q \u0026lt; I- _t UJ Q z o m X UJ X X a\u0026gt; o \u0026lt; UJ X \u0026lt; X S? o (O tn O o O z UJ X X S? io o CO o u X m z o o 5 UJ z Elementary z\u0026lt; 9 ffl 56 49 138 129 101 143 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 179 118 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 379 270 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 47% 44% 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 418 418 A12 472 584 584 297 331 331 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 500 13 45 -Al -16 36 65 -6 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 44 -152 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 9,844 21,507 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $159,965 $1,189,305 $111,280 $236,470 $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 5 J !( y m o. Ps  o 1 h. }\u0026gt; N J? 2 =' S i\n* :i s? 3 3  ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) Table CST-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   SCHOOL OPTION \"M GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) a: UJ X o iu X S u 3 m O 340 7 4 231 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 27 26 34 32 557 408 106 250 590 u 3 m 2 lU U UI Q. 42% J: o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; U o z \u0026lt; O' LU Q. o 351 351 459 Ui 3 -I Q. X 3 Ui + u iZ UJ o \u0026lt; LU a -131 u. io IO Z O Ui EC UJ a iu Ui o \u0026lt; UJ O' \u0026lt; -14,017 2 u. \u0026lt;2 IO IO 5 (0 O u O 2 LU K m O U O' m z o u g z Q ni Elementary y J 5- J 1  I 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 278 317 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 32% 31% 27% 25% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 79% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 148 148 58 -54 19 74 -23 30 -45 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 subtotal $375,570 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 $2,225,600 I $0 ! I m a c ^9 3 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 l i it ! S' ! t I J n 3 \" ri ST aLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M\" WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL Table CST-4 09 3 _l Q. It 3 09 O' UJ z I-o tu Z g u 3 m o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z o uiZi Q it u3 m _i \u0026lt; I-o z UI u It UI Q. UI a. O \u0026lt; 1- ui o Z o m a: UI Q. IL mo  \u0026lt; UI It \u0026lt; U. IS m \u0026lt;o @) O o O z UI O' U. io5 IO (0 o u It 09 z o o g UJ z 16 15 110 107 122 119 202 199 60 28 449 666 574 i,21 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 Elementary $111,280 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 59% 515 426 426 328 515 -63 A,7 183 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 $326,885 614 642 96% 0 -642 -68,694 $3,778,170 167 616 27% 0 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 3 ?  1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 J n Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I H    fl  fl fl * I p ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST OPTION \"M CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan II II (CLOSED) Table CST-4 loU\nX o ui X 2 o 3 m O X o 3 m z LU U X LU X X \u0026lt; o o z LU Q. o m _i Q. X 3 W + u lZ LU a \u0026lt; I-LU Q zo X LU a. iZ co \u0026lt; IU X \u0026lt; u. co IcOo @ co O u o z LU Of u. CO IO IO IO \u0026lt;) co o o a: co z o u2 LU Z 2l ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 1^% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 59 322 400 561 A12 289 470 174 ^1 a 7 I ir I... m a I C ' Fsi u^-51 B3 314 295 281 313 416 378 591 535 730 673 872 848 57% 56% 68% 63% 935 935 935 971 971 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $oT $0 High School if  S'if \"i\n575 496 251 2M 404 333 211 212 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 64% 70% 69% 67% 51% 56% 81% 74% 2255 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 I? 3 * I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4 11 ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 M la  SCHOOL OPTION \"MII PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS q: tu z I-O UJ sZ 365 u 3 m ie. o3 m 435 -1 O H 800 z lU u lU Q. 54% \u0026lt;0 3 Q. z 3 (0 O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; z UJ Q. O g Z UJ Q 4 H UJ Q Z o 0) oe UJ Q. Z to o i) \u0026lt; UI z U. J2 o (O @ (0 o o o z lU q: u. to IUO) too u z 0) z O o  UJ Z 3fl 991 191 total high schools High School $oT $0 i I I ADDITION $5,417,945 SO ________ $0 $5,417,945 NEW $7,403,330 $0 _______ $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 IT , ma 0'sir \nM  'I S' P1 1 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 H fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl  fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"WI BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) Table CST-4 q: UJ I o UJ H X 5 o \u0026lt; m \u0026lt; I-O O \u0026lt; m z lU o b: tu Q. 56 49 138 129 101 143 200 152 152 143 74 69 141 129 162 268 281 25 21 353 328 26 61 104 104 89 257 239 268 442 160 138 395 368 369 585 65% 64% 65% 65% 73% 76% 179 118 379 270 47% 44% \u0026gt; O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; a: UJ Q. O 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 660 471 471 Ui 3 a. q: 3 Ui g UuJ. a 4 UJ Q z o co q: UJ 0. LL mo \u0026lt; UJ er \u0026lt; u. tuo\u0026gt; O oO z IB q: u. io2 () o u a: I- (0 z o o 5 UJ z zl 3ffl Elementary 63 85 -50 -23 45 -171 92 201 6,741 9,095 -5,350 -2,461 4,815 -18,297 $159,965 $1,189,305 S 9,844 21,507 !i I m fl 358 335 421 395 173 156 194 510 478 495 464 314 285 356 70% 70% 85% 85% 55% 55% 54% 500 523 523 448 448 350 350 350 500 13 45 -47 -16 36 65 -6 1,391 4,815 -5,029 -1,712 3,852 6,955 -642 $111,280 bl 3\u0026gt; j 2s S' * :i: I' 137 171 449 418 287 255 313 226 379 405 452 474 439 640 583 339 287 483 34% 38% 95% 95% 45% 44% 92% 79% 78% 418 418 472 472 584 584 231 13 -34 -2 33 -56 1 -42 1,391 -3,638 -214 3,531 -5,992 107 -4,494 $236,470 J? 91 n 331 331 44 -152 4,708 -16,264 subtotal $1,057,160 $2,754,180 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 1 1  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table CST-4 fl fl fl q: UJ X i- O UJ isC O \u0026lt; _l m fl SCHOOL OPTION \"M X 5 lx: o m \u0026lt; I- o z UJ o O' UJ Q. a \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; a: UJ Q. O II fl GIBBS MAGNET ISH (CLOSED) JEFFERSON 340 250 590 42% (CLOSED) martin l king McDermott (REVISED) MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK (REVISED) PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL (REVISED) rockefeller ROMINE terry (REVISED) WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) 351 351 459 CO Z) 0. q: X tn o u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q Z' o m a: UJ Q. uZ Oi o \u0026lt; UJ Q \u0026lt; u. 52 u3 co O o o Z UJ Qi -131 -14,017 U. 55 U) () \u0026lt;n O o q: (D Z o o 5 UJ z z n Elementary 7 f S 7 __4 2n 27^ 167 153 170 155 11 336 306 254 235 18 14 21 26 34 32 557 408 106 462 465 169 302 356 315 316 nz 317 469 469 466 578 523 468 486 433 328 99% 99% 36% 52% 68% 67% 65% 64% 97% 617 617 524 524 542 542 463 463 283 148 148 58 -54 19 74. -23 30 -45 15,836 15,836 6,206 -5,778 2,033 7,918 -2,461 3,210 -4,815 $375,570 m a Fl 0 3 It 160 135 92 80 316 306 222 204 390 368 229 282 394 496 441 346 315 334 320 249 230 424 400 786 690 500 32% 31% 95% 96% 89% 89% 92% 92% 29% 41% 376 376 394 394 264 264 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 -120 -65 48 79 -70 -56 177 196 0 24 -241 -145 -12,840 -6,955 5,136 8,453 -7,490 -5,992 18,939 20,972 0 2,568 -25,787 -15,515 $452,075 $389,480 $1,008,475 subtotal $2,225,600 $0 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 2 o :\u0026gt; 8*' ii 5?  3 f IILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT a: lU I 1- O UJ o \u0026lt; _i m \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z Table CST-4  SCHOOL OPTION \"M I s o 3 CD \u0026lt; O Z. UJ o UJ Q. \u0026lt; O' UJ Q. O II  WASHINGTON WATSON fl WESTERN HILLS (REVISED) 16 15 110 107 122 119 666 574 427 414 193 186 682 589 537 521 315 305 98% 97% 80% 79% 61% 61% 801 801 505 505 350 350 WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF 202 199 60 287 274 85 489 473 145 59% 58% 5Q% 515 426 426 328 (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL 28 449 614 642 96% 0 167 616 27% 0 co 3 Q. O' 3 OJ + o u. UJ Q lU Q 119 212 -32 -16 35 45 515 -63 47 183 z O co O' UJ iL co o \u0026lt; UJ a: \u0026lt; u. to h-m O o O z UJ O' 12,733 -3,424 -1,712 3,745 4,815 -6,741 -5,029 19,581 -642 -68,694 -616 -65,912 subtotal total elementary schools u. \u0026gt;o lo  co O O O' la z. O CJ 5 UJ z Elementary $111,280 $326,885 $3,778,170 I 21 I I 3 3 J i S' m  I I .  ( $438,165 $5,417,945 $3,625,160 $7,403,330 $7,403,330 I 9 :i !  ws S' '  I? 3 I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 3 15   Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  d 1  d d d ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (A rrEND4NCe zone MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET Pyi^SKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST II (CLOSED) tn Table CST-4 OPTION \"M II CENTRAL FAIR HALL McClellan O' LU X I- o iu X s O \u0026lt; _1 m \u0026gt; O \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z X _l Q. q: X tn o iu Q z Q tn O' LU LU tn o' u. io O o- o \u0026lt; _i m \u0026lt; O z LU O K LU 0. \u0026lt; a: LU OL o \u0026lt; ui Q \u0026lt; LU Q \u0026lt; LU \u0026lt;2  o o o z LU a: tn o o q: tn z o o  LU z ml Jr.High School 127 200 139 129 255 222 247 209 148 314 295 281 313 575 496 257 242 404 333 211 272 657 741 585 517 452 574 685 542 415 416 378 591 535 1030 1164 579 491 533 420 882 755 784 941 724 646 707 796 932 751 563 730 673 872 848 1605 1660 836 733 937 753 1093 1027 84% 79% 81% 80% 64% 72% 73% 72% 74% 57% 56% 68% 63% 64% 70% 69% 67% 57% 56% 81% 74% 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 935 935 935 971 971 216 59 322 400 561 472 289 470 174 935 205 262 99 123 total jr. high schools $o7 $0 High School IT I I m a fl -\"o 3 a )  S!)  I 2256 2256 1206 1206 1389 1389 1157 1157 651 596 370 473 452 636 64 130 5 n I TABLE CST-4 PAGE 4  ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION fl fl fl fl fl fl fl (A TTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"M II PARKVIEW MAGNATE SUMMARY OPTION M COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTALS Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table CST-4 o: UJ X o LU X 5 3 m _1 \u0026lt; o 365 435 800 o 3 ffl z LU O LU Q. 54% \u0026gt; o \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O o z \u0026lt; CH LU Q. o 991 m 3 Q. X 3 (0 u. 52 in m O LU Q \u0026lt; _i UJ Q 191 Z O (0 Q LU Q. LU \u0026lt;n o \u0026lt; LU Of \u0026lt; u. to io (D l) to o o O z UJ K VJ O o q: ta z o o 5 LU Z High School 1 total high schools ADDITION $5,417,945 $0 $0 $5,417,945 $0 1 5- 3 I 1 NEW $7,403,330 $0 $0 $7,403,330 $12,821,275 TABLE CST-4 PAGE 5 IF i m J O' ' II* I *^1 a ' r- M l1 bl J 5?  3 f I fl 'I  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I d ri ri ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL OPTION \"C BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK franklin FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS II (REVISED) REVISED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) (REVISED) (CLOSED) (REVISED) Table- CST-6 m UJ z O uj z  CJ \u0026lt; -I m \u0026lt; I- O o \u0026lt; m I- z lU o tn UJ 0. \u0026gt; o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; o o z I \u0026lt;  UJ O. O 3 U O. or 3 CO O iZ UJ o \u0026lt; ui Q z o co z UI 0.  tn o \u0026lt; UJ tn 4 u. 2 to co O \u0026lt;J O z LU O' X lA 1 co O o O' CO z O o 5 UI Z: 0 1 fll Elementary 66 66 138 137 101 145 104 292 257 247 268 186 170 358 395 384 369 331 61% 82% 65% 64% 56% 200 300 152 90 89 141 221 162 268 516 25 47 353 380 26 61 152 179 55 379 355 47% 15% 358 386 510 476 70% 81% 438 173 227 194 137 202 449 612 2Z1 48 313 226 548 527 314 448 356 405 718 474 659 640 428 339 287 700 83% 55% 51% 54% 34% 28% 95% 93% 45% 11% 92% 79% 78% 223 223 345 345 414 414 660 471 471 613 523 523 Tas' 448 350 350 350 53 -135 -50 -39 45 83 -14,445 -4,173 8,881 $938,925 $271,245 92 116 12,412 13 47 -79 36 -98 5,029 -8,453 -10,486 $549,445 $681,590 9 * a S m a F a s S'  o  S. I f 3? ot! i\n* : J 418 418 472 472 584 584 297 13 -300 -2 -187 -56 156 -42 1,391 -32,100 -214 -20,009 -5,992 16,692 -4,494 $2,086,500 $1,300,585 s? 3 ? II I 331 331 44 -369 4,708 -39,483 $2,566,395 TABLE CST-6 Pagel  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl fl fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL GIBBS MAGNET ISH JEFFERSON MARTIN L KING OPTION \"C II (CLOSED) (CLOSED) MCDERMOTT MABELVALE MEADOWCLIFF (NOT USED) MITCHELL (CLOSED) OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS (NOT USED) RIGHTSELL (REVISED) ROCKEFELLER (REVISED) ROMINE (REVISED) \u0026gt; \u0026lt;0 -I . Qi 3 VI Table- CST-6 TERRY WAKEFIELD (CLOSED) Qi UJ I I- O ul z 5 ii o \u0026lt; _l tn \u0026lt; O st- o 5 (D Z UJ O Z UI 0. o \u0026lt; a. \u0026lt; o o z \u0026lt; Qi UJ a. O 351 2 u. UJ Q \u0026lt; UJ Q__ 351 340 250 590 42% 459 -131 7 147 462 459 469 606 99% 76% 617 617 148 11 297 419 167 187 170 11 336 304 254 18 20 21 88 34 94 557 399 106 169 83 356 217 316 317 160 66  92 316 531 777 587 390 536 229 87 394 466 502 523 404 486 328 496 370 346 334 551 249 675 424 630 786 486 500 36% 524 58 17% 68% 54% 65% 97% 32% 18% ^21% 95% 96% 89% 87% 92% 85% 18% 79% 524 542 542 463 22 19 138 -23 283 376 376 -45 -120 6 394 48- 264 -70 Z o Oi Qi UJ a. iL (O e\u0026gt;: \u0026lt; UJ i subtotal 6,206 2,354 2,033 14,766 -2,461 -4,815 -12,840 642 5,136 -7,490 264 -287 -30,709 426 426 424 424 545 545 539 All -249 0 -206 -241 59 39 18,939 -26,643 0 -22,042 -25,787 6,313 4,173 u- co S3 (O (O O o O z lU Q $8,394,685 | u. io IO M- I/} O o O' to z o o S UJ z^ $0 Elementary $1,996,085 $1,731,795 $1,432,730 TABLE CST-6 Page 2 2 in 1 r } i !! m a Pb o 3 a i\nff )  st yji s I? 3 ?fl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table- CST-6 fl co 3 _1 a tn 3: tn fl fl SCHOOL WASHINGTON fl WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON (NOT USED) WOODRUFF (CLOSED) PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OPTION \"C fl CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN MAGNET (CLOSED) PULASKI HEIGHTS q: LU z 1- o I S 16 98 110 22 122 182 o \u0026lt; m 666 667 6,21 419 193 394 \u0026lt; I O 002 765 031 441 315 576 202 287 489 60 83 127 195 139 19 255 609 247 174 148 314 110 281 85 145 635 718 Je:: o r 5 o Z: lU o : tu Q. 98% ilV 80% 95% 61% 68% 59% 59% 88% 657 602 585 746 452 462 685 433 415 784 797 126, IZZ 101 1071 932 607 563 84% 76% 81% 98% 64% 43% 73% 71% 74% 416 473 591 730 583 872 57% 81% 68% o \u0026lt; 0. \u0026lt; a (3 Z\n\u0026lt; o: lU 0. o 801 801 505 505 350 350 515 426 328 o Z LU o \u0026lt; lU Q___ 119 36 -32 64 35 -226 -63 183 712 z O co a: LU Q. Z o @ \u0026lt; LU q: \u0026lt; 12,733 3,852 -3,424 6,848 -24,182 76,184 subtotal total elementary 1000 1000 1046 1046 1268 1268 1221 1221 737 216 203 322 281 561 197 289 614 174 23,112 21,721 34,454 30,067 60'.027  21,079 30,923 65,698 18,618 u. 52 io IO IO 500 955 955 971 225 372 99 24,075 39,804 10,593 u. 52 lO (O w @ CO O o o z LU q: co O o O' t- co z o o S lU Z\n$1,571,830 $6,732,440 $15,127,125 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 $4,190,120 Jr.High School TABLE CST-6 Page 3 2 9 ni J I I m a ag W o S o 3 n I .r yl! I? I ? Mi 1I  fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl fl fl ATTENDANCE ZONE COMPOSITION (ATTENDANCE ZONE MODIFIED) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL SOUTHWEST K in z g in H Z 5 264 ic:: o tn 582 O ? \u0026gt;- 846 Z' o 3 ffl z LU O z UJ z 69% \u0026gt; n 3 _1\u0026lt; n. z \u0026lt;0 Table- CST-6 \u0026lt; Q. \u0026lt; O O z 2 E tu Q z O co Of tu iL u\u0026gt; o \u0026lt; q: lU 0, o 971 \u0026lt; H- -I lU Q__ 125 \u0026lt; lU z 13,375 z w io o @ to O o O z lU z u. 52 io o O o Z: or Z' O o 5 tu Z: total jr. high schools $0 $0 7 I rl SUMMARY OPTION C COSTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS (Uses same as Option M) TOTALS ADDITION $15,127,125 $0 ________$0 $15,127,125 NEW $4,190,120 SO _______$0 $4,190,120 $19,317,245 TABLE CST-6 Page 4 ft J I I m I ft n c B r c r l1 \"I ts 5? 3 J r, a  Little Rock school District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I ANALYSIS OF DISCONTINUED USE OF Mr - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES Table CST-7 Bl FACILITY NAME OPTION M OPTION T OPTION c COST or RENOVATION FACILITIES RECOMMENDED FOR CLOSURE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY GARLAND ELEMENTARY ISH ELEMENTARY JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY $714,626 $1,373,658 $656,776 $1,814,531 ri MITCHELL ELEMENTARY WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY $579,516 $1,238,092 8* e e e s i a J 1 1 i WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY $212,098 MABLEVALE JR. HIGH SCHOOL $2,263,241 total reno costs $8,852,538 m a 1 c 1 o * tt 0 0 FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES * WILSON ELEMENTARY $933,698 s \"X MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY $1,138,095 II MABELVALE ELEMENTARY PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY $1,389,146 RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY $645,652 i\ntotal reno costs $4,106,591 The four facilities listed as \"not used \" on tables following the revised attendance zone maps are available for alternate uses such as administrative functions, special programs, community uses, and lastly, closure if no other purpose is found. I? These schools initially provide , temporary locations for students from schools where extensive renovation or additions occur during the capital improvement process. Table CST-7 PagelWOTE^ StuW Educational ' AZ*\u0026lt;iuaMvw Zones ,^f^ '^MN^flMe-' ItLittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 30/1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY The demographic study focuses on trends since 1987, when the Little Rock School District absorbed 7,000-plus pupils and several schools formerly in the Pulaski County Special School District. At that time or thereafter numerous other changes were made, including altering attendance zones, designating magnet and incentive schools, and adding pre-kindergarten classes. A 1988 study, which was based on 1987 data and lacked reliable data on recent enrollment trends in the newly added territory, nonetheless projected 1990 enrollments within -0.8 percent and 1994 enrollments within -1.5 percent. The projections made this year are based on better data with fewer uncertainties. The new projections indicate a continued slow decline, bringing a loss of about 3,600 pupils or 14.3 percent by the 2005-06 school year. All three school levels will lose, with the high schools having the highest percentage drop (21.7 percent or 1,121 pupils), and the junior highs the second highest (18.6 percent or 1,090 pupils). The elementary schools will have the smallest percentage drop, 9.7 percent. However, because the elementary enrollments exceed those in the junior and senior highs combined, the numerical decline at this level is projected to be 1,379. i Among the 35 elementary schools, 19 are projected to lose 25 percent or more of their enrollment by 2005, among which eight will lose 50 percent or more. A total of 23 schools, two-thirds of the total, will lose to some degree. The remaining 12 will gain, six by 25 percent or more, and three of these by 50 percent or more.  I m ' o Three of the eight junior highs will lose 25 percent or more of their pupils, with one dropping by 54 percent. None will gain, but two will lose by only fractions of one percent. Similarly, no high school will gain. Two of the five will lose by over 25 percent, with one of these dropping by 51 percent. One will lose by only four percent. 3 V r f The racial composition of the District as a whole will remain close to its present level at 67 percent Black. However, assuming no change in policies or in the current attendance zone boundaries, the racial makeup of many individual schools will change much more. N K s if \"i: J All projections are fallible, since none comes from a crystal ball. All assume the continuation of current or presently foreseeable trends and policies. The longer the time period involved, the greater the likelihood that unforeseeable events may alter the outcome. The smaller the area for which they are made, the more likely that unpredictable localized changes may invalidate them. The success of past projections does not guarantee similar results in the future. Our projections are offered with these caveats. 3 ? ! i These projections reflect recent history. Like most school systems in established 1 central cities, the Little Rock School District has been watching its enrollments Page 1 ILittle Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI decrease. As recently as 1980 it had more than 20,000 pupils in a land area about two-thirds of the present District. After the 1987 gYain, enrollments returned at once to a slow decline ~ losing more than 1,600 pupils or 6.1 percent in the next seven years. Both white and Black pupils have decreased in most years since 1987. While Blacks made a small gain of 103 pupils over the seven-year period, this increase would not have occurred without the addition of pre-kindergarten in 1991. Whites declined by 2,096. Pupils of other races have increased, but still are less than 3 percent of the total. Although the Black proportion has increased slightly, it has remained between 64 and 65 percent for the past six years. The losses have been especially large in the high schools, where enrollments have dropped by 19.9 percent or about 1,300. Most of the decrease was before 1991, however. Recent years have seen less change and even some small transitory gains. Junior highs have lost by 5 percent or 306 pupils over the entire seven years, but this reflects an initial loss of nearly 1,000 followed by some recovery. The elementary schools have lost the fewest pupils, only 98, but were helped by the addition of prekindergarten in some schools and by growth in kindergarten enrollments. Grades 1 to 6 have lost. 1 r I Individual schools have varied widely in the extent and direction of enrollment change. In general, the gainers have been those that drew their pupils predominantly from neighborhoods in the west and northwest of the city, while the losers have more often drawn from the central and eastern sections. Four of the five high schools have lost, the sole exception being Fair. Five of the eight junior highs have lost, while the remaining three have gained - one, Mann, growing by 29 percent, but the other two increasing only slightly. 1 m I t A total of 20 elementary schools have lost enrollments, including two that were closed. The remaining 17 have gained. Both King and Washington have more than doubled in size, while Carver has increased by 62 percent and Rockefeller by 39 percent. Most of the other gains were modest. I I r What impact have these changes had on the basic objectives of the desegregation plan? The evidence suggests that the District, despite strenuous efforts, may be even farther from achieving its goals than in 1987. In three of the five high schools, both Blacks and whites have declined in number\nin the other two. Blacks have increased while whites decreased. The span between the highest and lowest Black percentage has grown from 17.6 percent points to 21.9. 1 N if si' ii g The eight junior highs were close to meeting the criteria for racial balance in 1987. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black was 17.8 points. Four of the eight were less than three percentage points, plus or minus, from the District-wide figure. li while four more were within seven points. Since then, both racial groups have j? increased at two schools, both races have fallen at one, Black enrollments have gained while whites have fallen at three schools, and the reverse has occurred at one. The overall span from highest to lowest percent Black is now 26.5 points. 1j I Page 2 f ( Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I   The elementary schools, with their smaller attendance areas, have proven even more difficult to keep in balance. In 1987 only a dozen were able to meet the criterion of no more than 60 percent of one race or the other. All four magnet schools met the even more demanding requirement of 45 to 55 percent Black, but none of the incentive or interdistrict schools met the plans requirement and only eight of the rest met the 60 percent requirement. The latest figures show all four magnet schools still in compliance, and a few of the rest have improved. But the span from lowest to highest percent Black has increased from 44.6 to 56.4 percentage points.  ii Many people believe that the private schools have drawn off many of the white children whose presence would help to maintain racial balance. This view is difficult to confirm or to counter with hard numbers, since current data on private schools are hard to come by. Data from the 1990 Census, however, indicate that at that time about 7,900 children in the City of Little Rock attended private schools, an increase of about 900 since 1980. During the same period, the public schools lost about 3,100 pupils. Census data prepared especially for the US Department of Education show that among children enrolled in any school, either public or private, in the Little Rock School District, about one-fourth were attending private school in 1990 and nearly nine out of ten were white. n I I ri The highest rates of private school attendance are found in areas to the northwest of the city center, where population growth, especially white growth, has been most rapid and incomes are often high enough to afford private tuition. So while the increase in private school attendance can account for only a fraction of the public schools recent loss, it is also true that many white parents who might otherwise have sent their children to the public schools may have enrolled them in private schools instead. A number of factors influence the course of school enrollments. One of the most important is overall population change. The city of Little Rock whose boundaries are now nearly contiguous with those of the Little Rock School District, has grown throughout the 20th century. Without annexations, however, the 11 percent gain of the 1980s would have turned into a small loss. In addition, this gain was made up almost entirely of adults. m ril 'u ,4 The number of children of school and preschool age remained almost constant during the 1980s, making it highly unlikely that enrollments could grow during the 1990s unless there is a fairly large influx of new young families to the city. So far, this does not seem to be materializing. The City government expects Little Rock to grow slowly if at all over the next few years, with a continuing shift in balance from east to west. N P I Metroplans projections bear this out, indicating continued losses in the east and the central core, with new growth mainly to the west and northwest. The School District seems unlikely to benefit unless its boundaries are further enlarged. University of Arkansas projections indicate that if recent migration patterns continue, Pulaski Countys total child population will decline, with the loss occurring mainly among white children and the racial balance shifting somewhat as a result. A disproportionate share of the losses will be suffered by the city. i? 3 n Page 3H M Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI H The Little Rock economy, with a solid backbone of government, medical facilities, and educational institutions, has proven highly resistant to economic downturns, but seldom grows rapidly. Continued slow growth is likely for the foreseeable future. Residential construction within the city has been down recently, but in any event does not seem likely to bring in many young families in the foreseeable future. fl fl fl fl 3 ( I fl '1 fl m a t? 0  jl 1 r JI N 2 s  Page 4 if i\ng 3 r i 7n an * ------ Educational AStcriuoitCv Zonas p\" r h' I h h r I I . J ... ) . r- I 1 \"1 r Ifl fl Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I fl EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. I Education and Facility Evaluations fl The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. I I : t Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. c ri' I A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. III\" o ii ii 4 i I 3 1* While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. 1 J i Page 1 .p 1'  Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I  Mechanical Features\nAir conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities\nToilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services\nPower installation and control\ncommunication and ll - Signal system\nalarms-and jexit lights\ngeneral and special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination\nNumber and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features\nadministrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand 1 I Operational Features\nSuitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. I Site\nAdequacy and development\ndrainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. xn r. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are\nregulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. -4 ! 2 ! ( if i 5 21 I 3 H A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1612","title":"Court filings concerning Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) funds, preschool program seats, ODM staffing report on LRSD elementary schools, and court motions and responses","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-08-23/1995-08-31"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Elementary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) funds, preschool program seats, ODM staffing report on LRSD elementary schools, and court motions and responses"],"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/1612"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_758","title":"''Little Rock School District 1994-95 Fourth Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs,'' Volume I, exhibit 1","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995-08-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["''Little Rock School District 1994-95 Fourth Quarter Status Report, Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs,'' Volume I, exhibit 1"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/758"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["401 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nVOLUME I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET DOCUMENT FOR DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT August 17, 1995 EXHIBm TABLE OF CONTENTS SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# Preface 1 SCHOOL OPERATIONS CLUSTER (BUFF) 09A,l - 18,2 Mission 4 Goals 5 District Financial Summary 6 Definitions 8 Organization of the Report 10 Cluster Budget Documents 12 09A 09B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 School Operations (Principals) School Operations (Central Off. Adm.) Extracurricular Participation Student Hearing Officer In-School Suspension New Futures Academic Incentive Grants/Focused Activities McClellan Community School Unassigned Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Job Fair 09A, 1-162 09B,l-87 10,1-37 11,1-4 12,1-122 13,1-5 14,1-6 15,1-89 17,1-5 18,1-2 CURRICULUM CLUSTER (PINK) 01,1 -08,28 SCHOOL SUPPORT CLUSTER (BLUE) 20,1 - 36,9 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 HIPPY 4 Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Academic Support Program (PAL) Multicultural Curriculum Special Education Gifted Education Federal Programs Vocational Education 01,1-7 02,1-9 03,1-12 04,1-29 05,1-58 06,1-9 07,1-7 08,1-28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Unassigned Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment Staff Development Library/Media Computerized Transportation Data Processing Unassigned Minority Teacher Recruitment Educational Equity Monitoring Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership Summer School (Interdistrict) Summer Learning Program - JTPA 20,1-15 21,1-21 22,1-8 23,1-4 24,1-12 26,1-9 27,1-4 28,1-9 29,1-9 30,1-9 1 .z SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# 31 32 33 34 35 36 Unassigned Unassigned Facilities Guidance/Counseling Program Leadership Employment Practices Unassigned 33,1-5 34,1-11 35,1-3 RECRUITMENT CLUSTER (PURPLE) 37,1 - 39,10 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 37 38 39 40 Parent Involvement - Recruitment VIPS - Recruitment Public Relations Unassigned 37,1-26 38,1-22 39,1-11 INCENTIVE SCHQQLS CLUSTER (YELLQW) 41,1 - 72,11 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Qffice of Incentive Schools Writing to Read Science Labs Unassigned Foreign Language Program Unassigned Extended Day/Week Field Trips Unassigned Tranportation Unassigned Unassigned Instructional Aides Extended Year Recognition Program 41,1-10 42,1-3 43,1-3 45,1-5 47,1-11 48,1-5 50,1-2 53,1-4 54,1-4 55,1-4 ii Camp Pfeifer Monitoring Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Staffing Required Staff Development Teacher Stipends/Inservice Qther Incentive Schools Academic Programs  Peer Tutors/Retired Teacher Mentors  Themes  Kindergarten - Reading Across the Curriculum  Qral Expression Across Curriculum  Learning Styles Inventory  Semi-Departmental  Instructional Tech ~ Study/Test-Taking  Parent Home Study  Computer Managed Instruction  Student Education Plans  Specialized Programs  Incentive Programs  Homework  Criterion-Referenced Test ~ Heterogeneous Grouping  Effective Schools  African/American History 56,1-3 57,1-12 61,1-12 62,1-24 63,1-3 64,1-29SEQUENCE # PAGE# SEQUENCE # PAGE# 65 Social Skills  Family Folklore ~ Positive Imaging  Interpersonal Skills - Rites of Passage  Mentoring Program 65,1-7 71 Counseling/Social Work I Community Services Access - College/Post Graduate Awareness  Study Skills  Home/Neighborhood Meet - Wellness Program 71,1-19 66 Special Activities ~ Peer Tutoring Program  Academic Reinforcement Clubs  Special Interest Clubs 66,1-7 72 13 1^ School Policies and Procedures - Other Unassigned Unassigned 72,1-11 fn 69 Latin Enrichment Program Unassigned Career Skills Development 67,1-8 69,1-3 70 Incentive Schools Operations - Support Services 70,1-6  Community Access/Field Trip ~ Community Involvement - Special Skills Program  Special Training - Parental Involvement  Learning Time Schedule - Home/School Community  Extracurricular Program  Attendance and Behavior - Subject Related Extracurriculum iii STUDENT CHQICES/QPTIQNS CLUSTER (GREEN) 75,1 - 82,3 15 16 11 16 79 80 81 82 Student Choices/Options King Interdistrict School Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Original Magnets Unassigned M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central, Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) QRGANIZATIQNAL CHART 75,1-2 leS-l 80,1-10 82,1-3 Wlo -PREFACE The mission statement and goals for Little Rock School District are the guides for all decision-making. The information gained from the Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs provides additional direction for quality, interim and/or summative decision-making for the district. Specifically, programs with poor performance or expenditure problems will have been addressed with corrective action continuously during .the year rather than after the year is completed. The report enhances the district s ability to monitor and report achievements and expenditures relative to the programs identified in the Desegregation Plan for the most efficient and functional program planning on a quarterly basis. Several reporting practices should be noted as follows: First, the fourth quarters report requires an additional volume for desegregation program reporting so that the growth and accumulation of the many achievements reported by schools and programs during the fiscal year of 1994-95 are accommodated. Consequently, the fourth quarters report for desegregation programs consists of Volume I (Seq #s 1-18) and Volume 11 (Seq#s 19-82). Principals and Central Office Administrators have reported achievements in the fourth quarters report. 09A is the designated sequence number for reporting by Principals, and 09B is the sequence number relative to Central Office Administrators reporting. The first desegregation audit was completed during the fourth quarter of the 1993-94 fiscal year. These additional desegregation obligations continue to be reflected in the program budget documents of the fourth quarter report for fiscal year 1994-95. These additional obligations come from the desegregation audit which includes Court orders, ODM monitoring reports ordered by the Court, and Court Hearing transcripts. (Underlined print denotes this additional desegregation obligations language.) A continued refinement and adjustment period throughout the fiscal year 1994-95 will be necessary for language clarification and reference documentation of the additional desegregation obligations. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The document reference appears in the first column of the PBD with an  after it. A portion of these obligations were inserted in the Second Quarter PBD, and remaining obligations have been inserted in the Third Quarter PBD. 1 Propram Budget Document (PBD) Rermement Procedure: When the PBD was first compiled, many non-obligation items were mcluded^ i held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. At the time, we were uncertain about the praise definition Extensive discussions were held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. At the time, we were uncertain about the precise uetm on of an obligation. We knew then that some \"cleanup\" would be necessary. Working with the document this past year has helped. The distinction between obligations and observations or procedures is clearer. This copy of the document reflects an effort to refine the document. We began the refinement process in November. Program mangers were their sections of the PBD and mark items they believed were not appropriate for the document. Two types were identified. y time obligations and 2) items that were not obligations but normal procedure within the program area ot simply  _ - - - Tk__________ Iniart^r l*KI\u0026gt; Willi 9 asked to review were: 1) completed, one observations. Their responses were gallUlld Bitu iitiiio umi TTWAv aivF* - --------- c  - nork .!, returned to the LRSD Office of Desegregation. Responses were reflected in the Second Quarter PBD with a boldly stamped word or words beside them. An explanation of the stamped words appear in the table below: STAMP COMPLETED JOB DESCRIPTION NOT OBLIGATION PROCEDURAL TOOL EXPLANATION This item is a one time obligation that has been completed _____________________________________ This item will be moved to the program managers* job description as a routine function of that position This item is not an obligation___________________________________________________________________ This item is or will be included in departmental procedure as a routine function of that department This item will be or already is reflected in the LRSD Management Tool The stamped items noted in the Second Quarter PBD were dropped from the Third Quarter PBD. A paper trail has been established for each item dropped. None of the ongoing obligations will be dropped. This procedure applies only to the PBD. It does not effect the LRSD Desegregation Plan or Uw!standing obligations of the District. Likewise, the stamped items indicated in the Third Quarter PBD have been dropped from the Fourth Quarter PBD. Where handwritten numbers appeared in the PBD, they were references to the 2nd Quarter PBD (2-24-95) pages where similar items may be found. These items have been deleted from this publication of the PBD. 2exhaustive search for legal references for the Safety and Security (sequence number 25) section of the desegregation volume of the PBD, .......  ____I____C non CnFAfir anH After an exhaustive search for legal references for the Safety and Security (sequence numoer seciion oi me it was determined that this particular program would be more appropriately placed in the non-desegregation volume of the PBD^ The Safety and Security (sequence number 25) section has been moved to the non-desegregation PBD volume and reported with Safety and Security Services (sequence number 225) in this publication of the PBD. Some obligations or strategies have been deleted from the following programs: Four Year Old, Multicultural Curriculum, doine uuiiuauuiu ui iiaicgic9 imv wwu .........................e IB--------------- Library/Media, Educational Equity Monitoring, Commitment to Desegregation Leadership, VIPS Recruiting, Public Relations, Office of Incentive Schools, Incentive Schools Staffing, Office of Incentive School Academic Activities, Counseling and Social Work, School Policy Student Choices \u0026amp; Options, Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment, School Operations 9A, Tri-District Summer and Procedures, Student Choices \u0026amp; Options, Office of Desegregation/Student Assignment, scnooi uperauui :r, School, Facilities, Parent Involvement, Original Magnets, HIPPY and M-to-M Magnets. Programs that have been removed bwause ^1 their objectives and strategies were dropped from the PBD include: Bidding Practices, Rockefeller Early Childhood, Romine Interdistrict School, Computer Loan Program, Computer Lab Program, King Interdistrict School and Contingencies. Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs contains the following: (1) The Mission Statement of Little Rock School District\n(2) The Goals of Little Rock School District\n0) LRSD Quarterly Desegregation\u0026gt; Ex^^s The IVllbSlUIl OUllCIllCIIl Ul I\\W1V AaFlOUIWI., ~ al /1\\ 'TUak Summary\n(4) Definitions and Data Elements\n(5) Organization of the Report\n(6) Program Budget Documents Grouped by Clusters\nand, (7) t he LRSD Organizational Chart. 3 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their A IlV llllOOiMII Vt UIV .w g--------------- --------- kp  , optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethmc * ..... ... . . .    _____t....:__________1 J_______zxf tka *e rim'tml1lim and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District s curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS I 1. The LRSD will implement integrated educational programs that will ensure all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 2. 3. 4. The LRSD will develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. The Little Rock Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, stoff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. The LRSD will solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. The LRSD will provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 6. The LRSD will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. 5Program Coda Program Nam* Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 1 of 2 01 02 05 06 07 08 09 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 HIPPY________________________________ 4-YEAR OLD PROGRAM_______________ STUDENT HEARING OFFICER___________ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION EXTRA-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION TEACHER RECRUITER STAFF DEVELOPMENT________________ ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS ACADEMIC INC GRANTS/FOCUSED ACT ORIGINAL MAGNETS SPECIAL EDUCATION @ WASHINGTON SECURITY D/P SYSTEM STUDENT INFORMATION M-TO-M MAGNET SCHOOLS ' KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL  EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING ' COMPUTERIZED TRANSP SYSTEM ' ROMINE INTERDISTRICT THEME ' McClellan community school ' IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION ' JOB FAIR____________________________  TESTING ASSISTANCE_______________ ' LIBRARY SERVICES__________________ ~ PARENT RECRUITING________________ ' VIPS RECRUITING____________________ ' PREJUDICE REDUCTION______________ Bridget 326,723.78 1,943,683.64 96,144.76 511,645.41 7,000.00 45,592.16 352,932.12 1,615,303.00 259,837.33 320,000.00 4,501,756.00 56,853.51 761,286.72 712,289.22 374,496.22 1,333,107.64 421,787.43 8,000.00 69,631.59 170,000.00 794,173.67 ______1,092.82 5,066.96 427,230.43 40,000.00 40,680.19 5,000.00 22.0 89.5 2.0 13.0 1.0 6.0 48.0 1.0 38.0 4.0 5.0 68.6 4.0 2.0 24.3 30.0 2.0 YTD Expenee 303,500.24 2,108,061.00 88,184.58 473,908.54 __________0.00 53,554.32 305,297.05 1,491,150.15 187,092.39 199,254.80 4,237,311.17 52,667.28 921,004.64 709,935.19 348,803.48 1,487,992.78 405,659.60 __________0.00 58,915.95 170,000.00 669,072.20 1,132.89 1,395.74 341,666.84 37,703.26 31,216.18 0.00 1at Quarter 61,678.75 292,010.10 22,243.00 108,505.23 ________0.00 13,998.89 71,968.88 209,511.74 45,936.67 11,939.29 ________0.00 10,223.45 117,300.43 606,929.33 49,630.60 210,448.33 179,438.34 ________0.00 52,813.00 45,764.00 107,224.23 452.34 1,395.74 49,509.88 27,755.74 2,418.93 0.00 2nd Quarter 61,286.76 480,415.35 18,663.59 106,196.97 _________0.00 11,393.85 77,801.97 357,000.40 29,434.99 3,638.41 1,393,556.50 10,660.80 241,696.90 29,838.55 63,555.79 309,259.55 137,411.56 0.00 0.00 36,724.01 169,444.44 _______235.29 0.00 80,466.34 2,364.22 6,382.85 0.00 3rd Quarter 75,281.71 607,059.76 27,166.90 140,638.23 ________0.00 15,015.40 85,041.69 579,493.61 62,392.39 65,906.26 1,393,556.50 16,944.47 331,727.49 38,002.49 97,025.16 432,695.81 214,676.62 0.00 _______113.94 87,511.99 181,116.47 _______155.54 0.00 96,747.26 ' 5,151.25 9,843.29 0.00 4th Quartet 105,253.02 728,575.79 20,111.09 118,568.11 ________0.00 13,146.18 70,484.51 345,144.40 49,328.34 117,770.84 1,450,198.17 14,838.56 230,279.82 35,164.82 138,591.93 535,589.09 (125,866.92) 0.00 5,989.01 (0.00) 211,287.06 _______289.72 0.00 114,943.36 2,432.05 12,571.11 0.00 % Budget Spent 92.89% 108.46% 91.72% 92.62% 0.00% 117.46% 86.50% 92.31% 72.00% 62.27% 94.13% 92.64% 120.98% 99.67% 93.14% 111.62% 96.18% 0.00% 84.61% 100.00% 84.25% 103.67% 27.55% 79.97% 94.26% 76.74% 0.00% 6Program ,Cf^\u0026gt; , Program Nema Little Rock School District Quarterly Desegregation Expenses Page 2 of 2 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 59 61 64 65 66 72 73 74 75 CONTINGENCY FUND OFFICE OF INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WRITING TO READ SCIENCE LABS COMPUTER LABS COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM__________ EXTENDED DAY FIELD TRIPS TRANSPORTATION (ADD'LI INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES EXTENDED YEAR INCENTIVE/RECOGNITION RECOMMENDED STAFFING REQUIRED STAFF DEVELOPMENT TEACHER STIPENDS/INSERVICE OTHER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACTIVITIES TOTAL. Budget 94-95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 493,723.62 25,550.00 15,000.00 399,532.68 61,568.93 11,524.35 742,246.94 46,882.67 62,349.90 83,971.87 iT,i43.ee6^s FTSa 42.0 31.0 433.4 VTO Expanse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 564,222.48 29,183.23 0.00 388,427.63 110,550.11 5,109.52 666,490.95 8,611.74 2,284.52 24,997.81 ie.4S4.3Ba.2e let Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,353.68 436.00 0.00 45,398.54 51,617.91 0.00 82,516.30 4,284.01 625.00 1,403.78 2,493,732.11 2tKl Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,757.74 6,995.18 0.00 69,779.34 0.00 2,593.30 141,833.90 3,574.13 772.83 8,432.28 3\u0026gt;994iie7/?9 3rd Quarter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 133,114.69 7,868.37 0.00 108,697.75 0.00 2,946.81 194,418.17 197.60 627.60 11,471.09 5,022,606.31 4th Quarter 0.00 __________0^ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 289,996.37 13,883.68 0.00 164,552.00 58,932.20 (430.59) 247,722.58 556.00 259.09 3,690.66 4,673,652.05 % Budget Spent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 114.28% 114.22% 0.00% 97.22% 179.56% 44.34% 89.79% 18.37% 3.66% 29.77% 96\n1S96 7 _-r^ - 1DEFINITIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS The following are definitions of terms and data elements used in the Program Budget Documents. Program: A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. Program Description: A program description includes a purpose, scope and content, and participants/beneficiaries related to the respective program. Program Goal: A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. Objectives: Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. Strategies: Strategies are the jobs, tasks, efforts, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the objective. Achievements: Achievements are efforts, tasks, evidence, performance, or actions undertaken in a program which contributes to the accomplishment of the strategy. Achievements are placed in alpha order underneath the relative strategy. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy and establish measurable and observable levels of performance of the product. Page: Each Program Budget Document uses one of two formatted pages. Program Sequence # (Seq. #): The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. Revision Date: This date is the actual date the program document was first documented or last changed. Program Name: To eliminate confusion, an established name for each program has been assigned by the district planner. Program Code: This is a unique accounting code assigned by Finailcial Services which links budget and expenditure information to the associated program. 8Definitions and Data Elements (cont.) Primary Leader: The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of the respective program. Secondary Leader: The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary (i.e. the Program Manager or the Principal). District Goal Support: Each program directly supports at least one district goal. If more than one district goal is relative, then the appropriate district goals have been listed in descending priority order. Plan Reference: Specific plan and page references will directly cite one of the following desegregation documents\nL(LR) = LRSD Desegregation Plan\nI(ID) = Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\nS = Settlement Agreement\nC(CO)= Court Orders\nT (HT) = Hearing Transcripts\nP(CP) = Court Pleadings\nM(MR) Monitoring Reports. The format should be L23 or 113-20, for example. This element has been left blank if the program is not directly cited in one of the desegregation documents. Plan Reference Page Number: Source references listed for each objective and strategy have been used. If the objective or strategy is desegregation document related, the specific desegregation document and page upon which this objective or strategy has been found should be listed. If the objective or strategy is not related to a desegregation document, then whatever source was used has been listed. This element is contained on page 2 and succeeding pages. Beginning Date\nThis is the actual date a particular strategy began. For consistency, all dates should be printed in the following manner\nMM/DD/YY, (09/30/94). Completion Date. This is the actual date a particular objective or strategy was completed. For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format: MM/DD/YY, (09/30/94). If an activity toward a strategy has been started but not completed, a percent of completion (for example, 75%) should be entered. Responsibility: This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring an activity has been accomplished. 9 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This section provides guiding information about the text of the Fourth Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budget Document for Desegregation Programs. Pagination. Pages in the text are numbered using Arabic numerals. Pages are consecutively numbered at the bottom of the page beginning with the \"Preface.\" The \"Table of Contents\" is on page i, page ii, and page iii. Program areas are numbered according to their sequence number followed by the page number within that program (e.g., 02,5 refers to page 5 of the program with a sequence number of 02). Print. The report employs two kinds of print density. Bold Print denotes original language of the desegregation document(s). Lighter print enclosed in parentheses (parenthetical statements) identifies language that is not literal in the desegregation document(s). The parenthetical statements of lighter print have been integrated throughout the program budget documents for clarification of original language in the desegregation document(s) and/or for providing information generalized from the original language of the desegregation document(s). Parenthetical information should not be construed to mean new legal obligations nor expansion of the obligations under the desegregation document(s). Underlined Print. Underlined Print denotes additional desegregation obligations language which was inserted verbatim in the third quarter report of FY 93-94 as a result of the desegregation audit. Stamped Words. Denotes items identified for \"cleanup.\" See Program Budget Document (PBD) Refinement Procedures above. Clusters. Programs have been sorted into broad categories called clusters. Clusters include programs or schools grouped together because of similar and related operational functions. For convenience and management of the report, similar programs have been grouped into six separating color-coded clusters. To locate a program, determine the relative cluster of the program by using the \"Table of Contents\" and then refer to the program sequence number (Seq #) or page number for facilitating program reference in the report. School Operations Program (09A and 09B). The School Operations program description warrants that both Principals and Central Office Administrators provide quality planning for students. Therefore, the School Operations Program is divided into two sections for reporting achievements by both Principals and Central Office Administrators. The sequence number for reporting by Principals (i.e., schools) is 09A, and the sequence number for reporting by Central Office Administrators is 09B. For the first repotting period, the inclusionary dates cited in the \"Beginning Date\" column and \"Completion Date 10column are 07/01/94 and 06/30/95, respectively. These inclusionaty dates represent the boundaries for the first quarter. The generic dates of 07/01/94 and 06/30/95 are used to uniform and conform reporting in the School Operations program budget documents. Specific date information relative to the achievements of Central Office Administrators follows each documented achievement. Organization of the Report (continued) As a final note, the School Operations Program (09A) classifies the area, interdistrict, and magnet schools into three organizational levels: elementary, junior high, and .senior high. Incentive Schools. The Incentive Schools cluster.provides program reporting information for the following schools: Franklin, Garland, Rockefeller, Mitchell and Rightsell. Non-Monetary Tracking. No entry on page one in the fiscal year program budget field and/or the quarter expenditure field of a Program Budget Document means desegregation money has not been tracked to the respective program. Organizational Chart. An organizational chart is provided. 11CLUSTER BUDGET DOCUMENTS 12Curriculum Cluster *  * HIPPY 4-Year Old Program/City Wide Early Childhood Education Program Academic Support Program Multicultural Curriculum Special Education Gifted Programs Federal Programs Vocational Education LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET E\u0026gt;OCUMENT Program Seq f: 01 Page: 1 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY (Home instruction Program For Preschool Youngsters) Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: HIPPY is a home based developmental program which recognizes de mother as the fint significant teacher of die child. HIPPY assists the mother in preparing die child to be successful in kindergarten, therefore assisting tn the reduction of the disparity gap between black and white students. HIPPY'S major focus is in the shadow areas of major incentive schools and in the Southwest Litde Rock area. HIPPY serves primarily economical artd educationa] disadvantaged families. Implement integrated educationa] programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing dispanties in achievement. To prepare economically disadvantaged children to enter kiiKlergarten with the necessary skills to be successful: and to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievenwnt disparity between black and white students. [ Plan References: Page L-5. L-14, IS. 16 ] FY Program Budget: $326,723.78 1st Qtr Expend: $61,678.75 9rd Qtr Expend: $75,281.71 YTD Expenditures: $303,500.24 2nd Qtr Expend: $61,286.76 4th Qtr Expend: $105,253.02 I FTE 22.0 [ Related Function Codes:  01, 1Program Seq f: 01 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Program Goal: To prepare L14 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Marian Shead August II, 1995 ecm,mically disadvantaged chMren  enter kWemanen with the neeessaty skdls to be success\nand to itnpmve the educahonai outcomes of students, pathcularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. Plan Reference Page Ntunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L14 L14 I. To promote the HIPPY program 2. To select HIPPY aides 3. Initial training of aides and staff 4. To enroll families into program. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Staff Mailed letten (Documentation of PSA) 1.1 To compose and mail Public Service Announcement for local radio stations and Channels 14 and 16 A distribute flyers A. Distributed flyen to Watershed Community Development B. Mailed PSA to LRSD Communication Department C. Distributed flyen to day care centers, health department, and local businesses 2.1 A. B. C. 07/01/94 08/08/94 08/18/94 08/25/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 08/08/94 08/18/94 08/31/94 06/30/95 Staff Interview and select nine (9) Home Visitors Interview \u0026amp; select Home Visitors Printed and mailed flyere to area churches Ran classified ad in two local newspapen 3.1 Arrange logistics with State Regional Office for the initial training 4.1 Conduct home interview and enroll families into program. 01, 2 07/01/94 07/25/94 08/05/94 08/07/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 10/03/94 08/05/94 08/17/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Staff Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Pay the bill (requisition paid) Pay the bill (Documentation of family enrollment)Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goat: LI4 L14 L14 L14 LI4 L14 01 HIPPY 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 3 RerisloD Date: Marian Shead August 11. 1995 To prepare economically disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve die educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5. To recruit families 6. To determine service of coordinators 7. To assign families to be serviced by aides. 8. To organize instructional material. 9. To familiarize aides of the HIPPY implementation in LRSD. 10. Obtain material for program A. Mail registration aimouncements to 315 prospective families io LRSD B. Conduct registration for interested parents S.l Compose aixl mail correspondence to community churches to recruit families and instructional aide trainees. 6.1 Identify families to be served by each coordinator 7.1 Identify families to be served by each aide 8.1 Print curriculum material. A. Ordered printed curriculum from Dushkin Publishing 9.1 Conduct three (3) day workshop 01, 3 08/16/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/12/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/16/94 08/23/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/12/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Staff Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Coordinators Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordiiutors Certification of aides (position of aides filled) Assignment of families to aides Page: 4 Program Seq /: 01 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Goal: To prepare economically disadvantaged children lo enter kindergarten with the necessary skill, to be niece,,\nand to improve disparity between black and white students. the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria LI4 11. To orientate enrolled families m the HIPPY program. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisor Coordinators Families enrolled in program (documentation of patent orientation) L15 LIS L15 11.1 Conduct orientation meeting. A. Secured space for orientation(Adult Education Auditorium) from Paulette Martin, Adult Education Director B. C. D. 07/01/94 09/19/94 06/30/95 09/19/94 Invited LRSD personnel to Orientation Prepared program agenda for orientation Orientation conducted 09/21/94 WI23I9^ 09/26/94 09/21/94 09/26/94 12. Identic meeting sites of group meetings. 13. To schfate anplemenation of HIPPY curriculum. 14. To provide parents with information that will assist them with their children. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Coordinators Confirmation of site (documentation of letters) 12.1 Secure meeting sites for group meeting, (mailed letten to building principals) 12.2 Mail out notification of meeting sites. 13.1 To schedule aides weekly home visits 13.2 To schedule area group meetiruts - print flyers 13.3 To schedule weekly Inservice Training for aides 13.4 Schedule aides first teaching (with own child). 01, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Coordinators Coordinaton Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Received materialsProgram Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: L15 L6 L16 01 HIPPY 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 5 Revision Dote: Marian Shead August 11. 1995 To prepare economically disadvantaged children w enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to die achievement disparity between black and white students. I Plan Reference Page Ntmber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Comfrfetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 16. To determine program success 19. Provide parents with information to be successful with their children 14.1 Schedule workshop for patents and aides, mail out and print matorials. 14.2 Include enrichments for parents at monthly Group Meetings 16.1 Conduct survey of parents - print materials 16.2 Telephone survey conducted 19.1 Obtain a sitt and speaker and schedule a lecture for patents 01. 5 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 01/18/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordiiutors Coordinators Supervisor Supervisor Completion of survey Evaluation using the Early Prevention of School Failure or a similar model which is comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding, will be conducted on the HIPPY participants as they enter and exit the kindergarten. A standardized achievement test will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. Consultant fee paid Page: 6 Program Seq f: 01 Rerlsion Date: August II. 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian. Shead Program Goal: To prepare economKilly disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. L16 L16 Plan Reference Page Nianber L16 LI6 L16 Objectives Strategies lUginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 20. Build die aides children self esteem. 21. Graduation of HIPPY cbildten and aides reception 23. Suff in place. 24. Maintain regular staff. 19.2 Hold Parent Appreciation/Motivational Program 20.1 Activities throughout program year with involvement for children\ni.e. fall carnival, holiday party, black history program, group meetings, graduation A recognition ceremony A. Held Fall Carnival for parents and children Ocmber 24. 1994 at Adult Education Auditorium B. Held Holiday Party for parents and children December 20, 1994 at Adult Education Auditorium C. D. E. F. 04/20/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 10/24/94 12/20/94 04/20/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 10/24/94 12/20/94 Staff Staff Staff Staff Consultant fee paid Completion of program Held Black History Program February 28, 1995 Held Parent Appreciatkm/Motivatjonal Program Held Graduation Ceremony May 21, 1995 Held Recognition Ceremony for Aides 05/25/95 21.1 Staff will organize 23.1 To begin inq)Ieinentation of HIPPY program. 24.1 Secretary 01, 6 02/28/95 04/20/95 05/21/95 05/25/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 02/28/95 04/20/95 06/30/95 05/21/95 05/25/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Coordinator Coordinator Supervisor Staff began implementation of program To assist in die implementation of programPage: 7 Program Seq f: 01 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: HIPPY Program Code: 01 Prhnary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marian Shead Program Goal: To prepare economically disadvanuged children to enter kindergarten with the necessary skills to be success\nand to improve the educational outcomes of students, particularly black students as it relates to the achievement disparity between black and white students. L16 L6 L6 Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 25. To assist in traveling expense. 25.1 Aides made borne visit. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Aides Pay stipend 07/01/94 06/30/95 26, The home-based program and die four-vear-old school-based program will collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. 27, The Little Rock School and Pulaski County School Districts will collaborate and coordinate the on-goina implementation of the HIPPY Program. 01, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95Program Seq f: 02 Program Name: Program Code: Program Description: Distrkt Goal Support: Program Giud: Plan References: FY Program Budget: YTD Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Four-Year Old Program/City-Wide Early Childhood Program 02 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Pike Page: I Revision Date: August II. 1995 The purpose of die program is  meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the Elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas - physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students and in schools that are diffkult to desegregate. The Disnkts preschool curriculum model will be implemented in all incentive schools and other selected schools in the Little Rock School Distrkt. Effective the 1990-91 school year, this model will be an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economkallv disadvantaged children and to attract white students to the schools. A loiut-range (four-vear-otd) plan will address deinogriphk. instructional, and structural needs. LRSD will continue to use the four-vear-old program as a means to meet the needs of-disadvantaged students and desegregate schools that are difficult to desegregate. L8 Goal FI - Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on bask skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal F2 - Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal F3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each diversity among students, staff and the comiminity as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for die 21st Century. Goal F4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. Goal F5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Goal F6 - Ensure that equity occurs in all fdiases of school activities and operatkiu. The District will implement the Four-Year-Old Program by the 1994-95 school year according to the provisions of a long-ranee implementation plan developed for additional four-year-old classes and approved by the Court f72O seats). L7, LIO. L17, 18. 19 ] $1,943,683.64 $2,108,061.00 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $292,010.10 $480,415.35 02, 1 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: $607,059.76 $728,575.79 FTE 89.5 1Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Number L17 L17 L17 L17 L17 L17 02 Four-Year Old Program LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: To Implement the Four-Year-Old Program In selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult m desegregate.) Objectives Strategies 2. Recruit teachers and aides as needed. 3. Obtain curricuhan materials, supplies, and furniture as needed. 4. Train teachers and aides in the Implementation of E.C.E. currlctdum.) Page: 2 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Secondary Leader: Pat Price Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors, Human Resources Director, Principals 2. (A list of qualified applicants.) 2.1 Interview intererted teachers and aides as needed. A. Teachers and aides hired for every classroom. 3.1 Complete and send orders to vendors. A. Materials, supplies and equipment available in al) new classrooRU. 4.1 Conduct orientation and Inservlces. A. Principals training July 18 and 19. 1994\nOctober 13, 20, 1994 and November 15. 1994\nFebruary 23. 1995 and March 29. 30. 31. 1995 B. Teachers training August 16. 1994 and September 20, 1994\nOctober 12, 13. 20 and November 10, 15, 18. 1994\nFebruary 21. 23. 1995 and March 3. 6. 10. 29. 30. 31. 1995\nApril 11. 12. 13. 19. 1995 02, 2 07/01/94 07/08/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/18/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 08/12/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/20/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/06/95 Supervisors, Human Resources Director, Principab (Purchasing Dept. Supervisors) Principals Supervisors Supv/Staff Dev Supv/Staff Dev 2.1 A list of qualified applicants. (Employment of teachers and aides for new and open positions.) 3. (Confirmation of purchase orders.) 3.1 Materials available 4. (Documentation of inservice evaluations.) 4.1 Agenda (Documentation of inservice evaluations) Page: 3 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To Implement the Four*Year-Old Program tn selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) I Flan Reference Page Nianber L17 L17 L17 L18 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5. Familiarize pareida with Four-Year Old Program. 5.1 Conduct paretd orientation meeting and pareid conference. A. Parent Orientation: August 30, 1994 - Romine and Elementary Magnet Schools: September I, 1994 - Elementary Area Schools\nSeptember 8, 1994 - Incentive Schools\nParent Conference Day - September 23. 1994\nNovember 12, 1994 - Brady Parent Woritshop\nOctober 4. 1994 - HIPPY\nMarch 17, 1995 - Parent Conference Day\nApril 13, 20 and May 10. 1995 - Rockefeller Parent Workshops 5.2 Include four-year old children In Master Schedule - students receive service* of counselors, musk teachers, school nurses, librarian*, physical education and art teachers. A. Master schedules reflect services children receive. 5.3 Ensure key experiences occurring far the classroom. A. One hundred and six (106) classroom visitations. B. Forty (40) programs had licensing site visits. 02, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 09/13/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 06/01/75 06/06/95 Classroom teachers Classroom teachers Principab Principals Classroom Teachers Supervisors 5. (Documentation of meetings artd evaluations.) 5.1 Number of parents attending Parent/Teacher Conferences 5.2 Master schedules 5.3 Curriculum checklistPage: 4 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To implement the Four-Year-Old Program in selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L18 L18 L18 L18 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 6. Evaluate effectiveness of Four-Year Old Program. 6.1 Aihnlnister appropriate evaluation to four-year-olds. 6.1 (Maintaining portfolio assessments on four-year-olds.) A. Portfolio assessments began on all children. 6.2 Analyze student assessment test data and prepare report for LRSD Board of Directors. 6.3 Utilize results for program fanprovemeid. 02, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/06/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 (Principals Classroom Teachers Supervisors Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Assoc. Supt.) Classroom teachers (Classroom teachers) Assoc Supt Supervisor Plnnnlfig, Evaluation, and Testing (Assoc Supt Supervisor) 6. (Annual review of assessment data beginning at die end of the kindergarten year of each child participating in the program. EPSF Post Assessments) o(Comparisons of the progress of children who did and did iMt participate in the program.) (Standardize achievement tests will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the Early Childhood Program as an intervention strategy.) 6.1 Evaluation results 6.1 (Documentation of portfolios recording the work which children do and what they krtow.) 6.2 Evaluation report 6.3 (Areas targeted for improvement.) Page\n5 Program Seq *: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Prinarj Leader: Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To iinpleinent the Four-Year-Old Program in selective schools. (To meet the needs of disadvantaged students\nto improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate.) i Flan Reference Page Nimber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 7, Support the continued work of the LRSD Early Childhood Task Force as a valuable avenue for parent, teacher, and conununitv input. 07/01/94 06/30/95 7.1 Conduct monthly Task Force meetings A. Schedule meetings and plan agenda. 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 05/31/95 02, 5Program Seq 9: 02 Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Nianber L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 L19 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET EXX:UMENT Four-Year Old Program Primaiy Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Page: 6 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Pat Price To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D.. P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D.. Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvaritage students in the city of Little Rock. Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. To develop a plan for planning a city-wide early childhood program. 3. To initiate the planning for the Implementation of a dty wide early childbood program. 1.4 To receive a letter of support from each agency desiring to participate. 2.1 To establish planning procedures and Identify key committees and chairpersons needed for the planning process. 2.2 To Identify appropriate additional representatives from each participating for each committee. agency 2 J To deUneate the goals to be addressed and the tasks to be acc\u0026lt;ai|41shed by each committee, including appropriate timelines to be met. 3.1 To conduct periodic meetings to review progress of each committee. 3.2 To idemify resources needed by identified by each committee, including monetary. 02, 6 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for ELducational Programs File record letters Structured plan for planning on file. Record of committee members Record of committee members Minutes of meetings Identification of committeeProgram Seq f: 02 Page: 7 Revision Date: August II, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program G\u0026lt;m1: To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D., P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. L19 LI9 Ptan Reference Page Number L7(N) LI0(N) LIO (N) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3.3 To review the flrst draft of the ctunprebensive plan and to make recommendations for refinement. 3.4 To submit the final draft for approval to aD partldpanl Boards of Directors (where appUcaUe). 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Assoc Supt for EducatioiuU Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Submission of first draft Draft submitted to Board I. (To collaborate with HIPPY, P.C.S.S.C., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start, and other entities in order to fulfill the district's expectations for a quality Early Childhood Education Program.) (N) 1.1 (To establish a schedule of regular meetings of representatives of the various entities.) (N) 1.2 (Supervisors meet to discuss irtdividual program needs and to determine if resources can be shared.XN) A. manning meeting held August 10. 1994\nSeptember 28. 1994\nSeptember 29. 1994\nOctober 18, 1994\nNovember 8. 1994\nApril 10, 1995\nMay 15, 1995 02, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/10/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 05/31/95 (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) 1.1 (Schedule and minutes of all meetings) 1.2 (Roster of participants arxi minutes of meetings)Page: 8 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11. 199S Program Name: Four-Year OW Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To combine the efforts of the L.R.S.D.. P.C.S.S.D.. N.L.R.S.D.. Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. Plan Reference Page Nianber LIO (N) LIO (N) L10 (N) L11 Objectives Strategies T Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.3 (To plan joint inservices for administrators, teachen and instructional assistants.XN) 1.4 (To plan joint parent involvement activities.XN) 1.5 (To use a student referral system allowing parents on a waiting list to know about vacarK:les.)(N} 1.6 A representative from the Little Rock School District Student Assiaranent Office will meet each year with parents from both programs to review the kindergarten assianwent oroceaa The annual sessions on kindergarten registration will also be used to provide information on magnet school opportimltles. 02, 8 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSD/NLRSD and Headstart Supervisors of ECE programs) (LRSD Supervisors and PCSSO/MLRSD and Headstart Stgrervlsors of ECE programs) 1.3 (Roster of participants and evaluations of inservices) 1.4 (Roster of participants and evaluations of Inservlces) 1.5 (List of vacancies each entity has.) --1Page: 9 Program Seq f: 02 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Four-Year Old Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis Secondary Leader: Pat Price Program Goal: To combine the efforts of die L.R.S.D., P.C.S.S.D., N.L.R.S.D., Head Start and other entities to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantage students in the city of Little Rock. L11 Ran Reference Page Nunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.7 Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, a list will be conpiled of all graduates from the three early childhood programs. These students will be identified in the Little Rock School District mainframe cowouter system according to their respective programs. A. Requested list of graduates from the ECE programs at Headstart and the city of Little Rock*s East Cosmunity Complex 02, 9 07/01/94 08/22/94 06/30/95 06/06/95 1.7 At the end of each year for grades K-3, these students will be monitored on the basis of standardited tests, criterion-reference tests. EPSF screening, or ony other academic measures that are available and applicebie, The entities will review these results on an annual basis, prior to the beginning of the following school year, and make prograwnatic changes, individually and collectively, as needed. These students will be cowoared to a control group in order to isolate the effectiveness and/or deficiencies of the various early childhood programs.LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq f: 03 Page: 1 Revlsioii Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: 10 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parfcer/Glasgow Program Description: Name and Location of Academic Support Programs - The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Techiuca] Education Center. Purpose - The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and nuthematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support will be provided by certified reading specialists, English and mathematics teachers in the regular classrooms, additional classes, and labs. Scope and Content - The Academic Support Program offen a variety of options to die individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes. or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pull-out at the elementary level. Partldpnnts/Benefldarlea - Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the annual studcot asscssinent. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population tn participate in the Academic Support Program. District Goal Support: \u0026lt;1) Implement integrated educational programs dial will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. (2) Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. (3) Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary m fully support our schools, including our desegregation ptan. (4) Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. (5) The Litde Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. (6) Ensure that equity occurs in all (riuses of school activities and ofurations. Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students tn the mainstream setting by supporting diem with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the teaming disparity. Flan References: LP 1-20 Program Budget: $1,615,303.00 let Qtr Expend: $209,511.74 3rd Qtr Expend: $579,493.61 FTE 48.0 YTD Expenditures: $1,491,150.15 2nd Qtr Expend: $357,000.40 4(h Qtr Expend: $345,144.40 Related Function Codes: 03, 1 Isogram Seq f: 03 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Program Goal: Flao Reference Page Nunber March 19, 1993 Revised Academic Support Program P 1 p4,13 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Adams/Parkcr/Glasgow The goal of die Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting diem with die instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. (Mijectives Strategies Beginning Date Ctnnpletion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To Identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Local school teams 1. (Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students.) 1.1 Explain the Academic Support Program options to local school administrators. A. Language Arts Plus and Madi Plus and traditional in-class support. 1.2 Provide an overview of bow all the individual Academic Support Programs will be coordinated for continuiQr of services to children and efficient use of resources. -All schools will implement die Board-approved uniform curriculum. 03, 2 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/95 06/30/95 Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assocbte Supt. for Curriculum, Director of Federal Programs, Cuiriculm Supervisors 1.1 (Schedule of meeting.) 1.2 (Observation reports and staff development activities records are on file.)Page: 3 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1993 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Pa rkcr/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equiable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Plan Reference Page Number p7,W pl3 p 11.13 p 12.13 Objectivea Strateglea Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Crlterta -The established critical attributes of the Academic Support Program will be evident in each school. -The revised curricutum (K-i2) has been sequentially developed and die objectives have been correlated to the skills in Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, Stanford Achievement Test-Eighth Edition, and existing computer-assisted instructional software. -To provide for continuous improvement of teachers, records will be maintained on staff development activities. -New staff members will be targeted for appropriate staff development activities as well as participation in the district's \"New Teacher Initiative.* U Select the local schools appro|Hiate Academic Support Program. (Indtrect/dlrect/cxtended aervices) A. Support program identified 1.4 Ideidl^ students selected for partldpotlon tn each program by achool/grade level. A. Students identified and selected. 1.5 Select staff (Identify by position) responsible for delivering Academic Su|qwrt Program. A. Staff selected for 1994-95 school year. 03, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 Local school administrators Local school teams PriiKipai 1.3 (Selection on file at buildinglevel aiKl in office of Director of Federal Programs.) 1.4 (Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students.) 1.5 (Staff assignments are determined at die building level and assignments filed at the Office of Federal Programs.)Page: 4 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parfcer/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstrearned setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Plan Reference Page Number p12,13 p 13 p 7,8,20 pl Objectives Strategies Rfinning Date Comjdetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria l.d Schedule the academic teams staff. A. Teacher schedules on file at Office of Federal Programs B. Schedules posted in classrooms 1.7 Implemeid selected school options at local levd. A. Program options implemented 1.8 Utilize resources Invested In PAL remediation approach by reallocating staff positions, computer hardware, software programs, and other equipment and materials toward the itew approach to remediation. A. JoW Year School Improvemerd Plans developed tanplemeoted. B. First Year School improvement plan* developed/implemented. 07/01/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/07/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 09/28/94 Principal Principal and staff (PriiKipal, Coordinator of Media Services. Director of Federal Programs, and Curriculum Supervisors) 2. To prescribe a personalized intervention plan for eligible students. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principal and staff 03. 4 1.6 (Schedules are developed listing teams contact time, number of students served, and other variables associated with the teams responsibilities.) 1.7 (Schedules of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s).) 1.8 (Tecimology Department's inventory and schedules of stafFing reflect reallocations of resources.) 2. (Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s).)Page: 5 Program Seq 9: 03 RevisioD Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is lo provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with (he instructional and technical assistarx\ne needed to reduce die learning disparity. Flan Relercnce Page Number Objectives Strategiea Beginning Dale Completion Dale Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2. (To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students.) pl4 pM 2.1 Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for curriculum clusters. 2 J Begin training staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupervisors of Language Arts and Mathematics Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupervisors of Language Arts, Mathematics and IRC Specialists, Director of Federal Programs 2.1 (Staff development schedule on file.) 2.2 (Staff training for participants will include program administration (student selection process, recordkeeping. progress reports) instructional strategies, parental involvement, and others.) A. Workshops -Applied Madi I and n  State training 08/02/94 08/04/94 -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Principals 08/03/94 08/03/94 -Pre-School Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Inservice -Pre-School Elementary Classroom Teacher Harcourt Brace Inservice -Pre-School Secondary English and Language Arts Plus Inservice Pre-School Elementary Pre-School Secondary Math Plus Inservke 03. 5 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/15/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 08/16/94 J.'Page: 6 Program Seq *: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Giasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and matfienutics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting diem with die instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -Chapter 1 Record Keeping -Harcourt Brace Reading Department Inservice -Secondary Math Council -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Grade 4, 5. and 6 Teachers -Harcourt Brace Inservice for Grade 1. 2. and 3 Teachers -Secondary Academic Support Madi Teachers Inservice - Math Plus -Harcourt Brace l^ementary Cluster Inservices for New Reading Series Grades 2-6 -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -Elementary Reading Teacher Inservice -First Grade Academic Support Math Teacher Inservice (Part I) -Chapter I Mid-Winter Conference (Hot Springs) -Academic Support Program Planning Meeting -Academic Support Elementary Counselors Meeting -Academic Support Secondary Counselors' Meeting -Secortdary English Council Inservice -First Grade Academic Support Math Teacher Inservice (Part 2) 03, 6 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 09/13/94 09/19/94 09/20/94 09/27/94 10/10/94 11/16/94 11/19/94 12/06/94 01/26/95 02/02/95 02/07/95 02/07/95 02/20/95 02/20/95 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 11/22/94 09/19/94 09/20/94 09/29/94 11/14/94 11/16/94 11/19/94 01/30/95 01/27/95 02/02/95 02/07/95 02/07/95 02/20/95 03/13/95Page: 7 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: pTfanary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: Hk goal of the Academic Support Progiam is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Ran Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria pM -Secondary Chapter I \u0026amp; Language Arts Plus Teacher Inservice \"Instructional Strategies* 2.3 Monitor the implementation of above. 2.3 (Monitor the implementation of the Academic Support Program options. These programs may vary from year-to-year.) A. On site visits made to elementary and secondary schools by staff 2.4 Monitor instruction and learning in Academic Support Program settings on a regular basis and observe to determine: -Teachers involving students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity. 03, 7 03/09/95 03/10/95 07/01/94 08/23/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 Principals, districtwide staff development team, and computer specialista (PritKipals. districtwide staff development team, curriculum supervisors. IRC specialists. Director of Federal Programs) Principals 2.3 (School visits/observations are made to provide feedback (oral/written) to trained staff.) Teacher observations and evaluations on record. Page: 8 Program Seq f: 03 Revtsion Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of die Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in die mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. 1 Plan Reference Page Nimber Objectives Strategies Bcghmlng Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria p 7,9,10,19 -Teachers selecting methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences. -Teachers danonstratlng creativity and resourcefulness in deliveiing instruction. -Teachen utilizing effective classroom strategics, such as tutors, smaO-group Instruction, and extended day/weck programs, to maintain the gains students have made. Teachers interacting with students In a caring manner. -Teachers recording of students data that shows increased student achievement and social skills (letter and citizenship grades, standardized test scores, attendance). p7,15 2.5 Provide technical assistance and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development areas. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principals, district- wide staff development team, and computer specialists 2.4 (Requests for technical assistance are documented and evaluated. Feedback related to improvement or change is recorded.) A. Technical assistance has been provided to eleiTKntary and secondary schools. 08/23/94 Q6I3QI95 (PritKipals, districtwide staff development team, curriculum supervisors, IRC specialists) 03, 8Page: 9 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Suppon Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader\nAdams/Parker/Glasgow Program Croal: The goal of (he Academic Support Program is assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. IO provide equitable language am and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical } Flan Reference Page Nianber p 7,10,15 p10,15 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 2.6 Schedule school based meetings to assess program effectiveness. 07/01/94 06/30/95 Principal 2.5 (Records of dates of meetings and participants, minutes of meetings, and issues related to program effectiveness are maintained.) 3. To reduce or eUminate pull-out academic support programs. 07/01/94 06/30/95 3.1 Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, xampks of student work, and pareid/teacber/student recommendations. 3.2 Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness In meeting Its particular programmatic goab and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction of disparity between Mack and white students. A. Chapter 1 Sustained Effects Reports 1995 03. 9 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/01/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/15/95 Principal and staff\nDir. of Federal Programs Associate Supt. for Curriculum, Assistant Supts., Curriculum Supervisors, and Principab 3.1 (Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress.) 3.2 Academic Support Programs win be successfully operating in all district schools as evidettced by: Increased student achievement. Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving to the next quartile. Increased number of students moving above the 50th percentile. Page: 10 Program Seq f: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts aixl mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and techrucal assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. nan Reference Page Number p 10,15,19^0 pl5 p5 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria B. Stanford Achievement Test Results 3.3 Identic modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94. A. Math Plus initiated in regular math, pre-algebra. algebra: FY 95 - 10 schools participated 3.4 Support and extend learning opportunities for studeids by maidng available to targeted students before-scboot, at hmch, after-scbool, and periodic extended weeks computer lab instruction. 03, 10 06/01/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 06/30/95 09/30/94 06/30/95 Associate Supt. for Curriculum, Assistant Supts., Curriculum Supervisors and Principals Director of Federal Programs, Principals -Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student. -Grade distribution reports (by semester) by class and grade level reflecting an increase in attainment of letter grades of \"C\" or better In the core areas. -Improved attendaiKe for targeted students. 3.3 (The 1993-94 school year will reflect modifications.) 3.4 (Schedules will reflect additional instructional services.)Page: 11 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: - Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Progmm is  piovide equiable language arta and malhemadcs learning eaperiencea for all students in the nutinstreatned setting by supporting them with the instntctional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. I Pbn Reference Page Nunber P Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skllla needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. A. Announcement of Extended E\u0026gt;ay Program to begin 1-4-95 B. Identified studenu of participating schools submitted to Office of Federal Programs. C. Extenday Day proposals to Office of Federal Programs D. Extended Day Programs begin (1500 participants} 4.1 Assist parents in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to prorfote the education of their children at home and at school through: Providing timely information regarding students achievement and behavior. Involving them in Informative and effective conferences concerning their childs education. Involving parents as partners in their childs educationa) process. A. Provided parent/teacher support at five (5) schools\nconducted twelve (12) parent meetings B. Parent Involvement meetings with Key Facilitators and/or Executive Council C. Parent training sessions (29) 03. 11 07/01/94 06/30/95 (Principal and staff. Director of Federal Programs, Curriculum Supervisors) 4. Parental involvement will show an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. 11/18/94 11/18/94 12/20/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/05/94 07/11/94 09/27/94 11/18/94 12/08/94 12/20/94 90% 06/30/95 12/21/95 06/30/95 06/29/95 r (Principal and staff, Director of Federal Programs, Curriculum Supervisors) 4.1 (Records of parental involvement activities on file.) Page: 12 Program Seq 9: 03 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Academic Support Program Program Code: Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Adams/Parker/Glasgow Program Goal: The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting fliem with the instructional and technical assistartce needed to reduce the learning disparity. Flan Reference Page Nianbcr Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria D. District-wide PAC Meeting 10/22/94 10/22/94 E. Homeless Conference 11/02/94 11/04/94 F. Mid-Winter Conference (30 parents) 01/25/95 01/27/95 O. Kindergarten Parent Inservice 'Getting Your Child Ready for First Grade Reading* 02/07/09 02/07/09 H. Family Day Celebration (250 participants) I. National Parent Meeting (8 parents) J. Tri District Parent Meeting (200 parents) K. Awards Picnic (300 parents) L. Chapter 1 Parent Involventent Day 03, 12 03/12/95 10/04/94 02/15/95 04/17/95 07/01/95 03/12/95 10/08/94 04/01/95 06/03/95 03/12/95Program Seq #: 04 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculuin Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Program Description: District Goal Support: Program Goal: Flan References: I FY Program Budget: Expenditures: Related Function Codes: LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Page: I Revision Date: August tl. 1995 1 The Mulriculaiiil Curriculum Program i, designed to provide equity and excellence in ,11 curricullt and program ireas in the Little Rock School Disiricl. (,6 ), The program is further designend tnoi reduce the disparity that exists between black and white students in academic performances and the low representation of black students in ^vanc^ plac^nt ^u^as development in the r?\n:! p:\u0026lt;^rcoS X* -mra,. cdmlc backgroumls wdl be affected dm the cultural, academic and social needs of all children. (1,3,6) To supplement greatest by activities oudined in the Multicultural Curriculum Program. 4, Students will be provided opportunities to develop better self-esteem,. -5-.- ---S--o--i-r-i-e nts will have opportunities to eaamine the artistic. nwiiiol acientific. literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethruc groups. Goal No. I. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure dut III students grow icademically. sociilly and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities m achievement. Goal No. 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. Goal No. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. Goal No. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our dewgregaaon plan. -Artrfi-rtnr m cncietv and view cultural diversity Goal No. 3. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day to day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural di ty among students, staff and the community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. To ensure educational equity in die elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76 objectives 1,2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) L66  80 $259,837.33 $187,092.39 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: $45,936.67 $29,434.99 04. 1 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend: $62,392.39 $49,328.34 FTE  Program Seq f: 04 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Program Goal: Ftan Reference Page Number L66 L66 L66 L76 LRSD FY 94-95 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Page: 2 Revision Date: Marie McNeal To ensure educational equity in the clcmenury and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility August 11, 1995 Evaluation Crtterb 1. To provide teacher learning opportunities through formal course training 1.1 Contact local colleges and universities to obtain Information on proposed course offerings related to ethnic studies for the simmer and faD, 1991 1.1 (LRSD will receive aimoutKements from local colleges/universities on proposed multicultural courses) A. Letters written, mailed to all 4 year state colleges and universities requesting catalogue listings of multicuitural course offerings. B. Catalogues listing proposed courses for the 1994-95 terms received. 1.2 Receive and advertise course offerings to aD certified staff, Inchiding opportunities for tuition rehnbursement and/or salary credit A. Course offerings advertised. 04, 2 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/11/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 07/01/94 09/09/94 (06/30/95) 05/02/95 (Director of Staff Development, Subject Area Supervisors, Principals) Assoc Supt.-Educ. Programs Dean of Grad. Seb. Academic Deans (Director of Staff Development) (Supervisor of Social Studies) Assoc Supt - Educ Programs Office of Human Resources 1. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1.1 List of college offerings 1.1 (The number of teachers who have received multicultural training will increase.) 1.2 Copy of information IH-ovldedPage: 3 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date\nAugust II, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page'76. objectives I, 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the N. . LRSD to promott multicultu ral activiti.e s an.d .cu rric.u lum.. d_e_v_e_l_o pm, ekn_t_. :(_A_p__pltie.. s_ o_n_l_y_ _t_o_ p_a_g__e_ 7_6__. _o_b_i_ecI ov1e s 1I . a2 .\\ 3. 4.) I Plan Reference Page Ntmber Objectives Strategies Begiiinlng Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L66 L66 L66 L66 2. To develop a district-wide multicultural audto/visual resource catalogue 2. (To maintain district-wide multiculiural audio/visual resource catalogue) B. Opportunities for tuition reimbursement/salaiy credit outlined/identified in die LRSDs office of Human Resources and the Staff Development Department. U Identify participants in stanmer and fall courses 2.1 Review and catalogue present audio/vlsual materials related to multicultural curriculiHn 2.2 Purchase additional audio/visual materials from the 1988-89 budget A. Activity complettd/obligadon met 04, 3 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 09/30/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Employees (Director of Human Resources) (Subject area supervisors) Supv of Media Services (Subject area supervisors) Supv of Media Services (Subject area supervisors, principals) 1.3 Co|7 of academic course completion on ffle In Personnel office (Office of Human Resources) 2. (Multicultural resources will be used for classroom instruction) 2.1 Current catalogue listing 2.1 (Copies of updated multicultural audio/visual catalogue will be distributed) 2.1 (Multicultural materials will be checked out and used by instructional staff in the schools) 2.2 Requisition material 2.2 (Materials ordered, received, arxl catalogued for distribution/use) Program Seq *: 04 Page: Revistoo Date: 4 August II. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Siecondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies Io entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. objectives I. 2. 3. 4.) L66 Ran Reference Page Number L66 L66 L67 L67 L67 Objectives Strategies Begtamliig Date CompktioQ Date Responsibility EvahiatioD Criteria 2.3 Ideitiify and catalogue other resources for multicultural aurtto/vlsual materials, i.e., AR Dept . of Education, LR Public Library, AR Library Commission 2.4 Revise, print and distribute multicultural audio/vlsua) resource catalogue for the LRSD A. Activity coinpleted/obligation met 2.5 Place initial suppiemental order for multicultural audio/visual materiab from the 1989- 90 budget A. Activity compIeted/obligatioQ met 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Supv of Media Services Superv of Media Services Media Specialists 2.3 2.4 2.4 Completed catalogue Distribution of catalogue (Multicultural materials will be checked out by schools) 2.5 Requisitions submitted 2.5 (Materials are available for check-out/use) 3. To plan and hnplcmeia the Instructional Materiab Fair (Multicultural) 3. (To supply information about multicultural materials for purchase to teachers, parents and the community) 3.1 Involve a team of parents, community resources, and teachers In detailed planning for the Fair-spedfk dates, tfanc, place and format-to be held as a component of 1988-59 pre-scbool conference 3.1 (To plan and implement the Instructional Multicultural Materials Fair for current term) 3.2 Identify national and local vendors of multicultural Instructional materials 04, 4 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (Assoc Supt for Educational Programs) (Supv of Media Services) Assoc Supt for Educatiorul Programs (Supv of Media Services) Assoc Supt for Educatiorul Programs 3. (Multicultural materials will be used by instructional staff in all schools) 3. (Evaluate the effectiveness of the Multicultural Fair) 3.1 Implementation Plan 3.1 (Involved input from parents, cotrununity, and teachers) 3.2 Comidetlon of mailing list 3.2 (Major suppliers of multicultural materials will be invited to exhibit at the Fair) - - Page: 5 Program Seq f: Program Name: Program Code: Program Goal: Flan Reference Page Number L67 L67 L67 L67 L67 L68 L68 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Multicultural Curriculum 12 Primary Leader: Secondar\nLeader: Marie McNeal To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document excejrt for page 76. objectives 1. 2. 3, 4.) lU eiOUIC tUUVlUUIHU UI wiw..ii..iaua.7 -------------------------,---------------- , ..  .1 i \\ To collaboratE wiUi Bie PCSSD ind the NLRSD to promote mulncultunl activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiecnves I, 2. 3, 4.J 4. To develop adoptbn Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria q crtterb for textbook review and 3.3 Establish pre-school conference dates and extend Invitation to vendors 3.3 (Establish date for Fair) A. Fair date established as 12/01/94 3.4 Confirm Fair participants 3.5 Acquaint principals and ceittral office staff with plam and Fair rebtlonsfaip to desegregation efforts 3.6 Conduct medb campaign for Fair to sbff and parents 3.7 Host trl-district \"Instructional Materials Fair\" 3.7 (Host the Multicultural Fair rotating the site among the diree districts) A. LRSD will host die Fair for the 1994-95 term B. Fair hosted by LRSD at M.L. King School on December 1, 1994. 4.1 Revise Board policy for textbook adoption 04, 5 Mil  07/01/94 09/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07-01-94 09/30/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 09/30/94 06/30/95 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 09/30/94 12/01/94 (06/30/95) Executive Staff Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Supv of Medb Services Assoc Supt for Deseg and Seboob Supv of Medb Services, Dir of Communications Assoc Supt of Educational Programs working with conunittee (Assoc Supt for Curriculum, Subject Area Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educationa) Programs 3.3 Conference scheduled 3.3 (Fair date placed on District master calendar) 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 Confirmation (List of participating vendors) Staff agenda (Staff can relate Fair to die District's desegregation efforts) 3.6 Publicity 3.6 (Fair is advertised to the public) 3.7 Validate Fair participation 3.7 (Materials ordered/purchased) 4. (Criteria checklist implemented by textbook committees) 4.1 Approved criteriaPage: 6 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and die NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) nan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Cmnpletion Date Responsibility EvahutioD Criteria Ld8 L 68 L68 L68 L68 A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.2 Ideirtify an ad hoc committee to review criteria presently being used in LRSD and other districts for textbook adoptions (10 members) A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.3 Conduct staff development training on avoiding sex and race bias and stereotyping in textbooks 4.3 (Textbooks on tbe approved Arkansas State Department of Educations textbook list arc free of sex/race bias) A. Activity completed/obligation met 4.4 Submit revised policy and criteria to the Board of Directors for Rrst reading A. Activity completed/obligation met 4 J Adopt policy on textbooks A. Activity co(i^\u0026gt;leted/obligation met 4.6 UtiUzc a local consultant to train staff on \"Avoiding Sex and Race Stereotyping in Textbooks\" A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 6 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Arkansas State Dept, of Education) Superintendent Assoc Supt for Ed Progs LRSD Board of Directors Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) 4.2 Roster of committee members 4.3 Schedule of meeting and agenda 4.3 (Textbooks selected will be free of sex/race bias) 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 Board agenda Board agenda Monitoring (Textbooks are free of sex/race stereotypes)Page: 7 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1993 Program Name: Multkultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. ob^tives 1. 2, 3 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) L6S Flan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L69 L69 L69 4.7 Select and recommend to Board for adoption of textbooks (elemeidary and secondary) based on criteria for adoption A. Based on criteria for adoption, elementary science textbooks were selected and approved by the Board 12/15/94. B. Secondary science textbooks will be recommended to die Board for adoption at the April Board meeting: secondary science texdxwks were approved. 07/01/94 07/01/94 01-04-95 (06/30/95) 12-22-94 04/27/95 5. To develop and Implement a multicultural curriculum for pre-ldndergarten through grade 6 5. (To implement the LRSD curriculum. K-6. which is multicultural) 5.1 Flan and host at least three (3) public meetings to receive suggestions from patrons on areas to be Included in a multicultural curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.2 Identify and retain the services of a national expert in multicultural currlculiBn development (IohI consultant for two (2) year contract). A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 7 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curricutum Specialists) (Principals. Teachers, Asst. Supts., Curriculum Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educ Prog Assoc Supt for Desegregation Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 4.7 Board approval 4.7 (Criteria checklist was used for texdMX)k selection) 5. (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits/teacher conferences) 5. (Improvement in student performance and assessment of attitude regarding learning) 5.1 Transcript of suggestions 5.2 Contractual commitment for the 1988-89 school year (Dr. James A. Banks was used)Program Seq f: 04 Page: 8 Revision Date: Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum August II. 1995 Program Code: 12 Primai7 Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) L69 L69 L69 Plan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies 5.3 In cooperation with the lead ctmsultant, the Division of Educational Programs will issue a detailed currtcuhan development timeline for the year, including a cbecldist for task completion A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.4 Develop expectations for members partiri paring on muttkulturBl curriculum committee A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.5 Identify ctirriculinn committee members and contract for services: 8  Heakh/Science 5  Musk 14  Reading/Language Arts 3 * Art 4 * Social Studies 4  Libraries 38 5.5 (All core curricuhim areas were involved in the development of guides) 5.5 (Curriculum areas revised were: Reading. Language Arts. Social Studies. Math, and Science) A. Activity completed/obligation met B. Mathematics curriculum was revised according to state mathematics framework 04, 8 Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteiia 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for Educationa] Programs 5.3 TimeUne/cbecklist (Timeline included in diis document 5.5 - 5.17) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 09/15/94 Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for ELduc Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 5.4 Expectations 5.4 (Contractual agreements with curriculum writers) 5.5 Identification of committee members 1Page: 9 Program Seq #: 04 Revlsioii Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multkultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) L69 L70 Flan Reference Page Number L70 L70 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.6 Obtain multicultural currlculinn units from modeb used in other dtlcs A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.7 Develop expectations for use of local resource consultant in multicultural curricuhmi development A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.8 Secure the services of six (6) local resource consuHanta to serve on the district wide curriculum development committee A. Activi^ completed/obligation met 5.9 Conduct inservice session on \"Methods for Developing Multicultural Teaching Strategiea\" to include (a) understanding the rationale, trends, and goab multlcnltural curriculum, (b) developing a conceptual framework for multicultural curricultmi, and (c) establishing procedures for developing a muhlcultura] curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 9 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-93 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) 5.6 Copies of multicultural materials distributed to committee members 5.7 List of expectations 5.8 Contract services of consultants 5.9 Participants written evaluation 5.9 (Original inservice completed\nongoing inservice wilt be documented and evaluated by participants)Page: 10 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 199S Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Mark McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity io the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1. 2, 3. 4.) To colhborate with the PCSSD and (he NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) i L70 L70 L70 Flan Reference Page Nunber L70 Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Crnnfriction Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.10 Conduct task completion monitoring as identified In timeline A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.11 Operatiottalize tbe curriculum development timeline (monthly meetings with specific dates developed In cooperation with committee memhef) A. Activity complettd/obligation met 5.12 Review and edit tbe comprebensive guides in each content area at each grade level A. Activity completed/obligation met 5.13 Type and print all guides A. Activity completed/obligation met B. Revised Math, Language Arts and Foreign Language curriculum guide typed and printed 04, 10 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 08/12/94 Div of Educational Programs (Assoc Supt for Educational Programs) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs 5.10 Implementation of monitoring instrument 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.13 Agenda of each meeting Implementation of guides Guides completed (Guides delivered to schools)Page: 11 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure teuduuvc^autivomnaul equity in the elementary and secondary c--u--r--r-i-c--u--l-u--m-  and program areas. (A,p,p lies to entire document -e-x--c--e--p--t for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1. 2. 3, 4.) Plan Reference Page Number L70 L70 L 70 L70 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 5.14 Conduct inservice for all elementary principals and teachen A. Inservice provided to all K-6 teachers during Preschool Conference Cluster Meetings for revised Language Arts, Math and Reading Curriculum 5.15 Involve prindpah and teachers in ordering multicultural mateiiab from local building budgets: a. Make avaOaMe materials catalogues to buUtUng level principals b. Order and acquire materials based on currkulinn to be taught 5.16 Extend inservice through scheduled district levd regular elemeidary cluster meetings (reading, language arts, sodal studies, art, and musk) A. Curriculum inservice extended in all curriculum areas and programs 5.17 Host three (3) lectings for parents of elementary children to provide an overview of the comprebensire multkultural curriculum 04, 11 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 08/18/94 (06/30/95) 04/04/95 04/19/95 (06/30/95) 06/23/95 (06/30/95) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs (Curriculum Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educational Prog Elem Teachers Principals Principals Assoc Supt for Educatioiul Programs Division of Educatioiul Programs 5.14 Agenda 5.14 (Curriculum implementation) 5.14 (Inservice on revised curriculum is ongoing) 5.15 Acquisition of materials 5.15 (Instructional materials representing diverse groups will be present in all schools) 5.16 (Inservice on revised curriculum is being offered through minicourses and building meetings during the 1993-94 school year) 5.17 Program and roster of participants 5.17 (Assessment of multicultural education during parent conferences) I 1 Page: 12 Program Seq 9: 04 Revistoo Date: Program Name: August 11. 1995 Multicultural Curricuhim Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Mark McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Appiks to entire document except for page 76. objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and tire NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Appiks only to page 76, objectives I, 2. 3, 4^) I L72 L74 L74 Flan Reference Page Nunber Objectivet Strategies Beginning Date Cmnpktion Date RespoiuIbiUty Evaluation Criteria A. Activity completed/obligation met See 1993-94 PBD 6. To develop and fanplcment a multicultural curriculum for grades 7*12 (To implement the revised curriculum 7-12. which is imjiticultural) 6.16 Involve principals and teachers hi ordering muHlcuHural materiab from local building budgets: (a) Make available materiab catalogues to building bvel principab (b) Order and acquire materiab based on curricuhan to be taught 6.17 Monitor the use of cinrkiihon guides A. Periodic curriculum monitoring being implemented in all content areas B. Eisenhower math and science specialists and the math/science supervisory staff monitored schools for the use of the mathematics and scknce curriculum guides. 04, 12 07/01/94 (07/01/90) 07/01/94 08/22/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 06/02/95 06/07/95 (Principals. Teachers. Asst. Supts.. Subject Area Supervisors) Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Principals Area Supervisors 6. (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits/teacher conferences) 6. (Improvement in student academic performance and assessment of attitude regarding learning) 6.16 Materials purchased 6.16 (Instructional materials representing diverse groups will be present in all secondary schools) 6.17 Scbedule/Documentation 6.17 (Observation of curriculum implementation during classroom visits and teacher conferences) 6.17 (Improvement in student achievement and attitude toward self and learning)Page: 13 Program Seq #: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curncutum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) To cotllborate with die PCSSD ind die NLRSD to promote multicultunl icovities and curriculum development, (Applies only to wee 76. objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) L75 Plan Reference Page Nimiber L75 L76 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Dale Responsibility Evaluatiott Criteria 1. To provide staff development in tbe area of muhicidtural education 6.18 Extend inservice through Kbeduled district level reguhr council meetings (reading, English, social studies, science, art, and musk for tbe secondary level) A. Curriculum inservice extended in all curricuhim areas and programs 6.19 Host three (3) education meetings for parents of secondary children to provide an overview of tbe comprebensive multicultural curriculum A. Activity completed/obligation met 04, 13 07/01/94 08/16/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 05/31/95 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) Assoc Supt and Staff for Educational Programs Assoc. Supt. for Educational Progranu (Content Area Supervisor, Principals) (Director of Staff Development, Subject Area Supervisors, Principals) 6.18 Agenda of meetings, roster of participants 6.18 Additiotul inservice will occur through minicourses arxl council meetings during 1993-94) 6.19 Program and roster of participants 1. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1. (Academic achievement of students will improve as evidenced by report cards and standardized tests)Program Seq P: 04 Page: 14 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum RevisioD Date: August II. 1995 Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in die elementary aixl secondary curriculum and Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives I, 2, 3, 4.) . ...  __  ------------------------- vnppiiva lu ciiuic uucumeni excetx ror paac /o. obiecnves i 2 3 To collibome wifli die PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multiciiltiinl activities and curriculum development. (Aimlies only lo pane 16. objectives 1. 2, 3. 4,1 Phn Reference Page Number Objectives Strategics Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L76 1.1 Jolidly negotiate for consultants to provide Inservice for the districts 1.1 (Conduct staff development in the area of multicultural education) A. Tri-District multicultural course \"Children and Youth of African-American Literature and Musk for die Contemporary Child' is currently being implemented. B. Tri-district Multicultural Curriculum completed for first semester. C. Multicultural activities inservices and teaching styles provided to schools during early release, cluster, and department meetings. D. Cultural Diversity - Dr. A. Guero Pulaski Heights Elementary E. Cultural Diversity - J. A. Fair L76 2. To provide access to and information about multicultural materials lo teachers, rents, community 04. 14 07/01/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/16/94 02-08-95 02-08-95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 06/02/95 12/08/94 06/30/95 03/01/95 03/01/95 (06/30/95) LRSD Assoc. Supt for Educ Programs (Director of Staff Development) (PCSSD - Coor for Multicultural Curr Dev Dir of Library Serv LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educ Programs. Supv of Media Serv NLRSD - Coor of Instructiomd Materials) 1.1 l.I 1.1 Contractual agreement (Roster of participants) (Multicuitural strategies will be implemented in LRSD classrooms as determined by classroom observations and teacher conferences) 2. (Teachers, parents, community will have the opportunity to attend Multicuitural Materials Fair)Page: 15 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August II. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: educational eouity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) To ensure tUUIUUIiai ui un. Hkun-nt_a_i_j M IU ......~. .r-~ o-----.- --_-_--_--- - ..\u0026gt; _ J __ \u0026gt;_____ _ 11 ... in- I *\u0026gt; -aJ 4a \\r To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76\nobiecoves 1, 2, 3, 4.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L76 L76 L76 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date ResponsiblUty Evaluation Crfterb 2.1 Share responsibility for Multicultural Materials Fair to be held annually A. Media directors of die three districts planned fair. LRSD will host for 1994-95 school term. 07/01/94 08/25/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 3. To provide information to staff members on the availability of graduate course work in muklcultura] education B. Fair hosted by LRS District at M.L. King school. 3.1 Write letters to Institutions of higher education in the area concerning the need for such courses A. Activity conq)Ieted/obligation met 04, 15 07/01/94 12/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD PCSSD - Coor for Multicultural Curr Dev Dir of Library Serv LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educ Programs \u0026amp;ipv of Media Serv NLRSD - Coor of Instructional Materials (Director of Staff Development. Subject Area Supervisors. Principals) PCSSD - Coor of Instructional Materials LRSD - Assoc Supt for Educational Programs NLRSDCoor of Instructioiuil Materials 2.1 Schedule of vendors 2.1 (The Multicultural Fair will be joindy planned by LRSD. NLRSD and PCSSD) 3. (Multicultural strategies will be implemented in schools as assessed by administration during classroom observations and teacher conferences) 3.1 Letters on (Ue 3.1 (The number of teachers enrolled in multicultural courses will increase) Page: 16 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marte McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76. objectives I. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curricuhjni development. (Applies only to page 76, obiectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) i Plan Reference Page Nianber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L76 L76 L76 3.1 Promote such courses to the staffs of each school district 3.2 (Duplication of lumber) A. Activity completed/obligation met 07/01/94 (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD 4. To Investigate the possibilities of cooperating on strategies to acquaird staff and communities with multicultural education 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 4.1 Meet to dlscua possibilities of seminars, symposiusu, or other activitlea to promote midtkuttural education among the three districts 4.1 (Plan, schedule, advertise arxl implement strategies) 04, 16 07/01/94 (06/30/95) PCSSD Coord of Multicultund NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materiab (LRSD Director of Stair Development, Supervisor of Social Studies) (PCSSD Coor of Multicultural LRSD Assoc Supt for Educational Programs NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materials) PCSSD Coor of Multicultural LRSD Assoc. Supt for Educational Programs NLRSD Coord of Instructional Materiab (Director of Communications, Director of Staff Development) 3.1 Promotional instruments We 3.2 (Duplication of number) 3.2 (The number of teachers eruolled in multicultural courses will increase) 4. (Multicultural education strategies will be used in LRSD classrooms as determined by classroom observations and teacher conferences) 4. (Assessment of community discussion/conferences. feedback from debriefing of multicultural education) 4.1 Minutes of meeting 4.1 (Three collaborative activities will be held to inform staff and community about multicultural activities)Page: 17 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11, 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To ensure tuuuiiuim u\u0026gt; ww,---------------- - -r  - - To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiecoves 1, 2, 3, 4.) 1 Flan Reference Page Number L77 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1. To educational equity in instructional methodology and teacber/student interaction A. Met, shared outline of goals for year. Wrote Tri- District grant for classroom management workshop. 2nd grant written for discipline procedures workshop. B. Staff development courses planned and listed in the 1994*95 LRSD Staff Development catalogue/calendar. C. Multicultural workshop planned and conducted during ABA Convention. D. Healing Racism workshop collaborated by the 3 districts and the city of Little Rock and is currently being conducted. Topics: 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The Onertess of Humanity Defuung Prejudice and Racism How Racism is Peipetuated Institutionalized Racism Stereotypes and How they Affect Us Unaware Racism Disempowerment of Males Internalized Oppression Reclaiming Our Heritage Cultural Racism Ally-Building as a Way to Heal Celebration/Wbere Now? 04, 17 09/13/94 07/01/94 11/10/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 10/24/94 10/07/94 11/11/94 07/10/95 (06/30/95) (Curriculum Supervisors, Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 1. (Assessment of instiuction/teacher student interaction during classroom/school observation and conference) 1. (Increase in student achievement) 3Page: 18 Program Seq #: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multkultural Curnculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum developnwnt. (Applies only to page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) L77 Flan Reference Page Nunber Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria L77 L77 1.1 Research and dure effective instructional strategies at regularly scheduled council and program area meetings A. Effective instructional strategies researcbed/shared at pre-school conference, council meetings arxl program area meetings. B. Mad) manipulative were presented to compensatory education math teachers from the secondary schools. 1.2 Purchase science supplies for teachers to fadlitate the hands-on science approach A. Science supplies.were ordered for the schools, bids for a larger order will be obtained during the next quarter B. Large purchase of scietrce materials was made and received for leachen in the Science Crusade and the refurbishing of elementary school science boxes. 1.3 Purchase math manipulative for teachers to facilitate hands-on math instruction 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 01-04-95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 05/31/95 09/29/94 (06/30/95) 03/01/95 06/30/95 (06/30/95) Content Area Supervisors Supvs of Specific Content Areas Supvs of Specific Content Areas 1.1 Documentation within the Division of Educational Programs 1.1 (Assessment of implementation of instructional strategies through classroom observations and teacher conferences) 1.2 Materials purchased 1.2 (Hands-on science activities used in District classrooms) 1.3 Materials purchased 1.3 (Manipulative are used in District math classrooms) A. Math manipulative were ordered and furnished to teachers who completed Math Crusade and K-4 Crusade training 07/01/94 06/30/95 L77 1.4 Purchase sets of trade books for teachers to facilitate the emphasis on literature and the wholeness of language approach 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Supvs of Specific Content Areas 1.4 Materials purchased 1.4 (Whole language is used in District classrooms) 04, 18Page: 19 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curricuhim Program Code: 12 IMmary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76\nobjectives 1, 2. 3. 4.) Plan Reference Page Nianber L77 L77 L77 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.5 Provide inservice for using materials Wentl/led in 1 J, 1.3,1.4 A. Math Crusade and K-4 Crusade classes ate being held for District teachers B. Science Crusade classes include District teachers 1.6 Identify needs of teachers for improved delivery of instruction using student data, principal recommendation, sch I, and teacher questionnaires as the basis for decision making. (Resource: LRSD Resource Staff Devekipmem Guide) 1.7 Submit the Inservice needs to the Staff Development Departmeitf A. Learning styles and culoiral diversity - Wakefield Self-esteem Phonics Equity Guidelines - Baseline, McDermott. Bus drivers B. Inservice needs submitted and course offerings listed in 94-95 Staff Development catalogue. 04, 19 07/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/10/94 08/16/94 06/30/95 06/01/95 06/01/95 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 02/23/95 06/02/95 Supervisors of Specific Areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) Principals, Teachers, and Content Area Supervisors Principals 1.5 Documentation of participants 1.5 (Desired instnictional strategies are being implemented in District classrooms as assessed through classroom observations arxl teacher conferences) 1.6 Observation of instruction 1.6 Disaggregation of data 1.6 (tiMiividual Improvement Plans, HP's, reflect identified needs of teachers) 1.7 Staff development documentation (Needs identified in school improvement plans)Page: 20 Program Seq f: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curricuhini Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) L78 Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 1.8 Schedule teachers as identified for the appropriate inservice 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Staff Development Department 1.8 Staff development documentation 1.8 (Inservice will be provided that addresses the needs of teachen as identified in the school improvement plan) A. Placement is based on teacher requests and administrative recommendations. (Reports sent tt\u0026gt; each school at the end of the semester.) 07\\01\\94 05/10/95 B. A total of 468 inservices were provided district wide arxl a total 6426 workshops were provided by the Staff Development Detp. for the 1994-95 school year. L78 1.9 Monitor the teachers use of effective instructional and classroom management strategies 07/01/94 06/30/95 Supervisors of specific areas (Principals) 1.9 (Assessment of implementation of strategies through classroom observations and teacher conferences) A. Teacher use of effective instructional and classroom management strategies is monitored through classroom observations 08/15/94 06/02/95 L78 L78 2. To incorporate multicultural matertah into the instructional programs 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (Supervisors of Specific Areas, Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2. (Observe implementation of materials at teacher conferences arxl during classroom visits) 2.1 Review and assess appropriate multicultural materials 07/01/94 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) 2.1 (Multicultural materials used in District classrooms) A. Initial activity completed/inidal obligation met See 1993-94 PBD 04, 20Page: 21 Program Seq f: 04 Reriston Date: August II, 1995 Program Name: Mulbcuttunl Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculum and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2. 3, 4.) IO ensure cuuvauuiuu c^uii\nui uv ______ - -.---.--.--- -------.--.---.--.- r.-.- o-------a--_--_--_--- '_ __ J__ I___ ._a \u0026gt;...\n1-,-.- -t-n-  nlku- u'fjuffC iI 7 a 4 \\ To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD  promote multiculairal activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, ob|ectives I, Z, 3, 4.) I Plan Reference Page Number L78 L 78 L78 Objectives Strategies B. Periodic review of appropriate multicultural material library conducted 2 J Identify and suggest mulUcuhural material to be purchased at local school level by content imd grade A. Initial activity completed/initial obligation met B. Multicultural materials identified and suggested for purchase periodically 2.3 Schedule workshops on use of materiab (where appropriate) A. Iniriat activity completed/initial obligation met B. Appropriate workshops scheduled periodically on use of multiculiural materials 2.4 Monitor the use of appropriate multicultural materials A. Use of appropriate multicultural materials being monitored periodically through classroom observations and teacher conferences 04, 21 Beginning Date Completion Date ResponsibUity Evaluation Criteria 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/15/94 07/01/94 08/22/94 06/06/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2.2 (Titles/description of materials forwarded to schools) See 1993-94 PBD 04/19/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists, Principals) 2.3 (Catalogue listings) 2.3 (Multicultural materials used in District classrooms) See 1993-94 PBD 06/23/95 (06/30/95) 06/02/95 Supervisors of specific areas (Curriculum Specialists. Principals) 2.4 (Classroom observations/ teacher conferences reflect use of multicultural materials) Page: 22 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Muldculural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program Goal: To ensure educational equity in the elementary and secondary curriculuro and program areas. (Applies to entire document except for page 76, objectives 1, 2, 3. 4.) To collaborate with the PCSSD and the NLRSD lo promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76, objectives I, 2. 3. 4.) L78 L 78 Flan Reference Page Number L78 L78 L78 L79 Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Comfdetion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteria 3. To fanplcment organizational practices that will enhance educational equity 4. To ensure Increased educational equity through tmervice training 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (Assoc. Supt., Assisi. Supt., Principals, Teachers) (3. Educational programs in LRSD have equitable participation and success by all students) 3.1 Provide teachers with training for effective in- class grouping 3 J Monitor implementation of strategies through classroom visitations and feedback in follow-up workshops 3.3 Review placement criteria for eniictanent/ honors and advanced idacemeirt classes A. Activity completed/obligation met 3.4 Provide sujpport to principals In monitoring the distribution of students in higher level courses to assess gender and race equity A. Support given lo priiKtpals through periodic staff development and conferences 04. 22 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 08/18/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) (06/30/95) See 1993-94 PBD (06/30/95) 06/30/95 (06/30/95) Supervisors of specific areas Supervisors of specific areas Assoc Supt of Educatioiul Programs Assoc and Asst Supts 3.1 (Grouping practices are equitable in LRSD classrooms) 3.2 (Assessment of classroom observation) 3.3 (Placement practices in LRSD classrooms will increase participation of black students in GT/Honors/AP classes) 3.4 (Classroom observation of student enrollment and enrollment reports to central office will reflect equitable distribution of gender and race) 4. (Educationa] programs in LRSD have equitable participation and success by all students)Page: 23 Program Seq 9: 04 Revision Date: August 11. 1995 Program Name: Multicultural Curriculum Program Code: 12 Primary Leader: Secondary Leader: Marie McNeal Program G\u0026lt;ml: To ensure educational equity in die elementary and secondary curriculum arxl program areas. (Applies to entire document excegt for page 76, objectives 1. 2, 3, 4.) To collaborate with die PCSSD and die NLRSD to promote multicultural activities and curriculum development. (Applies only to page 76. obiectives 1. 2. 3. 4.) Flan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibility Evaluation Criteiia L79 4.1 Refer to activities outlined in Hots 1.2 - 1.4 above 4.1 (Purchase science supplies, math manipulative, tradebooks) A. Hands-on science materials purchased. B. Math manipulatives purchased L79 L79 L 79 L79 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 (06/30/95) 06/30/95 06/30/95 Supervisor of specific areas 4.1 (Updated multicultural materials in schools) 4.1 (Enrollment/implemen-tation of staff development courses) 5. To ensure equity in the selection and use of textbooks 5.1 Inventory and assess current textbooks for multicultural presence A. Elementary science texdNXiks inventoried and assessed during current adoption period. 5.2 Identify the defldencica existing in current textbooks A. Deficiencies identified in elementary science textiiooks. New textbooks selected that present a greater multiculoiral presence. B. Deficiencies identified in secondary science ttxdxxiks selected that present a greater multicultural presence. 5.3 Select and purchase resource materials to replace or supplement areas of deficiency 04, 23 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 07/01/94 01/04/95 07/01/94 (06/30/95) (06/30/95) 12/01/94 (06/30/95) 12/01/94 03/31/95 (06/30/95) (Assoc Supt of Curr., Subject Area Supervisors. Teachers, Principals) Supervisor of specific areas (Curriculum supervisors. Teachers) (Curriculum supervisors) (Media specialists) (Prin\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1458","title":"Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1995-08-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Double Funding of the Incentive Schools,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1458"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["107 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1590","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District desegregation plan modifications, Pulaski County Special School District new school construction, preschool seats, and district budgets","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-08-01/1995-08-18"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs","School buildings","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District desegregation plan modifications, Pulaski County Special School District new school construction, preschool seats, and district budgets"],"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/1590"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["12 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":25,"next_page":26,"prev_page":24,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":288,"total_count":567,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":90},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":73},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":53},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":6},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":5},{"value":"Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation","hits":5},{"value":"Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":3},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":567},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":561},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":400},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":376},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":351},{"value":"School integration","hits":176},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":174},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":173},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":156},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":144}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":566},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":565},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":555},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":486},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Cambridge, Harvard University, 42.377, -71.11666","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":566},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":129},{"value":"1995","hits":120},{"value":"1996","hits":107},{"value":"1993","hits":98},{"value":"1997","hits":93},{"value":"1992","hits":85},{"value":"1998","hits":82},{"value":"1999","hits":81},{"value":"2000","hits":78},{"value":"1991","hits":77},{"value":"2001","hits":72},{"value":"2003","hits":62},{"value":"1990","hits":53},{"value":"2002","hits":53},{"value":"2004","hits":50},{"value":"2005","hits":47},{"value":"1989","hits":39},{"value":"2006","hits":31},{"value":"1988","hits":24},{"value":"2010","hits":21},{"value":"2008","hits":19},{"value":"2009","hits":17},{"value":"2007","hits":15},{"value":"2013","hits":15},{"value":"1986","hits":14},{"value":"2012","hits":14},{"value":"1987","hits":13},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"1985","hits":8},{"value":"2014","hits":6},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"1980","hits":4},{"value":"1981","hits":4},{"value":"1982","hits":4},{"value":"1983","hits":4},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"2015","hits":1},{"value":"2016","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1},{"value":"2018","hits":1},{"value":"2019","hits":1},{"value":"2020","hits":1},{"value":"2021","hits":1},{"value":"2022","hits":1},{"value":"2023","hits":1},{"value":"2024","hits":1},{"value":"2025","hits":1},{"value":"2026","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2026","count":1641,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":282},{"value":"reports","hits":194},{"value":"filing","hits":49},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":34},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":16},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"printouts","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":566}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":566},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}