{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1147","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","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":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"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/1147"],"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":["60 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPulaski County lnterdi tri  t Magnet School Evaluation 1993-1994 Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education State University, AR RECEIV,=n\n-la nJ - 1Jtlifr,,.J Jill_ 1 3 1995 I ::t- ?p,\nr Office of Desegregation Monitoring ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully a,~knowledge the help and cooperation of MS. Donna Grady Creer, Sa\nndy Luehrs, and the Magnet Review Committee, and the administ~ators and staff of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Scho9ls. The evaluation was made easier by the honest, forthright and candid responses from staff, administrators and faculty. An enormous debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professi9nal work and dedication to the project. Finally, thanks to my research and gradate assistants without whom this project could not have been completed. Gerald B. Dickinson, Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .. Section I. Student Achievement Standardized Tests ........... . Section II. Racial Desegregation Balance. Sociograms .. Site Visits. Section III. Magnet Theme Magnet Themes ......... . Enrollment Policies and Procedures .. Magnet School Programs. ................................. Personnel Resources .... Section IV. Summative Evaluation Summary Findings. Conclusions ..... . 1 3 29 31 61 65 66 69 70 74 77 Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION November 1, 1994 Evaluation Report Format This 1993-94 school year evaluation report will follow the same format as previous reports. The design is to provide a logical and sequential accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. The report also attempts to bring together data from prior year reports to determine changes, if any, that occurred during the past evaluation periods. Section titles are written to correspond to Expected Outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met. Some evaluation activities may be eliminated or used during alternate years and data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations provide a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific objectives. School climate surveys were not conducted during the present project year. Principle evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to provide a continuous measure of magnet school objectives that are attained. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new or different data regarding the magnet school programs. 1. Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. A. Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) B. Standford Achievement Tests (SAT 8) 2. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goal of the project: A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? 1 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff, and students, and between teachers and students? 3. Magnet Theme To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to Student Achievement Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized tests scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. METHODOLOGY Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education. Data were subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis using the PC computer and statistical software \"Statistics With Finesse.\" FINDINGS Arkansas school districts are no longer required to administer the Minimum Performance Tests (MPT). The ADE does, however, require Arkansas school districts to administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades 4, 7 and 10. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades one through ten .. However, Department of Education test data are available only for the grades for which the tests are mandated (4,7,10). Test results data are reported in Mean National NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) scores. The NCE is a standardized score based on the normal curve by setting the mean at 50 and the standard deviation at approximately 21. Because of its larger standard deviation, the range of NCE scores (0-100) is wider than for T scores (20- 80, since it is rare for a score to fall more than 3 standard deviations from the mean). (Sprinthall 1994). Test data analyses for grades not mandated by ADE for testing (1,2,3,5,6) will be accomplished by comparing the subtests mean NCE scores with the Magnet School NCE mean score, the LRSD NCE mean score and with the National NCE mean score (50). Test data analyses for grades 4,7 and 10 will include comparisons of scores for magnet students to students' scores in the LRSD, Arkansas, and the nation. Test data for the magnet schools and the state are disaggreagted by race, as well as grade and school. Weighted means (Number of students (N) for each school times (x) the mean NCE for each subtest) will be used to compute the NCE mean scores for all magnet schools. These data will be used to compare like groups in the magnets and across the state. 3 Grade One A total of 1963 Little Rock School District first grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. Test results data were provided for each magnet school and for th~ entire LRSD. Test data fo~ grade one are not provided for the state since the ADE does not mandate achievement testing for grade one. National data test results are not disaggregated by race. The table that follows depicts tests data analysis of the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to LRSD first grade students as a group and first grade students across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 48.1 BOOKER 44.3 CARVER 70.8 GIBBS 52.3 WLLMS 69.6 First Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 48.7 48.0 49.5 44.3 47.6 53.0 46.7 73.6 73.5 64.3 73.9 47.5 44.6 48.3 50.9 72.4 70.7 62.3 72.5 COMP BATT 50.0 46.6 44.7 72.5 48.3 71. 0 Williams and Carver magnets school students had higher mean NCE scores than students in the LRSD as a whole and students across the nation. The national mean is represented by the NCE scale score of 50. The graph on the following page depicts the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores. State data were not provided because the ADE does not require administration of achievement tests at the first grade level. 4 Legend Nalonal State Booker ca\"\" Gibbs Wlllla-ns LASO 1()() BO 60 - 40 20 0 READ -- Graph 1 First Grade FIRST GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ,_... - - ----- ~ MAlH LANG ENVR'-\"IT 5 --- - Iii BASEBATT COMPBATT Grade Two There were 1778 second grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The table that follows depicts data from the results of the administration of the Stanford Achievement Tests to magnet school second grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores for second grade students. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.2 BOOKER 43.5 CARVER 57.0 GIBBS 51. 5 WLLMS 62.5 Second Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 54.1 50.5 49.0 48.0 51. 6 53.6 49.1 46.3 65.1 60.9 54.8 60.0 55.5 50.6 55.6 52.9 76.9 65.2 76.2 68.5 COMP BATT 50.0 48.2 46.7 60.6 54.0 71.1 As with first grade test results, Williams and Carver magnet school students had tests scores substantially higher than the national and district averages. Second grade students at Gibbs magnet also scored higher than the LRSD and national average. More than eighty percent of the second grade students at Williams scored at or above the national average. The line graph that follows depicts NCE mean scores for second grade magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. 6 Legend Na100:i1 -- = -- Booke, -- carw -- Gibbs -- Williams ---- LASO Graph 2 Second Grade SECOND GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 0-+-----........ ------,-------,-----..--------1 FEAD LANG ENVPNNT BASEBATT eot.f'BATT 7 Grade Three There were 1789 third grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement tests in the spring of 1994. Tests data were provided by the LRSD. The ADE does not require that school districts administer the SAT at the third grade level\ntherefore, .state data are not available. Magnet school third grade test data are compared to national and LRSD data in the table that follows. The subtests for which test results are reported include: Total Reading\nTotal Math\nTotal Language\nBasic Battery\nScience\nSocial Science\nand Total Battery. The table that follows depicts results of the third grade achievement tests for magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD average mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 46.2 BOOKER 45.6 CARVER 53.0 GIBBS 57.5 WLLMS 61. 6 Third Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.5 48.4 46.3 47.5 51. 5 47.1 44.8 58.7 59.8 55.5 55.6 72.4 61. 6 64.1 62.9 65.0 67.8 65.3 63.2 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 51.1 48.0 48.9 46.4 58.4 55.9 69.9 65.5 68.9 65.9 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnets consistently scored above the LRSD and national means. Booker students were at or just below the LRSD and national mean scores. The line graph that follows depicts tests results from the third grade SAT tests administered in the spring of 1994. 8 Legend N::11002! St:ote Booker C:m,e, Gbbs Willb.ms LASO Graph 3 Third Grade THIRD GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 90 --- /_ - 60 c:----- 10 20 0 PEAD -- -- M'\\11-1 ....... .__ - - -- - ----- LANG BASBATT SOENCE 9 -- --- ---- socsa COM'BATT Grade Four The Stanford Achievement Test is mandated by ADE for all fourth grade students in the state. In the spring of 1994 more than thirty thousand (30,621) students were tested. A total of 1721 fourth grade students in the LRSD were tested. The table that follows compares the mean NCE scores for magnet school students to the national, state, and LRSD mean NCE scores. Further, comparisons are made between like type students (blacks compared to blacks, whites compared to whites) for the magnet schools and the state. Weighted magnet school mean scores are compared to state mean scores. National test scores are not disaggregated by race. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MAGNETS BOOKER CARVER GIBBS WLLMS Fourth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 51. 8 54.7 53.3 53.7 53.5 55.8 49.2 56.1 52.6 53.1 50.2 56.0 58.9 66.4 63.2 64.1 64.9 67.2 47.9 56.1 55.2 52.8 49.0 55.8 58.6 64.5 61. 8 62.5 64.9 69.8 61. 6 72.2 61. 0 67.3 62.8 69.0 64.6 73.3 70.3 71. 4 62.6 69.1 COMP BATT 50.0 54.1 53.1 64.9 52.8 64.3 67.9 71. 6 All magnet schools scored at or above the national and state average. Gibbs, Williams and Carver magnet school students scored well above the national, state and district average. The line graphs that follows depict the scores on the subtests for fourth grade magnet school students. Additional line graphs are used to depict the comparisons of like type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. Further, the graphs compare the mean NCE scores of magnet school students to scores for fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and across the nation (Graph 4). The table compares scores for each of the magnets to national, state and district scores and depicts difference in mean scores. 10 Legend NAT'L - STATE LRSD - MAGNETS - Graph 4 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 - ~ 60 ~ jji\"\"\"\" 40 20 0 READ - MATH -----~ BBATT SCIE Fourth Grade SOCSCIE Stanford Achievement Tests - by Subtests Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National Subtest Magnet National State score diff score diff score READ 58.9 50.0 8.9 51. 8 7.1 49.2 MATH 66.4 50.0 16.4 54.7 11. 7 56.1 LANG 63.2 50.0 13 .2 53.3 9.9 52.6 B BATT 64.1 50.0 14.1 53.7 10.4 53.1 SCIE 64.9 50.0 14.9 53.5 11. 4 50.2 SOC SCIE 67.2 50.0 17.2 55.8 11. 4 56.0 C BATT 64.9 50.0 14.9 54.1 10.8 53.1 11 - CBATT LRSD diff 9.7 10.3 10.6 11. 0 14.7 11.2 11. 8 The table on the previous page compared PCIMS students' scores with students' scores in the LRSD, the state and the nation on all subtests. Magnet school students scored from 8.9 points (read) to 17.2 points (social science) higher than students across the nation. PCIMS students scored 7.1 points (reading) to 11.7 points (math) higher -than students in the state and 9.7 -points (reading) to 14.7 points (science) higher than students in the LRSD. The graph below shows student scores for each of the magnet schools compared to national, state and LRSD student scores. Legend National - Stat~ - Bookor -Car-...ar - Gibbs - Williams ---- LRSO Graph 5 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 00 ~ 00 -__..... 20 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - -~ - - ---- ~ - - - IIM.1H LANG B'.SBATT SCIENCE 12 - ------- -- socsa COMPB'.TT The graphs that follow compare students in the magnet schools with like-type students across the state, as well as with students (all races as a group) across the state and nation. Graph six compares test scores for black students. Graph 6 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 60 - ~ __..,.- 40 ~ ,--------, 20 Legend Naticn\" -- State (al) -- Magnet (B) -- State(B) -- LRSD 0 READ MATH Black Students - - LANG SCIEN:\nE SOCSCIE 13 BAS BATT COMPBO.TT Graph 7 that follows compares scores for white students. Legend Natia,al State (all) Magnet (W) State t\n,'I) LRSD Graph 7 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 .... - 80 _.... 40 0 READ MATH White Students ---- - LANG SCl8'1CE SOCSCIE BASBATT CCMPBATT Magnet school students outperformed their counterparts across the state and did better than all students, as a group for the district the state and the nation. 14 Grade Five There were 1695 fifth grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate the SAT for fifth grade students and no state scores are available. The table that follows depicts the scores of magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.4 BOOKER 50.2 CARVER 51. 6 GIBBS 59.8 WLLMS 56.5 Fifth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 53.0 49.9 51. 7 66.3 57.9 57.2 58.3 59.9 58.0 55.8 63.3 67.8 64.4 63.4 62.9 71. 5 61. 7 63.4 65.0 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 53.0 50.3 54.8 57.4 57.3 57.3 67.2 64.9 57.5 64.0 All magnet school students scored at or above the national and LRSD average mean NCE. The graph that follows provides a visual depiction of the comparison of test scores. Data were not available to compare like-type students for grade five. Data disaggregated by race are not provided for grades for which testing is not mandated by ADE. 15 Legend National Sta~ Book ... carGibbs Wiliams LRSO Graph 8 Fifth Grade FIFTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-----------------------------, 00+----------------------------1 20+-------------------------- 0-+-------,-----,-------.------.-----.....--------i READ MA11-1 LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 16 Grade Six A total of 1763 LRSD sixth grade students were administered the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate that sixth grade students take the achievement tests. No state test data are available. The table and graph that follow compare the test data for magnet school students with the test data for sixth grade students in the LRSD and across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 51. 2 BOOKER 62.0 CARVER 60.2 GIBBS 63.8 WLLMS 61. 4 Sixth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 51. 6 53.3 53.5 62.5 62.1 63.9 58.0 61. 8 56.1 60.5 63.1 65.5 60.2 63.3 61.1 65.9 61.1 63.3 63.7 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 54.1 53.3 62.4 63.8 60.3 61. 3 66.5 63.6 62.6 63.9 Magnet school sixth grade students scored well above the LRSD and national average. Mean NCE scores for magnet students, generally were 10 points above the district and national averages. The graph that follows depicts the performance of magnet school sixth grade students compared with students in the LRSD and across the nation. 17 Legend Nalional State Book., Car'tl'ilr Gbbs Wlltams LASO Graph 9 Sixth Grade SIXTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100-,-----------------------------~ BJ-t----------------------------------1 60 ----------------------- 'I0+---------------------------------1 lD+---------------------------------1 O+-----r---------,------.------r------,----------1 fl:AD M'\\TH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 18 Grade Seven The ADE mandates that all seventh grade students be administered the Stanford Achievement Tests. A total of 32,144 sixth grade students across the state took the SAT in the spring of 1994. There were 272 seventh grade students at Mann Junior High School who took the SAT. The tables and graphs that follow compare the mean NCE scores of students across the nation, in the state of Arkansas, the LRSD and Mann magnet school. Addtiional line graphs are provided to depict the comparisons of like-type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MANN Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.2 48.1 52.3 49.2 56.6 49.6 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 54.6 50.4 56.6 53.2 56.0 53.4 COMP BATT 50.0 50.1 47.6 53.9 Mann magnet school seventh grade students scored higher than the national, state and LRSD mean NCE on all the subtests and the basic and complete batteries. The graph that follows provides a visual comparison of the magnet school students' scores with LRSD, state, and national scores. 19 - Legerd N,t\non,i -Stale -- Ma-in - - - - LASO Graph 10 Seventh Grade SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 60 - - - ~ ~ .. ---------------- ------- 40 20 0 READ M'\\lH LANG 81\\SBATT SOENCE socsa - COt.f'BATT Test data for seventh grade students are also disaggregated by race for the magent school and the state. The table that follows compares data for black and white magnet school students to black and white students across the state, all students (all races) in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. 20 School NAT-ALL LRSD-ALL STATE-BL MANN-BL STATE-WH MANN-WH Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50 . 0 50.0 50.0 50.0 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 38.3 40.6 46.2 39.7 42.7 40.9 45.9 43.6 48.1 45.1 45.9 46.0 55.0 51. 9 56.6 53.4 61.1 53.4 66.4 59.3 66.0 63.9 69.7 63.4 COMP BATT 50.0 47 . 6 39.4 44.9 54.6 65.7 Mann magnet students scored from 2 points (black students-lang) to 11.4 points (white students-read) higher than their counterparts across the state on the various subtests. The graphs that follow depict differences in the NCE mean scores for like-type students across the state and the national NCE mean score for all students (50) and the LRSD mean NCE of all students. 21 Legend National -- Slat-6 -- Mann--61 ---- LASO Graph 11 Seventh Grade Black Students SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 00 60 ---- --------- ------------ -~ -----........_ ) Z) 0 AE...O MATH UNG lll\\SBATT SOENCE socsa CXll,.f'eA TT 22 Legerd National St:ii9--WHT Mann-wHT LRSD Graph 12 Seventh Grade White Students -SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-------------------------~ --- --- ------------ 40+-------------------------------\nal 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOC SCI 23 Grade Ten A total of 27,170 Arkansas tenth grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. In the LRSD there were 1,512 students who were administered the SAT. The SAT was administered to 245 tenth grade students at Parkview High School-._ The table and graph that follow depict the results of test analysis of Parkview students compared to students in the LRSD and across the state and nation. School NAT'L STATE LRSD PRKVIEW Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL ENGL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.6 45.3 48.5 48.5 52.0 52.0 49.5 46.0 49.3 49.7 49.2 51. 5 56.8 52.3 58.0 57.3 57.6 56.6 COMP BATT 50.0 49.4 50.1 58.0 Parkview Magnet School tenth grade students' mean NCE scores were above the mean NCE scores for tenth grade students in the LRSD and across the state, and the nation. The graphs that follow depict the comparisons of Parkview Magnet School students' NCE scores with students' NCE scores across the state, with the national NCE mean score (50) and the LRSD mean NCE scores for all students. The graphs compare all students at Parkview with all students in the LRSD, state and nation. Additional graphs compare students at Parkview with like-type students across the state and all students as a group for the LRSD and the nation. 24 Le\niend Natlooal -- stal -- Park'liM\" ---- LRSD Graph 13 Tenth Grade All Students TENTH GRADE 100 00 00 i---...... \"'----- l ZJ 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - - - - - - - --- MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE 25 -- - SOCSCl COMPBATT 100 80 60 ...___ 40 20 Legend National.-ai -- Stal~I -- PrkvwBl 0 - - - - LASO-a.A READ Graph 14 Grade 10 Black Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests - -------- - MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCl COMPBATT 26 Legend NationaH:~I -- Sta:~Wlt -- Prk'M'-Whl - - - - LASO-al 100 80 60 Graph 15 Grade 10 White Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ~ - - - r--,......___ '\"\" ----------------- --..\n-\n--- 40 20 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCI COM'BATT 27 Conclusions Grades 1-3 Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 5-10 points higher than students in grades 1-3 in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Booker students (as a group) in grades 1-3 scored at or above the mean scores of students in grades 1-3 across the state and the nation. Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 10 points higher than fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and the nation. Both black and white students scored well above their counterparts across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores remains significantly high (from 14 to more than 20 NCE points). Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) in grades 5 and 6 scored 6 to 10 points higher than students in grades 5 and 6 across the state and the nation. Grade 7 Seventh grade magnet students (as a group) scored 4-6 points higher than students across the state, the LRSD and the nation. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between white and black students' scores remains significantly high (from 15 to 20 NCE points). Grade 10 Tenth grade magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the LRSD, the state and the nation. Black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black student and white student scores persists in grade ten. 28 PULAKSI COUNTY IHTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this fromative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 2, (A, B, C, \u0026amp; D) as stated below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goals of the project: A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? c. Is there evidence of sterotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? METHODS After notification and approval of the evaluation proposal from the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment objectives. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists. A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? Findings Student racial allocations for the total enrollment for all the magnet schools is approximately 50-50 for minority and nonminority students. Additionally, a \"shadow area\" is designated surrounding each magnet school from which up to twenty-five percent (20%) of seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows provides the enrollment data for students on the date of the site visit as provided by the principal's office at each magnet school site. 29 DESEGREGATION SCHOOL B M \\ % BOOKER 156\\ ENR. 25.9 601 CARVER 173\\ ENR. 28.7 601 GIBBS 85\\ ENR. 28.2 301 WLLMS 137\\ ENR. 28.8 475 MANN 197\\ ENR. 24.4 806 PKVIEW 180\\ ENR. 23.9 753 TOTAL 928\\ ENR. 26.2 3537 Student Enrollment: By Race and Gender H= 3537 B F T B WM W F TW \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 160\\ 316\\ 109\\ 166\\ 275\\ 26.6 52.6 18.1 27.6 45.8 154\\ 327\\ 159\\ 107\\ 266\\ 25.6 54.4 26.4 17.8 44.3 87\\ 172\\ 70\\ 50\\ 120\\ 28.9 57.1 23.3 16.6 39.9 124\\ 261\\ 95\\ 111\\ 206\\ 26.1 54.9 20.0 23.4 43.4 261\\ 458\\ 156\\ 176\\ 332\\ 32.4 56.8 19.4 21.8 41.2 267\\ 444\\ 125\\ 164\\ 289\\ 35.6 59.4 16.6 21.8 38.4 1053\\ 1982\\ 714\\ 774\\ 1488\\ 29.8 56.0 20.2 21.9 42.1 OTHER \\ % 10\\ 1.6 8\\ 1.3 9\\ 3.0 8\\ 1. 7 16\\ 2.0 17\\ 2.3 68\\ 2.0 There were 1981 black students enrolled in the PCIMS accounting for 56 percent of the student enrollment. White students accounted for 42 percent of the enrollment . There were 68 students listed as \"other\" who accounted for two percent of the enrollment. The magnet school enrollment data reflected that 46 percent of the students were males and 52 percent were females. The remaining two percent (others) was not disaggregated by gender. Parkview Magnet School had the highest percentage of black students at 59.4 percent. However, only 9 white students were on the waiting lists for Parkview Magnet School. Booker Magnet School had the highest percentage of white students at nearly 46 percent. Conclusions PCIMS substantially met its goals with regard to enrollment, by race and gender. 30 Sociograms. B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Sociometric techniques used for prior evalaution activities were used for the 1993-94 evaluation project. Previous evaluations have provided a research foundation relative to the \"appropriateness\" and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students' relationships. The sociogram was developed to enable the research staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit near and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the portion in which the students choose other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered in the fall and the spring. The report presents complete data from the fall administration of the sociograms. Only data from the spring administration which reflect a significant change in data from the fall administration are presented in total. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The .05 level was chosen for significance (to reject the null hypothesis-- that is, there is no difference in the choice patterns of two disaggregated groups). A statistical difference is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients, which are similar to other correlation coefficients, are also provided as a measure of relationships. The PC utilizing the software package \"Statistics With Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms (Bolding, 1990) . Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered to compare and contrast student choice patterns where appropriate. Site visits by an evaluation team were made to gather data relative to the evaluation activities. An eight-member team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary, secondary and physical education, early childhood education, education administration and program evaluation. 31 The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project objectives. Each magnet school was visited by two evaluation team professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two-day visit. Visits lasted from three to four hours and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed and used to record and codify data collected during the observation visits . Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Findings A total of 858 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools during the fall of 1993. A total of 882 students completed the sociograms in the spring of 1994. Black students accounted for 54 percent of the total enrollment to which sociograms were administered. White students accounted for the remaining 46 percent. Students' race was disaggregated for only two groups -- blacks and whites. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 48 percent of the students while females accounted for 52 percent. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: blacks males, black females, white males and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any,_ in choice patterns for the subgroups. Sit With Each student chose five students in his\\her classroom they would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data are provided for the fall administration of the sociograms. Data for the spring administration are presented only if significant differences in choice patterns were noted. Disaggregated by Race--Black Students Compared to White Students There was a significant difference in the choice patterns of black students and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. For the fall administration, a ChiSquare of 27.3802 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1759 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely (17.6 %) than white students (7.4 %) to choose to sit by no students of the opposite race. 32 On the spring administration data revealed that black students (10.9%) continued to be more likely than white students (4.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data for the fall administration and statistical analysis for both the fall and spring administrations are provided in the table that follows. Race Black Stud. % White Stud. % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 29 102 111 97 46 7.4 26.1 28.4 24.8 11.8 111 232 244 180 79 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 6 1.3 6 1.5 12 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.3802 41. 5502 Contingency Coefficient 0.1759 0.2121 Degree of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Sex of the student was a significant variable in the choice patterns of students choosing members of the opposite race to sit with. In the fall administration of the sociograms a Chi-Square of 12.7846 was computed producing a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1212 and a Probability of 0.0255. Almost 15 percent (14.9%) of the females but only about 11 percent (10.8%) of the males chose no students of the opposite race to sit near. In the spring administration both males and females were no more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than they were during the fall administration. Nearly 12 percent (11.6%) of the males and nearly 19 percent (18.8%) of the females chose no students of the opposite race to sit with. Complete data for the fall administration and statistical anlysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. 33 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Males Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 109 110 96 so 6 % 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.0 1.4 Females 66 123 134 84 29 6 % 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 1.4 Total 111 232 244 180 79 12 % 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 12.7846 27.6661 Contingency Coefficient 0.1212 0.1744 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0255 0.0001 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences in the choice patterns between black males and females were noted in analysis of the fall sociogram data. Black females (19.3 %) were more likely than black males (15.6 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the fall administration data yielded a Chi-Square of 1.8672, a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0631 and a Probability of 0.8672. Analysis of the spring administration data revealed a difference in choice patterns when comparing black males and black females. In the fall black males were more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than were black females. Less than 16 percent (15.6%) of the males and more than 19 percent (19.3%) of the females chose to sit with no students of the opposite race. During the spring administration a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns of black males and black females. More than 80 percent (84.3%) of the black males chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. Only about 75 percent (74.9%) of the black females chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. The tables that follow depict the comparison of black males and black females for the fall and spring administration of the sociograms. 34 Race Black Males % Black Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 467 Chi-Square 1.8672 Contingency Coefficient 0.0631 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.8672 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=471 Number of Students of Opposite Race Race 0 1 2 3 4 Black Males 37 62 72 35 23 % 15.7 26.3 30.5 14.8 9.7 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 % 25.1 30.64 27.7 12.8 3.0 Total 96 134 137 65 30 % 20.4 28.5 29.1 13.8 6.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 471 Chi-Square 17.8393 Contingency Coefficient 0.1910 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0032 35 Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.3 Chosen 5 7 3.0 2 0.9 9 1.9 Black Males Compared to White Males Analysis of data from the fall administration of the sociograms reflected a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. Black males (15.6%) were more likely than white males (5.2%) to chose no students of the oposite race to sit with. Both subgroups were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race to sit with during the 1993-94 fall administration (blacks 15.6%, whites 5.2%) than in the 1992-93 fall administration (blacks 17.7%, whites 9.7%). Analysis of data from the spring administration yielded about the same results as the analysis of the fall sdministration. Data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Whites Males % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 10 48 43 56 32 5.2 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 45 109 110 96 50 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.01 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 24.9485 23.7754 Contingency Coefficient 0.2379 0.2262 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0002 Black Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of black males and white females during the fall administration of the sociograms. Black males tended to be less likely to choose students of the opposite race than were white females. The same tendencies were noted for the spring adminstration\nhowever, neither of these differences was statistically significant. 36 Data analysis comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 35 61 67 40 18 3 % 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 1.3 White Females 19 54 68 41 14 3 % 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.67 7.0 1.5 Total 54 115 135 81 32 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 19.1 7.6 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 4.2238 10.2525 Contingency Coefficient 0.0994 0.1506 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.5177 0.0684 Black Females Compared to White Males As with other subgroups compared to white males a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns when comparing black females and white males. Only 5.2 precent of the white males chose to sit by no students of the opposite race while 19.3 percent of the black females chose not to sit with any students of the opposite race. No change in significance was noted during the spring adminstration of the sociograms. White males continued to be more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than black females. Data analysis comparing black females and white males are presented in the table on the following page. 37 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 47 69 66 43 15 3 % 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 1.2 White Males 10 48 43 56 32 3 % 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 1.6 Total 57 117 109 99 47 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 22.8 10.8 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 34.9977 55.3834 Contingency Coefficient 0.2729 0.3344 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Black Females Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted during the fall administration in student choice patterns when black females were compared to white females. -White females were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race than where black females. Each of the subgroups (blacks 25.1 % - whites 29.5%) was similar in choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the spring data revealed a significant difference in choice patterns of black females and white females. The percent of white females choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit with stayed relatively the same while the number of black students choosing three or more students to sit with declined. Data comparing black females and white females are presented in the tables on the following page. 38 Race Black % White % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 Females 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 Females 19 54 68 41 14 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.6 7.0 66 123 134 84 29 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 442 Chosen 5 3 1.2 3 1.5 6 1.4 Chi-Square 9.5344 Contingency Coefficient 0.1453 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0896 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females H=441 Humber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0  l 2 3 4 5 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 2 % 25.1 30.6 27.7 12.8 3.0 0.9 White Females 24 46 78 44 11 3 % 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 1.5 Total 83 118 143 74 18 5 % 18.8 26.8 32.4 16.8 4.1 1.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Humber of Observations 441 Chi-Square 23.6022 Contingency Coefficient 0.2254 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0003 39 White Males Compared to White Females Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White males were less likely than white females to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Males were also more likely to choose three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. No change in the significant differences in white males and white females were noted from the spring administration of the sociograms. Analysis of data from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows . Race White Males % White Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=411 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 14 44 59 59 28 6.8 21.5 28.8 28.8 13.7 24 46 78 44 11 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 38 90 137 103 39 9.2 21.9 33.3 25.1 9.5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 1 0.5 3 1.5 4 1.0 Spring Number of Observations 411 Chi-Square 15.9034 Contingency Coefficient 0.1930 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0071 40 The table that follows summarizes the data analysis of the fall and the spring administration of the sociograms. Significant differences in student choice patterns are noted as (S). Non-significant differences are noted as (NS). Summary Student Choice Patterns Sit With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON Black Students\\ White Students Males \\ Females Black Males \\ Black Females Black Males \\ White Males Black Males \\ White Females Black Females \\ White Males Black Females \\ White Females White Males\\ White Females Fall s s NS s NS s NS s * S = Significant N = Not Sign.i ficant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * White males are more likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. * Black females are less likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. 41 Work With Students were asked to name five other students with whom they would like to work. The narrative and tables that follow reflect the analysis of response data. Disaggregated by Race-~ Black Students Compared To White Students Data analysis revealed no significant differences in choice patterns of students with whom to work when groups were disaggregated by race. Slightly more than 14 percent (14 . 3%) of the black students and ten percent (10 %) of the white students choose no students of the opposite race to work with. The sociograms were administered to 858 students during the fall semester. A Chi-Square of 9.4940 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1046 and a probability of 0.0909. Most of the students were grouped in the choice categories of 1,2,or 3 students of the opposite race (blacks, 73.2%\nwhite, 80. 8%). Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 White Stud. 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.4940 4.3688 Contingency Coefficient 0.1046 0.0702 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0909 0.4976 42 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns during the fall administration of the sociograms were not signifcantly different when groups were disaggregated by sex. Females (at 13.8 %) were slightly more likely than males -(at 10.8 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No changes in significance were noted after analysis of data from the spring administration of the socigrams. Data are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Females 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.9613 9.9627 Contingency Coefficient 0.1071 0.1056 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0763 0.0763 43 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences were noted when black males were compared to black females. During the fall administration black females (at 16. 9%) were more _ likely thcll). black males (at 11_. 6%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Males (at 40.2%) were more likely than females (at 31.4%) to choose at least three students of the opposite race to work with. Data relative to the choice patterns of black males compared to black females are presented in the table that follows. Complete data are presented for the fall administration of the sociograms. Only statistical analysis data are presented for the spring administration. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31.7 25.0 12.1 3.1 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 29.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 Total 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 472 Chi-Square 7.9470 5.3664 Contingency Coefficient 0.0294 0.1060 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1592 0.3728 44 Black Males Compared to White Males No statistically significant differences in choice patterns were noted when black males were compared to white males . White males (at 91.1%) were slightly more likely than black males (at 88.6%) to choose at least one student of the opposite race to work with during the fall administration. Complete data from the fall administration and of the sociograms and statistical anlaysis of spring data comparing black males and white males are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Total 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 442 Chi-Square 8.6506 3.3320 Contingency Coefficient 0.1427 0.0865 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1238 0.6490 45 Black Males Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted in students ' choice patterns for working with students of the opposite race when black males were compared to white females. Only about ten percent (11.6% of black males\n10 . 1% of white females) chose no students of the opposite race to work with. A chi-Square of 7.9265 was computed for the fall administration yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1356 and a Probability of 0.1603 . Data comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 31 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 46 82 144 101 39 11 % 10.9 19.4 34.0 23.9 9.2 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 443 Chi-Square 7.92658 5.6860 Contingency Coefficient 0.1356 0.1126 Degrees of Preedom 5 5 Probability 0.1603 0.3380 46 Black Females Compared to White Males A significant difference in choice patterns for chosing students of the opposite race to work with was noted during the fall when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 16.9%) were more likely than white males (at 9.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Analysis of data from the spring administration revealed no signifcant difference in choice patterns between black females and white males. A Chi-square of 8.6811 yielded a probability of 0.1225. Complete data from the fall administration and the spring administration are presented in the tables on the following page. 47 Race Black Females % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 41 47 78 55 20 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 19 48 47 58 16 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 60 95 125 113 36 13.8 21. 8 28.7 26.0 8.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Chosen 5 2 1.2 4 1.6 6 1.4 Number of Observations 435 Chi-Square 11.1296 Contingency Coefficient 0.1579 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0489 Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 35 49 73 57 14 7 % 14.9 20.9 31.1 24.3 6.0 3.0 White Males 18 38 74 50 22 3 % 8.8 18.5 36.1 24.4 10.7 1.3 Total 53 87 147 107 36 10 % 12.0 19.8 33.4 24.3 8.2 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 440 Chi-Square 8. 6811 Contingency Coefficient 0.1391 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.1225 48 Black Females Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in student choice patterns to work with students of the opposite race when black and white females were compared. A Chi-Square of_ 6 .. 7924 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0 .1230 and a Probabil-ity- of 0 . 2365. White females (at 10.1%) were sligthly less likely than black females (at 16.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No significant differences were noted after the spring administration of the sociograms . Complete data from the fall administration and data anaylses for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 19.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 7.2 2.0 Total 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 6.7924 3.8945 Contingency Coefficient 0.1230 0.0936 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2365 0.5647 49 White Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students to name students of the opposite race to work with when -comparing white males and white females. Both males (at 91. 9% ). and females (at 89.1%) were likely to name at least one student of the opposite race to work with . A Chi-Square of 7.8451 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 and a - Probability of 0.1650. No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of white males and white females after the spring administration of the sociograms. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis of the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23.8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 7.8451 7.4437 Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 0.1334 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1650 0.1897 50 The table below summarizes the relationships between the student subgroups with regard to the preferences in working with students of the opposite race. Summary Student Choice Patterns Work With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON Black Students\\ White Students Males \\ Females Black Males \\ Black Females Black Males \\ White Males Black Males \\ White Females Black Females \\ White Males Black Females \\ White Females White Males\\ White Females Fall NS NS NS NS NS s NS NS * S = Significant N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS * Only black females were less likely to choose students of the opposite race to work with when compared to other subgroups\nhowever, that difference was noted only during the fall administration. - * Generally, magnet school students tend to choose students of the opposite race to work with without regard to sex or race. 51 Play With In order to further assess the social interactions of students the sociogram asked students to name five other students with whom they w~uld prefer to play. Disaggregated by Race -- Blacks Compared to Whites Student choice to play with students of the opposite race was dependent upon race. Black students (at 25.5%) were more than three times as likely as white students (at 8.7%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 68.9028 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2726 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 119 141 124 57 22 4 % 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 0.9 White Stud. 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 68.9028 80.8000 Contingency Coefficient 0.2726 0.2897 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 52 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns for naming students of the opposite race to play with are dependent on sex. A significant difference was noted. Analysis of data for -the fall administration -.of the . sociograms resulted in a Chi-Square of 2T.6497 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1767 and a Probability of 0.00-01. - Both males and females were more likely to choose no students of the opposite race in the spring than in the fall. Males were signifcantly more likely to chose students of the opposite race to play with than were females during the spring administration of the sociograms. Female students (fall-22.9%, spring-26.3%) were nearly twice as likely as males (fall-12.5%, spring-17.0%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Complete data from the fall administration and data analysis from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 52 112 117 82 41 12 % 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 2.9 Females 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.6497 33.2581 Contingency Coefficient 0.1767 0.1906 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 53 Black Males Compared to Black Females Black males (at 82.9%) were significantly more likely to choose at least one student of the opposite race to play with than were black females (at 67.5%). Analysis of the data resulted in a Chi-Square of 21.3018 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2089 and a Probability of 0.0007. Data analysis for the spring administration also resulted in a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and black females. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Blavk Females % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 79 78 48 27 10 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 119 141 124 57 22 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 1 0.4 4 0.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 471 Chi-Square 21.3018 21. 6472 Contingency Coefficient 0.2089 0.2096 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0007 0.0006 54 Black Males Compared to White Males A significant difference was noted in student choice patterns when comparing black males and white males. White males (at 93.7%) were much more likely to choose at least one member of the opposite race to play with than were black males (at -82.1%). Analysis of the fall data resulted in a Chi-Square of 41.0295 yielding -a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2996 and a Probability of 0 . 0001. Data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms also resulted in significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. These data and analysis of the spring administration data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 12 49 41 52 29 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 52 112 117 82 41 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 9 4.7 12 2.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 41.0295 44.2486 Contingency Coefficient 0.2996 0.3020 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 55 Black Males Compared to White Females Black males were not signifcantly different from white females in their tendencies for choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (at 11.1%) were slightly less likely than black males (at 17.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. - No significant changes were noted for the spring administration. Data for the fall administration and analysis for the spring administration of the sociograrns are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 40 63 76 30 12 3 % 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 1.3 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 62 111 147 75 22 6 % 14.7 26.2 34.8 17.7 5.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 9.1592 9.8984 Contingency Coefficient 0.1456 0.1480 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1029 0.0782 56 Black Females Compared to White Males Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns in naming students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 32.5%} were five times more  likely than white males (at 6.3%} to name no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 75.1234 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3838 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data for the fall administration and analyses of data for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 NUmber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 4.7 Total 91 127 89 79 39 10 % 20.9 29.2 20.5 18.2 9.0 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 75.1234 92.9758 Contingency Coefficient 0.3838 0.4175 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 57 Black Females Compared to White Females In choosing to play with students of the opposite race, race was a significant variable when comparing females. Black females (at 32.5%) were almost three times -as likely to choose no students_of the opposite race as white females (at 11.1%). Analysis of the data from the fall administration produced a CpiSquare of 45.3256 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3050 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the spring administration resulted in no changes in significance. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.2 1.5 Total 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 45.3256 49.3999 Contingency Coefficient 0.3050 0.3174 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 58 White Males Compared to White Females Gender was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing white males and white females. Females (at 11.1%) were more likely than males (at 6.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the fall data produced a Chi-Square of 23.6310 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2387 and a Probability of 0.0003. Analysis of the spring data produced a Chi-Square of 24.9176 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2391 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the data from the spring adminstration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 White Females 22 48 -71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 8.7 24.8 28.6 24.8 10.0 3.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 23.6310 24.9176 Contingency Coefficient 0.2387 0.2391 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0003 0.0001 59 The table below summarizes the comparisons relative to the choice patterns of students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Summary - student Choice Patterns - Play With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON - Fall Black Students \\ White Students s Males \\ Females s Black Males \\ Black Females s Black Males \\ White Males s Black Males \\ White Females NS Black Females \\ White Males s Black Females \\ White Females s White Males\\ White Females s N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * Both race and sex are significant variables when students choice patterns for playing with students of the opposite race are compared. * No changes in choice patterns were noted from the fall to the spring administratios of the socigrams. 60  Site Visits. The evaluation team recorded data during the site visits to each of the magnet schools. Observation forms were constructed to gather data relative to students' actions and interactions during non-instructional time. The items relating to non-instructional activities and responses are listed below. The number of responses for items will vary since not all observers were assigned to the same activities. Student Isolation B. Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Playground Observation 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 8 2 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Stereotyping, Graffiti and Name Calling 1 11 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial and sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 0 12 4. Is there inappropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, hall, or other places in the school? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 61 0 12 Conclusions * Students generally appeared to play together without regard to race and sex. Only 1 observer recorded seeing any evidence of isolation and\\or solidarity. * No racially or sexually offensive behaviors, language or graffiti were observed during the site visits . Interactions of students, staff and teachers D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? Several items were included on the observation form to assess student, teacher and staff interactions during classroom and cafeteria activities. The number of responses for each item will not be equal. Classroom Observations 1. Describe the seating arrangements (integrated, segregated). Observers recording \"integrated\" 14 Observers recording \"segregated\" 0 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 10 1 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behaviors? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Observers recording \"some\" 1 12 1 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students of both sexes and all races? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 12 0 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 62 : 0 :12 Conclusions * Classroom seating arrangements were integrated and students appeared to work together without regard to race and sex. * No apparent differences based on race or sex were noted in student\\teacher interactions. Cafeteria Observations 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? Observers recording \"choice\" 7 Observers recording \"assignments\" 2 2 . Did teachers remain with students while students ate? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 1 8 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) ate? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 1 7 4 . Was there any visible distinction by race\\sex for students who ate free lunch or paid full price? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 0 10 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 8 1 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race and sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Conclusions 8 0 * Student seating was generally by choice during lunchroom activities. No distinctions were noted between students who paid and those who did not. * Cafeteria staffs were generally composed of adults of proportional black and white races. 63 I Staff Interactions 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race and sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 10 0 2. Did staff appear t o ass ociate without regard t o race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Conclusions 10 0 * The certified staff appeared to associate and work t ogether without regard to race or sex . 64 MAGNET THEME PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected- outcomes\nNumber .3, (A, B, C, \u0026amp; D), listed below. To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives . A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policy and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS Data were furnished to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office and the principal's office at each of the magnet schools. Enrollment and staffing data reflect the number of students and staff at each site at the time of the site visit by the evaluation team. FINDINGS A. Magnet School Themes: What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? The Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Programs offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary level. One junior high program and one senior high magnet school program are also offered. Booker Arts Magnet School provides a curriculum that emphasizes the interrelationship of the elementary curriculum and the arts. The program intends to provide an education that fosters academics and aesthetic growth of students who express an interest and/or a need in the arts. 65 I Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School provides educational experiences that help each child to obtain a mastery of the basic skills curriculum. Additional emphasis is placed on a hands-on approach to math and science education . Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Language ' provides educational experiences that expand and enhance the multi-ethnic core curriculum through the infusion 0f international studies and foreign languages. The intent of the program is to assist each child in acquiring the skills needed to function as a citizen of the world. Language specialties begin at the kindergarten level. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School is a high-performance, high expectations elementary school offering a program for grades K-6, promoting a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic behavior. Strong emphasis is place on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level. The school is designed for students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are highly motivated by competition in all program areas. Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School is a junior high school (grades 7,8,\u0026amp; 9) offering two different curricular programs, the School of Science and the School of Arts . Students should have a strong interest in or aptitude for the area of the magnet curriculum in the school for which he/she applies. Parkview Arts / Science Magnet High School provides expanded and specialized studies in the arts and sciences, in addition to the standard academic curriculum. The science magnet program offers a wide range of advanced courses. The arts curriculum provides studies in music, drama, visual arts, and dance. B. Enrollment: Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? Magnet school enrollments are allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special 43 % 42 % 15 % 42 % 43 % 66 Elementary Secondary a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview Elementary Secondary The table that follows shows the number of seats remaining and the number of students on the waiting lists for each magnet school and from each of the districts. Complete data on all magnet schools were not available at the time of this report. Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Seats \\ Wai t ing Lists Seats Remaining wht tot blk 0 0 26 0 0 32 1 1 16 1 1 10 0 0 20 0 0 11 5 5 9 2 2 0 No. Waiting wht 10 40 1 8 3 9 2 0 Pulaski County Special School District Seats\\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. Waiting blk wht tot blk wht 3 15 18 22 12 3 1 4 12 19 5 7 12 4 0 9 3 12 5 13 0 0 0 31 17 0 0 0 10 32 32 30 62 19 5 10 12 22 6 2 67 List tot 36 72 17 18 23 20 11 0 List tot 34 31 4 8 48 42 24 8 II Magnet blk Booker * Carver * Gibbs * Williams * Mann-arts * Mann-sci * Prkvw-arts * Prkvw-sci * Little Rock School District Seats\\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. wht - tot blk * * 214 * * 190 * * 112 * * 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * Waiting List wht tot 126 340 88 278 73 185 14 43 * * * * * * * * * Data incomp1ete at reporting time Findings * There were only a few seats for magnet school students unfilled for both the North Little Rock District and Pulaski County School District. The Pulaski County School District had more seats that remained unfilled at the secondary level. * The Little Rock School district had the greatest number of students (black and white) on magnet school waiting lists. Conclusions * Considerable efforts are undertaken by all three school districts and the Magnet Review Committee to maintain an acceptable balance between the number of magnet school seats available and the number of students on the waiting lists. * Unfilled magnet seats may result from the natural \"lag\" time between requests for student assignment and time required for administrative operations to fill vacant seats. 68 c. Coherent Magnet Program: Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? A total of thirty (30) different classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. - Classes visited by subject were: Art 3 Foreign Language 2 Dance 2 Language Arts 7 Math 4 Basic Skills 3 Music 2 Social Studies 4 Science 3 Every item may not have been marked by the evaluator and the totals for every item will not be equal . Item# 2: Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (YES 22\nNO .Q.Q.) . Item# 3: Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie .. ) reflect a magnet theme: (YES 19\nNO 02). Item# 4: Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (YES 25\nNO 02). Item# 5: ( 2) ( 2) (16) ( 9) ( 0) ( 2) Presentation: (check one): lecture student presentation guided practice independent study test other 69 D. Instructional and Non-Instructional Personnel: Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources in place at each of the magnet school sites? Certified Staff. There were 295 certified staff at the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Whites accounted for more than 66 percent of the total staff with blacks accounting f or nearly 33 percent of the total certified staff. Those classified as \"others\" accounted for one percent. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff . SCHOOL B M \\% BOOKER 3\\ Tot. 6.0 50 CARVER 0\\ Tot. 00.0 43 GIBBS 1\\ Tot. 3.3 30 WLLMS 1\\ Tot. 2.8 37 MANN 14\\ Tot. 21.2 66 PKVIEW 6\\ Tot. 8.7 69 TOTAL 25\\ 295 8.5 Certified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 295 B F T B WM W F T W \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 15\\ 18\\ 4\\ 27\\ -31 \\ 30.0 36.0 8.0 54.0 62.0 11\\ 11\\ 1\\ 31\\ 32\\ 25.6 25.6 2.3 72 .1 74.4 8\\ 9\\ 1\\ 20\\ 21\\ 26.7 30.0 3.3 66.7 70.0 9\\ 10\\ 0\\ 27\\ 27\\ 24.3 27.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 12\\ 26\\ 8\\ 32\\ 40\\ 18.2 39.4 12.1 48.5 60.6 16\\ 22\\ 13\\ 32\\ 45\\ 23.2 31.9 18.8 46.4 65.2 71\\ 96\\ 27\\ 169\\ 196\\ 24.1 32.6 9.2 57.3 66.4 70 OTHER \\ % 1\\ 2.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 2\\ 2.9 3\\ 1.0 Classified Staff. There were 120 classified staff members employed by Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Blacks accounted for more than 68 percent. Males accounted for nearly 28 percent of the classified employees with females accounting for 70 percnt of the employees. Others accounting for two percent of the total classified employees were not disaggregated by gender. Data were provided by the principal's office at each of the magnet school sites and represent the number of employees at the time of the site visit. No record of changes during the years were provided to the evaluation team members. The table that follows depicts the data for each school provided to the evaluation team relative to the classified employees. SCHOOL B M \\ % BOOKER 4\\ Tot. 19 21.4 CARVER 5\\ Tot. 21 23.8 GIBBS 3\\ Tot. 16 18.8 WILLMS 2\\ Tot. 13 15.4 MANN 8\\ Tot. 2 36.4 PKVIEW 8\\ Tot. 29 27.6 TOTAL 30\\ 120 25.0 Classified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 120 B F T B w M W F \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 12\\ 16\\ 0\\ 2\\ 63.2 84.2 0.0 10.5 10\\ 15\\ 0\\ 6\\ 47.6 71.4 0.0 28.6 9\\ 12\\ 0\\ 3\\ 56.3 75.0 0.0 18.8 7\\ 9\\ 1\\ 3\\ 53.8 69.2 7.7 23.1 6\\ 14\\ 1\\ 6\\ 27.3 63.6 4.5 27.3 8\\ 16\\ 1\\ 12\\ 27.6 55.2 3.4 41.4 52\\ 82\\ 3\\ 32\\ 43.3 68.3 2.5 26.7 71 T w OTBER \\ % \\ % 2\\ 1\\ 10.5 5.2 6\\ 0\\ 28.6 0.0 3\\ 1\\ 18.8 6.3 4\\ 0\\ 30.8 o.o 7\\ 1\\ 31. 8 4.5 13\\ 0\\ 44.8 o.o 35\\ 3\\ 29.2 2.5 Evaluation team member comments. The following statements by evaluation team members were recorded on the Magnet Theme Observation Document, Class Demograhpics, Item# 8: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Class projects support the fine arts theme. Instruction was fast paced and appropriate. Teacher seems to have great rapport. Learning centers greatly enhance instruction. Teacher planned activities support the magnet theme. Students were allowed to be creative and to think. Excellent demonstration of students cooperating together in a learning environment. Students very involved in learning - lots of interactions regarding multicultural concepts. Students seem to know what to do and they do it. The student interaction was so obvious and so positive. One could not help but to feel that these students will be excellent leaders in the future. One could sense a high level of thinking going on. These students interacted in a manner that suggested that this clearly goes beyond the classroom. The teacher and the students were on task at all times. Students seemed well aware of procedures and were able to do independent work with a minimal amount of supervision. The magnet theme was indeed evident in the classroom. 72 Conclusions Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools provide a variety of magnet themes and educational settings at the elementary level. Junior high and senior high magnet schools are also provided. Student enrollment is fairly consistent in terms of the numbers of minorities and non-minorities. All schools had a majority _of black students. The magnet schools total minority enrollment was 56 percent. White students accounted for 42 percent and students classified as \"other\" accounted for two percent. The majority of certified staff at all Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools were non-minorities. Minorities accounted for 32 percent of the staff and those classified as \"others\" accounted for one percent of the certified staff. Over 68 percent of the classified staff were minorities. Nonminorities accounted for just over 29 percent and those classified as \"others\" accounted for slightly more than two percent . Conclusions based on interviews with school administrators and staff, student enrollment data, and the numbers and percentages for certified and classified staff relative to race and gender, the composition of the magnet schools has not changed greatly during the past several years. 73 SUMl1ATIVE EVALUATION PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: Expected outcomes BACKGROUND The purpose of the summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet school program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme. METHODOLOGY Conclusions are drawn from insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations and data collected during the current school year. Valuable data were furnished by Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. SUMMARY FINDINGS Student Achievement * Grades 1-3 Magnet school students scored above the national mean on standardized achievement tests. * Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) scored above other fourth grade students in the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white students scored higher than their counterparts across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 14 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) scored 6 - 10 NCE points higher than other students in grades five and six across the state and nation. 74 * Grade 7 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other seventh grade students across the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white magn~t school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 15 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grade 10 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the nation, state and the LRSD. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores persists in grade ten. 75 Desegregation * Sociograms Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to sit with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to play with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to work with are not dependent on race. * Site visits -- Students appeared to play together without regard to race. No apparent differences relative to race were noted in interactions between students, teachers and\\or other staff. The certified staff appeared to work together without regard to race or sex. 76 Magnet Theme * Program Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet Schools manifes_t compelling evidence of providing a sound educational core and a coherent magnet theme in each of the magnet schools as ~rovided by the magnet school objectives.: * Accessibility -- A high level of effort is maintained by the schools and the office the Magnet Review Committee to maintain full enrollment at the vairous magnet schools. Enrollment data provide evidence that magent themes are appropriate and student that access is provided. Magnet school placement waiting lists attest to the desirability for attendance at Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. CONCLUSIONS * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations. 77 APPENDIX PULAKSI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS SITE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT School- ------- Grade- ---- Teacher- ------- Evaluation team member -------- Classroom Observation: l. Describe seating arrangement. (integrated, segregated: by race, by sex) 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behavior? If yes, is this evidence conspicuous by race or sex? 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students o! both sexes and all races? If no, describe. 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? If yes, describe. --- 6. Other pertinent comments regarding classroom activities. Cafeteria (Lunch) Observation: 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? If by choice, are there clear patterns of student choice by race or sex? 2. Did teachers remain with student's while students were eating? -=-r-..,,....,,- If not, was there any discernable behavior difference among students based on race or sex? 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) were eating? ___,.----,,-- If not, were seating patterns apparent among teachers? By race? By sex? 4. Was there any visible distinction by race or sex in treatment of, or behavior of, students who ate free lunch, paid full price or brought their lunch? If yes, please describe? 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? If not, describe. ------ 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race or sex? If not, describe. ------ 7. Other pertinent comments. Playground Observation (noon, or recess): 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? If yes, describe. --------------------- 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial or sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? I f yes, des-cr-ibre:. ------------------------- 4. Is there inapropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, halls, or other places in the school? If yes, describe. -------- Staff Interactions: 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race or sex? --,---r-------------------------- I f no, explain. 2. Did staff appear to associate without regard to race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? _____ _ If no, explain. overall Generalization: 1. Is there distinct coherence between the magnet theme and the schools curriculum and instructional activities? Does the magnet school actually deliver what is advertised, that is, to what degree the school offers any unique, quality elements in its curriculum and program? Magnet Theme Observations l. Class type (lesson) and magnet theme: Class type (Eng.- Math, ie .. ) Magnet theme (same as #4,p.l) 2. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (yes _ no _ ) 3. Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie  ) reflect magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 4. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 5. Presentation: (check one) lecture: student presentation: guided practice: independent work: test: other: s. Reference to magnet theme (ie .. specific menti~n in teacher or student presentation, assignments, and other activities): ::please try to observe for 20 uninterrupted minutes):: l. _______________________________ _ 2. _______________________________ _ 3. _____________________________ _ 4. ____________________________ _ s. ____________________________ _ 6. _______________________________ _ ?. _____________________________ _ 1. Observer: OBSERVATION DOCUMENT Class Demographics Date: 2. School.: 3. Teacher: .lliQ ~El \" Magnet Theme: s. Grade: 6. Number\\Race Students: Totals: Black Students White students Other Races Boys: Girls: sex: race: Black Males: White Males: Black Females: White Females: others: F B M w ,. Classroom Seating Arrangements: Assignment: (check one) Assigned _ Unassigned _ By race: (check one) segregated _ integrated _ By gender: (check one) segregated_ integrated _ a. other comments about class demographics: SITE DATA RECORD Site Demographics Date: ----- l. School: 2. Principal: ______ _ ------- 3. Magnet Theme: ______ _ 4. Number/Race of Students Totals: Black Students White Students Others Males Females sex: race: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 5. Certified/Instructional Staff: Black Males White Males Totals: Black Staff White Staff Others Males Females Black Females White Females Others F B 6. Classified Staff (custodial, food services, aids) Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others Totals: Blacks Whites Others Males Females M w Playground Observation 1. Student play activities were: ( directed not directed 2. If student play is not directed students tend to: choose playmates (without with choose playmates (without= with-- regard to race\nregard to gender. 3. There (was was not ) evidence of isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were were not ) observed using racial slurs or inappropriate language during play time. Lunchroom Observation 1. Seating arrangements for eating were based on (choice _ assignment _ ) 2. If seating arrangements were by choice students tended to: choose seat mates (without with choose seat mates (without= with-- regard to race\nregard to gender. 2. Teachers (remained did not remain _ ) with students while students were eating. 3. Teachers (remained did not remain ) with students while they (teachers) were eating. 4. There (was was not ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free lunch or paid full price. 5. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 6. There (were were not ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. 7. There (was was not ) any racial graffiti observed on walls in the hall, bathrooms or other places in the building. E1/,\\LUA'!'ING SOCIAL DEVELOPME~IT SOCIOGRAM St:1.!c:er::: Name ---------------- dace ____ _ Ci:-cle each grade that you have attended at thi s school: K l 2 3 4 5 6 Du=ing the next few weeks we may be re-assign~ng seats, worki~g i~ small groups and playing in class and C\nc~e playground. The purpose at this torm is to help me dec~de whic~ of you work and play best together. You can do th~s by writing the names ot children you would like to have sit near you. to have work with you, and to have play with you. Ycu may choose anyone in this room you wish. including pupils who are absent. Your choices will net be seen by any other student. Give the first name and the initial at last name . Make your choices carefully so the groups will be the way you really want them. Remember! l. Your choices must be from pupils in this room. including those who are absent. 2. You should give the first name and initial ot the last J. Ynaomu es. hould make all tive choices tor each question. 4. You may choose a pupil tor more than one group it you wish. 5. Your choices will not be ~een by anyone else. I would choose to sit near these children: 1. ___________ _ 3. ____________ _ 2. __________ _ 4. _____________ _ 5. I would choose to work with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. I would choose to play with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. SCHOOL: BOOKER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 78 B 40 w J8 0 0 2 TOTAL 80 8 41 w J4 0 5 3 TOTAL 83 B 46 w J6 0 1 4 TOTAL 8) B 45 w JO 0 0 5 TOTAL 91 B 48 w 39 0 4 6 TOTAL 89 B 47 w 42 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORKJ\\L CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 ENVIRONMENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING KATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE )9/44.J J9/44.J 46/47.6 56/5J.O  27/J7.J 28/)7.9 JJ/40.5 42/45.6 54/52.1 5J/51.4 60/55.3 70/61.2 -- -- -- -- J8/4J.5 5J/51. 6 57/5J.6 48/49.1  18/J0.7 JO/J9.2 JJ/40.6 29/J8.4 60/55.4 74/6J.4 77/65.5 69/60.6 84/70.5 91/78.5 96/85.7 69/60.7 42/45.6 45/47.5 53/51. 5 40/44.8 48/48.9 27/J7.2 J5/41. 7 41/45.1 25/J5.9 35/42.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 67/59.4 61/55.6 64/57.5 6J/57.0 54/52.1 75/64.2 77/65.6 54/52.1 46/47.9 61/56.l 60/55.2 48/49.0 61/55.B 28/J7.9 49/49.4 44/46. 7 31/39.3 47/48.6 68/59.8 75/64.0 76/65.1 69/90.4 75/64.J -- -- -- -- -- 50/50.2 78/66.J 65/57.9 65/58.3 59/54.8 31/J9.6 67/59.1 52/51. 2 45/47.2 41/45.J 70/61.2 86/7J.O 75/64.J 83/69.6 76/64.9 84/71.1 96/85.8 89/75.5 91/78.8 81/68.8 72/62.0 72/62. 5 72/62.1 65/58.0 72/62.4 51/50.7 59/54.6 56/53.3 48/48.7 58/54.4 88/74. 6 84/71. J 85/71.8 81/68.4 84/71.J -- -- -- -- --  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY I 44/46. 7 40/44.7 33/40.6 28/)7.5 56/5J.l 54/52.J -- -- 43/46.J 44/46. 7 21/32.9 20/J2.2 66/58.5 68/59.6 90/76.7 91/77. 6 45/47.7 43/46.4 )2/40.2 JO/J8.8 61/55.7 61/55.8 62/56.4 6J/57.0 55/52.8 55/52.8 )9/44.1 38/43.5 73/63.0 74/6J.8 -- -- 6)/57.2 64/57.4 47/48.4 45/47.4 77/65.6 80/67.4 93/80.3 9)/81. 1 75/63.9 74/63.8 58/54.1 57/5J.6 88/74.8 88/75.2 -- -- . I SCHOOL CARVER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 62 8 Jl w Jl 0 0 2 TOTAL 85 B 49 w 36 0 0 3 TOTAL 89 B 49 w 38 0 2 4 TOTAL 94 B 48 w 46 0 0 5 TOTAL 94 B 53 w 39 0 2 6 TOTAL 92 B 49 w 42 0 l LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT II EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUHKARY 1994 ENVIRONHENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 84/70,8 87/73,6 87/73.5 75/64 . J  72/62.2 75/64.3 74/63.7 56/53 . 1 92/79. 6 94/83.3 94/83.3 89/75 . 7 -- -- -- -- 63/57.0 76/65.1 70/60.9 59/54.8  47/48.5 62/56.5 57/53.8 40/44 . 7 81/68.4 90/76. 7 84/70.6 81/68 . 2 -- -- -- -- 56/53. 0 66/58.7 68/59.8 61/55.6 66/58.4 42/45.5 50/50.0 58/54.4 47/48.5 54/52.2 73/62.6 83/69.9 79/66.7 76/64.9 78/66.5 58/54.1 66/58.9 69/60.5 55/52.4 59/55.1 66/58.6 75/64.5 71/61. 8 76/64.9 83/69.8 44/46 . 7 57/53.6 50/49.9 56/53 . 3 67/59.5 84/71. 1 89/75.8 88/74. 2 90/77.0 93/80.5 -- -- -- -- -- 53/51.6 68/59.9 65/58.0 74/63 . 3 64/57.3 32/40 . 4 56/53.2 47/48.3 53/51. 5 48/48 . 8 77/65.4 79/67.3 83/70.3 91/77 . 9 80/67.6 93/81. 4 98/91. 8 91/78. 8 99/99 . 0 96/86 . 4 69/60.2 71/61. 8 61/56.l 73/63 . l 69/60 . 3 50/49 . 8 53/51.6 49/49 . 2 53/51.7 52/51.0 85/71. 7 86/72.8 74/63.8 89/76 . 0 84/70.9 96/86 . 9 99/99.0 84/70 . 9 91/78 . 2 82/69.3  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 87/73.9 86/72.5 75/64.2 72/62.2 95/83.6 94/82,8 -- -- 68/60.0 69/60.6 52/50 . 9 52/50.8 86/72.4 87/73.9 -- -- 60/55.5 61/55.9 47/48,2 47/48.3 76/65.0 77/65.8 59/54.6 58/54.3 72/62.5 75/64.3 51/50.4 53/51.8 88/75.2 90/77 .4 -- -- 32/55.8 33/57.3 44/47.0 45/47 . 5 78/66.0 82/68.9 97/89.3 98/93.0 69/60.5 70/61. 3 52/51.0 51/50.7 84/70 . 8 86/72.9 97/89 . 6 97/89.6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTI\\NFORD ACHI\u0026amp;VEHENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: GIBBS !O,GNET ELEHENTl\\RY ENVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 43 54/52.3 45/47.5 40/44.6 47/48.3  B 24 43/46.2 34/41.2 27/37.2 32/40.0 w 16 72/62.3 65/58.1 61/55.7 70/60.8 0 3 51/50.6 39/44.2 46/47.6 46/48.1 2 TOTAL 39 53/51. 5 60/55.5 51/50.6 61/55.6  B 22 41/45.4 50/50.2 36/42.6 49/49.5 w 15 67/59.2 70/61. 0 66/58.4 77/65.4 0 2 74/6).3 83/70.2 92/80.0 44/46.8 3 TOTAL 37 64/57.5 86/72.4 71/61.6 73/62.9 83/69.9 B 19 41/45. 3 72/62.4 51/50.7 49/49.3 64/57.8 w 18 84/71.1 94/83.5 87/73.7 91/78.1 94/82.7 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 4 TOTAL 43 71/61.6 85/72.2 70/61.0 73/62.8 82/69.0 B 24 55/52.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 56/53.2 69/60.6 w 18 86/73.1 95/83.8 85/71.4 89/75.3 93/80.5 0 1 88/74.7 84/70.9 43/46.3 82/69.3 77/65.6 5 TOTAL 38 68/59.8 80/67.8 75/64.4 73/62.9 79/67.2 B 22 49/49.4 66/58.4 61/55.8 52/50.8 64/57.7 w 16 87/74.0 93/80.6 89/76.2 92/79.5 93/80.3 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 37. 74/63.8 77/65.5 69/60.2 70/61. 1 78/66.5 B 21 58/54.0 62/56.4 58/54.1 56/53.l 68/59.6 .w 13 91/78. 5 91/78.5 79/66.8 85/71.9 89/75.5 0 3 80/67.8 86/73.1 87/73.6 83/69.7 89/75.7  At Gc-ades 1 and 2 the SCIEtlCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and c-eflected as one scoc-e undec- ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATI'ERY BATI'ERY I 52/50.9 47/48.3 39/44.1 33/40.9 71/61. 4 68/60.0 49/49.5 42/45.9 56/52.9 58/54.0 43/46.1 43/46.4 69/60.6 .73/63.1 81/68.6 82/69.1 75/64.1 77/65.5 55/52.8 57/53.7 90/76.6 .91/78.0 -- -- 79/67.3 80/67.9 65/58.2 65/58.2 92/79.4 93/80.8 80/67.7 83/70.1 74/63.4 76/64.9 57/53.9 58/54.2 90/76.4 92/79.5 -- -- 74/63. 3 74/6).6 58/54.3 59/54.5 89/76.1 .89/76.3 85/71.5 85/72.2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: WILLI1\\H9 MJ\\GNET ELEMENTARY EtfVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRJ\\DE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 66 82/69.6 86/72.4 84/70. 7 72/62.3  B 33 79/66 . 7 84/70.8 78/66.2 65/58 . 0 w 33 86/72 . 5 87/73.9 89/75.3 79/66.6 0 0 -- -- -- -- 2 TOTAL 67 72/62.5 90/76.9 77/65.2 89/76.2  B 39 65/58.3 85/72 . 0 70/61.0 85/72.0 w 22 81/68.3 95/84.3 84/71.0 94/83.5 0 6 81/68.3 93/81. 7 85/71.6 90/76.4 3 TOTAL 65 71/61. 6 76/65.0 80/67.8 74/63.2 82/68.9 B 34 60/55.5 63/57.2 74/63.6 56/53 . 0 70/61. l w 28 80/67 . 5 86/72 . 8 85/71.4 88/74.4 91/77. 6 0 3 89/76.3 92/79.9 93/80 . 8 87/73.3 89/75.6 4 TOTAL 71 76/64.6 87/73.3 83/70.3 73/62.6 82/69.l B 37 60/55.4 81/68.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 73/62.8 w 33 88/74.9 91/78.0 91/77.7 85/71.9 88/75.2 0 1 80/67.7 99/99 . 0 91/78.2 92/79.6 99/99 . 0 5 TOTAL 67 62/56.5 85/71.5 71/61.7 76/65.0 64/57.5 B 39 46/48.1 81/68.2 64/51.5 66/58 . 6 53/51.3 w 28 81/68.3 89/76.1 80/67.4 87/74.1 78/66.2 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 68 71/61.4 78/65 . 9 70/61.1 74/63.7 73/62 . 6 B 39 56/53.2 69/60 . 5 60/55.2 61/56 . 1 64/57.6 w 28 86/72 . 5 85/72 . 2 82/69.) 87/73 . 6 82/69 . 0 0 1 84/70 . 9 99/99 . 0 72/62.3 94/82 . 7 91/78 . 2  At Grades land 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT . BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 86/72. 5 84/71.0 83/69.7 80/67.9 89/75.3 88/74.2 -- -- 81/68 . 5 84/71. l 74/63.4 78/66.l 89/75. 7 91/78.l 89/75 . 7 91/78.3 77/65.3 78/65.9 66/58.4 66/58.6 85/72. 0 87/73.4 94/82.3 92/79.9 85/71.4 85/71.6 73/63.1 73/63.l 92/80.l 93/80 . 5 97/89.6 98/93.3 74/63.4 75/64.0 65/58.0 64/57.7 84/71. 1 86/72.8 -- -- 74/63.3 74/63.9 63/56.9 63/57 . 0 85/71. 5 86/72.7 94/82 . 7 95/84.6 SCHOOL: KANN KMHET JR, HIOK NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 7 TOTAL 269 B 151 w 113 0 5 8 TOTAL 25) B 147 w 101 0 5 9 TOTAL 224 B 124 w 96 0 4 LITTLZ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANKING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTAJIFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCB) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 59/54.6 51/50.4 62/56.6 U/56.0 56/5),4 42/45.9 311/43.6 46/48.1 42/45.t 43/46.0 78/66,4 . 67/59.1 81/68.1'. 83/69. 74/63.4 54/51. 9 64/57. 63/56. 7 54/52.2 53/51. 9 56/52.9 5)/51.5 62/56.4 6)/56.8 59/54.8 41/45,3 39/44.2 49/49.4 48/48.9 45/47.3 74/6J.2 70/61.0 78/66.0 79/67.2 76/65.1 74/63. l 113/70.0 76/64.6 89/75. 7 77/65.5 53/51. 7 41/45.3 62/56.3 60/55.1 61/55.9 34/41.0 22/lJ.4 45/47.2 39/44.2 40/44.7 76/64.6 68/59.7 79/67.1 81/68.4 82/69.4 88/74. 8 80/68.l 89/75.l 81/68.4 90/77.1 BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY 56/5),2 57/5).9 41/45.1 40/44.11 75/63.9  11/65.1 65/58.1 ' 64/57.7 58/54.0 58/54.4 43/46.1 42/45.9 76/64. 8 78/66.1 79/66,7 83/69.8 55/52.7 57/5l.9 35/41.9 35/42.0 77/65.5 81/68.2 90/76.7 91/78.5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAHNINO, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIORT EDITION PERCENTILE RAKlt/NORKAL CURVB EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL BUHKARY uu SCHOOLr PAJUtVIElf KAONET RIGII SCHOOL HUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 10 TOTAL 242 6)/56.8 54/52.J 65/58.0 64/57.6 62/56.6 B 1)6 48/48.9 4)/46.1 51/50. 4?. 47/48.5 50/50.l w 100 80/67.8 68/59.9 80/67. 8)/70.0 78/65.9 0 6 49/49.5 74/6J.l 83/70.0 67/59.0 51/50.4 11 TOTAL 2)8 50/50.2 4J/46.1 49/49.6 47/48.6 47/48.5 8 145 J8/4J.5 H/41.1 39/43.9 )6/42.2 J4/41.0 w 88 72/62.J 58/54.0 68/59.7 69/60.2 70/61.J 0 5 29/)8.6 62/56.l 36/42.2 29/38.l 45/47.J BASIC COHPLETE BATTERY B-'TTER'l 64/57 . J , 65/58.0 49/49.S, 49/49.2 80/67. \u0026lt; BJ/69.9 69/60.4 68/59.8 51/50.6 50/50.1 J9/44.l )6/42.7 71/61.5 72/62.4 41/45.4 40/44. 6\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1462","title":"\"Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation,\" Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education, State University, 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":["Arkansas State University"],"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["\"Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation,\" Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education, State University, 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/1462"],"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":["150 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_189","title":"Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items","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":["1993-01"],"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":["Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Public schools"],"dcterms_title":["Rankings of Arkansas School Districts on Selected Items"],"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/189"],"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":["183 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1451","title":"\"Recommendations for Budget Reductions,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School boards","School superintendents","School management and organization","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["\"Recommendations for Budget Reductions,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1451"],"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":["162 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_892","title":"Report: Attendance summaries, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Attendance summaries, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/892"],"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":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_710","title":"School closings","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":["1993/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["School closings"],"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/710"],"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":["81 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\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 O\n!\nCS 0! Dese3f5'' Ki AonAonng EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK DSP. cLenx LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June In 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students' along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but nrhA lit,A *1..* T_l. * . . ..a. who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones.indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, I Order, 2 conclusion. the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. to these elementary The recruitment of white students area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. ___ incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive The schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany -3- a arecruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the demonstrable implementing To meet that goal, the parties services of a consultant who has experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black educational setting. Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the i989i_plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to ..1 1. __ retreat should be approved. They are as (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... which no follows: They are Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists. a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] io decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions its it either 1 effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools, reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school The Court closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish I Incentive School be, and xt is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITEO states'DIsTRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON -6-iL NOV 2 1995 OBice Oi Dssegrsaa-ion rvicruicnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .x7 2 d 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants. * * * * * *  it 4r * A A A No. LR-C-82-866 6y\n^Pt^'URiwyACK, CLERK CLftK ?_S Ois\nI cSN c:s 'C| ,^,:y^,\\s^g ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) for modification of desegregation plan, filed on June 30, 1995. At that time, the LRSD was seeking the Court's permission to close Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School beginning the 1995-96 school year. The motion is now moot, the LRSD having withdrawn the request. Also before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD\") for approval of new school sites. filed on July 21, 1995. The PCSSD was seeking the Court's permission to build a new Daisy Bates Elementary School and a new junior high school at Crystal Hill. This new construction, as well as the purchase of computers for use by fifth and sixth grade students in the PCSSD, was to be financed from a millage increase the PCSSD intended to ask the voters to approve. Because the PCSSD determined not to ask for a millage increase, the motion for new construction is moot. 2 5 6 6 LBecause these motions (docket entry # the Clerk is directed to 2432 \u0026amp; # 2443) are moot, remove them from the pending motions report. SO ORDERED this day of November 1995.\nt judge PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON JANCE 2. 20 o.  OJU. UxL cc,^^  C^cx^j iLctp. i \u0026lt;'(zp'-^ 2\u0026gt;-Z9-(^3 C/0^'' C~ '7- / -Z- ^3 Drc/e iH i i ZZ i- C/o),/'. u1 From: John W. Walker To: Anr' Brown Date-1/9/96 Time: 17:17:4S Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee Little Rock. AR C'O Dr. Henry Williams Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and pormoted the same philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the p jns modified to reflect you ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the olan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators through you as a court agent. 1 do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of this. But I am putting her on notice of my comments to you by copy of this letter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended. I requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school 'closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding v/hich schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored. Fearing that 1 may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. i r Dr Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms Linda Pendexter Ms Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright - From: John W. Walker To: Airn Brown Dale: 1/9/96 Time: 17:37:32 i, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. } 1 1 I Page 2 of 3 t.-'i-.' . 51'.' ' ATTORNEY AT 1723 SRQADVtkY LITTLE ROCK, ARKAN^,S 72206 TELEPHONE (^1) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 J-*.  JOKWW. WALKER  RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE \" AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Delivered by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. Mall] January 9. 1996 V k Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority X'J\nI IV : : k lt' A I.-- neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That caLises me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If. as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong messagejromlhe Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright v/as aware of your efforts to change our agreement: but I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this tetter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.  A( 1 RR  i Prom: John W Walker To: Ann Brown Date\n1/9/96 Time: 17:38:32 Page 3 of 3 Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9, 1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7\n30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee v/here I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Undersigned Counsel] John W. Walker JWWJp cc: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pendexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright Bl i !KJOHN W. WALKER. PJL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Ja.M 1 i Office of Desegregahcn Wonaoruig JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Deiiverad by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. MaiQ January 9,1996 Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorize to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work If, as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of your efforts to change our agreement\nbut I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this letter, with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9,1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Str^egic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Untfersigi John W. Walker /\nJWWJp cc\nDr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber WrightJI. frt'^ Ah BEcervED DEC 13 2001 DATE: TO: OmEEOf OESGGR^or^ONms December 13, 2001 BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 reguires that we, not seek to close schools in African-American ^ighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new ool will be located in the same general area. We do not intend to nmend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor nance, \"so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1 Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor, 3.7.2 The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Term\nThe term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be - aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. ! The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o 5 grade: 130 students-required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size. IRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6 and 9*^ street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario, Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, b* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Buiiding Capacity is based upon average class sizeRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer: Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August, 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact: Based upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creek's African American enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes. iRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the two school sites, and the Charter Program. Dr. Bonnie Lesley will provide an overview of the academic performance at each campus. E. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $1,754, 628.05 $ $ i It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from the two sites and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs dictate.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 7 F. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students, I Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals. G. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, and the Charter Program is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action on or before the January 10*^ Agenda meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 8 I In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We are in the process of reviewing other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and will bring forth additional recommendations after the first of the year. H. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors review the data as presented and provide the Superintendent and staff with direction on potential school closures for the 2002-2003 academic year. Attachments:r:L_:r iz_:cz: I JJTTL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION ____ 2001-2002 Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed GfT' _ Counselor Library Princip^ Office Upkeep of Bldg Total T 1st Quarter 7^ Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed___ G/T 1_ Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep ofBIdg Total { Gluafterl Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total FTE-Cert Cert__ 1.00 P2 0.40 l.bo ____0.4b' 1.00 'i.ob 'too N-Cert 4.00 11.80 1 BADGETT 1-40 2.00 140 FTE-Cert Cert TOO ___2.00 ___2.bo J____ojq 2-2O 0-5b TOO FTE N-Cert l.bo 5.50 1.00 1.00 17.50 0.40 0.40 TOO lob 10.30 Salary 129,773.00 291,417.00 \"18,831.20 _31916.0b _17,3bl4b 44,313.00 41691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 Salary_ 146,723.00 '66,271.00 347,673.00 15,48100 129,400.20 21,635.50 _47,9iTqq 6,996.20 56,531.67 96,951.00 '31876'00 871,450.5'7 .M -183.37 4^19138 ' FTE-Cert Cert 5.50 ' 0.20 1.00 N-Cert 3.00 6.70 74.38^ Grand Total 36.00 3.00 94^ Salary 151,889.00 -Z'^il 22 1087810.50 _43,20b.0b 31'1,640.50 20.70 1,801,205.01 Ringe Purch Ser Supplies Capital 8,058.80 79,442.21 ' 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 io\n697.8i 10^40351 25,196\nb5 ^1'1,871.23 163,163.71 350.00 8,572.00 1,473.00 Other DODD Fringe 113,790.23 ' 17338.19 ' 96,290.17 13,871.98 122244.15 15\n254.35 1'11,^0.85 2,331.21 i2'2ZZ 50 22,906.61 11,821.50 231,977.34 2,000.00 26,8^.00 27,209.00 1,498.00 11,5'43.00 2,000.00 0.00 __ __ 237,831.80 381.78T2T 23,311.07 1_42J26\n76 21,511.87 55,010.81 54,568.b5 _ 128,909.85 ' 7Q,373.23 822,02965 Estimated Sav^ings_ _ -37,831.80 _J5b,ooq.qq -23,311.07 -P-22 - :21^1f87 -55,010.81 -53,095^05 -128,9b9.85 -66,378.23 -536,b48.68 Remainjng Itos^__ _______o.ob ' 231,781.21 _____o.bb 42,726.76 2 __ P-22 12-00 _1,473.00  o.oq -lZi2,bMbq 285,980.97 Purch Ser 1,900.00 48,3^.00 51,435.00 CHARTER Fringe 142,170.36 _1,936.00 _3q,369J2 16,454.00 90,929.48 Purch Ser io,7oo\nbb 17,500.00 28,200.00 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 \"\" 300.00 3,728.0b 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.00 Supplies 23,200.00 19,000.00 41200.00 64,428.00 Cai^ital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital__ 10,500.00 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67 00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200 00 1,200.00 1,617.00 Totai 63780.23 ' ' 83,909.19 450,991.17 __19,353.98 162,444.35 26,^9.85  59,^1.85 9,328.01 17125717 121,507.61 j7,64T5b 1,167,364.91 Savirigs -63,780.23 ' -38,562.92 -251074.27 -19,353.M _l_2 92j -22,889.85 -59,261.85 ' -9,328,01 -70.509.j7 -121,507.61 -77,641.5b -738,909.39 Remaining Costs___ \" 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.9 b - o.ob 162,444.35 _ IJP-OO O.bb 0.00 _1,748.00 QOO 2o,boq.qb '_428,455.52 Total 239,659.^ 9,677.00 139.179.6'2 96,154.00 484,669.98 Savings -234,659.36 -9,677.00 -139,1/9.62 1j96,1 54.00 Remaining ' 5,bob.b'o _ _ obb b\noo b.oo 479r669.98 \" 5,000.00 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade Level Grade 2 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6%' 6.24 ~5.9%| 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5%l 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 2051 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189, 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achigygrngnt Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 ________19 3 4 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr, 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 22 10 0 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 0% 18% 82% 2001-02 2002-03 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12%, 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 2000-01 2001-02 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7%, 13% 13% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5% 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7% I 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achigygrnent Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr, 2001 3 11 6 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr, 2003 13 14 3 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42%| 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% 2001-02  2002-03 ^^j^^^sas^^BenchrTTark_ExarnjnationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 5% 14% 29% 52% 2001-02 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 30% 36% 28%, 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 I I ri^-gTiMCHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Obsgrvation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'S 'Ka Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 a Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 TiV s\nTC j'i Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004\nkj2i3feste ?T/ In Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -Sfa-//. 3?-\n5j ri' :si? \u0026gt;4 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 7.Q 6.6 N/A N/AAchieygment Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A 172 174 199 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 N/A N/A Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A \\77 192 196 I Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth ordUcS Z,5 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 ----------- ...w. WIWVUI i?s5Bsw!sprwsa3!S^5SS5 X _______87 8 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. Level Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. .....* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 3 i'*'. 1999-00 2001-02  2002-03 0% 0% 25% 75% Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 0% 6% 0% 94% Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade (Kinder 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 1997-98 I 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James FROM: Junious Phone: (501)324-2272 SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6**' board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B VJ/0 TOTAL DODD B TOTAL 185 214 \"79 233 200 \"76 216 179 \"77 796 174 13 146 7 153 156 86 145 79 224 162 131 \"72 145 \"77 114 74 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL 193 62 255 188 60 165 63 160 6T 167 57 164 \"\"45 WILSON B W TOTAL 294 68 297 329 53 278 35 MS 257 3T 2^ 232 2M Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. II. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1,2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd . 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson______ 26. Williams______ 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT _________153_________ _________188_________ _________209_________ _________252_________ _________267_________ _________268_________ _________271_________ _________277_________ _________280_________ _________282_________ _________282_________ _________284_________ _________298_________ _________305_________ _________307_________ _________320_________ 330 _________332_________ 374 _________384_________ _________388_________ ________389_________ ________397_________ ________426_________ ________426_________ ________446_________ ________452_________ ________459_________ ________466_________ 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% ________________________ __________69%__________ __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%___________ __________78%___________ __________81%___________ __________70%___________ __________100%__________ __________76%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________86%___________ __________81%___________ __________83%___________ __________92%___________ __________73%___________ __________81%___________ __________96%___________ __________87%___________ __________90%___________ __________91%___________ __________85%___________ __________68%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99%___________ __________84%___________ __________80%___________ 89%Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCtOf DESKfiEGAPOW MQNIT3fi0ia FAX: 371-0100 Re: Possible School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall: We are in the process of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to allow the Board to determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have presented some very preliminary information to the Board of Education concerning the savings which can be achieved by closing certain schools. At our meeting last night, the Board indicated that it would continue to consider the possibility of closing schools as one way to make necessary budget cuts. Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the possibility of school closings, we would like to share and discuss with you the information we have and to hear your views on this issue. Time is very short because school registration is scheduled for January 28 - February 8^, 2001. We would like to meet with you, if at all possible, on Wednesday, December 19, 2001. Please call me as soon as possible so that we can confirm a time or. if necessary, arrange a different date for a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKJ/bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I 1 1 FAX\n371-0100 Re\nPossible, School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall\nallow tte tn H P of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to of ft determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have oresented some vir? Board of Education concerning the savings which can bl leved by closing certain schpoooslssl.b iAlitty oouf rd moseinetgin sgk laoslts n iagVhto t^hwe 7Byoard indicated that it Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the Dossibilitv of school informafio^^ January 28 - FebruaT8^?o1)rWe'X'TkZ?^^ school registration is scheduled for CcoonnfLirdme 9ra fti^rrn^n sa sdcif fCearlel nmt dea ates fsoor oan m aese tpinogs.s ibTlhea snok tyhoaut fwoer ycoaunr meet with you. if at all possible, on Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKj/bjg 810 Wejt Mazkhazn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) 324-2012 a 810 West Markham flt? ^Or DATE: Phone\nFay\n(501) 324-2020 (5011 324-2032 January 7, 200z f on+rai V..K.J IKI V41 Ariziir\u0026gt;coc Cyi iihia KuWcib AfkunSuS Deinu(.rui-Gu/.^iiS FkOm: Sueiien Vann, uirector of Lommunicatons SUBJECT: Special Si.huoi Buard Meetings MESSAGE\nThe Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special Board meeting Tuesday, January 15, at 6 p.m. to discuss proposed school closings related to budget reducions. Please note that this issue will not be on the agenda on Thursday, January 10, at the Board's agenda meeting. The reason for the change is that one Board member will be out of town on Thursday, and Superintendent Ken James and Board members felt that the entire Board should be present for the discussion and decision. Additionally, the Board will gather on Thursday, January 17, at noon at Metropolitan Career/Technical Center to have lunch and tour the district's new technology center. The center will house the district's upgraded computer network and telephone systems which are funded through the 2000 capital improvement millage. The network will support the installation of new computers in schools throughout the district. # Pages (including cover) TO Fax# 1 An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM P02 JAN 03 02 16:52 JOHN W. WALKER SH.WN CHILDS JuH.k W. XAalker, P.A. Atoeney At Law 1723 Broadway Liitu Rock, .AaituNSAS 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile\n324-2146 OK COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKJ, PA. donna J, Mr HENRY 8210 Hindesson Road tnTLs Rock, .uikansas 72210 Phone: (SOU 372-3425  Fax (601) 372-3428 tUAii\nmdieiiryd@Awbell.aet January 8, 2002 Ms. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Judy Magness Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. Michael Daugherty Mr. Baker Kurrue Mr. Larry Berkeley Mr- Terry Rose Little Rock Board of Directors Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Closing Dear Board Members\nIn that I will be unable to appear before the board at the Tuesday meeting to represent the viewpoints of Joshua, I wish to inform you of the Joshua position with respect to the proposal to close Badgett, Dodd and Fairpark Elementary Schools, brief. I will be First. The Revised Rian (para. 3.6) provides in substance that there will be no school closing of schools in majority black areas absent reasons of compelling nece.s.sity. ______... ... administrators' position the closing is dictated by concerns of ('para. As T understand the economy, i.e., the district is in dire economic .strait,s and simply cannot afford to maintain small schools that are far below capacity in student enrollment. under situation. ordinary circumstances, The argument of economy while a valid one it should not be applied in this years. Badgett has been the subject of closing for We opposed the closing each time. at least ten The staff and board determined to shore the .schoni up with charter school programs and with great fanfare and costs created expectancies that the charter50137441S? WALKER LAW FIRM 225 P03 JAN 08 02 Page iwo January 8, 2002 school idsi was a good one and that the boara would support it by allowing time for it to develop and by giving it the support that it would need to overcome doubts from persons like myself about the propriety and efficacy of charter schools. Thsrefore, to close Badgett would be a breach of faith and commitment as well as of the plan and/or the covenant. Moreover, closing of a black school with the it would constitute the transportation burden upon black students. attendant increase in the Second. David 0. Dodd's closing is also based upon reasons of The Revised Desegregation Plan was based upon geographic attendance zones which were presented to the public as neighborhood schools. economy. Joshua has expressed its concern about the manner in which the neighborhood school zones were drawn and that is record. on Dodd seems to fit the standard submitted to the Court of the desired objective of neighborhood schools. one of racial balance by a zoning plan. That standard was It would seem that Dodd's racial balance is better than that of most schools in the district and that Dodd should be maintained for that reason alone. There are many students who live in the Dodd area who attend private schools. Most of those students are white. district would find ways to attract those enhancement of programs and considerate of their parents. activ.ities It would seem that the students to Dodd by and by- being more Your proposal has a promise not only of closing Dodd but of driving appro.ximately 100 more white children out of the district when those students and parents to remain in the di.strict. wsnt. If economy is indeed the reason for the closing, losing 100 students at per student aid of approximately $5,000 per student,' will take, within a year or two, annually from, the district's at least revenue stream. five million dollars That in turn will increase the district's need to close more schools in order to meet current budgetary considerations. The board has said that It parent? out of the district\nits is not trying to drive white actions appear otherwise. These parents may not be the white parents to which the board refers when the board members discuss student retention. middle to lower income. Ths Dodd parents ara I mention this factor because while Dodd is being mentioned for closing, ths district, without approval, has actually added classrooms at Otter Creek, Court a more middle class economy is neither Dodd. community in the district. Thus, the reason\nonsistent nor logical when applied to David 0.58137441S7 WALKER LAW FIRM P04 JAN 0S '02 Fags Three January 8, 2002 Finally, with respect to Dead, you have a supportive set of parents who actually proKiote the idea of good education and good race relations simultaneously. Those factors have importance when the history of this community is taken into account and when the Revised Plan and Covenant are considered. Third. With respect to the proposed closing of Fairpark, I do not oelievs that the administration Is serious about this closure. It/ 1 believe, is being submitted to deflect attention from the closing of the two lower income schools. income schools, Badgett But like the two lower closing are not substantiated. and Dodd, the justifications for the If economy is the reason for the closing the board may wish to revisit some of the decisions to add administrative staff which were recommended by Superintendent Les Carnins and approved by the board. It IS my belief that a large number of administrative staff were added by Dr. Gamine which were not economically justified at the time. I realize this IS a sensitive area since the board recommendations. approved each of those For example, you approved substantially enhanced pay increases for all the administrators at the associate and assistant superintendent level. While I do not oppose fair pay for administrators, these adminxstrators' pay is comparable to the pay that superintendents receive in other district, and in some cases IS even greater. category, not nine or ten. You expect to find one or two people in this position of Chief Financial Another example is the creation of the Officer, a position which explicitly created to obtain the services of Or. Don Stewart. was It is ironic that the chief defender of the economic basis for the school closings is Dr. Stewart. If the district had maintained its structure without adding Dr. Stewart, it would have saved at least 5100, 000 per year. Stewart, but this example is glaring. I don't want to be personal regarding Dr. I submit that it is more important to actually maintain the \"neighborhood schools\" that the board championed than to hire a person simply because the superintendent likes that person's experience.s and abil ities, The 5100,000 administrative costs associated with that salary would be more than sufficient to continue, on a operation of either Dodd or Badgett, sound economic basis, the assessment is anywhere close to being correct. or perhaps both. If this the district would take time to reevaluate its overall needs and then make some cost, judgments regarding them. it would seem that staffing Administrative costs are but one item. I have previously brought to your attention the large number of small classes in the advanced placement area and have pointed up the lack of econom.ic justi fication. for small classes for .A.P. students. The educational501374413? WALKER LAW FIRM PQ5 JAM OS '02 16:54 Page Four January 8, 2002 justification is students, made takin Sut in any strongest for small classes of underachieving ass, the appropriate assessirient should be I must a note into account all components of the district's business also 35 we consider closing three schools the district IS still planning to build a new school in an upper middle class area in west Little Reck. schools in The poor areas can simply reason of economy in closing not be j ustifred under circumstances where you are opening new schools without regard tor the same concerns for economy. school in the west. You plen to open an expensive new Nor can reasons of econom.y for school closings be justified when there are so many staff members on the payroll whose work is being duplicated unnecessarily by Others. Lastl J  These viewpoints have not been publically discussed by the board members in a public forum. Because they have not and because your procedure does not lend itself to dialogue in public board meetings, may I suggest that before you close any school the board create a committee, rather small, with representatives from the Joshua Intervenors, the teacher's union and the seven school zones, and which includes Dr. James and Dr. Stewart, district's financial circumstances. to review the be simply a resource available to the committee. I would ask that Dr. Stewart I note that Pulaski County School District, In this respect. there. while Dr. Stewart was always had more money than Dr. Stewart said it had. his leadership, Under the district was always very solvent while it clairaed that it was on the verge of disaster. idea, Please consider these views and if you reject my committee I ask that you take no action until Mr. Heller has hjid an opportunity to discuss this matter with Joshua to see if there is some way to avoid any school closing. If this is not possible. Joshua has no choice other than to file formal objections to the anticipated and recommended school closings with the Court. Thank you for listening to me. Sincerely, Johpl^W. Walker Or? Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors JWW\nip5?' iii LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SPECIAL MEETING January 15, 2002 6:00 p.m. Consideration of School Closing Options for 2002-2003 school year DATE: January 15, 2002 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a  school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 requires that we not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. M's do not intend to recommend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor maintenance, so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Terrn: The term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. The Superintendent has also included similar financial data and information about Fair Park Elementary, per the Boards direction. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o S* grade: 130 students required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6* and 9* street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario. Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, 5* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Building Capacity is based upon average class sizeSpecial Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer. Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August. 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact\nBased upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creeks African American-enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. ENROLLMENT DATA: Fair Park Elementary: Enrollment: 212 = 70% usage Building Capacity 304 # of Certified Staff 18.1 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.8 Enrollment w/o 4 yr olds, and 5*^ graders 164 required to move, of which 121 are in the Fair Park zone. 43 students will return to their AZ school In the event that Fair Park is closed:  All non-AZ students at Fair Park will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students south of 1-630 would go to Franklin. Net impact on Franklin would be an increase of 84 students (75 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Franklins enrollment would increase from 385 students to 469 students. The percent of Franklins African American enrollment would decrease from 97% to 96%. The building capacity at Franklin is 532.  Students east of McKinley, North of Markham and South of Cantrell would go to Brady. Net impact on Brady would be an increase of 38 students (29 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Bradys enrollment would increase from 338 students to 376 students. The percent of Bradys African American enrollment would decrease from 81% to 80%. The building capacity at Brady is 409.  Students east of Mckinley, South of Evergreen, and North of 1-630 would go to Forest Park. Net impact on Forest Park would be an increase of 17 students (5 B and 12 NB). In this scenario.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 7 Forest Parks enrollment would increase from 307 students to 324 students. The percent of Forest Parks African American enrollment would remain at 39%. The building capacity at Forest Park is 400 students. E. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the three school sites, and the Charter Program. F. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 FAIR PARK: $ 749,692.03 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $ 2,504,320.08 $ $ $ It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from Badgett, Dodd and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. If Badgett, Dodd, the Charter Program, and Fair Park Elementary are closed, all of the certified staff could not be absorbed, thus additional reductions in personnel would be necessary. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs and resources allow.Special Board Meeting, January 14, 2002 Board Report Page 8 G. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students. Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals, H. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship. Even if we do not lose additional revenue this fiscal year, it is still essential that we reduce expenditures to balance the 2002-2003 budget.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent. At this time, I have targeted a $6.5 million dollar reduction as a target for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, the' Charter Program, and Fair Park is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action at the January 15' Special meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 9 In preparation of the consideration of any school closures, the following activities took place:  During the week of December 10-14.1 faxed and mailed a letter to all of the parties involved in the Desegregation case.  During the week of December 17-19.1 met with the following to ensure their understanding of our exploration of school closures for the 2002- 2003 academic year: Dr. James Smith, Superintendent. North Little Rock Schools Dr. Carl Brown. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Dr. John Archetko. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Ms. Clementine Kelley. CTA President Mr. Frank Martin. CTA I met with Ms. Ann Marshall on Friday. January 4, 2002. I did not receive a response from Mr. Walker, during this timeframe, but Mr. Walker has written a letter to the Board of Directors.  On December 19*^, letters were mailed to all parents/guardians of students currently attending Badgett. Dodd. The Charter Program, and Fair Park. Informing them of Community Meetings on the following dates: Badgett Elementary/Charter Thursday. January 3\"* Dodd Elementary Monday. January 7^ Fair Park Elementary Tuesday. January 8^ 6:00 p.m.  6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We have prepared other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and submit same for your review and consideration.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 10 1. RECOMMENDATION: A. B. After careful analysis and processing of all information gleaned as a result of our community meetings, it is the recommendation of the Superintendent that Dodd Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School remain open during the 2002-2003 school year. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider revoking the charter of the Charter school and reassign the students to their respective attendance zone schools, for the 2002-2003 school year. Projected Savings: $479,670.00 C. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider closing Badgett Elementary School under the provisions of 3.72 of the Revised Desegregation Plan, effective at the close of the current school year. Projected Savings: $536, 049.00 Attachments:I FTE-Cert FTE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION 2001-2002 BADGETT I I Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total I i Cert 1.00 6.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 I N-Cert ! 4.00 'ri 11.80 1.40 2.00 7.40 1 st Quarter 1 ADA ' ADM ^52.05 167.95 Salary 29,773.00 291,417.00 18,831.20 33,916.00 17,308.40 44:313.00 42,691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 % Attend \n90.53% Fringe 8,058.80 79,442.21 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 10,697.81 10,403.51 25,196.05 11,871.23 163,163.71 I Purch Ser 350.00 26,859.00 27,209.00 Supplies 8,572.00 1,473.00 1,498.00 11,543.00 Capital i Other 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Total 37.831.80 381.781.21 23.311.07 42.726.76 21.511.87 55.6l6.81 54.568.05 128.96'9.85 76,378.23 822,029.65 Estimated Savings -37,831.80 -156,606.06 -23,311.67 ...........6.00 -21,511.87 2 -55,010.81 \"-53,69'5:65 -128,909.85 ' '-66,378.23 -536,648:68 Remaining Costs 0.00 231,781.21 0.00 42,726.76 0.00 0.00 1,473.00 0.00 10,006.00 285,986.97 Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total 1st Quarter r FTE-Cert Cert 1.00 2-00 7:66 0.40 3.60 0.50 1.00 FTE N-Cert ' 1.00 5.50 DODD 1.00 1.60 17.50 0.40 0.40 1.00 2.00 10.30 li 93,38 Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total 1st Quartet^ Grand Total FTE-Cert Cert ' '5.56 0.20 1.00 FTE N-Cert 3.00 6.70 3.00 .D\u0026gt;^\\AdM': Salary 46,723.00 66,271.06 347,673.00 15.482.06 129:466:26 21,635.56 47,911.00 6,996'.26 56,531.67 96,95i'.'66 35,876.66 871:456.5'7 % Attend , Fringe 13,790.23 17,338.19 96,290.17 3,871.98 _33,044.15 5,254.35 11,350^85 2,33T81 13,977.50 22906.61 11,821.50 23i\n977.34 Purch Ser 1,900.00 1,200.00 48^335.00 51,435.00 : /O/MIOIIU' \u0026lt; 94,82% 222 Salary__  151,889.06 7,741.06 \u0026gt; 108:816.50 43,200.06 311,640:6'6 % Attend 174^3833\n85.63 86.86%\n36.00 CHARTER _ Fringe 42,170.36 1,936.00 30,369.1'2 ' 16,454.06 90,929.48 Purch Ser '16,700.00 17,500.00 28,260^00 20.70 1,801,205.01 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 300.00 3,728.00 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.60 Supplies 23,200.66 19,000.00 42,200.00 64,428.00 Capital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital 10,506.66 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67.00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200.66 1,200.00 1,617.00 Total 63,786?23 83,969.19 45'6:991:17 19,353.98 2162,444:35 _ 26:889.85 ' '59:261.85 9:328.61  _72,257.i'7 i2i.567.6l  '97,641:50 i,167,364:'9T Savings -6'3,780.23 -38,562.92 -252,074.27  2:-i9.353.98 _ 2 0.00 226,8'89.85 -59,261.85 1 _:9'328:6i 2270,569.17 \" -121,507.61 '\" -77,641.50 -738:'969':39 Remaining Costs 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.90 0.00 162,444.35 ......... 0:00 ............6.00 6:06 1,746:00 0.00 26,666.00 428,4'55.52 Total '239'659.36 '9,67'7.00 139.179.62' 96.154.00 484 669.96 Savings _ -234,659?36 '2-9,677.00 -139,179:62 ' -96.154.00 -479,669.98 Remaining Costs 5,000.00 \"6.06 Qoo 0.06 5,006:60 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77, 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print 'Vocabulaiy Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6% 6.24 5.9% I 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5% 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 19 3 4 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 10 0 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69%, Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 0% 18% 82% 0% 5% 27% 59%, 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12% 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7% 13% 13% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999:2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test  Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5%' 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7%| 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205| 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 8.9 5.7 4.8 3 11 6 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Grovirth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 13 14 3 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42% 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level iggs-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 5% 14% 29% 52% 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test iggy-ga igga-gg Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete i9gg-oo 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 30% 36% 28% 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% iggy-ga igga-gg iggg-oo 2000-01 2001-02CHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 S'\n(SSP, Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 - Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24. Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'Si * Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -kV w - Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 rST^ Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 safe 7.9 6.6 N/A N/AAchievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A ?72 174 199 [Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A Ml 192 196 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 0% 25% 75% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2001-02 2002-03 WSsW 0% 6% 0% 94% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 [Kinder I 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 iPrincipal: Samuel Branch Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 47.03 13.03 16.76 30.73 19.97 51.55 15.40 20.80 33.50 19.00 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 53.70 17.44 22.56 28.11 22.22 52.92 17.43 20.78 39.51 29.62 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 19.79 17.73 68.79 38.86 47.69 45.50 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 3.54 68.3% 22.44 62.5% 29.07 62.9% 4.75 75.6% 18.16 72.7% 28.56 67.7% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 198 205 212 177 190 193 177 174 196 194 205 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 12.6 7.9 6.6 19 4 12 Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 193 199 207 184 197 201 183 196 194[Grade 5 I Inf 212| 20^ I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 12 -3 5 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 200 208 215 173 189 195 203 179 195 192 207 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 T arget 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 3 12 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 20% 30% 50% 0% 21% 50% 29% 0% 35% 24% 41% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 5% 5% 25% 65% 0% 0% 7% 93% 6% 12% 18% 65% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 17% 18% 12% 19% 20% 34% 42% 19% 34% 34% 28% 29% 15% 26% 26% 25% 31% 15% 24% 22% 24% 17% 12% 21% 21% Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5'A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Juiiious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James Phone: (501)324-2272 FROM: Junious B SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6* board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B vwo TOTAL DODD B W TOTAL 185 21^ 214 233 200 216 179 \"77 174 13 146 IM 156 242 145| 79 162) 89j 131 \"72 2W 145 ~T1 114 74 188 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL WILSON B \\N TOTAL 193 62 188 60 165 63^ 160 167 ~T7 2^ 164 294 68 3W 297 \"65 3W 53) 3^ 278 313 3? 232 20 252 Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school'January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. IL ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1, 2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson 26. Williams 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT 153 188 209 252 267 268 271 277 280 282 282 284 298 305 307 _________320_________ 330 332 374 384 388 389 397 426 426 446 452 459 466 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% __________69%__________ 69% __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%__________ __________78%__________ __________81%__________ __________70%__________ 100% 76% __________95%__________ __________89%__________ __________86%__________ __________81%__________ __________83%__________ __________92%__________ __________73%__________ __________81%__________ __________96%__________ __________87%__________ 90% 91% __________85%___________ __________68%___________ 95% __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99% 84% 80% 89%POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION (2002-2003) (1-14-02) TARGET REDUCTION: $6.5 MILLION PROJECTED SAVINGS SCHOOL CLOSINGS: A. CLOSE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM: $479,670.00 B. CLOSE BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $536,049.00 C. CLOSE DODD ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $738,909.00 D. CLOSE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $749,692.00 ELIMINATE THE TOTAL ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 1,874,205.00-2- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROG $ 378,669.00 ELIMINATE THE 6^^ GRADE ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 56,062.00 CONSIDER PLACING ATHLETICS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL DAY: $ 360,000.00 ELIMINATETHETRANSPORTA TION PROGRAM: $5,724,168.00 REDUCE THE DISTRICTS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FINE ARTS PROGRAM: $ 405,263.00 ELIMINATE ALL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 3,541,514.00 ELIMINATE TWO SECONDARY AND TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 300,000.00 ELIMINATE ALL SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS $ 438,560.00 ELIMINATE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-MIDDLE SCHOOL-SHARE: $ 100,000.00 ELIMINATE THE EXTRA DAYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID DURING THE SUMMER FOR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: $ 174,375.00-3- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE ONE POSITION IN THE HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT: $ 121,500.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASST. SUPERINTENDENT-PRE: $ 86,693.00 ELIMINATE THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR AND REDUCE # OF CLASSES $ 150,000.00 ELIMINATE TWELVE POSITIONS IN THE HIPPY PROGRAM (FIVE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT: $ 220,914.00 ELIMINATE 2 STUDENT RECRUITER POSITIONS: $ 114,000.00 ELIMINATE 2 POSITIONS ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT: $ 39,323.00 REDUCE OVERTIME COST BY 50%: $ 150,000.00-4- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION: ELIMINA TE THE DAIL Y MONEY PICK-UP AT THE SCHOOL SITES AND REPLACE WITH IN-DISTRICT OPERATION: $ 80,000.00 ELIMINATE THE VIPS PROGRAM: $ 268,141.00 ELIMINATE TWO POSITIONS FROM VIPS OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 REDUCE THE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM BY 14 CLASSES: $1,124,000.00 ELIMINATE 50% OF CONSULTATION FEE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SER VICES $ 13 ,000.00 ELIMINATE .50 POSITION OF DROPOUT COORDINA TOR $ 41,000.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL NURSES $ 154,400.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL COUNSELORS $ 199,000.00 REDUCE TRAVEL EXPENSE FROM OPERA TING BUDGET BY 50% $ 156,054.00-5- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE DISTRICT CONVOCATION $ 30,000.00 ELIMINATE 30.0 FTE- CERTIFICATED STAFF-SECONDARY: $1,380,000.00 ELIMINATE 50 AIDES: $ 600,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE READING SPECIALIST: $ 62,000.00 ELIMINATE 1.0 LIBRARIAN: $ 45,877.00 REDUCE ALL DISTRICT FUNDED BUDGETS BY 7 72 %: $1,688,000.00 ELIMINATE THE COORDINATOR OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: $ 86,754.00 ELIMINA TE TWO FTE FROM PRE: $ 92,218.00 ELIMINATE ONE ACTIVITY DIRECTOR AT PARKVIEW: $ 33,000.00 -6- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE BUSINESS OFFICE BUDGET BY: $ 39,000.00 ELIMINATE TWO FTE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES FROM THE IRC: $ 31,128.00 ELIMINATE ONE PROG. EVAL/ESL FROM IRC: $ *61,069.00 (Title I and District Funds) ELIMINATE ONE FTE SPEC. EDUC. ADMINISTRATOR: 67,045.00 ELIMINATE TWO ADAPTIVE PE POSITIONS FROM SPEC. EDUC. PROGRAM: $ 96,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE FTE CUSTODIAN AT THE IRC: $ 18,740.00 REDUCE THE CONTRACT OF THE DISTRICT OMBUDSMAN FROM 12 MONTHS TO 11 MONTHS: $ 12,420.00 REDUCE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING PURCHASE ORDERS, BY IMPLEMENTING A PURCHASE CARD SYSTEM: (WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR). $ 100,000.00 REDUCE MAIL DELIVERY TO SITES TO EVERY OTHER DAY: $ 21.500.00-7- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE FACILITY SERVICE BUDGET BY: S 100,000.00 REDUCE THE COMMUNICATION DIVISION BUDGET BY: $ 25,500.00 ELIMINATE TEN FTE POSITIONS AT THE END OF THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR-THE FUNDING SOURCE (GRANT) WILL EXPIRE: $ 395,048.00-8- VARIED SCENARIOS TO OBTAIN TARGETED REDUCTIONS SCENARIO #1: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary Close Fair Park Elementary $ 536,049.00 $ 479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $749,692.00 $2,504,320.00 reduction The remaining $4.0 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #2: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $1,754,628.00 reduction The remaining $4.74 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #3: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $1,015,719.00 reduction The remaining $5.48 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.-9- SCENARIO #4: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools and make all Target reduction of $6.5 million reductions from the items listed. SCENARIO #5: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools Reduce 60 FTE Certified Staff Reduce 100 FTE Non-Certified Staff $2,760,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $3,960,000.00 reduction The remaining $2.54 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 January 16, 2002 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr Babbs: I understood Dr. Mitchell to say last evening that 78% of the students who attend Badgett Elementary were bused to the school. After the Board meeting, I inquired where she obtained her information and she indicated that it came from you. Would you, therefore, please provide clarification of her comments by providing the following information seriatim: 1) Does the 78% include students in the Charter program and in the school? 2) How did you arrive at your 78%? 3)1 suspect that 78% of the students who attend the Charter program are, in deed, bused there due to the nature of the program and services provided. Is that correct? 4) (a) How of the of the 81 Charter school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 5) (a) How many of the 153 regular school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 6) (a) What is the mile(s) radius of attendance zones for Badgett? zone blocks? (b) In other words, how many miles away is the nearest street? The farthest street? 7) Please identify the streets that are in the Badgett attendance zone. 8) Based upon the answer in number 5(a), how far do these students travel to get tothe school? 9) Dr. James report to the Board indicates that 65 black students would be transported to Rockefeller, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and distance Badgett compared to the distance to distance to Rockefeller. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? 10) Dr. James further reported to the Board that 49 black students would be transported to Washington, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and the distance to Badgett compared to the distance to Washington. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? Finally, would you also please advise whether any of the FTE - certified staff (11.8- Badgett and 6.7 - Charter) members have communicated intentions of retirement, resignations, etc. in order to help confirm the Districts reported approximately million dollar savings by closini the school and charter program. Ig Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, r' /Joy C. Springer* On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Dr. Kenneth JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 Januaiy 16, 2002 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James\nThis is to request a copy of the Board minutes from last evening along with a tape recording of the meeting. I will provide a cassette tape to Ms. Beverly Griffin on my way into the office on tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attention to this request. r / Joy C. Springer' On Behalf of Joshua JCS/Arkansas Democrat (gazette | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 History saves Central High from consultants hit list BY CYNTHIA HOWEIX Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Central High, the Little Rock School Districts flagship school, needs almost $6 million in repairs and renovations and even then it perhaps wont meet the educational demands placed on schools in the 1990s. Those are the findings of a San .Antonio consulting firm hired last February to evaluate the condition of Little Rock schools and make recommendations on the districts building needs. In ail. the firm found that the districts schools and administrative buildings need more than W million in renovations and repairs over the next several years. The consultants. 3D/Intemation- al. described 70-year-old Central as uniquely imposing, a fine old structure and a landmark, but they ranked the school fifth among the citys five high schools in terms of building condition. Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the- art, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are now unusable and the wooden structure previously used as the 'Tiger Den needs to be removed, the consultants said. The school did not appear well- maintained, especially its mechanical systems, the consultants said. Inspectors said the plaster walls and ceiling are deteriorating, and moisture is seeping throu^ the outside walls. Windows need replacing, and acoustical ceilings are needed. Other needs include new I hardware, plumbing repairs, a new I fire alarm system, extensive work ' on the ventilation systems, and an elevator to provide disabled people with access to each of the schools five floors. Repairs also are needed in the library, in the gymnasium and in Quigley Stadium, where the running track should be replaced. \"The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which, when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. the consultants said in their report. The consultants acknowledged that because of Centrals history and its reputation for high-quality academic programs, closing the building is not really an option. They did suggest that the building might be better used as a community college. .A. second alternative would be a super magnet program high school for accelerated programs and adult education. The consultants said the school needs S3.2 million worth of work in the ne.xt two years to solve immediate problems and meet safety codes. In subsequent years, electrical wiring systems need to be installed to support technology programs. Central, which is listed as a National Historic Landmark, was built in 1926 and early in its history was designated as the countrys most beautiful school. In 1957, Central High attracted international attention when federal troops were called to maintain order as nine black students integrated the previously all-white school. Of the five high schools, the consultants said Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School, built in 1968, was in the best shape, followed by J.A. Fair, Hall High and McClellan High. The consultants based rankings of schools on physical condition, size, location and capacity to support educational programming. Central isnt the only building with problems. The consultants recommended closing from eight to 11 of the citys elementary and junior high schools. Following is a list of those schools and some of the prottems found by the consu^ tants: Fair Park Elementary  Built in 1929, the school tanks 33id of the 35 elementanes. Ifs heating and air-conditioning system needs replacement as do the plumbing arxf electrical panel boards and al interior finish. Rerxjva- tions would cost $714,626. Woodruff Elementary  Bull in 1911, the school ranks 31st out of 35. Plumbing work Is needed as is repair of the plaster walls. Classrooms and the library are small. The consultants said the fine old building' has outlived its usefulness. Renovation costs total $212,098. Wakefield Elementary  Built in 1959. the school ranks 34lh of 35 and needs plumbing and electncai work along with complete renovation of interior surfaces. The school grounds also need improvements of fencing, sidewalks, paved areas and playground equipment. Protected renovation costs are $1.2 million. Pulaski Heights Elementary  Built in 1925. the school ranks 27th. Needs include new floor tiles and ceilings, replacement of doors and the venolanon system, plumbing and the fire alarm system. The projected cost is $1.4 million. Mitchell Incentive Elementary  Bunt In 1908. the school ranks last among the ele- mentaries. The school f^is structural problems and outdated plumbing, ventilation and electncai systems. The projeraed cost is $580,000. Jefferson Elementary  Constructed in 1950. the school tanks 30th. The school has the typical electncai. mechanical and plumbing problems. Also, the library and offices are small and load-bearing walls are damaged. The school, already undergoing expansion, would take $1.8 million to renovate. MeadowdHI Elementary  Built In 1956, the school tanks 28lh. Virtually all the plumbing and electrical systems need replacement Exterior work is needed. The cost of renovation would ba $1.1 mlKon Ish Elemerttary  Built in 1964 and closed by ths district in 1993. the school Is used on a temporary basis for children who attended Chicot before it was damaged by fire last year. Repair would cost $656,776. GatlaiKl Elementary  Built in 1922, the schrxil tanks 291h. The district has had longstanding plans to dose the school, which needs about $1.4 million in work to its plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The library and cafeteria are too small. Wilson Elementary  Built in 1927, the school tanks 18th out of 35. The school needs about $723,963 in work. Mabelvale Junior High  Built in 1952, the school stands last among the eight junior highs. The heating and air-conditioning equipment on the school roof need replacement, as do the field house and stadium bleachets.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Committee to review LRSD study Will do the legwork oh school closings BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Oazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will rely on a committee of patrons, employees and school board members to suggest how the dis-  Irict might use a consulting compa- riys recommendations for closing or renovating schools. Tile 3D/Intemational Co. of San Antonio presented its 13-volume, $^,000 study to the board in September. It projected that the district will lose 3,6()0 students by 2005, making school closures necessary. The consultants evaluated each building and estimated costs of repairs, additions and modernization. They presented the district with three options for dealing with the student loss and recommended closing as many as 10 elementaries and one junior high, and building one new elementary school. Doug Eaton, the district's direc- , lor of plant services, told school I board members Tuesday that an | implementation committee will\nmeet for the first time at 9 a m. Thursday to begin considering each proposal'.s possible impact on student assignments, the curricu- 1 lum, personnel, the district budget,  property tax rates and the districts desegregation plan. The committee will make its ! recommendations to the district administration, which will make recommendations to the school board. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said Tuesday that any recommendations for closing schools in 1996^97 should be presented to those schools communities in January. Before then, though, Williams and members of his staff will meet with parent and community groups to explain the study and to emphasize that no decisions on closing schools have been made. Eaton said closing schools and reassigning students will be complicated and must be phased in over several years. Board member Judy Magness said on Tuesday that the consultant's recommendations could leave more students attending schools closer to home, which many parents say they want She alsb said the recommendations coitld lead to more modem schools thiM will better prepare students forlhe 21st century. Board member Michael Daugherty asked why the district should consider closing so many elementary schools when junior highs are losing more students. Board member Linda Pondexter asked what the schools' racial composition would be under a new student assignment plan. The number of predominantly one-race schools would increase, Williams said. Among the schools that could be closed or used for other purposes If the consultants recommendations are accepted are Fair Park, Garland, Ish, Jefferson, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Pulaski Heights, Wake- field, Wilson, WoodnilT eiemen- taries and Mabelvale Junior H igh ' FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14. 2001  Parents plead cases, but two schools stay in budget axs reach LR board hears of virtues of smallness, then adds Fair Park to possible closures Qnhflfllc for closing because of eir small wUllUUId enrollments. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road near the citys air-  Continued from Page 1B port, has 153 students in its regarea for potential budget cuts, ular program and another 80 en- and that he and his staff are rolled in the districts charter preparing recommendations for program, which is housed in the more reductions. same building. Dodd, 6423 Stage- In response to School Board coach Road, has 188 pupils, members who said they cant de- which is 69 percent of the build- cide on closing schools with- mgs capacity. out knowing what their other op- The average elementary tions are, James said he will give school in the district has about them some proposals after the 360 students. The average elementary first of the year. The district would save BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Were going to refuse to let Dodd close, Tiwana Noon- Faced with the possible loss er, a parent of three Dodd of their neighborhood schools pupils, said, Were going to next year to budget cuts, par- fight. Dodd parents and commu- ents and others from the Bad- gett and David O. Dodd ele- nity members pointed to the mentary school communities number of grants that the school Thursday extoUed the virtues has received in recent years to of their small schools to the Lit- restructure the way reading and tie Rock School Board. language arts are taught. Those James, who has been Little $536,048 by closing the regular Rocks school superintendent for Badgett school and another about six months, just last week $479,669 by closing the charter raised the issue of closing one program, plus $738,909 by closer more of the districts small- ing Dodti est schools next faff as a way to By closing the schools, the help offset escalating costs and number of teaching positions in a declining revenue forecast that the district could be reduced by is already affecting the districts about 20. A similar number of $224 milhon budget. support staff positions also could The district is getting $2.4 be reduced. Board members were sym- grants and programs may not pathetic and made no final de- all be transferable to other million less in state funding this cisions. schools, they said. Additional- However, by the end of the ly, they argued that the special- meeting, the School Board not ly trained staff members will be only directed Superintendent scattered across the district, diKenneth James to continue luting the effectiveness of their planning for the possible clos- training. District officials speculated, year than initially budgeted be- however, that most of the peo- cause of shortfalls that were an- pie in jobs at the affected schools nounced last month in state tax could be absorbed into other collections. That loss is expect- schools as vacancies occur be- ed to be earned forward into the cause of retirements and resignext school year when the dis- nations. ing of Badgett and Dodd as a Diane Krippendorf, a com- trict must meet contractually obligated teacher pay increases. way to save about $1.7 million, munity member, also pointed but also asked him to prepare a out that as many as 200 new feasibility study on closing a homes are planned for the Dodd third small school. Fair Park El- attendance zone, which should ementary at 616 N. Harrison St, boost the schools enrollment where about 200 pupils attend over the next few years. District According to preliminary - . plans, Badgett pupils would be The School Board must make assigned to Rockefeller and a decision on the school closings Washington elementary schools, by Jan. 10 to be able to notify Charter school pupils, who at- affected parents of the changes tend the school by applying, before registration starts for the would return to the schools that  2002 school year. That regis- serve the attendance zones in classes. officials said the new homes tration period  when parents which they live throughout the The presidents of the parent- might bring in 14 to 20 new chil- teacher associations from both dren for the school in each of Dodd and Badgett presented the the next two years. can make a variety of school district. choices for their children  begins Jan. 28. As for Dodd pupils, they School Board with petitions James has said that the pos- Thursday pleading to keep their sible school closings are just one schools. See SCHOOLS, Page 9B would be divided among West- James repeatedly acknowl- ern Hills, Romine and Otter edged that the district is decid- Creek elementary schools if their ing the issue on a very fast time school is closed. line that is contrary to districts Two bands of small children - policy that calls for school clos- set the tone for Thursdays meetings to be considered for at least ing, marching in two circles on 12 months, except in emergen- the administration buildings cies. front steps, waving posters and James assured the board that chanting in support of their is entering dire financial straits, schools, as board members ar- You dont take the largest cut rived for the meeting. Dont in state aid in the history of the close Dodd school, yelled one state and think it is business as group. usual, he said. Please dont close Badgett Badgett and Dodd are targets school, the others said.J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 0 2 District sets sessions on closing 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District will hold a series of public meetings, beginning today, at three low-enrollment schools under consideration for closing. The meetings are scheduled at:  Badgett Elementary, 6900 Pecan Road, 6 p.m. today. J  Dodd Element^, 6423 Stagecoach Road, 6 p.m. Monday.  Fair Park Elementary School, 616 N. Harrison St., 6 p.m. Tuesday. The meetings-are open to the public. The district proposes closing schools beginning July 1 because of state budget cuts. The Little Rock School Board will consider the proposal during its regular meeting Jan. 10 at 5 p. at the School District headquarters at 810 W. Markham St.F  Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON Badgett Elementary School parent Jerry Peters (left) Zeigler (center left), Rockefeller Elementary Principal asks Little Rock School Superintendent Ken James a Anne Mangan, and Sadie Mitchell (right), the district's question Thursday night during a public hearing at associate superintendent for school services. Mangan Badgett to discuss the schools possible closing. Lis- and Zeigler attended because Bad^tt tening are Washington Elementary Principal Gwen would attend their schools if Badgett cldses, cIroes students LR parents face closing of 3 schools Badgett meeting held\n2 more set BY PATRICK HEALY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT (JAZETIT As solemn-faced parents, teachers and administrators discussed the fate of Badgett Elementary School with urgent voices, the children played. Arm in arm, they pranced across the schools packed gym. inspected TV cameramen and galloped through the banana-yellow hallways while adults discussed shutting down Badgett, in east Little Rock, and two other Little Rock elementary schools. The 'Fliursday meeting was the first of three meetings scheduled before the School Board votes whether to close Badgett, Dodd and Fair Park elementary schools. Other meetings are scheduled at Dodd on Monday and at Fair See BADGETTj^age 4B Badgett  Continued from Page 1B Park on Tuesday. Tlie meetings are designed to let school officials explain the shutdown proposal and hear community concerns. Were still in shock, and we still dont want it to happen, said Kim Dunahay, Badgetts Parent Teacher Association president. Even if they vote to close the school, the fights not going to stop. The School Boards vote, rescheduled from Jan. 10 to Jan. 15, comes at a time of financial crisis, said Sadie Mitchell, the districts associate superintendent for school services. In addition to rhe $2.4 million state funding cut, the school district must pay $3 million in promised raises. Altogether, the school district fiiust slice $6 million from its annual budget ol $220 million. Superintendent Ken James Pb-S ! Proposed Wlendance Zones k rl \u0026amp; 31 Arkansas Democrat-Gazetle/STEPHEN B. THORNTON students if the school is closed. The informational meeting Thursday night at the school was the first of three meetings to discuss potential school closings. said, Were going to have to junious Babbs, associate superintendent for deseg-make some tough decisions. regation for the Littie Rock School District, discusses The board is considering clos- proposed attendance zones for Badgett Elementary ing Badgett, Fair Park and Dodd elenientaries primarily due to nickel-and-diine that to death. applauding when parents praised ular elementary schools, their low enrollments, James Normally, a proposal to close Badgett and spoke against its Weve tried regular schook said. This year, 153 students at- schools must be announced one closing. said Carrie Igwe, whose fourth-tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. I like it here because most of grade son, Caleb, has attention tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. ------------- 200 attend Fair Park. But with the budget cuts, James the teachers are nice, and they deficit hyperactivity disorder The average Little Rock ele- said, schools must act fast. let you come into their class- and attends the charter school.  Everybody has to be rooms and they give you treats, He has special needs    ' '  1 Igwe said her son did poorly mentary school has 363 students. ____------- ,  If the tliree schools are closed, touched, James told the crowd. 10-year-old Kenetra Lowe said . . their students would attend dif- Tliis is not a win-win situation. after the meeting. Id rather stay in his classes until he came to The one-hour meeting went here. I may be shy to go to an- Badgett. Igwe said she doesnt the next school year. more smoothly than past dis- other school. I wouldnt have any want her son to return to regu- Some teachers would find cussions about closing Badgett, friends on the first day. lar classes, and she balks at pri-     Parents and educators ex- vate school tuition. ferent schools at the start of other jobs in the district, but oth- In 1995, a proposal to close Bad- ' ers could be laid off, James said, gett met with parentsprotests pressed concern about the 83 It certainly seemed reason- and a court challenge that forced students who attend Badgetts money to send him to a private able to me, board Vice President the School Board to back down, charter school. The students, school, she said, unless the Lit- But on Thursday, audience many of whom have learning dis- tie Rock School District is going '     ......  '  to pay it for us. Judy Magness said. When youve _________ got to cut $6 million, you cant members listened quietly, twice abilities, would be sent to reg- We dont have the kind of Z 0 0 3 V A J enuBp I January 1 5. 2 0 0 2  I Some proposed cuts, such as U C n 0 01S eliminating the districts year- '*'*\"\"**** opening ceremony, reducing mail  Continued from Page 1B delivery and removing one hu- The schools have been con- man resources job, dont direct-sidered for closure primarily ly target classrooms. because of their low enrollments. Others da They mclude cutting This year, 153 pupils attend Bad- school police officers, eliminating gett, 188 go to Dodd, and 200 at- r.----------- , v tend Fair Park. The average Lit- letic programs and scaling back the middle-school or sixth-grade ath-tie Rock elementary school has fine arts budget by $400,000. 363 pupils. We will do whatever they If the three schools are closed, hand out to us. said Athledc some teachers would find other Director Johimy Johnson, who positions in the district, but some oversees the districts $1.8 milhon could be laid off James said. Because ofstate funding cuts, stone yet. the district must slash $6.5 nul- The Volunteers in Public lion from its annual budget of Schools program and its budget $220 million. Besides closing of $270,000 also could be cut Smce schools, board members are con- 1972, the program has connected sidering broad cuts to staff, trans- volunteers with schools for tutor-athletic program. Nothing is in portation, athletics, pre-kinder- ing, mentoring and field trips, garten and other programs. Debbie Milam, coordinator of * Ideas range from cutting one the program, said she under- 1 librarian to eliminating the trans- stands the budget crisis but hopes ' portation and athletic programs, her program is left alone. Such sweeping cuts probably They would lose aa wweellll-- would be pared down over time, trained, experienced staff, Mil- \u0026lt;James said. am We^U stiU volun- Some of those things you teers. We just wont have Kcant do, James said Monday, re- screened volunteers or trained fferring to the prospect of cutting volunteers. said. Well still have volun-a11 of the $5.7 million transportation program. School Board member Tony Rose said the board can tweak the 11 piu^cuil. - ----------------------------------- . James and board members will budget proposals. Instead of tnm-  meet in coming months to dis- ming the budgets at all schools cuss the 50 listed options and how by 7.5 percent, for instance, the they would affect students. board could pass that cut at 4 per- You try to get the majority [of cent or 5 percent. cnuittss]l aass ffaarr aawwaavy ffrroomm tthhee ccllaassss-- Therell be tradeoffs, he said. room as said. you possibly can, James If we cut this, then we 11 keep this. ZX* o D CfTs C5m^ o 5 33. SCT' a g\u0026lt;1 5 Sc O= 7fi - ?o a2. qgq . oS :G ^53 \"a   S g 3 ' S?! E\u0026lt; 2fl tRr 0w \" oM (Z3 f6 \u0026gt;  \u0026lt; B (/) o z cz\u0026gt; \u0026gt; co q n m aS W o 1 C3 I o \u0026lt; 5. r s ., 00  \"R Em M \u0026lt;! n O  rt rt 5 2. 2 Egmi^o-EnW  ft 3 O. m 00 OoQq O co \u0026lt;! \"R3 S2P. r* S Cu O o S CL E S 3  2. fl CL o OQ '**  \u0026lt;D  m C. \u0026lt; oE. 3 S 1 \u0026gt;1 !I\u0026lt;3 ft 3*23 0   2. a R- 3 'm' P.O !R'\"-2.3 o' r^\u0026gt;-rT r* n\u0026gt; o ..... V' n\u0026gt; O 5 LrS\nf  Q- cr w CT j \" foqft no wj [- rti w o ft -I w 3 n oq r. S' n w n K - o a R Q S S3 \" S 33 e ft 9S - - - 2 3 R- . o T 3 \u0026amp;. ? r 7 S o S n n O O o n\u0026gt; c*-  o 3 o a nj ^3 p- C. CT 0^ T o gJls-o 8\nH-S's i-- \"  3 2.-^0/ S\no o o  g -o G- 5  2. o 8 (A r V! r.   o 3 ~ 2 . -cJ rr^p Ct* w s CD CD C/3 05  CD Q CZ\u0026gt; C9 \u0026lt;\"-f \u0026lt;c/3 o n w o t3 c 2. 5=^ 3 BI I a oO ' C2T 3o C3T- o fwl a. S  a 5^ o J o S' S    5 e- M E o 5 w ^'^8 M R- OS !. o ftj \u0026gt;-: LL  n 5^ n o {r 2. 55* 1 X 3 S co CD 00 3 o Ct* a S' 5 5\" S' . R' f  s f CL n 55 c S S-g a 3  qr rse S s  \"a . S d5q ' S' B G',^3 o\u0026gt; 2. b -a S. n 1\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_909","title":"School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,; North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,; North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/909"],"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":["420 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_969","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993-01/1993-03"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted \u0026 talented"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/969"],"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":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1516","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparative data, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1993/1998"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1516"],"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":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1404","title":"Report: ''1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992-12-18"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative 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/1404"],"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":["open reel audiotapes"],"dcterms_extent":["11 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1435","title":"Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District's McClellan High School, Business/Communications Magnet Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Arkansas","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":["1992-10-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","McClellan Magnet High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District's McClellan High School, Business/Communications Magnet Program,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Arkansas"],"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/1435"],"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":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_235","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":["1992-10-01"],"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/235"],"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":["151 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\\ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARY-HAMST REET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 22, 1992 OCT t. B 1992 Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Revised October 1, 1992 Enrollment Report Please find enclosed the revised October 1, 1992 Enrollment Report. This report is a revision of the enrollment report sent to you last week. The format of the report has been changed to reflect gender. Should you have questions concerning ~1is report please contact me at 321,i.-2272. I \\ LITTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT OCTOBE1R, 1992 ENROLLMENT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PACI.S LND AMER!. ND/ESK MAL~THEFERM ALE MALlOTA~EMALE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FE 1ALE %BU, CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 130 149 221 246 0 0 13 1 1 0 365 396 61.37 11 120 142 181 210 2 1 8 16 0 1 311 370 57.42 12 99 121 109 166 0 0 7 5 0 1 215 293 54.13 SUBTOTAL 349 412 511 622 2 1 28 22 1 2 891 1059 58.10 KIND. 0 0 18 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 31 100.00 TOTAL 349 412 529 653 2 1 28 22 1 2 909 1090 59.13 rAIR UNGRADED 6 2 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10 65.22 10 51 46 100 95 3 2 0 0 0 0 154 143 65.66 11 67 45 110 95 3 2 0 0 0 0 180 142 63.66 12 54 39 69 78 2 2 0 0 0 0 125 119 60.25 SUBTOTAL 178 132 286 276 8 6 0 0 0 0 472 414 63.43 KIND. 0 1 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 94.74 TOTAL 178 133 291 289 8 6 0 0 0 0 477 428 64.09 HALL UNGRADED 10 64 46 109 98 2 0 2 2 0 0 177 146 64.09 11 57 69 81 87 1 0 2 4 1 0 142 160 55.63 12 78 76 93 92 2 4 1 5 0 0 174 177 52.71 SUBTOTAL 199 191 283 277 5 4 5 1L 1 0 493 483 57.38 KIND. 6 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 44.44 TOTAL 205 195 288 280 5 4 5 11 1 0 504 490 57.14 MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 55 50 122 155 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 178 209 71.58 11 48 43 93 90 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 142 135 66.06 12 60 56 79 99 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 141 161 58.94 SUBTOTAL 163 149 294 344 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 8 461 505 66.05 KIND. 1 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 94.74 TOTAL 164 149 303 353 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 8 471 514 66.60 WIIIT[ [lLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PACI.S LND AMERI.N D/ESK MAL~THFEERM ALE MALtOTA~EMALE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEnALE q,UL/, PARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 63 65 76 104 0 2 0 1 0 0 139 172 57.88 11 43 70 53 98 0 0 1 2 0 1 97 171 56.34 12 49 68 75 79 1 2 0 1 0 0 125 150 56.00 SUBTOTAL 155 203 204 281 1 4 1 4 0 1 361 493 56.79 KIND. 1 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 94.12 TOTAL 156 203 213 288 1 4 l 4 0 1 371 500 57.52 SUBTOTAL UNGRADED 6 2 7 8 13 1D 65.22 10 363 356 628 698 5 5 16 4 1 3 1013 1066 63.78 11 335 369 518 580 6 3 12 23 1 2 1 872 978 59.35 12 340 360 425 514 5 8 8 13 1 2 4 780 900 55.89 KIND. 8 5 46 63 54 68 89.34 SR. HIGH TOTAL 1052 1092 1624 1863 16 16 36 40 2 3 2 8 2732 3D22 60.60 SR. HIGH TOTAL W/0 KINDERGART1E0N44 1087 1578 1800 16 16 36 40 2 3 2 8 2678 2954 59.98 WHITE IJLACK HIS?AMIC ASIA':/PAC.! Sli:J A:.:::R!. N u/ESK MAL2rnrnF EMALE l.l~LJOTAL::-1.'f..', SCIIOOL/GRADE MALE FE~1ALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MAL:': FEMALE r:tu F~.l'\\ALE 'I '- ~=- \\2~:. CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 7 59 19 98 112 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 132 72.16 8 28 30 87 93 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 127 73. 77 9 20 36 83 98 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 135 75.42 TOTAL 107 85 268 303 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 381 394 73.68 DUNBAR UNGRADED 7 35 52 64 72 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 103 124 59.91 8 52 42 74 71 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 128 117 59.18 9 54 48 64 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 119 114 55.36 TOTAL 141 142 202 208 0 0 1 3 1 0 5 2 350 355 58.16 FORESTH EIGHTS UNGRADED 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 45.45 7 24 42 92 103 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 118 146 73.86 8 37 41 100 99 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 142 141 70.32 9 42 28 72 83 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 116 113 67.69 TOTAL 104 116 268 286 1 1 8 3 0 0 0 0 381 406 70.39 HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 51 48 141 87 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 194 137 68.88 8 25 21 122 137 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 149 160 83.82 9 38 32 113 85 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 153 121 72.26 TOTAL 114 101 376 309 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 496 418 74.95 MABEVLA LE UNGRADED 6 7 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 10 30.00 7 31 49 84 67 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 117 116 64.81 8 39 35 79 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 107 67.11 9 22 37 63 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 104 68.78 TOTAL 98 128 229 209 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 330 337 t5.67 WHITE BLACK H!SPANl\\, ASI AN/PAC.I SLND AMERI.t D/ESK ~ THE MALtOTArEMALE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FE'1ALE MALE FEr-iALE MALE FU\\ALE MAL FEMALE t!3Lh MANN UNGRADED 7 64 64 70 108 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 136 175 57.23 n 53 65 79 81 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 137 147 56.34 9 33 48 68 99 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 103 151 65.75 TOTAL 150 177 217 288 3 5 6 1 0 2 0 0 376 473 59.48 PULASKHI GTS. UNGRADED 2 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 80.00 7 71 58 76 60 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 148 119 50.94 8 38 58 82 85 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 121 143 63.26 9 33 58 78 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 117 60.09 TOTAL 144 175 247 205 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 393 381 58.40 SOUTHWEST UNGRADED 0 1 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 92.86 7 27 29 99 98 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 128 77 .25 8 23 24 90 79 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 106 76.82 9 31 31 70 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 105 69. 90 TOTAL 81 85 270 253 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 353 342 75.25 SUBTOTAL UNGR.ADED 9 14 29 7 1 39 21 60.00 7 362 361 724 707 6 5 7 2 1 2 2 1102 1077 65.67 8 295 316 713 717 6 8 10 6 2 1 1026 1048 68.95 9 273 318 611 630 5 6 3 4 1 1 1 893 960 66.97 JR. HIGHT OTAL 939 1009 2077 2061 17 19 20 12 2 3 5 2 3060 3106 67 .11 WIIITE IJLACK Ill SPA:I:C AS!,\\I /PAC. !SU:\n:\u0026gt; M'.ER. I JD/1::SK ~ ALe.T.: .i\u0026lt; FEF,ALE lOTA' SCIIOOL/GRAOE MALE FEMALE MAL[ FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FE1 ALE MALE FEtlALE '.1\\~\" I'E t'.AI. E - BADGETT UNGRADED 1 0 3 3 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 85.71 1 3 2 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 79.17 2 4 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 59.09 3 0 3 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 85. 71 4 5 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 76.19 5 1 3 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 88.57 6 4 3 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 13 80.56 SUBTOTAL 18 16 71 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 77 79.52 KIND. 4 3 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 63.16 FOURY RO LD 3 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 58.82 TOTAL 25 23 80 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 97 76.24 JfihfMED 5 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 41.67 1 4 2 20 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 11 80.56 2 0 4 15 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 14 83.33 3 4 1 15 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 16 82.86 4 3 3 8 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 24 80.56 5 5 2 25 20 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 31 23 83.33 6 7 1 18 22 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 28 23 78.43 SUBTOTAL 28 15 105 97 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 140 114 79.53 KIND. 7 3 17 20 0 i 0 1 D 0 0 0 24 25 75.51 i\"\"OUYRR 0 c.'.l 7 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 50.00 TOTAL 42 20 128 120 2 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 177 144 77 .26 BASELINE UNGRA[)Eu 1 7 5 21 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 31 75.00 / 8 7 19 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 29 71.43 3 7 2 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 18 77 .50 ~ 3 4 26 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 21 86.00 5 7 1 11 17 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 18 73.68 6 3 2 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 18 85.71 SJ3TOTAL 35 21 106 113 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 144 135 77. 78 Ki11'.l. 8 7 33 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 19 75.00 FOJ~ Y?. OLD TOTAL 43 28 139 125 0 0 0 0 185 154 77 .29 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PACI.S LND AMER. IND/ESK MAL~THFEERM ALE MALtOTA~EMAI_E SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE %BU,, -- --- BOOKER UNGRADED 1 20 19 29 18 49 37 54.65 2 13 23 23 27 1 37 50 57.47 3 19 19 26 24 l 45 44 56.18 4 17 23 25 28 1 1 1 43 53 55.21 5 12 27 18 33 30 60 56.67 6 18 25 31 23 1 1 50 49 54.55 SUBTOTAL 99 136 152 153 3 3 1 254 293 55.76 KIND. 17 17 21 19 38 36 54.05 FOURY RO LD TOTAL 116 153 173 172 3 3 1 292 329 55.56 BRADY UNGRADED 0 1 5 0 5 1 83.33 1 12 8 21 13 2 1 35 22 59.65 2 8 9 26 18 1 34 28 70.97 3 8 7 18 26 1 1 27 34 72.13 4 8 2 20 14 28 16 77.27 5 9 7 20 18 1 29 26 69.09 6 5 2 24 22 2 29 26 83.64 SUBTOTAL 50 36 134 111 1 2 4 1 1 187 153 72.06 KIND. 12 13 11 19 2 1 _25 33 51. 72 FOURY R0 ~'.) TOTAL 62 49 145 130 1 2 4 3 2 212 186 69.10 CARVER UNGRAlJEu 1 15 16 16 23 31 39 55.71 I' 21 13 31 19 1 1 53 33 58.14 3 21 20 26 22 47 42 53.93 .\n25 17 22 29 2 1 49 47 53 .13 5 28 16 30 25 58 41 55.56 6 32 11 18 35 2 50 48 54.0b SUBTOTAL 142 93 143 153 3 4 288 250 55.0Z KIND. 16 11 16 17 32 28 55.01 FOURY RO LD TOTAL 158 104 159 170 3 4 320 278 55.0, WHIE llLACK IIISPAMIC AS!Ail/P,\\C. !Slti\n} /1!/\nrR. JN:}/ESK ~ Trc.~ lOTA' SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMIILE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE F[ 11\\LE -M- AL -F--El:,\\LE MAL FEMAI.E-CHICOT UNGRADED 4 3 5 5 9 8 58.82 1 13 14 30 29 43 43 68.60 2 18 13 38 19 1 56 33 64.04 3 12 11 19 24 1 1 1 33 36 62.32 4 10 11 14 27 1 1 25 39 64.06 5 10 9 20 20 1 30 30 66.67 6 12 14 25 21 1 38 35 63.01 SUBTOTAL 79 75 151 145 3 4 1 234 224 64.63 KIND. 17 6 31 23 48 29 70.13 FOURY RO LD TOTAL 96 81 182 168 3 4 1 282 253 65.42 CLOVERDALE UNGRADi::D 1 3 4 18 21 21 25 84.78 2 6 3 17 20 2 23 25 77 .08 3 4 5 17 18 21 23 79.55 4 4 3 22 24 1 26 28 85.19 5 5 5 27 17 32 22 81.48 6 3 4 22 21 25 25 86.00 SUBTOTAL 25 24 i23 121 3 148 148 82.43 KIND. 9 6 18 20 27 26 71. 70 FOURY Ru c.J 3 4 5 4 1 8 9 52.94 TOTAL 37 34 146 145 4 183 183 79.51 DODD UNGRAL'Eu 5 0 2 3 7 3 50.00 1 7 11 7 13 14 24 52.63 / 5 9 15 12 20 21 65.85 3 11 7 12 12 23 19 57.14 .\n10 6 12 10 22 16 57.89 5 7 7 15 21 22 28 72.00 6 8 8 12 18 20 26 65.22 SRTOTAL 53 48 75 89 128 137 61.89 ~~I~. J. 12 8 11 8 23 16 48.72 FO~:\u0026lt;Y KO L'.l TOTAL 65 56 86 97 151 153 60.20 WI!IT E llLACK III SPAtlCl ASI Ai,/PAC. ISLr:D /\\!,~R.l i~J/L~K tTIIEJ. :oTA~r~ E SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FE:1ALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE Fi::lALE MALE FE1\\ALE MAL FE:iALE\n.'.f.L. ~ - FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1 8 2 16 18 24 20 77 .27 2 4 3 15 14 19 17 80.56 3 2 4 16 9 1 19 13 78.13 4 1 2 13 16 14 18 90.63 5 6 3 11 15 17 18 74.29 6 3 1 9 14 12 15 85.19 SUBTOTAL 24 15 80 86 1 105 101 80.58 KIND. 6 4 13 13 1 20 17 70.27 FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 30 19 93 99 2 125 118 79.01 FORESTP ARK UNGRADED 1 18 20 21 14 39 34 47.95 2 22 23 13 12 1 36 35 35.21 3 16 19 6 7 1 23 26 26.53 4 17 14 10 11 1 28 25 39.62 5 15 24 21 24 36 48 53.57 6 10 13 16 15 26 28 57.41 SUBTOTAL 98 113 87 83 2 1 188 196 44.27 KIND. 11 20 18 10 1 29 31 46.67 FOUR Y\nl. u!..J TOTAL 109 133 105 93 2 1 1 217 227 44.59 FRANKLIN UNGRAUEu 1 0 7 2 8 2 90.00 1 5 2 32 35 1 37 38 89.33 / 1 4 25 20 26 24 90.00 3 1 1 30 18 31 19 96.00 ~ 3 1 24 21 27 22 91.84 5 0 0 16 10 1 17 10 96.30 6 2 0 22 25 2 1 1 27 26 88.6- S~J10TAL 13 8 156 131 3 l 2 173 141 91.4v :'.I :,:J. 2 3 19 19 21 22 88.37 Fi)Lj\nlY, RO LD 17 7 18 9 1 37 17 so.or ,OTAL 1? 1 R 1Q1 1 SQ 4 2 231 180 85.o,\nWll!T[ !LIICK IIISPMIIC IIS!IIN/PIIC.I SLND 111-'.[f{.r n:.J/lSK MIIL~rnrn FEl-iAL[ 10T1\\~ SCHOOL/GRADE MIILE FEMIILE MIILE FEMIILE MALE FEMALE MIILE FEt-11\\LE MIIL[ Ft!ll\\LE M/1L,_ _l\nli/11.[ - FULBRIGHT UNGRADED 2 3 1 1 3 4 28_ 1 21 14 14 11 1 36 25 40. 2 18 23 16 15 2 34 AO 41. 3 30 18 20 18 2 50 38 43. 4 30 19 15 12 2 47 31 34. 5 14 27 18 21 1 33 48 48. 6 27 15 19 20 1 46 36 47. SUBTOTAL 142 119 103 98 4 5 249 222 42. KIND. 16 19 12 12 28 31 40. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 158 138 115 llO 4 5 277 253 42. \\ GARLAND UNGRADED 1 2 6 4 7 6 76. 1 2 0 22 15 24 15 94. 2 0 1 16 13 1 17 14 93. 3 1 1 18 11 19 12 93. 4 0 0 16 19 16 19 100. 5 2 0 ll 15 1 1 14 16 B6. 6 0 1 18 14 2 20 15 91. SUBTOTAL 6 5 107 91 4 1 ll7 97 92. KIND. 1 2 12 14 1 14 16 86. FOUR YR u!..J 2 1 6 3 8 4 75. TOTAL 9 8 125 108 5 1 139 117 91. GEYERS PRINGS UNGRADEu 0 0 3 0 3 0 100. l 5 9 19 8 24 17 65. I 9 11 12 13 21 24 55. 3 7 7 16 11 23 18 65. ~ 2 3 8 11 10 14 79. 5 3 6 9 7 12 13 64. 6 8 8 15 15 23 23 65. SU3TOT,\\,L 34 44 82 65 116 109 65. KIND. 11 7 7 14 i8 21 53. FOUR YR OLD 2 7 4 5 6 12 50. TOTAL 47 58 93 84 140 142 62. WHITE ()I.ACK ll!SPAIIIC ASIAN/PACI.S LN::J J\\!l\nER. IND/ESK eTHEK , JCJTA~. SCIIDOGLR/ ADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALr MALE FEMALE MALE FEr1ALE MAI. ' FU\\AL[ M,,Lt. _lhAI.E - GIBBS UNGRADED 1 10 7 15 10 0 1 25 18 58.lL 2 14 5 12 14 26 19 57. 7t 3 13 7 12 12 0 0 0 1 25 20 53.3. 4 9 11 10 16 0 2 19 29 54.1. 5 11 8 11 17 0 2 0 1 22 28 56.0( 6 13 13 14 25 0 1 1 28 39 58.2. SUBTOTAL 70 51 74 94 0 6 1 2 145 153 56.3( KIND. 8 5 11 12 0 0 1 1 20 18 60.5c FOURY RO LD TOTAL 78 56 85 106 0 6 2 3 165 171 56.8~ !SH UNGRADED 0 0 2 3 2 3 100.0C 1 0 0 8 7 8 7 100. oc 2 0 0 18 13 18 13 100.0C 3 2 0 16 8 18 8 92.31 4 0 0 10 8 10 8 100.0C 5 0 0 7 16 7 16 100.0( 6 0 0 11 21 11 21 100.0C SUBTOTAL 2 0 72 76 74 76 98.6i KIND. 0 0 15 10 15 10 100.0( i\"OURY Ru ~J 1 2 4 5 5 7 75.0( TOTAL 3 2 91 91 94 93 97.3:: JEFFERSON UNGRAt:Eu 2 2 3 0 5 2 42.86 1 19 16 16 10 35 26 42.62 / 23 19 12 20 0 0 1 36 39 42.67 3 18 17 12 19 2 0 1 33 36 44.93 .\n25 11 14 18 0 1 39 30 46.38 5 18 21 9 16 0 0 1 28 37 38.4( 6 22 19 23 13 45 32 46. 7: SJgTQTAL 127 105 89 96 2 3 221 202 43.7~ Kl 'iD. 20 21 12 7 32 28 31,67 FOJR n OLD TOTAL 14 7 1 ?6 101 103 2 3 253 230 42.2~ liHITE ~LACK lllSPMllC ASlMi/PAC. lSU.::l A!,ER. It\n::l/ESK MAL~l'cF?.U ALE lOT!,~ , SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FE'1ALE MALE FEMA~E MALE FEMALE MALE FEIIALE MALE F [tt,\\LE :-'.:,L [hAI_E - MABVELA LE UNGRADED 2 1 4 3 6 4 70.0C 1 19 11 27 14 1 46 26 56.94 2 18 16 23 16 1 41 33 52.7C 3 8 20 18 24 26 44 60.0C 4 22 7 16 19 1 39 26 53.8: 5 18 19 22 17 40 36 51.32 6 21 10 27 15 48 25 57.53 SUBTOTAL 108 84 137 108 1 2 246 194 55.61: KIND. 16 11 19 14 35 25 55.0C FOURY RO LD TOTAL 124 95 156 122 1 2 281 219 55.6( MCDERMOTT UNGRADED 1 16 16 23 16 39 32 54.9:0 2 16 11 18 21 1 1 1 36 33 56.52 3 17 19 18 17 1 1 1 36 38 47 .3( 4 15 21 17 23 1 33 44 51.9: 5 10 16 24 24 2 1 l 38 40 61.Sl 6 16 16 21 25 1 1 38 42 57. SC SUBTOTAL 90 99 121 126 2 1 2 3 5 220 229 55.01 KIND. 13 18 15 13 1 29 31 46.6i FOURY RO ~J TOTAL 103 117 136 139 3 1 2 3 5 249 260 54.0~ MEADOWCLIFF UNGRAuEu 1 14 10 21 26 35 36 66.20 ,I 12 13 20 26 32 39 64. 79 3 15 i2 18 20 33 32 58.46 ~ 10 4 25 22 35 26 77 .05 5 16 8 23 18 39 27 62.L 6 6 8 15 17 21 25 69.57 SJ~TOTAL 73 55 122 129 195 185 66.0S Klti::l. 14 5 23 18 37 23 68.J~ FOURY RO LJ -:-CTAL ?.7 60 145 147 ?1? ?08 6/i. 31 WIIITE GL/\\CK I\\JSPMIIC /\\S1 /\\11/P/\\CI.S UHJ M~rn. Ji\nJ/t.SK e11.::, lu rt' SCIIOOL/GR/\\DE M/\\LE FE:1/\\LE M/\\LE FEl-1/\\LE M/\\LE FEMALE M/\\LE FE:-1/\\LE I /\\I.[ FEl1/\\LE M/\\~  - FEl1/\\LE :-:t.L 'ru:AI.[ - MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 0 5 3 6 3 88.89 1 3 4 17 12 2 20 18 76,32 2 1 1 18 25 1 19 27 93.48 3 1 1 19 14 20 15 94.29 4 2 3 15 14 1 18 17 82.86 5 3 1 22 14 25 15 90.00 6 0 0 11 11 11 11 100.00 SUBTOTAL 11 10 107 93 1 3 119 106 88.89 KIND. 1 1 14 9 15 10 92.00 FOURY RO LD 4 1 4 5 8 6 64.29 TOTAL 16 12 125 107 1 3 142 122 87.88 OTTERC REEK UNGRADED 1 12 13 12 11 1 1 25 25 46.00 2 21 13 9 14 30 27 40.35 3 16 18 5 8 1 22 26 27.08 4 21 11 14 6 1 35 18 37.74 5 15 13 16 7 31 20 45.10 6 12 16 15 11 27 27 48.15 SUBTOTAL 97 84 71 57 2 2 170 143 40.89 KIND. 11 11 9 6 1 1 1 22 1.8 37.50 FOURY :l.u ~J TOTAL 108 95 80 63 3 3 192 161 40.51 PULASKHI EIGHTS UNGRA~Eu 46.94 1 11 15 13 10 24 25 / 17 15 12 19 1 1 29 36 47.69 3 12 13 9 12 1 22 25 44.68 ~ 11 14 17 12 1 29 26 52.73 5 9 7 18 16 1 28 23 66.67 6 10 9 17 17 27 26 64 .15 Sv3TO,N.. 70 73 86 86 2 1 159 161 53.75 ~(I \\J. 17 13 12 14 1 2 30 29 44.07 c-ou~Y RO LD TQTAL 87 86 98 180 3 3 189 190 52.24 WHITE l!LACK ll!SPMl!C /,S l Atl/PAC. lSUiD A~!E\n\u0026lt;. l :\n:)/ESK eThc?. JOTA~ . SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE M,\\LE FEMALE \\ALE FEIIALE MALE FE \\/\\L~ MAL FEl'.,\\LE Ml,~~ [hf,1.E B~e~ldtbL 1 0 1 19 16 19 17 97. 2\n2 0 0 19 15 19 15 100.01 3 0 0 15 14 15 14 100.0 4 0 0 25 13 1 25 14 97 ,4\u0026lt; 5 0 0 20 13 20 13 100.0 6 0 0 17 21 17 21 100.0 SUBTOTAL 0 1 115 92 1 115 94 99.0, KIND. 1 1 13 10 14 11 92.0f FOUR YR OLD 4 2 7 2 11 4 60.0( TOTAL 5 4 135 104 1 140 109 95. 9, ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 9 14 19 18 1 29 32 60.6 2 3 8 18 21 1 22 29 76.4 3 4 2 13 12 1 1 18 15 75. 71 4 2 6 14 17 16 23 79.4 5 2 2 19 16 21 18 89. 7, 6 1 4 17 13 18 17 85.7 SUBTOTAL 21 36 100 97 3 1 124 134 76.3 KIND. 16 9 14 14 1 30 24 51.8 FOUR n J!..J 10 12 10 15 2 22 27 51.0 TOTAL 47 57 124 126 5 2 176 185 69.2 ROMINE UNGRAlJEi1 2 0 12 1 14 1 86.6' 1 9 4 22 21 31 25 76. 7( I 3 2 20 20 23 22 88.8~ 3 1 1 29 13 2 32 14 91. Jr ~ 4 6 11 29 1 15 36 78.4 5 3 6 13 15 1 16 22 73.6 6 4 6 13 15 18 21 71. 7 SUBT O\n, .\\L 26 25 120 114 2 2 149 141 80.6 KPiD. 8 11 20 14 1 29 25 62. Q, rOUR YR OLD 3 1 3 6 1 3 7 10 52.9 ,OTAL. 37 37 143 134 4 s 185 176 69.2 WHITE [lL/\\Ci( IIISPMllC ASIAN/PAC. l '.\u0026gt;LN::J /1I.'.rn. I ,::J/E'.:.K 07'0:i{ Jul/\\~ SCHOOLG/ RADE MALE FEMALE M/\\LE FE'I/\\LE M/11.E FEM/\\LE t'.ALE FC:t1ALE M/11.E FEl1/\\LE M/\\Lt FEMALE I'./,L,. t,\nAI.E -- --- STEPHENS UNGRADED 0 0 5 l 5 l 100.0( l 2 0 9 21 11 21 93. 7( 2 0 l 16 17 16 18 97.0f 3 0 0 18 16 18 16 100.01 4 0 0 12 8 12 8 100.0( 5 0 0 12 4 12 4 100.0( 6 0 0 14 18 14 18 100.0l SUBTOTAL 2 l 86 85 88 86 98.2t KIND. 1 0 12 11 13 11 95.8: FOUR YR OLD 1 2 4 4 5 6 72.7: TOTAL 4 3 102 100 !:)5 103 96.6' TERRY UNGRADED 1 B 23 15 10 1 1 35 34 36. 2_ 2 25 16 12 18 2 2 39 36 40.0: 3 28 13 11 19 3 1 42 33 40.0: 4 19 24 19 17 38 41 45.S- 5 15 22 22 21 2 1 39 44 51.8- 6 15 22 23 20 2 38 44 52.4 SUBTOTAL 121 120 102 105 8 7 231 232 44. 7. KIND. 28 17 15 16 2 45 33 39. 7, i\"OUR Y~ Oc.:l TOTAL 149 137 117 121 10 7 276 265 43.9 WAKEFIELD U~GRAUEu 1 9 11 25 29 l 34 41 72 .Oi / 10 5 21 34 l 31 40 77 .4t 3 12 11 16 25 l 29 37 62.L ~ 15 15 32 14 47 29 60.5 5 14 10 22 24 36 34 65.7 6 8 10 38 25 l 47 35 76.t S-J3TOTA!... 68 62 154 151 2 3 224 216 69.3 ,' i I~ J  11 6 22 20 34 26 70.0 ::-JL~ YR OLD 7GTAL 79 68 176 171 2 3 258 242 69 _i\nWHITE eLACK IIISPMl!C ASIAN/PACI.S LND 1\\1-:ER1.1\n:J/ESK Pfrci\u0026lt; TCJTI\\~ SCHOOGLR/ ADE MALE FE~,ALE MALE FEMf,LE MALE FEMALE MALE F~l1ALE MALE F::r~r~LE M4Lt FUiALE 1'.f,L~ El\nI\\I_E-WASHINGTON UNGRADED 2 0 1 D 3 0 33.33 1 24 29 43 34 1 67 64 58.78 2 24 23 60 37 1 85 60 66.90 3 29 15 30 32 2 61 47 57.41 4 21 19 27 29 48 48 58.33 5 33 17 34 33 67 so 57.26 6 23 17 28 27 51 44 57.89 SUBTOTAL 156 120 223 192 3 1 382 313 59. 71 KIND. 23 15 31 19 1 2 55 36 54.95 FOURY RO LD 11 7 11 7 22 14 50.00 TOTAL 190 142 265 218 4 3 459 363 58.76 WATSON UNGRADED 1 10 8 27 27 1 38 35 73.97 2 7 8 27 26 34 34 77 .94 3 5 6 18 23 23 29 78.85 4 8 7 20 13 28 20 68.75 5 13 5 21 33 34 38 75.00 6 9 5 24 25 33 30 77.78 -SUBTOTAL 52 39 137 147 1 190 186 75.53 KIND. 12 8 15 22 1 27 31 63.79 FOURY Rv '-J 4 2 5 6 9 8 64.71 TOTAL 68 49 157 175 1 1 226 225 73.Gl WESTERHNIL LS UNGRMEu 1 9 12 11 17 20 29 57.14 / 9 10 14 12 23 22 57.78 3 4 10 15 19 1 19 30 69.39 .\n10 8 13 17 23 25 62.50 5 10 9 13 19 23 29 61. 54 6 11 6 18 17 29 23. 67.31 S:.J3TOTAL 53 55 84 101 137 158 62. 71 ,(j ','.). 7 9 13 11 20 20 60.00 FOt\nYR OLD TOfT,L 60 64 97 112 WHITE ~LACK l\\[SPMJIC ASIAN/PACl. ' .\u0026gt;LN::J At-'.EH. I :,J/ESK OT\"? ICJTf,lc SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FE:1ALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FcJ1ALE 1\\ALE F:' ALE 'l.~L t \" FE i1AEL 1-:t.L,. (1-\nf1..E - WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 15 14 24 12 1 2 39 29 52.94 2 15 12 18 21 1 1 33 35 57.3: 3 13 16 22 15 1 35 32 55.22 4 14 17 24 17 38 34 56.9l 5 17 15 22 16 1 1 41 31 52.7E 6 16 26 23 29 1 40 55 54.7l SUBTOTAL 90 100 133 110 1 2 2 4 226 216 54.9F KIND. 14 14 20 12 34 26 53.3\nFOURY RO LD TOTAL 104 114 153 122 1 2 2 4 260 242 54. 7E WILSON UNGRADED 3 1 18 1 21 2 82.61 1 9 4 20 14 29 18 72.3l 2 7 4 12 17 19 21 72. 5( 3 6 12 17 18 23 3'.J 66.0l 4 5 2 20 20 25 22 85.L 5 1 4 15 21 16 25 87 .8( 6 5 2 26 14 31 16 85.1. SUBTOTAL 36 29 128 105 164 134 78.1. KIND. 12 5 15 8 27 13 57 .5: ,-ouR n 0~:\u0026gt; 3 5 5 4 8 9 52. 9- TOTAL 51 39 148 117 199 156 74.6' WOODRUFF U,lG~A\nEu l 12 2 12 16 24 18 66.6 / 5 7 6 5 11 12 47.8 3 3 5 8 4 11 9 60.0 ~ 5 4 6 10 11 14 64 .C, 5 4 9 12 12 1 17 21 63 .1 6 8 1 10 10 1 18 12 66.l su~-c,rr.L 37 28 54 57 l 92 86 62 .. I~ I \"' 10 l 15 13 1 25 15 70., '1 ,..,. FOL~ Y\u0026lt; C:..J 2 5 2 6 l 4 12 50.l T07 f,L 4q 14 71 76 2 121 113 62.tl WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PACI.S LND AMERI. tJD/ESK MALeTHEFREM ALE MALtOTA~EMALE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE %13[ SUBTOTAL UNGRADED 31 15 B6 31 117 46 71.1 1 374 345 693 612 5 3 4 6 2 1 1078 967 63. t 2 367 340 674 649 3 7 7 10 1 1 1 1053 1007 64., 3 350 323 601 584 '4 4 13 10 2 1 971 921 62.( 4 356 298 604 610 4 8 6 3 1 1 972 919 64., 5 336 329 643 652 6 6 10 5 1 996 992 65. 6 342 298 687 680 3 4 9 7 2 1 1 1044 990 67., K 392 310 582 497 '3 4 7 7 4 1 1 98S 820 61. Four year Old 77 64 95 93 3 1 2 4 1 177 163 55. TOTALE LEM. 2625 2322 4665 4408 3li 37 58 52 12 4 5 2 7396 6825 63. TOTALE LEM. 2633 2327 4711 4471 31 37 58 52 12 4 5 2 7450 6893 64. Ii/HIGH SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SPECIALS CHOOLS 28 15 15 ff 43 28 39. DISTRICTT OTALS 4644 4438 8381 8345 64 72 114 104 16 10 12 12 13,231 12,981 63. OCT 1 6 b92 Office of 0:i: ,grega ion Munitoring SENIOR HIGH: 10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE % ,JUNIOR HIGH\n10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE % ELEMENTARY: 10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE o, lo ({ Lo SPECIAL .SCHOOLS: ~ o 1,i 10/1/91 JC,? /I l 10/1/92 rP' SE/DECREASE o,\\' ~\n)' % I (1f DISTRICT TOTAL: 10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE % I-~I 1,rf!ER\u0026lt;J ART El,J: 10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE '% FOUR YEAR OLD: 10/1/91 10/1/92 INCREASE/DECREASE % [JISTF:IC~T TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENTC OMPARISON J 9 9 1 - ':1 : / l 9 :: 2 - 9 3 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 2152 3 24 3 lliJ ~ :) ~~ 2131 3378 123 60 ( 21) 135 9 1 ') 'J \u0026lt;., _, (. 98%) 4. 2% 7.9% 2.2.% 1882 4112 68 ~ 68 1948 4138 80 67 6(. 26 12 104 3.5% .6'3% 17.7% 1.7% 4851 166 6 :, I\n819 190 6L.. ( 3 2) 24 (. 66%) 1L... 5% 40 2L1- 0 38 43 28 0 39 3 L.. 0 .5% 25% q,~~ 8925 16,753 3L1-8 26,026 64 8941 16,538 393 25,872 61.,. 1E, (215) I\n. 5 ( 154) .18% ( 1. 3%) 12.9% (. 6%) ',,/,3-3 694 1231 18 1943 E, 3 !)% 715 1188 27 1930 61 21 ( y. 3) 9 ( 13) 3% ( 3. 5%) 50% (. 69%) 120 163 9 292 56 141 /~~ 11 3/d-0 LY :,5 21 25 2 48 17. 5~,\n, 15.3% 22% 16.4% WITH FOUR YEAR OLDS: 10/1/91 901\n.5 16,916 ~, 357 26,318 64 10/1/92 9082 16 I 726,rcJ ,- 401\n. 26 I 212,'f/:\n61.,. INCREASE/DECREP,SE 37 ( 190) 47 (10E~) % .41% ( 1. 1%) r.,1l 13% (. 4%) ~t,rll 1l,  ~)/fl - --- SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1992-93 c\nRJiDE lr,'HITE BLJ\\ CJ~ ()'I'HEf.: TOTl\\L %DLACh K 715 1188 27 1930 6 :. 1 719 1305 21 2 (I lJ :., 63 2 707 1323 30 2060 61\n. r~,  t,73 1185 3/s. 1892 t. ,~, Is. 65/s., 12H 23 1891 6/s. 5 665 1295 28 1988 65 6 E,i,i.O 1367 27 2031,i. 67 \\JN Li 6 117 0 163 72 TOTAL ELEM 4-819 89% 190 11,i.,003 6 I\n. 7 723 11,i.31 2 :, 2179 6, 8 611 1430 ,..,' .) .) 2074- 69 9 591 121,i.1 21 1853 67 UN 23 36 1 60 60 TOTAL LTR HIGH 191\n.g l,i.138 80 6166 67 10 719 1326 31\n. 2079 61,i. 11 701,i. 1098 /,i 8 1850 59 12 700 939 l,i.l 1680 56 UN 8 15 0 ~, ..J. ,., \"' 65 TOTAL SR HIGH 2131 3378 123 5632 60 SPECIAL SCHOOLS l\n.3 28 0 71 39 FOUR YR. OLD Hl 188 11 3/s.O 55 DIS':.'F:ICT TOTAL 9082 16,72f., !\n.01\n. 26,212 61,i *SUMMARYO F STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH - 135 E5KIMO/AMER. IND. - 22 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 227 OTHER - 20 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1992-93 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 279 467 15 761 61. 37% 11 262 391 28 681 57.42% 12 220 275 13 508 54.13% SUBTOTAL 761 1133 56 1950 58.10% KIND. 0 49 0 49 TOTAL 100.00% 761 1182 56 1999 59.13% FAIR UNGRADED 8 15 0 23 65.22% 10 97 195 5 297 65.66% 11 112 205 5 322 63.66% 12 93 147 4 244 60.25% SUBTOTAL 310 562 14 886 63.43% KIND. 1 18 0 19 94.74% TOTAL 311 580 14 905 64.09% HALL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 110 207 6 323 64.09% 11 126 168 8 302 55.63% 12 154 185 12 351 52.71% SUBTOTAL 390 560 26 976 57.38% KIND. 10 8 0 18 44.44% TOTAL 400 568 26 994 57.14% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 105 277 5 387 71.58% 11 91 183 3 277 66.06% 12 116 178 8 302 58.94% SUBTOTAL 312 638 16 966 66.05% KIND. 1 18 0 19 94.74% TOTAL 313 656 16 985 66.60% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 128 180 3 311 57.88% 11 113 151 4 268 56.34% 12 117 154 4 275 56.00% SUBTOTAL 358 485 11 854 56.79% KIND. 1 16 0 17 94.12% TOTAL 359 501 11 871 57.52% /~ /Ot /d).\ni\u0026gt;-' ?//4 Page - 1 -- - - - - - - SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK CLOVERDALE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 7 78 210 3 291 72.16% 8 58 180 6 244 73.77% 9 56 181 3 240 75.42% TOTAL 192 571 12 775 73.68% DUNBAR UNGRADED 7 87 136 4 227 59.91% 8 94 145 6 245 59.18% 9 102 129 2 2J3 55.36% TOTAL 283 410 12 705 58.16% FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 6 5 0 11 4 5. 4 5% 7 66 195 3 264 73.86% 8 78 199 6 283 70.32% 9 70 155 4 229 67.69% TOTAL 220 554 13 787 70.39% HENDERSON UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 7 99 228 4 331 68.88% 8 46 259 4 309 83.82% 9 70 198 6 274 72.26% TOTAL 215 685 14 914 74.95% V.t.ABELVALE UNGRADED 13 6 1 20 30.00% 7 80 151 2 233 64.81% 8 74 151 0 22:\n67.11% 9 59 130 0 189 68.78% TOTAL 226 438 3 667 65.67% MANN UNGRADED 7 128 178 5 311 57.23% 8 118 160 6 284 56.34% 9 81 167 6 254 65.75% TOTAL 327 505 17 849 59.48% PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 3 12 0 15 80.00% 7 129 136 2 267 50.94% 8 96 167 1 264 63.26% 9 91 137 0 228 60.09% TOTAL 319 452 3 774 58.40% Page - 2 ---------------------- SCHOOL/GRADE WHJTE BLACK OTHER SOUTHWEST TOTAL %BLACK UNGRADED 1 13 0 14 92.86% 7 56 197 2 255 77.25% 8 47 169 4 220 76.82% 9 62 144 0 206 69.90% TOTAL J.56 523 6 695 75.25% BADGETT UNGRADED 1 6 0 7 85.71% 1 5 19 0 24 79.17% 2 9 13 0 22 59.09% 3 3 18 0 21 85.71% 4 5 16 0 21 76.19% 5 4 31 0 35 88.57% 6 7 29 0 36 80.56% SUBTOTAL 34 132 0 166 79.52% KIND. 7 12 0 19 63.16% FOUR YR OLD 7 10 0 17 58.82% TOTAL 48 154 0 202 76.24% BALE UNGRADED 7 5 0 12 41.67% 1 6 29 1 36 80.56% 2 4 25 1 30 83.33% 3 5 29 1 35 82.86% 4 6 29 1 36 80.56% 5 7 45 2 54 83.33% 6 8 40 3 51 78.43% SUBTOTAL 43 202 9 254 79.53% KIND. 10 37 2 49 75.51% FOUR YR OLD 9 9 0 18 50.00% TOTAL 62' 248 11 321 77.26% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 15 45 (' 60 75.00% 2 15 40 1 56 71.43% 3 9 31 0 40 77.50% 4 7 43 0 50 86.00% 5 8 28 2 38 73.68% 6 5 30 0 35 85.71% SUBT0TAL 59 217 3 279 77.78% KIND. 15 45 0 60 75.00% TOTAL 74 262 3 339 77.29% Page - 3 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK BOOKER UNGRADED 1 39 47 0 86 54.65% 2 36 50 1 87 57.47% 3 38 50 1 89 56.18% 4 40 53 3 96 55.21% 5 39 :\u0026gt; 1 0 90 56.67% 6 43 54 2 99 54.55% SUBTOTAL 235 305 7 547 55.76% KIND. 34 40 0 74 54.05% TOTAL 269 345 7 621 55.56% BRADY UNGRADED 1 5 0 6 83.33% 1 2n 34 3 57 59.65% 2 1/ 44 1 62 70.97% 3 15 44 2 61 72.13% 4 10 34 0 44 77.27% 5 16 38 1 55 69.09% 6 7 46 2 55 83.64% SUBTOTAL 86 245 9 340 72.06% KIND. 25 30 3 58 51. 72% TOTAL 111 275 12 398 69.10% CARVER UNGRADED 1 31 39 0 70 55.71% 2 34 50 2 8 f, 58.14% 3 41 48 0 89 53.93% 4 42 51 3 96 53.13% 5 44 55 0 99 55.56% 6 43 53 2 98 54.08% SUBTOTAL 235 296 7 538 55.02% KIND. 27 33 0 60 55.00% TOTAL 262 329 7 598 55.02% CHICOT UNGRADED 7 10 0 17 58.8~% 1 27 59 0 86 68.60% 2 31 57 1 89 64.04% 3 23 43 3 69 62.32% 4 21 41 2 64 64.06% 5 19 40 1 GO 66.67% 6 26 46 1 73 63.01% SUBTOTAL 154 296 8 4 58 64.63% KIND. 23 54 0 77 70.13% TOTAL 177 350 8 535 65.42% Page - 4 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK CLOVERDALE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK UNGRADED 1 7 39 0 46 84.78% 2 9 37 2 48 77. 08% 3 9 35 0 44 79.55% 4 7 46 1 54 85.19% 5 10 44 0 54 81. 48% 6 7 43 0 50 86.00% SUBTOTAL 49 244 3 296 82.43% KIND. 15 38 0 53 71. 7 0% FOUR YR OLD 7 9 1 17 52.94% TOTJi.L 71 291 4 366 79.51% DODD UNGRADED 5 5 0 10 50.00% 1 18 20 0 38 52.63% 2 14 27 0 41 65.85% 3 18 24 0 42 57.14% 4 16 22 0 38 57.89% 5 14 36 0 50 72.00% 6 16 30 0 46 65.22% SUBTOTAL 101 164 0 265 61.89% KIND. 20 19 0 39 48.72% 121 183 0 304 60.20% FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1 10 34 0 44 77.27% 2 7 29 0 36 80.56% 3 6 25 1 32 78.13% 4 3 29 0 32 90.63% 5 9 26 0 35 74.29% 6 4 23 0 27 85.19% SUBTOTAL 39 166 1 206 80.58% KIND. 10 26 1 37 70.27% TOTAL 49 192 2 243 79.01% FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 38 35 0 73 47.95% 2 45 25 1 71 35.21% 3 35 13 1 4 S' 26.53% 4 31 21 1 53 39.62% 5 39 45 0 84 53.57% 6 23 31 0 54 57.41% SUBTOTAL 211 170 3 384 44.27% KIND. 31 28 1 60 46.67% TOTAL 242 198 4 444 44.59% Page - 5 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK FRANKLIN OTHER TOTA\n%BLACK UNGRADED 1 9 0 10 90.00% 1 7 67 1 75 89.33% 2 5 45 0 50 90.00% 3 2 48 0 50 96.00% 4 4 45 0 49 91.84% 5 0 26 1 27 96.30% 6 2 47 4 53 88.68% SUBTOTAL 21 287 6 314 91.40% KIND. 5 38 0 43 88.37% FOUR YR OLD 24 27 3 54 50.00% TOTAL 50 352 9 411 85.64% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED 5 2 0 7 28.57% 1 35 25 1 61 40.98% 2 41 31 2 74 41.89% 3 48 38 2 88 43.18% 4 49 27 2 78 3'1.62% 5 41 39 1 81 48.15% 6 42 39 1 82 47.56% SUBTOTAL 261 201 9 471 42.68% KIND. 35 24 0 59 40.68% TOTAL 296 225 9 530 42.45% GARLAND UNGRADED J 10 0 13 76.92% 1 2 37 0 39 94.87% 2 1 29 1 31 93.55% J 2 29 0 31 93.5:5% 4 0 35 0 35 100.00% 5 2 26 2 JO 86.67% 6 1 32 2 35 91. 43% SUBTOTAL 11 198 5 214 92.52% KIND. J 26 1 JO 86.67% FOUR YR OLD j 9 0 12 75.00% TOTAL 17 233 6 256 91.02% GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 0 3 0 3 100.00% 1 14 27 0 41 65.85% 2 20 \"5 0 45 55.56% J 14 27 0 41 65.85% 4 5 19 0 24 79.17% 5 9 16 0 25 64.00% 6 16 30 0 46 65.22% SUBTOTAL 78 147 0 225 65.33% KIND. 18 21 39 53.85% FOUR YR OLD 9 9 0 18 50.00% TOTAL 105 177 0 282 62.77% Page - 6 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL GIBBS %BLACK UNGRADED 1 17 25 1 43 58.14% 2 19 26 0 45 57.78% 3 20 24 1 45 53.33% 4 20 26 2 48 54.17% 5 19 28 3 50 56.00% 6 26 39 2 67 58.21% SUBTOTAL 121 168 9 298 56.38% KIND. 13 23 2 38 60.53% TOTAL 134 191 11 336 56.85% ISH UNGRADED 0 5 0 5 100.00% 1 0 15 0 15 100.00% 2 0 31 0 31 100.00% 3 2 24 0 26 92.31% 4 0 18 0 18 100.00% 5 0 23 0 23 100.00% 6 0 32 0 32 100.00% SUBTOTAL 2 148 0 150 98.67% KIND. 0 25 0 25 100.00% FOUR YEAR OL 3 9 0 12 75.00% TOTAL 5 182 0 187 97.33% JEFFERSON UNGRADED 4 3 0 7 42.86% 1 35 26 0 61 42.62% 2 42 32 1 75 42.67% 3 35 31 3 69 44.93% 4 36 32 1 69 46.38% 5 39 25 1 65 38.46% 6 41 36 0 77 46.75% SUBTOTAL 232 185 6 423 43.74% KIND. 41 19 0 60 31. 67% TOTAL 273 204 6 483 42.24% MABELVALE UNGRADED 3 7 0 10 70.00% 1 30 41 1 72 56.94% 2 34 39 1 74 52.70% 3 28 42 0 70 60.00% 4 29 35 1 65 53.85% 5 37 39 0 76 51. 32% 6 31 42 0 73 57.53% SUBTOTAL 192 245 3 440 55.68% KIND. 27 33 0 60 55.00% TOTAL 219 278 3 500 55.60% Page - 7 -------------------------- SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK MCDERMOTT OTHER TOTAL %BLACK UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 1 32 39 0 71 54.93% 2 27 39 3 69 56.52% 3 36 35 3 74 47.30% 4 36 40 1 77 51.95% 5 26 48 4 78 61.54% 6 32 46 2 80 57.50% SUBTOTAL 189 247 13 449 55.01% KIND. 31 28 1 60 46.67% TOTAL 220 275 14 509 54.03% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 24 47 0 71 66.20% 2 25 46 0 71 64.79% 3 27 38 0 65 58.46% 4 14 47 0 61 77.05% 5 24 41 1 66 62.12% 6 14 32 0 46 69.57% SUBTOTAL 128 251 1 380 66.05% KIND. 19 41 0 60 68.33% TOTAL 147 292 1 440 66.36% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 8 0 9 88.89% 1 7 29 2 38 76.32% 2 2 l'.3 1 46 93.48% 3 2 33 0 35 94.29% 4 5 29 1 35 82.86% 5 4 36 0 40 90.00% G 0 22 0 22 100.00% SUBTOTAL 21 200 4 225 88.89% KIND. 2 23 0 25 92~ 00% FOUR YEAR OL 5 9 0 14 64.29% TOTAL 28 232 4 264 f':7.88% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 25 23 2 50 46.00% 2 34 23 0 57 40.35% 3 34 13 1 48 27.08% 4 32 20 1 53 37.74% 5 28 23 0 51 45.10% 6 28 26 0 54 48.15% SUBTOTAL 181 128 4 313 40.89% KIND. 22 15 3 40 37.50% TOTAL 203 143 7 353 40.51% Page - 8 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER PULASKI TOTAL %BLACK HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 26 23 0 49 46.94% 2 32 31 2 65 47.69% 3 25 21 1 47 44.68% 4 25 29 1 55 52.73% .56 16 34 1 51 66.67% I 19 34 0 53 64.15% I SUBTOTAL 143 172 5 320 53.7:,% I KIND. 30 26 3 59 44.07% I TOTAL 173 198 8 379 52.24% I I RIGHTS ELL I UNGRADED I 1 1 35 0 36 97.22% I 2 0 34 0 34 100.00% I 3 0 29 0 29 100.00% I 4 0 38 1 39 97.44% I 5 0 33 0 33 100.00% I 6 0 38 0 38 100.00% I SUBTOTAL 1 207 1 209 99.04% I KIND. 2 23 0 25 92.00% I FOUR YEAR OL 6 9 0 15 60.00% I TOTAL 9 239 1 249 95.98% I ROCKEFELLER I UNGRADED I 1 23 37 1 61 I 2 60.66% I 11 39 1 51 76.47% I 3 6 25 2 33 75.76% I 4 8 31 0 39 79.49% 5 4 35 0 39 89.74% 6 5 30 0 35 85.71% SUBTOTAL 57 197 4 258 76.36% KIND. 25 28 1 54 51.85% FOUR YEAR OL 22 25 2 49 51.02% TOTAL 104 250 7 361 69.25% ROXINE UNGRADED 2 13 0 15 86.67% 1 13 43 0 56 76.79% 2 5 40 0 45 88.89% 3 2 42 2 1.: '.\n91. 3 0% 4 10 40 1 51 78.43% 5 9 28 1 38 73.68% 6 10 28 1 39 71.79% SUBTOTAL 51 234 5 290 80.69% KIND. 19 34 1 , 1 62.96% FOUR YEAR OL 4 9 4 17 52.94% TOTAL 74 277 10 361 76.73% Page - 9 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER STEPHENS TOTAL %BLACK UNGRADED 0 6 0 6 100.00% 1I 2 30 0 32 93.75% 2 1 33 0 34 97.06% 3 0 34 0 34 100.00% 4 0 20 0 20 100.00% 5 0 16 0 16 100.00% 6 0 32 0 32 100.00% SUBTOTAL 3 171 0 174 98.28% KIND. 1 23 0 24 95.83% FOUR YEAR OL 3 8 0 7.1 72.73% TOTAL 7 202 0 209 96.65% TERRY UNGRADED 1 42 25 2 69 36.23% 2 41 30 4 75 4o.no% 3 41 30 4 75 40.00% 4 43 36 0 79 45.57% 5 37 43 3 83 51.81% 6 37 43 2 82 52.44% SUBTOTAL 241 207 15 4 63 44.71% KIND. 45 31 2 78 39.74% TOTAL 286 238 17 541 43.99% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 20 54 1 75 72.00% 2 15 55 1 71 77.46% 3 23 41 2 66 62.12% 4 30 46 0 76 60.53% 5 24 46 0 70 65.71% 6 18 63 1 82 76.83% SUBTOTAL 130 305 5 440 69.32% KIND. 17 42 1 60 70.00% TOTl-.L 147 347 6 500 69.40% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 2 1 0 3 33.33% 1 53 77 1 131 58.78% 2 47 97 1 145 66.90% 3 44 62 2 108 57.41% 4 40 56 0 96 58.33% 5 50 67 0 117 57.26% 6 40 55 0 95 57.89% SUBTOTAL 276 415 4 695 59.71% KIND. 38 50 3 91 54.95% FOUR YR OLD 18 18 0 36 50.0 ~ TOTAL 332 483 0 7 822 58.76% Page - 10 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL WATSON %BLACK UNGRADED 1 18 54 1 73 73.97% 2 15 53 0 68 77.94% 3 11 41 0 52 78.85% 4 15 :3J 0 48 68.75% 5 18 54 0 72 75.00% 6 14 49 0 63 77.78% SUBTOnL 91 284 1 376 75.53% KIND. 20 37 1 58 63.79% FOUR YR OLD 6 11 0 17 64.71% TOTAL 117 332 2 451 73.61% WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 21 28 0 49 57.14% 2 19 26 0 45 57.78% 3 14 34 1 49 69.39% 4 18 30 0 48 62.50% 5 19 32 1 52 61. 54 % 6 17 35 0 52 67.31% SUBTOTAL 108 155 2 295 62. 71% KIND. 16 24 0 40 60.00% TOTAL 124 209 2 335 62.39% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 29 36 3 68 52.94% 2 27 39 2 68 57.35% 3 29 37 1 67 55.22% 4 31 41 0 72 56.94% 5 32 38 2 72 52.78% 6 I'. 2 52 1 95 54.74% SUBTOTAL 190 243 9 442 54.98% KIND. 28 32 0 60 53.33% TOTAL 218 275 9 502 54.78% WILSON UNGRADED 4 19 0 23 82.61% 1 1 ., 34 0 47 72.34% 2 11 29 0 40 72.50% 3 18 35 0 53 66.04% 4 7 40 0 47 85. 11% 5 5 36 0 41 87.80% 6 7 40 0 47 85.11% SUBTOTAL 65 233 0 298 78.19% KIND. 17 23 0 40 57.50% FOUR YR OLD 8 9 0 17 52.94% TOTAL 90 265 0 355 71.65% Page - 11 SCHOOL/C~ADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WOODRUFF UNGRADED 1- 14 2 0 42 66.67% 2 12 11 0 23 47.83% 3 8 12 0 20 60.00% 4 9 16 0 25 64.00% 5 13 24 1 38 63.16% 6 9 20 1 30 66.67% SUBTOTAL 65 111 2 178 62.36% KIND. 11 28 1 40 70.00% FOUR YR OLD 7 8 1 16 50.00% TOTAL !3 3 14 7 4 234 62.82% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED 9 6 0 15 40.00% TOTAL 9 6 0 15 40.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED 30 16 0 46 34.78% TOTAL 30 16 0 46 34.78% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED 4 6 0 10 60.00% TOTAL 4 6 0 10 60.00% Page - 12 1992/93 Approved% Range for Black Enrollment NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS Including Kindergarten October 1, 1992 Elem.: 37.9 - 63.l Middle: 35.9 - 59.b School Enrollment Black Non-Black % Alternative 20 (K - 6) Amboy 390 Baring Cross 14 (K - 6) Belwood 171 Boone Park 480 Central 496 Crestwood 241 Glenview 230 Indian Hills 447 Lakewood 277 Lynch Drive 210 Meadow Park 243 North Heights 403 Park Hill 210 Pike View 429 Redwood 238 Rose City 254 Seventh Street 363 Total Elem. 5,116 Alternative 30 (7 - 11) Baring Cross 31 (7 - 12) Lakewood Md. 545 Ridgeroad Md. 578 Rose City Md. 408 NLRHS-East 1,339 NLRHS-West 1,204 Total Sec. 4,135 Dist. Total: 9,251 14 172 5 71 295 279 105 131 200 141 85 124 193 94 209 142 137 177 2,574 23 22 248 266 207 602 524 1,892 4,466 70. 0 6 44.1 218 35. 7 9 41.5 100 61.5 185 56.3 217 43.6 136 57.0 99 44.7 247 50.9 136 40.5 125 51.0 119 47.9 210 44.8 116 48.7 220 59.7 96 53.9 117 48.8 186 50.3% 2,542 76.7 7 71.0 9 45.5 297 46.0 312 50.7 201 45.0 737 43.5 680 45.8% 2,243 48.3% 4,785 30.0 55.9 64.3 58.5 38.5 43.8 56.4 43.0 55.3 4 9 .1 59.5 49.0 52.1 55.2 51. 3 40.3 46.1 51. 2 49.7% 23.3 29.0 54.5 54.0 49.3 55.0 5 6. 5 ,, 54.2% 51.7% l'C:C-,~,!) ~\nN i(Ul.1,i'lt:l'l'l' (October 1, 1992) \\ill[\"':': BLI\\CK MISPANIC .'\\SIAN1P1\\C ISL- '..i(],r 01 -\" BOYS GTRL~~ nnvc: ,~rm ~ BOYS r iL.S BOYS GIRl,S l\\M. IND 1F.SKTMJ news GIRLS SCHOOL TOTAL ------1-~=-:..:--1__.\n=\"\"\"'\"-+-~......_~.u.u......,+--=- I j Adk\nn\"' 137 125 77 76 , 1 3 l 420 ~ Arnold Ori ve 161 14 9 3 6 3 3 4 1 o__:.::~=~~..:\n.._-+-~::...:::..-1--.:::-.=_\n:\n_+...-.::...,\na_-+-__::\n.\n_-+--,:.._-+-....\n....-+----+-_..:\n5c __--t--=---t----..--~-, .l l 3 9 0 ._ rlk!'\u0026gt;r 115 93 1:...3-----..-_...,\n.4...,\n. 2-f- +---t----,:\n---l--\n:\n--+---~---1---2\n.8\n.3\n..__i Rc.h,:.c:c 202 167 41 2 2 b80 ~ ..P... .._4,,1,~\":.uJ-\u0026amp;\"'--\"\"\"=it-~r.....__.J-__,3~4!-'o\"--~--=2'-'9..!.2\n.._~-I. ,_'J....__. ,_ _ _1_ ~ __ 1,___ ___1 ----+--:---+------+---\"'nc::a, 4-\"R'---1 2 7 1 2 3 9 Hr, f. 2 l l 6 5 0 Cr-\n1 1 .o.na \u0026lt;::t-\" 11 7 9 6 f. 2 2 3 2 6 'rystcll Hill 245 222 l6 1 _ l 1 776 ,_Dt_1_tp__.r___e___e_ _ l'-'8\"-9-\u0026lt;--+--4~.. l . ,,8'--if--...\n5\n...0____ 3 5 9 4 5 8 I Fullec ElP.m. 131 -.. 168 - 524 I H\narri\u0026lt;:o 160 l / 107 . .-i-. 2 l 546 t ,J'ville Rlem. ~l,ZJ 281 10~ 12g 4 2 1 l\nJ. 847 I Landrna ck ' 5 2 12 6 1 ? 1 1 1 q 518 i Lawsrn . J7 13 9 2 7 l 8 3 21 l Oak, -, 191 167 49 62 469 1 .1kb1 261 222 'i3 55 1 592\n_. t  rne ..\n.t=:-\":\":.'\"'. -'--- +--=l\n:-.:9~8=:-il--=::2-\n:1~6:-Jr-\"\"\".5\n:-:2\n::--t-~5:-:'2\n--i~-P--a,\n-\n:---lf----\n---+---:---l---::--+----+---+-~'i:...!1~8~.L~ , Pine\\ -'-~1'----\"-1~--=2:\n..\n\n8\n.\".-,-~+, ---=l..:.9..,\n.0~_ ..9... ..,0_-+ __ 9 8_- +'-l_0 __ +- __ 4_-4- __ 6~--1-___:3:...._-4- ___ +---1---..:..:''c..c_-:e::i~ f'J7a I Robi.n .. ,)n Ekm. 157 153 57 47 l 3 2 4~ 1 +-~\"\"7\"+--c:---+-~-t----+----+-~-+-...::..-1--- - I Scot I 7 4 4 9 ' I J 6 l - I Shen~~,.x.1 193 1- '' 73 l 1 ~----- \"\u0026lt; -::- '3 Cl ii \u0026lt; \u0026lt; a. ::- 0.. 0 - - - V' c:1 ~ ~1'} \u0026lt;[ ,v s:..: 0 gp c~ E .. 0 m ... V E ~ ~ S.HilJs Elem. 327 l. 1 t:,() 2 3 1 1 /..15 E Tdyl.01 l6:i 143 '~ 50 , l J. l 1 420 ~ .:\n_~ Tolle:::.,m ~2_2-\"o-+---'2:C..o:C_.... s , ..1..' ---+--6 .). .,.. .._ Asir,_'----+--.,.:\n1'---+---_-1--+--\"1'---+-\"\"----4-----+----'5-=6'-\"9~ ,.rt ~ \u0026gt;i\nS TOTAL FLfJ.1. 690 4 U4 1 177 1 6 1 2(, 19 13 13 l3 12,410 i\n\u0026lt;O ~ _...- . IJ ---t~ -o \u0026lt; ~-- -- ---+-----+-----.-- I ~ ~ Q_ -~ I .n ~-Al_t. L\n.cnt. ,t 16 q '.BdL ..c.J.. .c _.r_ _ .,_9__2_ _ 2_o_s _ 2_-i__1 _,__1_, ~ J'vil P North 243 215 11 1 101 O:-. J 'vil1e South 200 181 l 1 2 90 v1lle HiQh 356 371 1611 136 ~s l7 5 1 (, 14 6 l 3 3 urt:, Pulaski 34 9 29 L l l ....\n.N...:o.\n:.rt.\nhv\n.\n....\n~'-'-'---,......,..+----\"'3-'--71-.'-.J. -+-_.\n:\n3...o.1-\"-'7 uak Grove Hiqh 373 32,' ~J Rob. ,Tr. Hiqh 161 lt1() rt, Ro b. ~ r_._H_i..._qlh--+----'l..\n6_\n0--+--'l -~ii _d_l:,..._.\u0026lt;..r~ _-:--h---~1 \"\":\n~~\n:~:r::_-_.:...:. ~D..._,-~3~3\"--9+._-,-_L\n,.,k_., +- _,__ L..Z \u0026gt;~fT. - 8 ! 8 - - ' l 1 66 4 6 1 935 l 3 6S4 -'-__\nl,:\n.O.:___..L-~4 -4-----+--\n.\n.l_-+-_--'6\n..\n0\n..\n2:::.._-! 1,023 2 627 3 l 7 837 2 l l 1 1 915 411 408 l 2 932 1 874 }A 4 C,,223 4 l 34 I I 17 21,633\n\u0026lt;s1 I~ .~. . l l  l ')_: u: , * :f, ' :t * **: f. * ii:+:*:n :* ** * **-********** * ., P. 01 * * TRANSACTRIOENP ORT * OCT-29-9T2H U1 1:11 * * *  DATE START SENDER RX TI ME ~?uES TYPE NOTE * ---------------------------------- * OCT-291 1:l J ECl 4900483 1' 2211 1 o::-t I t. OK * ..,xtuJ\n*:u**:t* **:t::ucrn ::..:-.) \" * * :r. :\n: ', :t n *n: u:i *, ,:t rin::n:u:u::n*****************************  f I i I ':u'  ,'\n+'. P. 01 ' * \"'' NR EPR T OCT-20-T92U E1 0:19 E ff E:\nTYrE . OTE T c. I 1 i ~ 1 K. OCT 20 '92 09: 18 F'Lil CO SPL '::,:H DI'3T DATE\nTO: FROM: Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-490-2000 FAX 490-0483 October 20, 1992 Danny Shameer and Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat - Gazette North Pulaski Leader Arnold Smith, Arkansas State Press North Uttle Rock Times Jennifer Bethea, The Spectrum Our Neighborhood Judy Gallman  Arkansas Times Maumelle Monitor Jacksonville Patriot KARK-TV - Channel 4 KATV-TV - Channel 7 KTHV-TV - Channel 11 KARN Radio Associated Press Office of Desegregation Monitoring PACT Susie Roberts, Administrator Information/Special Services NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 (including transmittal sheet) P.1/3 - : lS ,.. PULA I CO October 20, 1992 To ,vh,m it m\niy concern: y F'.2 3 OOL DISTRICT , n R 1.J.d\n-'_L) Box 8601 r \"\"' Ar,._ansas 72216 (50') 490-2000 We are providing you with a corrected copy of the a con t\u0026gt;TI'ing enrollment hgures for the Pula:.ki County Special 'k lh,trict a of Oc.tobez 1, 19) 2. I.w information released Friday, C ctober 16, contdtned c:o 1 u1.i-::curacie~,s o plea:.e rt\"ter to this new chart when repurting PCSSD enrollmeut We apolog1Le for ar.y inconvenience. Que tions concE-mmg PCSSD enrollment may be d.ire\u0026lt;..tedto th~ Office of Pvp!l Personnel c:1t 490-2000 .:.iincerely, ~ Ron St,mdridge Information Office er SCI-ICOL I f lk Lr\\S At r,o]d Dri.ve \\11II'\"E flOYS r.rm,::, Pl'SS. EN WI.I ti (Oclob_r ,, 1',,/\\CK UISN,M - ~Al/PN:.. I:'\u0026gt;r~ JIM IND ,r.,,., rM'l SCHOOL I r \u0026gt;rr, _LY)Y.., r:r, _ i l()'{S GIRLS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL ~~~.c.1.-1f.--'-'\"~---+-\"=,e..\n,\n,\n_+.--=.\n._+-===--+-~'-'=--f 137 125 77 1 , l 420 161 149 36 \\ \"i l l 390 ]15 CJ3 33 u 283 202 l67 166 ~41 2 2 680 ~_f ._R._:\n,,~,\"\".u\",._...,'.,..i~r..:...a_'\",'\n_\n.l,1-'- ~3~4..:,6'-+--~2\"-t'-')_2 =_--,..,,.___.._l_ ' 1 f. d R c- ~.. \" 2 7 l 2 J ) 2 1 l 6 5 0 r,-,.IJ.o~ C:t-\" 117 q, ./n ! ]26 r C'rys ta l Hi l1 Q,/.51-9-z\nu\ni. ~ P - rr ----- -::..L ---l---'~---+-----+---~1-----+----r-77~~~-e-\u0026amp;:t_.\n..\n~J/Oic I r .. '--- i r::-- - L,. k .,.-LI, I, Oi.lkhrnoJ. Pine I\u0026lt; , Pine,,,'( ~r, 189 14 a _ J s 9 4 ss ]J, ')\u0026lt;\nt l!O 524 16'1 167 ifl, lt)Q 2 1 .'146 -~J~2~3-+--~2~8~1,._..,_1~,.,_.,,.'~~J ,q'-l-......::.2_ _ ~_:4L....--1, ___ , 1 l 847 152 176 1?1 11q ~.f ___ 1_3__7_ _ 1'\"\"3_9_ 2 l 18 , 3 2. - () 1 __ ~l..::..6....\n7--1l, _4 6 2 4 6 9 222 l 1 592 2 l6 ,\n_ 518 _2_l_ 41_ _ 2\n.\n..3_\n.\n.._6 .\n_.-_,\n~. .. i-- J-:~:--i-....\n2--\n-.i\n-..-.\n::2--+--4~ __ !1----=-'-1----+-....\nl'e--+--!::6..:::8~2'----l hi 153 \"I 47 1 _ 2 420 , 74 4~ 36 191 --i+-,--, ,-, -,1---_ -7-q--1-~ _...,.__7_3-.1-,- ---+---.l--1---l--1-----+----- - _______ 4_9_0--1 L :s Elffl. ' ________ 3 __ 1._---+------~ l 735 5 1- --~ 4 137 l 733 23 ' 2'J2 205 231 I 243 215 8~ O h 200 181 112 ')0 356 371 160 136 ,__ _._ l 1 1 420 l l t 569 17 12 13 14 1,023 --'------1-- 1 ---- +-aa:.3 _4--____\n_.l_ +----+-~6 72-:::7--1 4 L 2 337 ---+-----=L-----+-'-'\"-'------1\"\"\"-----r--q-,-q-t - __ ,:\n__--4 __ _ _ _ __ 4 _1...__+--=l---+-~9:--1~5:'----l 4U - 408 I 2 932 \u0026gt; I 874 .i..-~__...?.c.t-1-~ ..... -~-_\n:4.___l--_.\n,4....._-+-_9_,,__\n2...\n:2.c\n.3--1 -L 18 21,523- ' OCT 16 '92 15: 36 PUL CO SPL SCH DIST DATE: Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-4902000 FAX 490-0483 October 16, 1992 P.1/2 TO: Danny Shameer and Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat - Gazette North Pulaski Leader FROM: Arnold Smith, Arkansas State Press North Little Rock Times Jennifer Bethea, The Spectrum 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 Susie Roberts, Administrator Information/Special Services NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (including transmittal sheet) 0.. 1- 01 H 0 I u co _I (,L. ,, 0 u _J ::J 0.. j) ~ 1- u 0 I I t I I 1 ' I I I I I ' ! SG{OOL l\\.dkins Arnold Drive Rrlk,:,r 1'.c,,t-o.-- llrlvn11 ._\"\" t-n r~t-n  rn l l.o.-..o \u0026lt;::l-\n1 i Crvstal Hill Duoree Fuller Elem. u,.~~c, I ,J ville filaTI  Landmark I Lawson Oak Grove El. Oakbrooke Pine Forest I Pinewood I Robinson Elan. Scott Sherwood S.Hllls Elen. Taylor Tolleson TOTAl, ELEM. Alt. Learn.Cnt. Full\u0026amp; Jr. J'ville North J'ville South J. V hl.le Hioh Mills North Pulaski Northwood oak Grove Hiqt Rob. Jr. IHoh Rob. Sr. Hiqh S.Hills Jr. S Hills Hiah '1-nl'Af SPrl\"\"'f\\H) '1UfAL DIST_ ~-lllI \"'E BOYS GIRLS 137 125 161 149 115 93 202 167 346 292 271 23q 117 \u0026lt;)6 192 179 189 148 131 qs 160 167 323 281 152 126 137 139 191 167 261 222 198 216 243 236 157 153 74 49 193 179 327 271 165 143 220 205 4 662 4,137 14 H, 292 205 24 3 215 200 181 356 371 175 .167 349 291 371 319 373 322 161 140 160 134 355 339 ~~~ ~~ 3,363 2,99\n! ~(7\n)- ..ao~ 1--\u0026amp;,--0-z-5 _:\n.,.-0-3 9 kCPY 719.\n)- PCSSD ENROLLMENT (October 1, 1992) l3f.J\\CK HISPJ\\NIC n,w\u0026lt;:: r.T IJL\u0026lt;:: BOYS ~Tor~ 77 76 ,~a l 36 33 l'} 4 5 33 42 7S 166 14.l ~? F. 7 ~  I All c\ni\n/?,l. t:.7 A? 10'1 2 2 117 113 m..o l 1 50 54 Je\u0026gt;J\u0026gt;3/ 168 130 1~8' 107 1oq ',.jl (a 101 , \") q ~~--2 d l? I I 1 Q ~o 27 18 -'/5 49 62 II/ 53 55 ,or l 52 52 ,-OJ/. 91 101 /T~2 2 57 47 1oi/ l 31 36 t,11 43 73 II~ l 70 60 J,'1,0 2 3 58 50 10'6 l l 71 65 13~ 5 l 1.733 1-665 23 24 2~~g q 7 l'1 231 194 t~l l 83 101 18~ 5 3 112 90 :ic~.L 3 160 136 ~~i 146 133 ~~ 112 70 ~4 4 129 107 ::l3i9 l 99 116 ::,.1,S2 65 45 110 68 45 //~ 1 126 103 t~,s l 1//~2--rfl 7~ 11\u0026lt;1.\n,.,.I - ~ .568 -J:-:\n=3,,!1-5 ~ --r,a /#.St:: /\nJ\"\nj~ ~z--ff\n:\n.c\n.JP\u0026gt;/~ ~l j-\n1jl:0 -5-2- ~ g\n:f''j \u0026lt;7' 8-\u0026amp;8' ~D11 .ffd d'l-\n\\SJJ\\N/PN:.- ISL- JIM 1Nn OOYS GIRLS BOYS 3 l 1 2 2 1 2 l 5 2 1 7. l l i 4 2 3 l l 1 l l l 1 17 12 13 4 6 l l 3 10 4 2 1 l 3 l l 2 1 l 1 l 2 ,J,,,,,/ k?? xo -?-'7 -n- --5-- d!)-'/ ~/ 4- 4-- 3-9-- Ht- L.- -'II ~~ 17 /pCVJM'\") SCHOOL GIRLS TOTAL 420 390 283 680 648 1 650 326 603 9 458 524 546 1 847 518 321 469 592 518 1 682 2 420 l91 490 735 420 569 14 12.300 66 935 6S4 1 602 .l,023 627 7. 837 Q1.Q 1 915 411 408 932 (\"\"\\ 'i?\"Pf-~ -it- ..:\n. ,...,.,.._ti vi/ q _::,\n:}~ ?P ,~01 ~ 1\u0026gt; 45- ,. ~I ~. ,,. 'fi~ 3i 1~, 1 p 57 J/0 ~ i 7.,\n~ Jo 7 .. 7o 7o \u0026gt;{~ ,.,/ ~ /i\n,.o\n_'6 '\" '\" ,\n.S1  ?fa 7,.\nrt ,s\n_I., ~ fl) 7-, 70 7D J.,'61 u ,\nJl ~$ 7-\n'i/ 8 .1. 7.\n\u0026gt;,. 7b -.'/-- /7 o\n). 7 ~ .). 57, ~ ~ 7,\n) ~~ ?7, 7a .,#i\\ ~7t\u0026gt; ...'ztib -fr z,84 \nJ. i\n,a / .f\":__q_!_L~J_4 _ -- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICT 810 WESTM ARKHSATMR EET LITTLER OCKA, RKANSAS October 12, 1992 Board of Directors OCT 2 (: i ~, Office of Dese'gc.\u0026lt;g\u0026gt;a1t. o n Mon. ttoring Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools f{(#J Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity October 1 Enrollment - 1992-93 School Year Please find attached the October 1 enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. The total district enrollment reflects a decrease of 106 students. However, it should be noted that 314 LRSDs tudents are enrolled at Crystal Hill Magnet School this year. cc: Cabinet LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1991-92/1992-93 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SENIOR HIGH: 10/1/91 2152 3243 114 5509 59 10/1/92 2131 3378 123 5632 60 INCREASE/DECREASE ( 21) 135 9 123 % (. 98%) y,. 2% 7.9% 2. 2.% JUNIOR HIGH\n10/1/91 1882 4112 68 6062 68 10/1/92 191.,8 l.,138 80 6166 67 INCREASE/DECREASE 66 26 12 104 % 3.5% .63% 17.7% 1. 7% ELEMENTARY: 10/1/91 4851 9374 166 11.,, 391 65 10/1/92 4819 89% 190 11.,, 003 61., INCREASE/DECREASE ( 32) (380) 24 ( 388) % (. 66%) (4.1%) H.5% ( 2. 7%) SPECIAL SCHOOLS: 10/1/91 l,i.O 2/,i. 0 61., 38 10/1/92 1.,3 28 0 71 39 INCREASE/DECREASE 3 y, 0 7 % 7.5% 25% 10.9% DISTRICT TOTAL: 10/1/91 8925 16,753 3/,i.8 26,026 6q. 10/1/92 891.,1 16,538 393 25,872 64 INCREASE/DECREASE 16 (215) i.,5 ( 151.,) % .18% ( 1. 3%) 12.9% (. 6%) KINDERGARTEN: 10/1/91 691., 1231 18 1%3 63 10/1/92 715 1188 27 1930 61 INCREASE/DECREASE 21 ( 1.,3) 9 ( 13) % 3% ( 3. 5%) 50% (. 69%) FOUR YEAR OLD: 10/1/91 . 120 163 9 292 56 10/1/92 lq.1 288 11 31.,0 55 INCREASE/DECREASE 21 25 2 1.,8 % 17.5% 15. 3% 22% 16. 1.,% DISTRICT TOTAL WITH FOUR YEAR OLDS: 10/1/91 90q.5 16,916 357 26,318 61., 10/1/92 9082 16,726 i.,Oq. 26,212 61., INCREASE/DECREASE 37 ( 190) q. 7 (106) % .i.,1% ( 1.1%) 13% ( .!.,%) SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1992-93 GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK K 715 1188 27 1930 61 1 719 1305 21 2045 63 2 707 1323 30 2060 6 4 3 673 1185 3 4 1892 62 4 6 54 1214 23 1891 64 5 665 1295 28 1988 65 6 640 1367 27 2034 67 UN 46 117 0 163 72 TOTAL ELEM 4819 8994 190 14,003 64 7 723 1431 25 2179 66 8 611 1430 33 2074 69 9 591 1241 21 1853 67 UN 23 36 1 60 60 TOTAL JR HIGH 1948 4138 80 6166 67 10 719 1326 34 2079 6 I,. 11 704 1098 48 1850 59 12 700 939 41 1680 56 UN 8 15 0 23 65 TOTAL SR HIGH 2131 3378 123 5632 60 SPECIAL SCHOOLS 43 28 0 71 39 FOUR YR. OLD 141 188 11 340 55 DISTRICT TOTAL 9082 16,726 401,. 26,212 64 *SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH - 135 ESKIMO/AMER . .::ND. - 22 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 227 OTHER - 20 LI'rTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1992-93 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 279 467 15 761 61. 37% 11 262 391 28 681 57.42% 12 220 275 13 508 54.13% SUBTOTAL 761 1133 56 1950 58.10% KIND. 0 49 0 49 100.00% TOTAL 761 1182 56 1999 59.13% FAIR UNGRADED 8 15 0 23 65.22% 10 97 195 5 297 65.66% 11 112 205 5 322 63.66% 12 93 147 4 244 60.25% SUBTOTAL 310 562 14 886 63.43% KIND. 1 18 0 19 94.74% TOTAL 311 580 14 905 64.09% HALL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 110 207 6 323 64.09% 11 126 168 8 302 55.63% 12 154 185 12 351 52.71% SUBTOTAL 390 560 26 976 57.38% KIND. 10 8 0 18 44.44% TOTAL 400 568 26 994 57.14% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 10 105 277 5 387 71.58% 11 91 183 3 277 66.06% 12 116 178 8 302 58.94% SUBTOTAL 312 638 16 966 66.05% KIND. 1 18 0 19 94.74% TOTAL 313 656 16 985 66.60% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 128 180 3 311 57.88% 11 113 151 4 268 56.34% 12 117 154 4 275 56.00% SUBTOTAL 358 485 11 854 56.79% KIND. 1 16 0 17 94.12% TOTAL 359 501 11 871 57.52% Page - 1 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 7 78 210 3 291 72.16% 8 58 180 6 244 73.77% 9 56 181 3 240 75.42% TOTAL 192 571 12 775 73.68% DUNBAR UNGRADED 7 87 136 4 227 59.91% 8 94 145 6 245 59.18% 9 102 129 2 233 55.36% TOTAL 283 410 12 705 58.16% FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 6 5 0 11 45.45% 7 66 195 3 264 73.86% 8 78 199 6 283 70.32% 9 70 155 4 229 67.69% TOTAL 220 554 13 787 70.39% HENDERSON UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 7 99 228 4 331 68.88% 8 46 259 4 309 83.82% 9 70 198 6 274 72.26% TOTAL 215 685 14 914 74.95% MABELVALE UNGRADED 13 6 1 20 30.00% 7 80 151 2 233 64.81% 8 74 151 0 225 67.11% 9 59 130 0 189 68.78% TOTAL 226 438 3 667 65.67% MANN UNGRADED 7 128 178 5 311 57.23% 8 118 160 6 284 56.34% 9 81 167 6 254 65.75% TOTAL 327 505 17 849 59.48% PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 3 12 0 15 80.00% 7 129 136 2 267 50.94% 8 96 167 1 264 63.26% 9 91 137 0 228 60.09% TOTAL 319 452 3 774 \"58.40% Page - 2 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SOUTHWEST UNGRADED 1 13 0 14 92.86% 7 56 197 2 255 77.25% 8 47 169 4 220 76.82% 9 62 144 0 206 69.90% TOTAL 166 523 6 695 75.25% BADGETT UNGRADED 1 6 0 7 85.71% 1 5 19 0 24 79.17% 2 9 13 0 22 59.09% 3 3 18 0 21 85.71% 4 5 16 0 21 76.19% 5 4 31 0 35 88.57% 6 7 29 0 36 80.56% SUBTOTAL 34 132 0 166 79.52% KIND. 7 12 0 19 63.16% FOUR YR OLD 7 10 0 17 58.82% TOTAL 48 154 () 202 76.24% BALE UNGRADED 7 5 0 12 41.67% 1 6 29 1 36 80.56% 2 4 25 1 30 83.33% 3 5 29 1 35 82.86% 4 6 29 1 36 80.56% 5 7 45 2 54 83.33% 6 8 40 3 51 78.43% SUBTOTAL 43 202 9 254 79.53% KIND. 10 37 2 49 75.51% FOUR YR OLD 9 9 0 18 50.00% TOTAL 62 248 11 321 77.26% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 15 45 0 60 75.00% 2 15 40 1 56 71.43% 3 9 31 0 40 77.50% 4 7 43 0 50 86.00% 5 8 28 2 38 73.68% 6 5 30 0 35 85.71% SUBTOTAL 59 217 3 279 77.78% KIND. 15 45 0 60 75.00% TOTAL 74 262 3 339 77.29% Page - 3 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK BOOKER UNGRADED 1 39 47 0 86 54.65% 2 36 50 1 87 57.47% 3 38 50 1 89 56.18% 4 40 53 3 96 55.21% 5 39 51 0 90 56.67% 6 43 54 2 99 54.55% SUBTOTAL 235 305 7 547 55.76% KIND. 34 40 0 74 54.05% TOTAL 269 345 7 621 55.56% BRADY UNGRADED 1 5 0 6 83.33% 1 20 34 3 57 59.65% 2 17 44 1 62 70.97% 3 15 44 2 61 72.13% 4 10 34 0 44 77.27% 5 16 38 1 55 69.09% 6 7 46 2 55 83.64% SUBTOTAL 86 245 9 340 72.06% KIND. 25 30 3 58 51.72% TOTAL 111 275 12 398 69.10% CARVER UNGRADED 1 31 39 0 70 55.71% 2 34 50 2 86 58.14% 3 41 48 0 89 53.93% 4 42 51 3 96 53.13% 5 44 55 0 99 55.56% 6 43 53 2 98 54.08% SUBTOTAL 235 296 7 538 55.02% KIND. 27 33 0 60 55.00% TOTAL 262 329 7 598 55.03% CHICOT UNGRADED 7 10 0 17 58.82% 1 27 59 0 86 68.60% 2 31 57 1 89 64.04% 3 23 43 3 69 62.32% 4 21 41 2 64 64.06% 5 19 40 1 60 66.67% 6 26 46 1 73 63.01% SUBTOTAL 154 296 8 458 64.63% KIND. 23 54 0 77 70.13% TOTAL 177 350 8 535 65.42% Page - 4 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 1 7 39 0 46 84.78% 2 9 37 2 48 77.08% 3 9 35 0 44 79.55% 4 7 46 1 54 85.19% 5 10 44 0 54 81.48% 6 7 43 0 50 86.00% SUBTOTAL 49 244 3 296 82.43% KIND. 15 38 0 53 71. 70% FOUR YR OLD 7 9 1 17 52.94% TOTAL 71 291 4 366 79.51% DODD UNGRADED 5 5 0 10 50.00% 1 18 20 0 38 52.63% 2 14 27 0 41 65.85% 3 18 24 0 42 57.14% 4 16 22 0 38 57.89% 5 14 36 0 50 72.00% 6 16 30 0 46 65.22% SUBTOTAL 101 164 0 265 61.89% KIND. 20 19 0 39 48.72% 121 183 0 304 60.20% FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1 10 34 0 44 77.27% 2 7 29 0 36 80.56% 3 6 25 1 32 78.13% 4 3 29 0 32 90.63% 5 9 26 0 35 74.29% 6 4 23 0 27 85.19% SUBTOTAL 39 166 1 206 80.58% KIND. 10 26 1 37 70.27% TOTAL 49 192 2 243 79.01% FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 38 35 0 73 47.95% 2 45 25 1 71 35.21% 3 35 13 1 49 26.53% 4 31 21 1 53 39.62% 5 39 45 0 84 53.57% 6 23 31 0 54 57.41% SUBTOTAL 211 170 3 384 44.27% KIND. 31 28 1 60 46.67% TOTAL 242 198 4 444 44.59% Page - 5 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK FRANKLIN UNGRADED 1 9 0 10 90.00% 1 7 67 1 75 89.33% 2 5 45 0 50 90.00% 3 2 48 0 50 96.00% 4 4 45 0 49 91.84% 5 0 26 1 27 96.30% 6 2 47 4 53 88.68% SUBTOTAL 21 287 6 314 91. 40% KIND. 5 38 0 43 88.37% FOUR YR OLD 24 27 3 54 50.00% TOTAL 50 352 9 411 85.64% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED 5 2 0 7 28.57% 1 35 25 1 61 40.98% 2 41 31 2 74 41.89% 3 48 38 2 88 43.18% 4 49 27 2 78 34.62% 5 41 39 1 81 48.15% 6 42 39 1 82 47.56% SUBTOTAL 261 201 9 471 42.68% KIND. 35 24 0 59 40.68% TOTAL 296 225 9 530 42.45% GARLAND UNGRADED 3 10 0 13 76.92% 1 2 37 0 39 94.87% 2 1 29 1 31 93.55% 3 2 29 0 31 93.55% 4 0 35 0 35 100.00% 5 2 26 2 30 86.67% 6 1 32 2 35 91.43% SUBTOTAL 11 198 5 214 92.52% KIND. 3 26 1 30 86.67% FOUR YR OLD 3 9 0 12 75.00% TOTAL 17 233 6 256 91.02% GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 0 3 0 3 100.00% 1 14 27 0 41 65.85% 2 20 25 0 45 55.56% 3 14 27 0 41 65.85% 4 5 19 0 24 79.17% 5 9 16 0 25 64.00% 6 16 30 0 46 65.22% SUBTOTAL 78 147 0 225 65.33% KIND. 18 21 39 53.85% FOUR YR OLD 9 9 0 18 50.00% TOTAL 105 177 0 282 62.77% Page - 6 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK GIBBS UNGRADED 1 17 25 1 43 58.14% 2 19 26 0 45 57.78% 3 20 24 1 45 53.33% 4 20 26 2 48 54.17% 5 19 28 3 50 56.00% 6 26 39 2 67 58.21% SUBTOTAL 121 168 9 298 56.38% KIND. 13 23 2 38 60.53% TOTAL 134 191 11 336 56.85% ISH UNGRADED 0 5 0 5 100.00% 1 0 15 0 15 100.00% 2 0 31 0 31 100.00% 3 2 24 0 26 92.31% 4 0 18 0 18 100.00% 5 0 23 0 23 100.00% 6 0 32 0 32 100.00% SUBTOTAL 2 148 0 150 98.67% KIND. 0 25 0 25 100.00% FOUR YEAR OL 3 9 0 12 75.00% TOTAL 5 182 0 187 97.33% JEFFERSON UNGRADED 4 3 0 7 42.86% 1 35 26 0 61 42.62% 2 42 32 1 75 42.67% 3 35 31 3 69 44.93% 4 36 32 1 69 46.38% 5 39 25 1 65 38.46% 6 41 36 0 77 46.75% SUBTOTAL 232 185 6 423 43.74% KIND. 41 19 0 60 31. 67% TOTAL 273 204 6 483 42.24% MABELVALE UNGRADED 3 7 0 10 70.00% 1 30 41 1 72 56.94% 2 34 39 1 74 52.70% 3 28 42 0 70 60.00% 4 29 35 1 65 53.85% 5 37 39 0 76 51.32% 6 31 42 0 73 57.53% SUBTOTAL 192 245 3 440 55.68% KIND. 27 33 0 60 55.00% TOTAL 219 278 3 500 55.60% Page - 7 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK MCDERMOTT UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 ERR 1 32 39 0 71 54.93% 2 27 39 3 69 56.52% 3 36 35 3 74 47.30% 4 36 40 1 77 51. 95% 5 26 48 4 78 61. 54% 6 32 46 2 80 57.50% SUBTOTAL 189 247 13 449 55.01% KIND. 31 28 1 60 46.67% TOTAL 220 275 14 509 54.03% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 24 47 0 71 66.20% 2 25 46 0 71 64.79% 3 27 38 0 65 58.46% 4 14 47 0 61 77.05% 5 24 41 1 66 62.12% 6 14 32 0 46 69.57% SUBTOTAL 128 251 1 380 66.05% KIND. 19 41 0 60 68.33% TOTAL 147 292 1 440 66.36% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 8 0 9 88.89% 1 7 29 2 38 76.32% 2 2 43 1 46 93.48% 3 2 33 0 35 94.29% 4 5 29 1 35 82.86% 5 4 36 0 40 90.00% 6 0 22 0 22 100.00% SUBTOTAL 21 200 4 225 88.89% KIND. 2 23 0 25 92.00% FOUR YEAR OL 5 9 0 14 64.29% TOTAL 28 232 4 264 87.88% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 25 23 2 50 46.00% 2 34 23 0 57 40.35% 3 34 13 1 48 27.08% 4 32 20 1 53 37.74% 5 28 23 0 51 45.10% 6 28 26 0 54 48.15% SUBTOTAL 181 128 4 313 40.89% KIND. 22 15 3 40 37.50% TOTAL 203 143 7 353 40.51% Page - 8 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TO'rAL %BLACK PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 26 23 0 49 46.94% 2 32 31 2 65 47.69% 3 25 21 1 47 44.68% 4 25 29 1 55 52.73% 5 16 34 1 51 66.67% 6 19 34 0 53 64.15% SUBTOTAL 143 172 5 320 53.75% KIND. 30 26 3 59 44.07% TOTAL 173 198 8 379 52.24% RIGHTSELL UNGRADED 1 1 35 0 36 97.22% 2 0 34 0 34 100.00% 3 0 29 0 29 100.00% 4 0 38 1 39 97.44% 5 0 33 0 33 100.00% 6 0 38 0 38 100.00% SUBTOTAL 1 -207 1 209 99.04% KIND. 2 23 0 25 92.00% FOUR YEAR OL 6 9 0 15 60.00% TOTAL 9 239 1 249 95.98% ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 23 37 1 61 60.66% 2 11 39 1 51 76.47% 3 6 25 2 33 75.76% 4 8 31 0 39 79.49% 5 4 35 0 39 89.74% 6 5 30 0 35 85.71% SUBTOTAL 57 197 4 258 76.36% KIND. 25 28 1 54 51. 85% FOUR YEAR OL 22 25 2 49 51.02% TOTAL 104 250 7 361 69.25% ROMINE UNGRADED 2 13 0 15 86.67% 1 13 43 0 56 76.79% 2 5 40 0 45 88.89% 3 2 42 2 46 91.30% 4 10 40 1 51 78.43% 5 9 28 1 38 73.68% 6 10 28 1 39 71.79% SUBTOTAL 51 234 5 290 80.69% KIND. 19 34 1 54 62.96% FOUR YEAR OL 4 9 4 17 52.94% TOTAL 74 277 10 361 76.73% Page - 9 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK STEPHENS UNGRADED 0 6 0 6 100.00% 1 2 30 0 32 93.75% 2 1 33 0 34 97.06% 3 0 34 0 34 100.00% 4 0 20 0 20 100.00% 5 0 16 0 16 100.00% 6 0 32 0 32 100.00% SUBTOTAL 3 171 0 174 98.28% KIND. 1 23 0 24 95.83% FOUR YEAR OL 3 8 0 11 72.73% TOTAL 7 202 0 209 96.65% TERRY UNGRADED 1 42 25 2 69 36.23% 2 41 30 4 75 40.00% 3 41 30 4 75 40.00% 4 43 36 0 79 45.57% 5 37 43 3 83 51.81% 6 37 43 2 82 52.44% SUBTOTAL 241 207 15 463 44.71% KIND. 45 31 2 78 39.74% TOTAL 286 238 17 5.41 43.99% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 20 54 1 75 72.00% 2 15 55 1 71 77.46% 3 23 41 2 66 62.12% 4 30 46 0 76 60.53% 5 24 46 0 70 65.71% 6 18 63 1 82 76.83% SUBTOTAL 130 305 5 440 69.32% KIND. 17 42 1 60 70.00% TOTAL 147 347 6 500 69.40% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 2 1 0 3 33.33% 1 53 77 1 131 58.78% 2 47 97 1 145 66.90% 3 44 62 2 108 57.41% 4 40 56 0 96 58.33% 5 50 67 0 117 57.26% 6 40 55 0 95 57.89% SUBTOTAL 276 415 4 695 59.71% KIND. 38 50 3 91 54.95% FOUR YR OLD 18 18 0 36 50.00% TOTAL 332 483 7 822 58.76% Page - 10 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WATSON UNGRADED 1 18 54 1 73 73.97% 2 15 53 0 68 77.94% 3 11 41 0 52 78.85% 4 15 33 0 48 68.75% 5 18 54 0 72 75.00% 6 14 49 0 63 77.78% SUBTOAL 91 284 1 376 75.53% KIND. 20 37 1 58 63.79% FOUR YR OLD 6 11 0 17 64.71% TOTAL 117 332 2 451 73.61% WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 21 28 0 49 57.14% 2 19 26 0 45 57.78% 3 14 34 1 49 69.39% 4 18 30 0 48 62.50% 5 19 32 1 52 61. 54% 6 17 35 0 52 67.31% SUBTOTAL 108 185 2 295 62.71% KIND. 16 24 0 40 60.00% TOTAL 124 209 2 335 62.39% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 29 36 3 68 52.94% 2 27 39 2 68 57.35% 3 29 37 1 67 55.22% 4 31 41 0 72 56.94% 5 32 38 2 72 52.78% 6 42 52 1 95 54.74% SUBTOTAL 190 243 9 442 54.98% KIND. 28 32 0 60 53.33% TOTAL 218 -275 9 502 54.78% WILSON UNGRADED 4 19 0 23 82.61% 1 13 34 0 47 72.34% 2 11 29 0 40 72.50% 3 18 35 0 53 66.04% 4 7 40 0 47 85.11% 5 5 36 0 41 87.80% 6 7 40 0 47 85.11% SUBTOTAL 65 233 0 298 78.19% KIND. 17 23 0 40 57.50% FOUR YR OLD 8 9 0 17 52.94% TOTAL 90 265 0 355 74.65% Page - 11 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WOODRUFF UNGRADED 1 14 28 0 42 66.67% 2 12 11 0 23 47.83% 3 8 12 0 20 60.00% 4 9 16 0 25 64.00% 5 13 24 1 38 63.16% 6 9 20 1 30 66.67% SUBTOTAL 65 111 2 178 62.36% KIND. 11 28 1 40 70. \u0026lt;)0% FOUR YR OLD 7 8 1 16 50.00% TOTAL 83 147 4 234 62.82% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED 9 6 0 15 40.00% TOTAL 9 6 0 15 40.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED 30 16 0 46 34.78% TOTAL 30 16 0 46 34.78% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED 4 6 0 10 60.00% TOTAL 4 6 0 10 60.00% Page - 12 OCT 2 1 19Y2 OCTOBER 1st REPORTS 1992-93 Office of DesegregatioMn onitoring CONTENTS N.L.R.S.D. Enrollment, Excluding Kindergarten N.L.R.S.D. Enrollment, Including Kindergarten Group School Transfers Magnet Transfers Majority to Minority Transfers to L.R.S.D. Majority to Minority Transfers from L.R.S.D. Oak Grove Transfers to P.C.S.S.D. Oak Grove Transfers from P.C.S.S.D. Scott Student Transfers School Choice Transfers to P.C.S.S.D. School Choice Transfers from P.C.S.S.D. Teachers' Student Transfers Under Act 624 ., .. School Alternative ( 3 - 6) Amboy Baring Cross (K - 6) Belwood Boone Park Central Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive - Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Redwood Rose City Seventh Street Total Elem. Alternative (7 - 11) Baring Cross ( 7 - 12) Lakewood Md. Ridgeroad Md. Rose City Md. NLRHS-East NLRHS-West Total Sec. Dist. Total: ! - 1992/93 Approved% Range for Black Enrollment Elem.: 37.9 - 63.1 Middle: 35.9 - 59.8 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS Excluding Kindergarten October 1, 1992 Enrollment Black % Non-Black % 19 13 68.4 6 31. 6 331 159 48.0 172 52.0 14 5 35.7 9 64.3 150 64 42.7 86 57.3 403 239 59.3 164. 40.7 430 227 52.8 203 47.2 210 91 43.3 119 56.7 201 112 55.7 89 44.3 386 180 46.6 206 53.4 244 126 51. 6 118 48.4 186 76 40.9 110 59.1 218 113 51.8 105 48.2 337 175 51. 9 162 48.1 178 88 49.4 90 50.6 371 191 51.5 180 48.5 202 112 55.4 90 44.6 215 117 54.4 98 45.6 315 141 44.8 174 55.2 4,410 2,229 50.5% 2,181 49. 5~ .. 30 23 76.7 7 23.3 31 22 71.0 9 29.0 545 248 45.5 297 54.5 578 266 46.0 312 54.0 408 207 50.7 201 49.3 1,339 602 45.0 737 55.0 1,204 524 43.5 680 56.5 4,135 1,892 45.8% 2,243 54.2% 8,545 4,121 48.2% 4,424 51.8% 1992/93 Approved% Range for Black Enrollment NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS Including Kindergarten October 1, 1992 Elem.: 37.9 - 63.1 Middle: 35.9 - 59.8 School Alternative Enrollment Black 14 172 % 70.0 44.1 35.7 Non-Black % (K - 6) Amboy Baring Cross (K - 6) Belwood Boone Park Central Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Redwood Rose City Seventh Street 20 390 14 171 480 496 241 230 447 277 210 243 403 210 429 238 254 363 Total Elem. 5,116 Alternative 30 (7 - 11) Baring Cross 31 (7 - 12) Lakewood Md. 545 Ridgeroad Md. 578 Rose City Md. 408 NLRHS-East 1,339 NLRHS-West 1,204 Total Sec. 4,135 Dist. Total: 9,251 5 71 295 279 105 131 200 141 85 124 193 94 209 142 137 177 2,574 23 22 248 266 207 602 524 1,892 4,466 41.5 61. 5 56.3 43.6 57.0 44.7 50.9 40.5 51.0 47.9 44.8 48.7 59.7 53.9 48.8 6 218 9 100 185 217 136 99 247 136 125 119 210 116 220 96 117 186 50.3% 2,542 76.7 7 71.0 9 45.5 297 46.0 312 50.7 201 45.0 737 43.5 680 45.8% 2,243 48.3% 4,785 30.0 55.9 64.3 58.5 38.5 43.8 56.4 43.0 55.3 4 9 .1 59.5 49.0 52.1 55.2 51. 3 40.3 46.1 51.2 49.7% 23.3 29.0 54.5 54.0 49.3 55.0 56. 5 ., 54.2% 51.7% NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Grouped School Transfers 1992-93 Non-black Black AMBOY ELEM. TO SEVENTH STREET ELEM. BELWOOD ELEM. TO CENTRAL ELEM. BOONE PARK ELEM. TO AMBOY ELEM. BOONE PARK ELEM. TO PARK HILL ELEM. CENTRAL ELEM. TO BELWOOD ELEM. CENTRAL ELEM. TO CRESTWOOD ELEM. CENTRAL.ELEM. TO LAKEWOOD ELEM. CENTRAL ELEM. TO PIKE VIEW ELEM. CRESTWOOD ELEM. TO CENTRAL ELEM. INDIAN HILLS ELEM. TO SEVENTH STREET LAKEWOOD ELEM. TO CENTRAL ELEM. PARK HILL ELEM. TO GLENVIEW ELEM. PIKE VIEW ELEM. TO CENTRAL ELEM. REDWOOD ELEM. TO NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM. ROSE CITY ELEM. TO MEADOW PARK ELEM. Total: 10/01/92 48 2 3 ELEM. 93 18 1 4 5 174 5 8 1 1 3 4 1 23 ELEMENTARY SECONDARY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL October 1, 1992 Non-Black Black Booker 55 48 Carver 60 46 Gibbs 23 30 Williams 41 24 Total: 179 148 Mann Arts 38 50 Mann Science 24 25 Parkview Arts 27 32 Parkview Science 8 14 Total: 97 121 Magnet Total: 276 269 Total 103 106 53 65 327 88 49 59 22 218 545 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY TRANSFER PROGRAM TO LITTLE ROCK October 1, 1992 ELEMENTARY Brady Chicot Geyer Springs McDermott Rockefeller Stephens Terry Washington Wilson Woodruff Total: SECONDARY 1 2 3 2 5 1 2 64 3 9 92 Cloverdale 1 Dunbar (M to M Magnet) 8 Henderson 1 Pulaski Heights 6 Central Central Hall J. A. Fair McClellan (M to M) (M to M Magnet) Total: Total M to M Transfers: 22 7 2 2 3 52 143 E\nLEMENTARY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY TRANSFER PROGRAM Black Students from Little Rock School District October 1, 1992 SCHOOLS Alternative Education 1 Amboy 10 Belwood 2 Boone Park 3 Central 7 Crestwood 16 Glenveiw 4 Indian Hills 24 Lakewood 32 Lynch Drive 4 Meadow Park 3 North Heights 9 Park Hill 4 Pike View 6 Redwood 10 Rose City 0 Seventh Street 3 Total: 138 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Alternative Education 0 Baring Cross 0 Lakewood 43 Ridge road 8 Rose City 8 Total: 59 HIGH SCHOOLS Alternative Education 0 Baring Cross 3 East Campus 43 West Campus 52 Total: 98 Total M to M Transfers: 295 - .... . ,, - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT N.L.R. STUDENTS TO OAK GROVE 1992-93 RACE: Black GRADE NUMBER OF STUDENTS 7 1 8 8 9 10 10 13 11 10 12 15 TOTAL: 57 10-01-92 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OAK GROVE STUDENTS TO N.L.R.S.D. 1992-93 RACE: White 10/01/92 GRADE 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL: NUMBER OF STUDENTS 1 0 1 2 3 7 Rose City Middle School North - Total: GRADE 7 8 Little Rock High GRADE 9 10 Total: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE SCOTT STUDENTS October 1, 1992 # OF STUDENTS 6 12 18 School - East Campus # OF STUDENTS 5 3 8 Black Non-Black 2 4 4 8 6 12 Black Non-Black 0 5 1 2 1 7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Choice to Pulaski County Special School District October 1, 1992 Race: Black GRADE NUMBER OF STUDENTS 11 1 Total: 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE SCHOOL CHOICE TRANSFERS 1992-93 October 1, 1992 School Non-Black Amboy Elementary 2 Baring Cross (K-6) 1 Belwood Elementary 0 Boone Park Elementary 0 Central Elementary 3 Crestwood Elementary 4 Glenview Elementary O Indian Hills Elementary 10 Lakewood Elementary O Lynch Drive Elementary 0 Meadow Park Elementary 0 North Heights Elementary 3 Park Hill Elementary 0 Pike View Elementary 3 Redwood Elementary O Rose City Elementary 1 Seventh Street Elementary 3 Alternative Education Baring Cross (7-12) Lakewood Middle Ridgeroad Middle Rose City Middle NLRHS-East Campus NLRHS-West Campus Total: (7-12) 0 .o 13 2 1 20 15 81 Black NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHER TRANSFER ACT 624 October 1, 1992 STUDENTS OF LITTLE ROCK RESIDENT CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total: 10 Non-Black 5 Black 5 ________________________________ (010) STUDENTS OF PULASKI COUNTY RESIDENT CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL. IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total: 28 Non-Black 21 Black 7 ________________________________ (011) STUDENTS OF BRYANT RESIDENT CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total: 1 Non-Black 1 Black 0 ________________________________ (012) -STUDENTS OF CONWAY RESIDENT CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total: 1 Non-Black 1 Black 0 __________________________________ (013) STUDENTS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESIDENT CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK ZONE WHERE THEY TEACH Total: 14 Non-Black 12 Black 2 ________________________________ (014) STUDENTS OF PULASKI COUNTY RESIDENT CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total: 3 Non-Black 3 Black 0 _______________________________ (021) STUDENTS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESIDENT CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES ATTENDING SCHOOL IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK ZONE WHERE THEY WORK Total: 11 Non-Black 5 Black 6 ~-:~ ____________________________ (024) GRAND TOTAL: 68 Non-Black 48 Black 20 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-050 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 59 21 25 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 58 18 18 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 24 6 16 14 0 o 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 61 19 13 11 18 0 .. o 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 53 12 12 12 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 50 11 10 11 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 49 15 11 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 390 120 95 84 88 1 2 0 0 0 0 ALS 55.1% 44 .1% .8% .0% . 0% CHOICE 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-053 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 21 8 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 25 6 9 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 26 7 5 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 20 3 11 2 3 0 . .0 0 0 1 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 7 10 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 24 7 6 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 26 4 8 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 171 42 55 30 41 2 0 0 0 1 0 ALS 56.7% 41.5% 1.2% .0% .6% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-054 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F J 30 5 4 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 77 11 9 34 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 64 15 12 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 71 24 12 17 17 1 . -0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 56 9 5 23 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 61 12 10 21 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 58 11 11 11 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c.\n63 13 16 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 480 100 79 155 140 4 2 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 37.3% 61.5% 1.3% .0% . 0% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-059 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGN~..ENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CENTRAL ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F J 9 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 66 7 7 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PK 19 1 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 58 14 11 19 14 0 - -0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 68 12 13 22 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 68 21 20 14 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 83 21 18 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 clrci 65 20 9 17 17 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 60 17 14 16 9 1 0 1 2 0 0 CHOICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 496 113 92 148 131 6 2 2 2 0 0 TOTALS 41.3% 56.3% 1.6% .8% .0% CHOICE 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-055 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 31 7 10 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 33 15 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 44 15 7 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 5 6 5 6 0 .-0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 34 11 5 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 41 10 14 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 36 8 13 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 241 71 64 52 53 0 0 0 0 0 1 TALS 56.0% 43.6% .0% . 0% .4% CHOICE 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-056 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 29 4 6 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 35 5 10 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 34 7 8 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 35 10 7 7 11 0 .-0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 34 7 7 8 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 34 5 9 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 29 7 5 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eOOL 230 45 52 62 69 0 1 0 1 0 0 TALS 42.2% 57.0% .4% .4% .0% CHOICE 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-057 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEM. - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 61 16 25 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 64 17 14 15 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 9 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 62 14 18 13 17 0 . -0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 63 21 14 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 71 26 16 16 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 CHOICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 66 24 18 10 . 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 447 127 119 103 97 0 0 0 1 0 0 ALS 55.0% 44.7% .0% . 2% .0% CHOICE 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-058 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 33 11 7 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 44 6 17 12 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 44 5 15 10 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 45 11 4 13 17 0 .-0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 39 13 4 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 29 7 8 5 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 43 15 10 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 277 68 65 64 77 1 0 1 1 0 0 ALS 48.0% 50.9% .4% .7% .0% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-060 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 24 7 8 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 34 12 9 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 33 12 10 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 24 11 4 3 6 0 .0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 31 8 9 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 35 10 6 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 29 8 9 4 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  .OOL 210 68 55 39 46 1 0 1 0 0 0 ALS 58.6% 40.5% .5% .5% .0% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-061 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOWP ARK ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 25 11 3 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 32 7 15 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 45 9 9 9 18 0 o 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 32 6 8 11 7 0 .-0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 31 11 6 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 44 11 9 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 34 8 6 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 243 63 56 60 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALS 49.0% 51.0% .0% .0% . 0% CHOICE 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-063 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM. - GRADE SPAN: K-06 'WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 66 19 27 11 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 16 6 9 17 1 1 1 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 65 22 8 17 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 63 14 15 20 13 0 - -1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 61 16 12 17 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 50 13 9 13 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 47 8 12 10 15 0 1 0 1 0 0 CHOICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 403 108 89 97 96 3 8 1 1 0 0 TALS 48.9% 47.9% 2.7% .5% .0% CHOICE 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA 160-02-064 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-06 - WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 32\" 14 12 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 12 12 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 24 5 4 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 37 8 7 12 10 0 .0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 28 9 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 22 3 5 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 29 8 11 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 210 59 57 48 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALS 55.2% 44.8% . 0% .0% . 0% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-065 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 58 17 23 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 71 18 8 19 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 57 20 14 11 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 68 13 14 14 26 0 -1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 65 13 18 21 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 56 17 9 12 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 54 17 15 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 429 115 101 95 114 1 3 0 0 0 0 TALS 50.3% 48.7% .9% .0% .0% CHOICE 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-067 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOODE LEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 36. 4 2 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 5 9 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 34 5 15 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 35 8 3 12 11 0 .1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 30 5 7 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 32 11 4 9 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 33 7 8 3 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - OOL 238 45 48 58 84 1 1 0 0 1 0 ALS 39.1% 59.7% ~8% .0% .4% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-068 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY ELEMENTARY - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 39 8 11 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 33 10 7 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 38 13 3 13 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 36 6 9 12 9 0 .0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 43 12 10 11 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 39 7 6 15 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 26 9 4 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 254 65 50 73 64 1 1 0 0 0 0 ALS 45.3% 53.9% .8% .0% .0% CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-069 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F K 48 5 7 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 36 8 5 11 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 74 12 20 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 44 19 8 9 8 0 . -0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 57 21 16 11 9 0 0 .o 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 47 12 13 12 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 57 17 21 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  OOL 363 94 90 91 86 1 0 0 1 0 0 TALS 50.7% 48.8% . 3% .3% .0% CHOICE 9 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELEMENTARY WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M F M F M F M F M F ELEM 5127 1314 1174 1278 1304 22 20 5 7 2 1 clicE 48.5% 50.4% .8% .2% .1% 33 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-076 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS - GRADE SPAN: 11-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 10 19 4 1 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 607 185 142 138 135 0 4 0 2 0 1 CHOICE 9 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 578. 164 169 101 136 2 2 3 1 0 0 CHOICE 7 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 1204 353 312 248 276 2 .. 6 3 3 0 1 TOTALS 55.2% 43.5% .7% .5% .1% CHOICE 16 6 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-070 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD - GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 07 259 79 60 62 56 1 0 0 0 0 1 CHOICE 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 284 71 83 64 65 0 0 1 0 0 0 CHOICE 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 545 151 143 127 121 1 _.o 1 0 0 1 TOTALS 53.9% 45.5% .2% .2% .2% CHOICE 13 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-075 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS - GRADE SPAN: 09-10 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 09 700 183 179 170 159 2 5 1 1 0 0 CHOICE 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 639 187 174 137 136 1 0 1 3 0 0 CHOICE 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 1339 370 353 307 295 3 5 2 4 0 0 TOTALS 54.0% 45.0% .6% .4% .0% CHOICE 19 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-072 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD - GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 07 288 79 58 83 65 0 2 0 0 1 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 290 94 72 73 45 3 1 1 0 1 0 CHOICE 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 578 173 130 156 110 3 3 1 0 2 0 TOTALS 52.4% 46.0% 1.0% .2% .3% CHOICE 2 0 2 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-077 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY - GRADE SPAN: 07-08 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 07 201 48 49 60 41 1 2 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 205 43 55 51 54 2 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL 408 92 104 112 95 3 - .2 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 48.0% 50. 7% 1.2% .0% .0% CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEA #60-02- COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K CHOICE 01 CHOICE 03 CHOICE 04 CHOICE 05 CHOICE 06 CHOICE 07 CHOICE  OOL ALS CHOICE 1 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 9 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE CENTER GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE M F 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BLACK M F 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT M F 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02- OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: - GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 07 ..-4-\"S 1 0 1 __..2/. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 11 2 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL ~30 7 0 15 ..::,--'? 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 24 .1% .J..S-r9-%'\" .0% .0% .0% CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.G7~ - PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-078 OCTOBER 1, 1992 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BARING CROSS CENTER - GRADE SPAN: K-06 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F 01 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,\n'/,r, ) CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C 02 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g/\\ 04 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g ~~~ 05 4 1 3 0 0 0 _.o 0 0 0 0 ? CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (.,4 1 06 ,~] 2~\ng 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ffi CHOICE ~o JO 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 5 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 08 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca! 7 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~/ CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~d' t'IJ 12 12 1 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHOICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111t\u0026gt; ? 45 1l-1 ~ SCHOOL 7 19 8 0 o 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% .0% CHOICE 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ~ SECONDARY WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M F M F M F M F M F SEC 4124 1152 1042 979 905 12 16 7 7 2 2 - 53.2% 45.7% .7% .3% .1% CHOICE 51 22 27 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - DISTRICT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT TOTALS M F M F M F M F M F 9251 2466 2216 2257 2209 34 36 12 14 4 3 C.E 50.6% 48.3% .8% .3% .1% 84 39 43 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - SCHOOL District 4 YEAR E.OLLM.ENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTASR E IDENTIFIEDA S Bl.A.CIACN DN ON-BLACIC INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1~: EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 4,218 1989-90 I Black I 4,061 White I 5,208 I White I 5,317 I Other I I I I Other I I Total I 9,426 I% Blk I 44.7 I . I Total I 9,378 I% Blk I 43.3 1990-91 I Black I 4 279 I 1990-91 I Black I 3,899 ! White I L,. Ql o:\nI White I I ! 4,507 i ! Other I Total I 9,194 I I I% Blk I 46.5 1991-92 I Black I 4,346 I I White I 4,918 I I Other I I Total I 9.264 l I% Blk I li6 g I i : Other i I ! Total I ! 8,406 I% Blk i I ! 46.4 I 1991-92 ! Black i I 4.022 ! White I l,. o:\nt,.1 I Other I I Total I 8,s6s % Blk I 47.0 1992-93 I Black I 4.466 1992-93 Black I 4,121 I White I ~.Z85 I I I Other I White I 4,424 I Other I I Total g. 2'l 1 I% Blk 48.3 I Total 18,545 I% Blk- I 48.2 5c - - --- -~-- ----- (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL District (Elementary) 4 YEAR EIOLLM.ENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTAS RE IDENTIFIEDA S BLACIACN DN ON-BLACIC INCLUDINGIC INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINIGC INDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 2,496 1989-90 Black I 2,271 White I 2. 716 I I Other I White I I 2,644 I Other I I Total I s,212 I Total I 4. 915 I% Blk l 47.9 % Blk I I 46.2 1990-91 / Black I 2,s2s I I I 2 604 ! White i I ! Other I Total I s. 129 I I I I% Blk I 49.2 1990-91 I Black I 2,145 ' I I White i 2,196 Other ! I I Total l\n4,341 % Blk i ! 49.4 1991-92 I Black I 2,509 ! White 12.574 I Other I I Total 5,083 I I o/oB lk I 49.4 I 1991-92 ! Black i\n2,185 ! White 12.199 ! Other I I I I Total 14,384 I o/o Blk I 49.8 1992-93 I Black 12,574 I White 12,542 I I I Other I ! Total 5,116 I% Blk 50.3 1992-93 j Black 12,229 j White /2, 181 I Other I Total ~,410 % Blk- I 50.5 Sc (UseJ' to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL District (Secondary) 4 YEAR E.OLLM.ENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTAS RE IDENTIFIEDA S BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGIC INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 1. 722 1989-90 Black I 1,790 White I 2,492 White I I 2,673 Other I I Other I I Total I 4,214 \\ Totai\" I 4,463 I% Blk I 40.9 % Blk I I 40.1 1990-91 I Black I 1,754 I 1990-91 I Black I 1,754 I ! White I 2,311 I ' I l White I ! 2.311 i ! Other I I I I : Other I \\ Total I 4,065 I I ! Total i 4,065 ! I% Blk I I 43.1 I 1 % Blk I' 43.1 ! 1991-92 \\ Black I 1 837 I i 1991-92 ! Black\n1,837 ! White I 2 '),I.I, ! White I 2,344 IO ther I '! Other I Total I 4. 181 I ' I Total I 4. 181 % Blk I 43.9 I% Blk I 43.9 1992-93 I Black 11,892 1992-93 I Black I 1.892 I White ! 2  243 I i White I 2.243 I Other I Other I I Total 14. 135 Total 14.135 % Blk I 45.8 % Blk  I 45.8 5c I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Amboy Elementary 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 I Black I I 198 I I Black ! . 1989-90 190 ! White ! 234 I : I White ! 224 ! ! i Other I - i Other -- ! Total i 432 ~ I ! 1 Total i 414 \\ % Blk I 45.8 I i \\ % Blk !i 45.9 I I 1990-91 ! Black : 179 I 1990-91 i Black ' 163 ! White ' ! 228 I\nWhite I 174 : Other - I '. Other --\ni i Total !i 407 ! Total i I I 337 ! % Blk I 44.0 : % ~lk ' l 48.4 I 1991-92 : Black '' 189 I\n1991-92 ! Black 166 ! White i 235 I ! White i 186 \\ Other I I -- I ! Other I I - I Total I 424 i i Total i ! 352 I I i o/o Blk I 44.6 I I o/oB lk I 47.2 1992-93 ! Black I 172 j Black ' 1992-93 i 159 I \\ White I 218 I \\ White I 172 I I I l Other - I I ! Other I - ! Total l 390 I I ! ! Total I 331 I% Blk I 44.1 I% Blk I 48.0 I Sc I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Belwood Elementary 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIEDA S BLACKA NDN ON-BLACIC INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 66 I 1989-90 I Black i ! 69 White I 81 I \\ White II 79 I Other I - ! Other -- I Total I 147 I i ! Total i 148 I% Blk I 44.9 'I ! ! % Blk i 46.6 1990-91 I Black I 61 I I 1990-91 i Black l 56 i White I I 107 I : White l' 89 i I I \\ Other - I, : Other :: - l Total I 168 i i Total i \\ 145 I I 36.3 II \\ % Blk I i % ~lk i l 38.6 1991-92 J Black I 55 I\n1991-92 ! Black 49 i White I 96 I ! White i 78 \\ Other I - ! Other I I - I Total I 151 I i Total i! 127 I I I 36.4 i % Blk I ' I% Blk I 38.6 1992-93 1 Black I 71 1992-93 i Black I ! 64 I ! White I 100 I I ! White I 86 \\ Other I - ! Other I I - I Total I 171 I ! Total I 150 I% Blk I 41.5 I% Blk I 42.7 I Sc I I I I I I I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOLB oone Park Elementary 4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AND NON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN 1989-90 I Black I 315 I ! White I 205 I I Black\n1989-90 ?t:.t:. I White 197 i Other I - ! Other -- I ! Total I 520 I i Total M,1 I% Blk I 60.6 I \\ % Blk j 57.5 1990-91 j Black I 294 I I 1990-91 ! Black 235 : White I 195 I 'White 149 : Other II - t \\ Total I 489 I\\ ' I I% Blk Ii I I 60.1 '. Other - i Total 384 ! % Blk ' 61.2 ' I I\\ 1991-92 : Black 319 \\ White \\ 209 I 1991-92 ! Black\n269 : \\'vh ite i 181 \\ Other I - I ! Other I i -- \\ Total I 528 i : i Total i 450 ! I i 'YoB lk I 60.4 1' II S'f,8 I% Blk -46-\nt- 1992-93 \\ Black \\ 295 I i Black ' 1992-93 i 239 I White I 185 II I i White I 164 I I ' I I i Other - I \\ Total I 480 I I I I%Bl k I 61.5 I I \\ Other I I -- I ! Total I 403 I% Blk I 59.3 I Sc I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Central Elementary *First year for this school ------------- ------ 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black I \\ Black I 1989-90 I White I I I I I I Other I White I I ! Other \\ Total I I i ! Total i ! I% Blk I I ! % Blk i i i I 1990-91 I Black I ! Black I 1990-91 ' I I ! White 'White : i ! Other I I Other ! i i I I Total I ! i Total \\ I i ! % Blk I\nI ! % l3Ik I 1991-92 \\ Black II 197 I \\ White I ! 185 I ' 1991-92 ! Black 152 ' i ! White 178 \\ Other I - ! Other I i -- I Total 1 'tR? I\ni Total ! 330 I 1 % Blk l 51.6 I I% Blk I 46.1 1992-93 \\ Black I 279 i Black I 1992-93 i 227 ! White I 217 l I ! White I 203 I I I Other I - \\ Other I -- I \\ Total I 496 ! Total I 430 I% Blk l 56.3 I% Blk I 52.8 : 5c I I ! I I I I I I i I i I i I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Crestwood Elementary . - - =--- --~ ..-.\n,,._ 4 YEAR AoLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black I 85 I 1989-90 \\ Black I ! 90 I White ! 111 I I ! White !  117 \\ Other I - I Other I -- \\ Total I 196 ! I i  Total I 207 ! I%Bl k I 43.4 i i ! : % Blk i 43.5 I Black I 1990-91 I I 80 I 1990-91 : Black I : 75 \\ White I I 143 I ' White I 122 i I ! Other I I i -  Other - \\ Total i 223 l ! I i  Total i 197 I i I% Blk ! 35.9 ' I : % ~lk i l 38.1 \\ Black I 1991-92 I I i 98 1991-92\nBlack 93 \\ White i 143 I I ! I : White I 122 \\ Other I - : Other I I -- \\ Total I 241 i i i Total ! 215 I I% Blk I 40.7 I I% Btk I 43.3 1992-93 Black I 105 1992-93 \\ Black ! 91 1 White I 136 I j White I 119 Other I - \\ Other I I - 1 Total I 241 I ! Total I 210 % Blk I 43.6 I% Blk I 43.3 I Sc I I I I - (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Glenview Elementary\n4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 109 I I Black I 1989-90 ! 100 White I 122 I I White 133 Other I - ! Other - \\ Total I 231 , Total ! 233 I% Blk I 47.2 I ! o/o Blk : 42.9 1990-91 \\ Black I 138 'I 11\n1990-91 : Black 121 ! White I 106 I  White : 98 i I I I Other - I : Other -- I I Total I 244 I I I i j % Blk I 56.6 : Total 219  % Blk i 55.3 I I I 1991-92 Black ! 130\n1991-92 ! Black 111 \\ White I 103 I 'White i 96 \\ Other I - ! Other I i -- \\ Total I 233 I i Total . i 207 ! I I I I% Blk 55.8 i I% Blk I 53.6 1992-93 \\ Black I 131 I I 1992-93 I Black i 112 ! White I 99 I I ! White I 89 \\ Other I -- ! Other I I -- ! Total I 230 i I ! Total I 201 I% Blk I 57.0 I% Blk I 55.7 I Sc I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK Indian Hills Elementary INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN I j Black I ! 1989-90 157 1989-90 ' Black 163 ! ! White ! 318 : White 285 I i Other  Other I ! Total 475 Total 448 I \"-o Blk 33.1 I  % Blk 36.4 ll 1990-91 i Black 158 ii I 1990-91 Black 145 :I \\\".'hite 284 ii !I \\'Vhite II 234 !I i 1!I Other Other 1, :1 ii 11 11\nTotal 442 Total 379 ,I ii ,, I, 11 ., :1 i ':\"c Blk 35.7 j, ~o Blk 38.3 jl 1 I 11 I II :11991-92 '. Slack 190 11 1991-92 ' Black 182 I i ' \\ White 243 1\\ I  White 206 i Other II  Other I I II i Total 433\nTotal 388 I i \u0026lt;:-B~l k I 43.9 I.I' i '7-'o Blk 46.9 i 1992-93 ! Slack I 200 \\I 1992-93 : Black 180 I ,1 ! White 247 ii : White 206 I I I\\ I l Other : Other ! Total I 447 II ! Total 386 I I \\ I I% Blk 44.7 i % Blk 46.6 Sc (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Lakewood Elementary I I I i I I I I I I i ! i I I I i 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 j Black 98 I I ! White 142 I 1989-90 ! Black 102 ! : White 138 ! j Other - i Other - I Total 240  Total 240 I% Blk \\ 1.0.8 ' I : % Blk 42.5 I 1990-91 ! Black 96 I ' I 1990-91 Black 95 I '. White 146 I White 122  Other - II Other -- j Total 242 i ! Total 217 ! ~c Blk 39.7 I, . ~o Blk 43.8 I ii 1991-92\nBlack 135 I\nWhite i 155 I 1991-92 ' Black 126  White 130 I Other I I - I . Other -- II i Total l 290\nTotal 256 : i I ':'o Blk ! 46.6 i 'Yo Blk 49.2\n1992-93 \\ Black i I i 141 1992-93 : Black 126 i White I i 136 I 1 White 118 ' I : Other I - i Total I I 277 I ! Other ' -- i Total 244 I% Blk I 50.9 I I% Blk 51.6 5c i I ! I I I I I I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Lynch Drive Elementary I I \\ I I ! 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN I I 125 I 1989-90 i Black ! I ! I : White 154 I ! Black I I 1989-90 111 I ! ! ! White 157 I I ' Other i -- I i I  Other i - I ' I I\nTotal I 279 I !\n% Blk Ii 44.8 I I  Total 268 I '!  % Blk 41.4 1990-91 ' Black : 118 i !I 1990-91 Black 109 I I White 143 I I Other - I, i\\ White :1 124 :1 Other -- ,i i I Total ! 261 I i !\ni o.,o Blk ! 45.2\n'I :j :1 Total 233 :1 . ~o Blk 46.8 !I 1991-92  Black 121 II I 1991-92 ' Black llO  White I' I 136 White ll9 ' I 1 Other I -- Other - '. Total j I\\ '! 257 i ':\"'c Blk i 47.1 11 : : Total l 229 i 'Yo Blk i l 48.0 1992-93 : Black i 85 1992-93 Black 76 I\nWhite 'I 125 I : White llO\nOther l ! - I : Other ! -- ! Total I i 210 I i Total 186 I i i % Blk 1 ! 40.5 I i % Blk 40.9 5c I I I ' I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) I SCHOOL Meadow Park Elementary ---  TF 4 YEAR. \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black 148 I 1989-90 I Black 136 ! White I. ! 135 ! White 129\nOther II  Other I II ! Total 283 \" Total 265 I \\ % Blk 523 :1 I! - % Blk 51.3 \" 1990-91 i Black 150 I1-1 1990-91 Black 128 \\ . White ii 145 II White 128 '! Other Other j Total jl 295 ii Total 256 i % Blk 50.8 Ii i\n% E\nllk 50.0 I I' 1991-92\nBlack 129 1I 1991-92 Black 114 ' i 1\\ \\ White 125 n White 111 I ! Other \\ II - Other I i Total I 254 I\\ i Total 225 i % Blk I 50.8 \\\\ I o/o Blk 50.7 i I r 1992-93 ! Black 124 11 1992-93\nBlack 113 'I j White I II 119 11  White 105 i : Other I I\\ i 1 Other ! Total I 243 \\\\ ! Total 218 I I% Blk I 51.0 II I% Blk 51.8 Sc ---- (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) i\\ ii ,I ii ii - ----  ?C3FfflC\"?F:Ef:m't:ir - 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIEDA S BLACKA ND NON-BLACK SCHOOLN orth Heights Elementary INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN i 1989-90 Black I 202 I i 1989-90 I Black 195 White i: 210 I I i White 190 \\ Other I i - : Other -- \\ Total i 412 !  Total 385 I%B lk Ii 49.0 I : % Blk 50.6 1990-91 I Black i 217 I 1990-91 Black 196 '\nI \\ White i 226 I VVhite 178 i : ! Other - I Other -- \\ Total i ! 443 I i\nTotal 374 'i i I ~o Blk l 49.0 II . ~o Blk 52.4 I I 1991-92 \\ Black I ' 194 I 1991-92 ' Black 180 ! White i 216 I White 176 \\ Other ' 'I - I Other -- \\ Total i 410 I !\nTotal l 356 i o/o Blk 'l I 47.3 i o/o Blk \\ 50.6 1992-93 \\ slack II 193 1992-93 , Black 175 I ! White I 210 I : White 162 I Other I - II I Total l 403 i I i\n'. Other - ' i Total i 337 ' I% Blk I 47.9 ' ' i % Blk I': 51.9 Sc ------------------------ - I i I ' ' i I I I I i I I I i i i i ' ' I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrolllllent ranges) \\ I -:r:m:m SCHOOL Park Hill Elementary 4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black 78 1989-90 \\ Black 86 \\ White I 147 i White 135 i Other ! Other ! Total I 225\nTotal 221 ! \":'o Blk 34.7 I ! % Blk 38.9 I 1990-91 ! Black 94 1990-91 Black 88 : : White 116 White 91 I Other I Other II i Total 210 i\\  Total 179 i % Blk 44.8 I!\n, : ~o Slk 49.2 'I I !I 1991-92 '. Black 98 11 1991-92 ' Black 90 ! White 11 115 I,'! i White 82 \\ Other I I ! Other I Total 1 i 213 I i Total 172 I I I i % Blk 46.0 i % Blk 52.3 1992-93 \\ Black I 94 l 1992-93 I Black 88 1 White I 116 I II i White 90 I \\ Other I I ! Other \\ Total I 210 ! ! Total 178 I I% Blk I 44.8 I% Blk 49.4 5c ----- --- Tfit:nrbosi (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) SCHOOL Pike View Elementary 4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN Ii I I 212 I 1989-90 ! Black i 1989-90 \\ Black 198 \\ ! White I 244 I I I I : Other I i i - I I I i 456 i Total I I ! j I White 226 i Other - , Total 424 I ii I I % Blk I 46.5\n'% Blk 46.7 i 1990-91\nBlack ! 206 i I I ' 1990-91\nBlack 187 i l \\\\'hite ! 230 i White 193 I I Other -- I I  Other -- I I . Total 436 I I l Total 380 : \"'o Blk i i I 47.2 l! I  % f?lk 49.2 I : ' I 1\\ 1991-92 ' Black\nI 190 i '. White i 220 1, I, 1991-92 ! Black 168 : White 174 I Other I I - I : Other : -- ' I I : Total 410 I i Total j 342 i % Blk I 46.3 I \\ % Blk \\ 49.1 1992-93 i Black I 209 ! I\\ White I 220 I 1992-93\nBlack 191 : White : 180 ' I \\ Other - I\\ ! Total I t.29 I I Other i - j Total 371 I l % Blk I 48.7 I I% Blk 51.5 Sc ! I\n! I i I I I i I i i I I I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) I I i :e\nrw-=- 4 A4\n. .. - - - ~-  v-#-ffiitr- }a-\ng..,\n--~:.....: .......- .,.:.\n..  _:. ~.~~r:s~-,-~\"),,,M-+\u0026amp; 4iii7SF+saS=4 25\nS\n#A#c ~ a ttr:i1iifriWiEtiM\u0026amp;\u0026amp;i%iYAinrrvfr:: SCHOOL Redwood Elementary 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN I i 164 !I 1989-90 I Black 'I 1989-90 i Black 134 ! White ! 114 Ii : Ii I! ! : 1 White 117 ' ! I j Other ' - !: Other - I i 278 :i I Total \" ! !i Total 251 l % Blk I 59.0 i I i !1  % Blk 53.4 1990-91 ! Black ' 162 ii I I 'I 1990-91 Black 114 '' I' :j : White ! 103 I' I White 96 Ii  Other : - I! Other --\ni j1\nTotal ! 265 ,I i H l i ~o Blk\nJ. l 61.1 !: Total 210 . % !3\\k 54.3 I Ii 1991-92 : Black ' 144 Ii ' l White ! 1! 96 ,: I 1991-92 Black 113 White 94 i Other ' Ii i - I\\ ' Other - I I j Total I 240 \\I : I i % Blk 60.0 II : Total i 207 ! : % Blk i ! 54.6 1992-93 i Black I 142 r 1! ' 1992-93 : Black I 112 i White I 96 ll I : White i\n90 '. \\ Other I - Ii I 238 ! ! Total i I I% Blk 159.7 I I i I Other ! - I j Total I I 202 ' I i % Blk I I 55.4 l Sc I I I I I i i I I i I I I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) I I 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER 1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK SCHOOL Rose City Elementary INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black 93 ! White 126\nOther :, I Total 219 !! ___ ____.\n. ----':! I ii : 'o Blk 42.5 q 1990-91 ! Black 111 -------- ' White 104  Other\nTotal 215 i .,_,o Blk 51.6 ! 1991-92 : Black 119 '-,- -------1\\ \\ \\Vh ite 126 l: i Other \\\\ -----------'' \\ T t I 245 \\\n1 o a \\\\ i ':'o Blk 48.6 'i 1992-9 3 \\'-S. _la_c_k l_3_7_----'\\\\ ! White 117 \\\\ ! \\! I Other 1! \\ Total 254 I\\ --I 0-,~-B-lk_ _ 5__39 ----\n!i Sc (Used to determine =====!========,:acceptable enrollment 1989-90. _B _la_c__k_ 8__6_ :i ranges) EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1990-91 ! ,I : White 112 :  Other Tota I 198 --------:  % Blk 56.6 Black 97 -------- ' White 83 .,\n--------.\nOther Total 180 . % E\n31k 53.9 1991-92 '_ B_la_c_k ____1 04 , ,, . White 97 :\n Other ' I Total 201 i o/o Blk 51. 7 1992-93 : Black 117 \\'\\ ______ ...:1I \\ : 1 White 98 !\\ : Other 1 __ ------------li ! Total 215 I i % Blk 54.4 SCHOOL --57ii7Z% 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK Seventh Street Elementary INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN I :1 I 1989-90 I Black 177 I. :1 1989-90 '. Black 132 I I !I I White 149 :: White 183 i Other :I\n\\ Other I :I I Total 326 \" Total 315 ij I !I \\ % Blk 54.3 !I  % Blk 58.1 1990-91 Black 194 1990-91 Black 140 i . White 160 i ! White 157 ., Other ,, :, Other : Total :1 354 ii Total 297 i i % Blk 54.8 r l: % f?lk 49.4\n1991-92\nBlack 184 1991-92 ' Black 142 i 1 White 164  White 163 ,. i ,, ! Other I\\ Other i\nTotal 348 Ii : Total 305 i '\n'o Blk 52.9 I! lj : % Blk 46.6 1992-93 i i Black 177 ii l! 1992-93 , Black 141 , ! White I, 186 !j : White 174 ' Ii I j Other I,i, ! Other I Total 363 I\\ ! Total 315 'i I % Blk 48.8 iI!. i % Blk 44.8 Sc (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) i 1\\  4 YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER l DATA STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AND NON-BLACK SCHOOL NLRHS - West Campus INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN I I :j 1989-90 I Black I, !I ' 1989-90 : Black ! White I Ii ! I! I While : I I\nOther ii J,  Other i I :I ' Total !I !I \\ % Blk I ii II i Total i I I % Blk I 'I 1990-91 ! Black 11 ! I I\n: White ,I ! 11 I II Other i: I ,, ! I I 1990-91 Black 443 I i White 737 I I I Other - I i :j\nTotal I., I :, I i % Blk\n1: ! !: I i I Total 1.180 I I % Blk ' 37.5 I I 1991-92 1 Black II i I ,. : White i 1! 1: I 1991-92 Black 507 White I 760 i Other I I II I ' : Other I i - i l Total I II ! ':'a Blk I II : Total i ! 1-267\n'3/oB lk I 40.0 1992-93 i! Black I I! 1992-93  Black I 524 I White I 1! ,, Ii I\nWhite l 680 ' I ll I l Other i I : Other I - ! Total I : I I I%Bl k I \\ I ! Total I 1.204 I% Blk I 43.5 I ~---------------------- - Sc I I I a r (Used to determine cceptable enrolllllent anges) I* First year as 11th and 12th I Grade School I I I I I SCHOOL NI.RBS - East Campus I I I I \\ 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 j Black I I I 1989-90 ! Black I White I I I I Other I ' ' \\ White\ni Other j Total i l ! Total I% Blk I I : % Blk 1990-91 I Black I I 1990-91 . Black 605 '' I I \\ White White 767 i I I \\ Other I Other -- \\ Total I l I I\nI I% Blk ! I  Total j 1,372 . % E\n3Ik ' 44.1 ! Black I 1991-92 I l I 1991-92 : Black 578 ! White I I ' : White i 758 \\ Other I ! Other I - \\ Total I ' i Total \\ 1,336 l I% Blk I i I% Blk \\ ! 43.3 1992-93 \\ Black I 1992-93 \\ Black i 602 I White I I 'i White i 737 I Other I I I ! Other ! -- , Total l I I \\ Total I 1,339 I%Bl k I \\ % Blk I 45.0 l Sc I I ! i I i I I I I i l I I 1!\u0026amp;5 EM+? :S -F (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) I I *First year as 9th and 10th Grade School SCHOOL Lakewood Middle School 4 YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I I I ' I 1989-90 'Black ' White I I ! I  White I Other I Other\nTotal I Total i i % Blk I  % Blk i I Black I I 1990-91 I 1990-91 Black ' 247 ! White I White i 320 \\ Other I Other I -- \\ Total I l i  Total I l 567 I i I% Blk I t . % Blk i ! 43.6 ! 1991-92 I Black I I I White I I 1991-92 Black 262 White I 316 I Other I Other I ! -- Total l\nTotal i! 578 % Blk I I\n% Blk 45.3 1992-93 Black I I 1992-93 Black I 248 White I I ' White I 297 Other I : Other I I -- I Total % Blk I i Total I \"\"-\" I i % Blk I 45.5 I Sc I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) *First year as 7th and 8th Grade Middle School ~ YEAR .ROLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK SCHOOL Ridgeroad Middle School INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black I I 1989-90 ! Black I White I I I ! White\nI i Other I ! Other ! Total \\ : , Total I% Blk I I\n% Blk 1990-91 ! Black I I I 1990-91 : Black 231 ! White I I !1 i Other I I t I White 292 Other -- i I I j Total I !  Total 523 'j i I ~a Blk I 11 . % Blk 44.2 1991-92 ! Black I l I 1991-92 : Black 246 ! White I I : White 305 \\ Other I I \\ Total I I I i % Blk I I ! ' Other : -- i \\ Total i ! 551 I I% Blk \\ 44.6 1992-93 \\ Black I I ! White \\ I. 1992-93 i Black : 266 l White I I 312 \\ Other I I ! Other I i - I Total I I Total I I 578 I I% Blk I I% Blk I 46.0 : Sc I I I \\1 I I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrolllllent ranges) I *First year as 7th and 8th Grade Middle School 4 YEAR AoLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER l DATA STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AND NON-BLACK SCHOOLR ose City Middle School INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 \\ Black I I ! White I I 1989-90 ! Black i : ! White ! i Other I  Other\n! Total I Total i i I% Blk I : % Blk i i 1990-91 Black I I 1990-91 Black 207 White I White 187 Other I Other -- Total I l I I ~a Blk i ! I I Total 394 . % Blk 52.5 1991-92 Black II I 1991-92 : Black 203 l White I I :  White ' 186 i ! Other I ' : Other I i - \\ Total I i Total i ! 38Q I i % Blk I I% Blk I 52.2 I 1992-93 ! Black I I ' 1992-93 i Black i 207 i White I I l White I I 201 I I I I \\ Other ! Other I I -- ! Total I ! Total I I 408 I I% Blk I I I% Blk I 50.7 I 5c I I I I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) *First year as 7th and 8th Grade Middle School 4 YEAR .OLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA ND NON-BLACK SCHOOLA lternative Education Ctr. INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN I 1989-90 \\ Black I \\ ' 1989-90 ! Black \\ White I I I I ! White ! I Other I i I\nOther \\ Total I I I I i\nTotal l I I% Blk I i I ! % Blk i i 1990-91 Black I ii I I ! ' I White\nI i 1990-91  Black White Other I I I I, Other Total i I ii I % Blk i ! ii 'I : Total . % Blk ' I 1991-92 Black i ! I 1991-92 ' Black 26 White I l ' : White 10 \\ Other I I : Other\n' -- I Total I i\nTotal i 36 ! I l % Blk I l % Blk i! 72.17 1992-93 \\ Black I I ' 1992-93 I Black i 37 I I I j White\nWhite I l 13 I I ! Other I I i ! Other ! - I Total I ! Total I 50 I I%Bl k I I% Blk I I 74.O I Sc I I I I I I I I I I I I I l (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) *First year of Program **Enrollment varies throughout the year. 4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBER1 DATA STUDENTSA RE IDENTIFIED AS BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK SCHOOL Baring Cross E]emenrarv INCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN EXCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN 1989-90 Black I 11 I 1989-90 I Black I ' 11 White I 8 I White i I 10 Other I - l Other - \\ Total I 19 i Total iI 21 ! % Blk I 57.9 I I% Blk I i 52.4 1990-91 \\ Black I 8 i I I 1990-91 I i Black ! 7 ! White I I 9 I : White '\n9 \\ Other I I I - I : Other ! I - I \\ Total I 17 I I ! i , Total I l 16 II % i I Blk I 47.1 I i % Blk i ! 43.8 1991-92 \\ stack I 9 I I I White I 5 I\n1991-92 ! Black , 8 I ! White ! 4 \\ Other I - ! Other I - Total I 14 Ii i Total ! 12 % Blk I 64.3 I I I% Blk 66.7 1992-93 Black I 5 1992-93 i Black I 5 White I 9 I i ! White I 9 \\ Other I - \\ Other I I - \\ Total l 14 ! Total I 14 I% Blk I 35.7 I% Blk I 35.7 Sc I I (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) .\n:gtg . 4 YEAR \u0026amp;oLLMENT COMPARISON OCTOBERl DATA STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIEDA S BLACKA NDN ON-BLACK SCHOOL Baring Cross - Secondary INCLUDING KINDERGARTEN EXCLUDINKGI NDERGARTEN ! I 1989-90 Black ! 1989-90 Black I 3 \\ White I : i I Other i I White\n3 I i Other\n- I \\ Total I i I I i ! I i ! Total ! 6 i I%B lk I I I \\ % Blk i l 50.0 i ! Black I 1990-91 I I 1990-91 \\ Black 21 ! White I I I I \\ White I 8 i I Other I : Other -- I I i I Total ! I ! I j o/o Blk\nl i Total 29 i % ~lk i ! 72.4 I B1ack I 1991-92 I\nI 1991-92 ! Black 23 \\ White i l I' ! White i 8 \\ Other I \\ Other I I ! - I Total I I\nI Total i ! 31 \\ I% Blk I \\ % Blk I 74.2 1992-93 I Black I 1992-93 \\ Black I I 22 I White I \\ White I i 9 I Other I \\ Other I I ! - \\ Total I I ! Total I 31 I%Bl k I [ % Blk I 71.0 I Sc I I I I I I l (Used to determine acceptable enrollment ranges) Prepared by ODM 4/22/93 1992-93 PCSSD JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES Jr. High 1992-93 Enrollment 1992-93 % Available School Capacity Filled Seats B w Total %Blk Fuller 425 510 935 45% 1,037 90% 102 Jax. North 184 470 654 28% 722 91% 68 Jax. South 202 400 602 34% 764 79% 162 Northwood 236 703 939 25% 928 101% 0 Robinson 110 301 411 27% 530 78% 119 Sylvan Hills 229 703 932 25% 1,050 89% 118 Total 1,386 3,087 4,473 31% 5,031 89% 569\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":36,"next_page":37,"prev_page":35,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":420,"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}}]}}