{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_956","title":"Report: ''Financial Report for 1989-90, Budget for 1990-91,'' 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":["1989/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Financial Report for 1989-90, Budget for 1990-91,'' 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/956"],"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":["104 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_932","title":"Reports: Activities, 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":["1989/2002"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Activities, 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/932"],"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":["175 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\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_967","title":"Reports: Financial, 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":["1989/1996"],"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--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Financial, 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/967"],"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":["89 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_927","title":"Reports: Suspension/expulsion comparisons, district level","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":["1989/1998"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student expulsion","Student suspension","School discipline","School buses"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Suspension/expulsion comparisons, district level"],"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/927"],"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":["28 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_720","title":"Staffing","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":["1989/2005"],"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 management and organization","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Staffing"],"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/720"],"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":["34 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\nUA8T NAME |Banr [Wilkins [Butts [Foti Jones Bailey [Romontio iSurrough Clark [McMahan ^Bell Hilburn I, Keller jPelen Aukes [Moore Meier Talley farther 'Sykes iPace Evans [McKniflht [Frasier Batson [Person [Mangan carter jLowe Sarver McGuire Warren Guppy Roe iZollar ROCKEFELLER STAFF 89 - 90 FIRST NAME RACE SEX GRADE FULL TIME iMyrtle [Margaret iValencia Beth Lucia Angela Nina 'Mary Ann [Sarah jMariiou Priss r iKarfa [Dana .Pat k/ickie jFrancile Judy [Carolyn Kitty I Delois [Katie T Rebecha Lillie ,Doreen Ann t----------- Pam jAnn Lillie Martha Doris Steve jcindy [Georgia IMary Kay T iMargaret COUNT: W J F [Teacher-Infants \n------------------------------------------r I W I F |Teacher-3 Yr. Qins 1.00 B F Teacher- 4 YrOldi 1.00 1 00 I i I F [Teacher-4 Yr. GIdl 1.00 i 1 ~\n------------------1-------- ! W I F Teacher- 4 Yr Old: W t-B T 1.00 [ F Kindergarten t W ' F Kindergarten W__: F [1st Grade ! W F .1 st Grade i I W j F\nist Grade w t ! w I ! F iand Grade F find Grade I W j F jSrti Grade B F 3rd Grade  W I F 4th Grade I T I s I i F 4th Grade I i 1.00 I 1.00 1 I T 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1,00 1.00 t - 1,00 i 1.00 1.00 w B 1 I I i I I 1,00 L |Sth Grade j 1.00 j I F iSth Grade I W ! F ^th Grade 1.00 J I 1.C0 B F leth Gra^ I, I a I F Gpec. Ed t T J- W W W w B W B W W w w w w I w 36 F lArt F [Music F [P. E. F Chap. 1 Math ! 1.00 i  1.00 ! 1 00 I I 1.00 i 1.00 1 F Chap. 1 Reading j F [Principal F [Asst. Principal F [Counselor F [Media Spec. M [speech Therapist F [Nurse F kSifled/Talented I 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 I 1,00 ! 1.00 j 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 \"1 F jcomputer Spec. [ 1.00 F iFamity Life Spec. I 0.25 4LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified Non-certified TOTAL 1,972 1,359 3,331 2,048 1,465 3,513 2,043 1,651 3,694 2,056 1,859 3,915LRSD teacher statistics 1-20-9L Democrat SCHOOL AVG. EXPERIENCE AVQ. WHITE BLACK AGE TEACHERS TEACHERS HIGH SCHOOL I other' RACES' Central Hall Mann Metro Parkview 12 9  \u0026gt;11:. 13 43 \u0026lt;-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;42. \u0026lt;' 42 \u0026gt;\n\u0026gt;.:45\u0026lt;\" 44 71 53 36 26 42 33 22 22 4 20 1 1 ! JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Dunbar Fair. \\ Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Soutnwest McClellan Henderson Alternative Cloverdale Mabelvale 7 9 10 7 \u0026lt;5 10 1 3 42 '\u0026lt;\u0026lt;v4d/:\u0026lt;'' 41 \u0026lt;'41- 39 40 40 .34 38 39 21 45 35 41 25 51 35 4 42 33 ELEMENTARY Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver \u0026gt; Baseline Fair Park-  Forest Park Franklin  - Garland Gibbs \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Western Hills - Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd \u0026gt; Meadowcliff Mitchell Rockefeller- Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Rightsell Romine Stephens  \u0026lt; \u0026gt; Washington : Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Ish Otter Creek Wakefield Watson________ SOURCE: LRSD 7 9 1 4 13 \u0026gt;  3' 5 11 8 8 1 10 10 3 3 10 8 6 4 6 11 9 8 3 9 10 5 3 9 9 9 5 4 _5_ 40 -\u0026lt;41 \u0026lt;\n39 41 41. 35 37 \u0026lt;\u0026gt;'43 \u0026lt; 38 39 39 42 42 42 39 41 43 41 41 37 39 41 40 40 34 39 43 41 38 39 44 43 40 41 _aa___ ..... .. . 31.... : 14 22 12 24 30 15 10 13 26 15 19 14 24 11 16 18 10 21 10 18 10 13 13 ' 42 25 - :18 \u0026lt; 26 24 , W\u0026gt;23... .  ''^'''' '\"9\"  16 16 __2i_ 20 17 22 12 24 17 21 3 13 12 t 2 16 10 7 7 9 7 12 11 9 6 15 8 14 24 11 16 18 10 21 10 18 10 13 13 42 25 : 18 9 26 24 9 16 16 24 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\n : 5 J MICHAEL STOREY / Arkansas DemocratLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 6, 1992 TO: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Pupil/Teacher Ratios The North Central Accreditation Standards state the following concerning the ratio of pupils to teachers: 24.02 Pupli/Professional Staff Ratio. The ratio of pupils to teachers and other professional staff members shall not exceed 20 to 1. In computing the ratio, the school may include the instructional responsibilities of all professional staff assigned to the building plus the time devoted to instruction by other professional personnel. The attachment to this memo provides the pupil/teacher ratio for each elementary school in the Little Rock School District. NCA provisions listed above are used to compute pupil/teacher The ratios. The staffing information is taken directly from the NCA rts developed at the beginning of the school year. The icliowing certificated positions are included in the staffing counts: - Prekindergarten teachers - Kindergarten teachers - Grade level teachers - Special subject area teachers - Building principal - Assistant principal - Guidance counselor - Media specialist/librarianLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY PUPIL/TEACHER RATIOS School 1-31-92 Enrollment Staffing Count P/T Ratio Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 222 361 332 630 413 606 518 388 309 327 410 497 534 275 258 349 198 483 509 511 432 321 363 357 296 401 362 237 526 474 840 470 334 499 396 231 19 29 24 45 30 43 37 25 23 25 24 37 2 27 20 31 23 31 35 32 26 25 22 22 27 30 27 26 29 31 50 31 21 34 27 17 11.68 12.44 13.83 14.00 13.77 14.09 14.00 15.52 13.43 13.08 17.08 13.43 16.69 10.19 12.90 11.26 8.61 15.58 14.54 15.97 16.61 12.84 16.50 16.22 10.96 13.36 13.40 9.11 18.13 15.29 16.80 15.16 15.90 14.68 14.67 13.59 IA Little Rock School District November 20, 1992 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Heritage West Building NOV 2 5 1992 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann: Thank you for inviting me to the meeting in your office to discuss matters related to the desegregation plan. Per our discussion, this letter is submitted to provide an update on the Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools that is required in the desegregation plan. At the inception of the Incentive Schools, the purpose of the staffing committee was to determine the staffing needs at each school and then develop criteria for principal and staff selection based on a needs assessment. An interview team was to have been selected from members of the staffing committee to interview and make recommendations to the principals. It is my understanding that although an interview team was established and recommendations were made by this committee, the contracted agreement actually dictated which teachers were placed in the schools. Therefore, at this time, Ms. Arma Hart will assist me in instituting a new staffing committee that will determine the present staffing needs at each of the schools and develop criteria for principal and staff selection needed in the future. Each principal has submitted names of patrons and staff personnel to serve on this committee. In the future, when positions become vacant, the interview team will be involved in the hiring process and will make recommendations to the principals, goal of this administration to have quality staff in the It is a Incentive Schools who are committed to the goals of the program. A District-wide Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1992, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Janet Bernard Associate Superintendent cc: Marie Parker 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 {rrsw 3 a 'Is t J D APR 2 S 1553 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET Office of Desogregation ! .'io\ni! Big LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 April 28, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mac Bernd, Superintendent  SUBJ: Recommendations Concerning Certified Staff Reemployment for 1993-94 School Year The following attachments are submitted for your consideration: 1, Section 1 is a list of certified personnel who have stated that they wish to resign or retire at the end of their current contract. 2. Section 2 is a list of intern teachers who are not being recommended for reemployment at this time. These individuals will be eligible to apply for announced vacancies for the 1993- 94 school year. 3. Section 3 is a list of certified personnel who are recommended for reemployment with conditions pending recertification. 4. Section 4 is a list of certified personnel who are recommended for reemployment with conditions pending course deficiency removal. 5. Section 5 is a list of certified personnel whose positions are funded with federal monies who are recommended for reemployment with the following conditions: Provided that if federal financial assistance for the position in which you are assigned is not forthcoming pursuant to pending applications, or such assistance as is granted for such position is less that the amount applied for as well as staffing needs, then the Board of Education may non-renew, terainate contract. or modify thisPage 2 6. Section 6 is a list of vocational teachers who do not have enough students enrolled in their classes to justify their continued employment. They are recommended for reemployment with the following condition: If a sufficient number of students fail to enroll in your progreun, the Board of Directors shall have the right to non-renew, terminate or modify your contract. It is futher recommended that contracts be renewed for certified personnel who have not been sent notification of a recommendation for non-renewal or termination and who have indicated that they wish to return to the District in 1993- 94. Final assignments will be made in accordance to staffing needs and in compliance with negotiated agreements.NAME Anderson, Jean Johnson, Nicole Raney, Sarah Scott, Susan Sprinkle, Marie Taylor, Debra White, Lynda Wooley, Angela Brewer, Rosemary Brown, Martha Calvin, Francella Davis, Carolyn Dietz, Joan Elders, Oliver Glaze, Diana Hooks, Naomi Hrishikesan, Ruth Loss, George Loss, Kathleen SECTION 1 RESIGNATIONS/RETIREES 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Resignations French Gibbs Third Grade Kindergarten First Grade Fifth Grade Computer Tech Asst Principal First Grade Retirees Social Studies Media Specialist Special Education Math Home Economics Coach Principal Librarian Social Studies Coach Principal Wilson Brady Baseline Dodd Cloverdale Jr Gibbs Jefferson Hall Meadowcliff Jefferson Otter Creek/Chicot Central Hall Watson Forest Parkview Southwest Pulaski Hgts ElemRESIGNATIONS/RETIREES (Cont'd) (Section 1) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Muldrew, Jerome Palmer-Walker, Sue Rogers, Sue Tadlock, Mary Williams, Myrna Zimmerman, Earl Retirees Soc Stud Coord Fifth Grade Librarian Specialist Second Grade Director Central Rightsell Dodd Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Meadowcliff Staff DevelopmentNAME Adams, Pamela Andrews, Sharon Battershell, Mary Divings, Mary Bradberry, Alice Buckelew, Mackie Burgess, Melissa Charles, Kimberly Clemons, Elizabeth Collins, Julie Cookus, Jerry Crommett, Joe Fleming, Brenda Ford, Roger Gates, Kathy Guinn, Hubert Hardin, Cassandra Hively, Lynn Holmes, Margaret Howard, Dianne SECTION 2 INTERN TEACHERS 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Fifth Grade Math Specialist Chemistry Reading Spec Math Special Ed English Reading Art Math Asst English Math Asst First Grade Second Grade Math Asst. Fifth Grade Kindergarten Math Asst First Grade Third Grade Watson Carver McClellan Washington Franklin Forest Heights Central Southwest Woodruff Dunbar Pulaski Hgts Jr Mabelvale Jr Fair Park Ish Central Gibbs Garland Henderson Jefferson TerryINTERN TEACHERS (Cont'd) (Section 2) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Jackson, Mona Third Grade Fulbright Jackson, Vernita Special Ed Dodd Kennedy, Cynthia Math Asst Pulaski Hgts Jr Kunowski, Diane Math Asst Southwest Logan, Andrew Physical Ed Dunbar Marsh, Edward Math Central McBride, Barbara Speech Bale Merry, Susan Lrng Fnd Pulaski Hgts Jr Naylor, Sandra Fifth Grade Garland Nunn, Berthena Theme Specialist Franklin Parker, Charlotte Vocational Health Metropolitan Rhodes, Billy Sixth Grade Washington Robinson, David Band Director McClellan Saylor, Neville Special Ed Woodruff Seale, Carolyn Fourth Grade Terry Shepherd, Paula English Pulaski Hgts Jr Slayton, Pamela Civics McClellan Sproles, Tonya Second Grade Washington Taylor, Monica First Grade Garland Taylor, Travis Band Director Central Thomas, Nehemiah Social Studies Alt Lrng Center Thrasher, Eunice Speech Ish/Otter CreekINTERN TEACHERS (Cont'd) (Section 2) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Walters, Alice Kindergarten Pulaski Hgts Elem Webb, Thomas Math Cloverdale Jr All other certified personnel who were hired as intern teachers and who might have been omitted from this list due to oversight are also not recommended for reemployment at this time.NAME Condition: SECTION 3 CONDITIONAL LIST PENDING RECERTIFICATION 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 SCHOOL Completion of renewal of teacher's certificate valid for the 1993-94 school year. Alexander, Cora Henderson Bass, Mattie Central Bateman, Frances Gibbs Battershell, Mary McClellan Berman, Linda M. Woodruff Bernard, Janet Administration Brandt, Nancy Western Hills Capoot, Michael Cloverdale Jr Chambers, Anthony Cloverdale Jr Coon, Sue Central Crenshaw, Ora Ish Falls, Jacqueli Southwest Farlow, Amelia Parkview Fowler, Millicent Wakefield Hanley, Georgette Pulaski Hgts Elem Hartman, Kristi Geyer Springs Hicks, Carla Wilson CONDITIONAL LISTCONDITIONAL LIST (Section 3) NAME SCHOOL Hunter, Thelma Forest Heights James, Brenda Central Jones, Jack Cloverdale Jr Kennedy, Malinda Pulaski Hgts Jr Knight, Burl Pulaski Hgts Jr Langston, Pamela Mann Loya, Samuel Central Lusk, Jennifer Parkview Mahnken, Susan McDermott Malone, Dorothy Stephens McClendon, Joanne Central Morey, Donna Fair Parker, Marie Student Assignment Pleasant, Carwin Booker Richardson, Donald Pulaski Hgts Jr Roy, Portia Stephens Schult, Shala Shehane, Margaret Science/Envir Ed IRC Fair Shelton, Sherrie Mabelvale Elem Slayton, Pamela McClellan Smith, Harry Mann Snowden, Sherrie FairCONDITIONAL LIST (Section 3) NAME SCHOOL Talburt, Rebecca Southwest Taylor, Dianne Forest Heights Thrasher, Beverly Central Value, Terri Badgett Volsen, David Parkview Walker-Wheeler, Lisa Henderson Washington, Anne Williams Watson, Fredonia Rockefeller Wetherington, Edna Adult Education Wilder, Robert Fair Williams, Cynthia Henderson Williams, Gary Henderson Williams, Joyce Parkview Williams, Leslie Central Williams, Myrna MeadowcliffNAME SECTION 4 CONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Condition: Completion of valid courses. Acre, Glendon Counselor Dunbar Arick, Joyce Marketing Education Central Bailey, Angela Counselor Cloverdale Elem. Bailey, Jack Physical Education Chicot Banks, Rickey Elementary Garland Bettis, Paula Elementary Carver Brooks, Sharon Asst. Principal Washington Buehling, Cynthia Elementary Western Hills Burchett, Carletta Chapter I Reading Stephens Cannon, Sharron G/T Mabelvale Jr. Castell, Tony Special Education SW/Pul Hgts Jr Chambers, Anthony Coaching Cloverdale Jr. Clark, Nancy Career Orientation Mabelvale Jr. Colburn, Melissa Curr Spec/G\u0026amp;T McClellan Coleman, Jon Elementary Washington Collier, Cleophis General Science Henderson Collins, Peggy Kindergarten Pulaski Hgts Elem Copeland, Jacquelyn Elementary Cloverdale Elem. Cox, Angela Life Science MannCONDITIONAL DEPENDING COURSE DEFICIENCIES (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Crobsy, Susan Elementary Franklin Ezell, Regina Elementary Washington Faubel, Virginia General Coop. Ed. Parkview Flanigan, Laura Mathematics Dunbar Gallant, Jennifer Health Pulaski Hgts Jr. Goodnight, Shirley V. Home Economics Pulaski Hgts Jr. Goodwin, Katherine Elementary Meadowcliff Grayson, Kayren Elementary Gibbs Hansen, Mary Ann Physical Education Mitchell Hogg, Jacqueline Geography Pulaski Hgts Jr. Hunt, Marietta Kindergarten Forest Park Hunter, Thelma Reading McClellan Ingram, Jennifer Geometry/Algebra McClellan Jacobs, Mary Health Henderson Jefferson, Cynthia Elementary Western Hills Kidd, Cleortius Coaching Mann Kinder, James Art Booker King, Jeri General Coop. Ed. McClellan Lincoln, Robert Physical Science Mann Little, Valerie Geography McClellan Lloyd, Emily Instrumental Music Mann Lloyd, Julia Kindergarten Cloverdale Elem. Malone, Dorothy Elementary Stephens Malone, Hosea General Science HallCONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL McFadden, Charles Reading Cloverdale Jr. McSwain, Joyce Algebra Mann Middlebrooks, Susan G/T Southwest Moseley, Fran Arkansas History Cloverdale Jr. Mosley, Brenda Economics McClellan Nesmith, Estella Elementary Carver Norrell, Sherry Chapter I Reading Meadowcliff Norton, Gary Coaching Mann Pearson, Boyce Elementary Ish Peek, Peggy Special Education Geyer Springs Purifoy, Jimmy Instructional Music Stephens Redwood, Yolanda Kindergarten Ish Remley, O.C. Coaching Mann Rhodes, Billy Elementary Washington Robinson, John Asst. Principal Mabelvale Jr. Routen, Irma Elementary Woodruff Samons, Kathryn Spanish Cloverdale Jr. Shelton, Gail Special Education Rightsell Sims, Shirley Kindergarten Cloverdale Elem. Smith, Harry Health Mann Stiedle, Joyce G/T Henderson Toran, Steve Elementary ChicotCONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Turner, Diane G/T Mann Van Pelt, Sharon Chapter I Reading Cloverdale Elem Walker-Wheeler, Lisa Instrumental Music Henderson Wallace, Rodney Elementary Pulaski Hgts Elem Washington, Ruby Mathematics Henderson Wilson, Tammi Elementary Otter Creek Zies, Mary Physical Education WilliamsSECTION 5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 NAME NAME Chapter I Reading Teachers Elementary School Averitt, Ann Mahnken, Susan Balenko, Mary Mazzanti, Hariette Betton, Ira Miller, Emma Bivings, Mary Norrell, Sherry Burchett, Carlette Odgen, Marilyn Burgin, John Person, Pam Charles, Kathleen Preslar, Kathryn Couch, Martha Rowe, Margo Davis, Dorothy Runion, Dianne Dumas, Josephine Schoemaker, Edna Finkbeiner, Debbie Schwartz, Cathy Gershner, Vicki Sebourn, Karen Ghant, Janet Shells, Geneva Gray, Lou Ann Smith, Bill Hall, Carolyn Spencer, Lynda Hays, Linda Steelman, Carolyn Hester, Susan Throneberry, Barbara Hodoway, Helen Washington, Juanita Keown, Ada Yeager, Judith Maddox, CindyFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Cont'd) (Section 5) NAME NAME Chapter I Mathmatics Teachers Elementary School Adams, Janet Kovach, Lillian Baker, Susie Lewis, Janice Beard, Elmer McGee, Suzanne Beard, Susan McDonald, Mary Bradberry, Alice Nagel, Diana Bryant, Carolyn Page, Nell Craig, Deborah Powell, Edith Daneshmandi, Kathryn Schwerin, Ruth Davis, Yvonne Snowden, Sallie Fair, Dixie Stiles, Donna Fowler, Earlene Tarkington, Susan Hall, Gracie Thompson, Sandra Hicks, Barbara Watson, Ann Jacuzzi, Marilyn Williams, Peggy James, Rita Wroten, Myrthene Jones, Docia Kodell, ValerieFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Cont'd) (Section 5) NAME NAME Chapter I Reading Teachers Secondary Schools Bass, Mattie Magee, Mildred Berman, Linda McKinney, Rebecca Carter, Mary Robinson, Susie Cobbs, Mary Chapter I Math Teachers Secondary Schools Cheatham, Guy Hively, Lynn Collins, Julie Kennedy, Cynthia Crommett, Joe McMurray, Victor Davis, Phylesia Pike, Perry Barnes, Emma Gerald, Nellie Guppy, Georgia Jones, Mary Compensatory Reading Teachers Secondary Schools Southerland, Terry Tarbot, Melinda Taylor, Dianne Thurman, Suzanne McCanell, Ethelene Van Pelt, Sharon Moore, Susanne Wickcliffe, Alice North, Morisetta Williams, Nanette Singh, DonnaFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Section 5) NAME NAME Math Teachers Dunbar, Kathy Richardson, Donald Knowiski, Diane Uketui, Ike Nichols, Robert Conditional Carl Perkins Funding Ferguson, Joseph Raymond, Diane Vocational Evaluator Vocational Counselor Swihart, Barbara Data Entry Clerk Vinsant, Marie Tech Prep Coordinator Watson, Clyde Vocational EvaluatorNAME SECTION 6 CONDITIONAL PENDING METROPOLITAN ENROLLMENT 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION Berry, Darrell TV Production Beyah, Rosie Word Processing Carter, Earl Auto Body Collie, Steve Printing Eackles, Victor Auto Technology Evans, Rick Printing Fornero, Dan Computer Programming Fortson, Gwyn Welding Gay, Bob Radio Broadcasting Grummer, Carl Drafting Harris, Bill Electronics Havens, Don Air/Heating Hines, Scottie Cosmetology Kirkpatrick, Terry Printing Parker, Charlotte Health Perry, Mitchell Printing Purdy, Ray Computer Roberts, L. B. Auto Technology Skipper, J. C. Auto Body Soderling, Linda Cosmetology Stroud, Royce Res Construction Thurman, Suzanne Commercial Food.X. RECE5VSP I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 1 0 '993 Baseline Elementary School 3623 Baseline Road Phone 570-4150 Olfice of Desegregation Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Monitoring April 27, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS, I The faculty and staff of Baseline Elementary wish to issue a strong protest against the proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant at our school. Baseline is an open-space, area school with special needs. of the instructional curriculum will be greatly diminished by the removal of this aide. the effectiveness We feel Baseline, as an open area school, already receives less funding than many district schools, and consequently has fewer available resources. The computer lab has been a great asset in attracting Southwest Little Rock residents to our school, which was designated The elimination of our computer attendant will destroy the effectiveness of one of our most productive and visible assets. a computer school. Our computer program is not a \"pull'-out\" program. Equity in education is evidenced in our computer lab where each student is working on his/her appropriate level toward a spec'i\"fic academic goal. We, as a staff, ask that you consider the special needs of our students. Even with teacher training, the students will not receive the same benefits I they have been receiving from our extremely well-planned, well-executed  computer program if our lab- atten-d---a--n--t is -r-e-m---o--v--e--d-. Our teachers and our lab attendant have a special, very productive working relationship that should not be sacrificed. Such a sacrifice would be counter-productive to achieving Sincerely, /Jn the district academic objectives at Baseline. ry- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET ---- 72201 little rock, ARKANSAS PT,KASE POST please post! TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 23, 1993 All Employees Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools BUDGET reduction recommendations As you know, the District's faster rate than its revenues. . ways to curb our expenses and bring them i annual expenditures are growing at a we are looking for For that reason, --------- - line with our revenues. would like to invite you If you have ideas I ----- cut our expenditures. . would very much appreciate having your send it through the !------ consider your suggestions may carefully of Directors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. to ways we can to make suggestions j that might be helpful, i thoughts in writing. You I will very as You school mail to my office. and share them PACK UP THE ABACUS SYSTEM AND SEND IT BACK Do not bipy additional computers There are sell them with the Board for the reading remedial specialists currently 17 older computers in our building that are never used^ Shorten the work day of the supervision aides (assigned to playground and lunch duty) and/or decrease the number of aides assigned per school Instead of cutting the hours of the media clerks, allow them to spend 2-5 hours doing clerical work in the school office instead of hiring additional personnel to work in school offices Shorten the calendar year for administrative staff Sell Che IRC building and landApril 28, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools Izard \u0026amp; Markham Little Rock, Ar Dear Dr. Bernd: 72201 In response to your memo reguesting cuts, I would like to offer the following: First of all positions. suggestions for budget , do NOT cut the computer lab attendant These employees perform invaluable services to our students and teachers. in the efforts to meet educational needs and objectives. No amount of computer training provided by the district will equip the teachers to be able to use the computer labs at optimal efficacy. ---- These lab attendants even more providing for the have special training and. important, gj?.p.e,r.i.h.d.e, in using the labs^ special needs of individual students, monitoring the progress of students, and responding to teacher requests These Tandy computer important, ejSEexlD.S.e , regarding student needs and progress. , labs have an excellent service record and the Josten's , as implemented by our highly necessary lab programs, implementea oy nigny xau attendants, are meeting the needs of individual students. To eliminate the position of the computer lab attendants will render our computer programs ridiculously ineffective. To eliminate the computer lab attendants and turn around and buy ten new computers, complete with the necessary in-school software and training, to be used in the reading wiring, labs, seems preposterously counterproductive and wasteful. Where is some common sense? If you want to make some cuts at the building level, the instructional aide that provides P.E. Thit look at This is a non- Since certified person providing release time for teachers. teachers are already writing the lesson plans for P.E., the lesson than they they could much more readily teach the P.E. can perform the computer Let the lab attendant continue to do some of the release lab attendant functions. computer time as they have this year, also do some. and the music teachers will No further cuts should be made concerning the library clerks. programs They too provide invaluable services. Library are already diminished because of this year's requirement for librarians to provide release time, and librarians increasing are hampered in their efforts to meet the ever- library needs of students and teachers. as expanded by the new curriculum. clerks will further diminish the The hours cut from the services that the LHC can provide t o students and teachers. I'm sure addtiona] cuts Page 1in administration would be far less likely to impact on meeting the needs of students and teachers. Furthermore, why are you even considering adding new positions, assistant principals and social workers and others? be true that these are NEEDED and/or WANTED such as It may but budget matters should dictate that if you cant afford it, you cant have it. Therefore it follows, that you have to continue to do without and until you can afford it. These suggestions and comments are respectfully and sincerely submitted.  Page 2April 28, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools Izard at Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd\nThis letter is in reference to your memo soliciting ideas to make budget cuts for the 1993-94 school year.  I would like to suggest the following\nInvestigate whether or not the Abacus System can be disassembled and returned, at least in part. The only part of the system that is being used on a regular basis is in the secretary's office for keeping track of students enrolled, absences, etc. The part of the system that was purchased for teachers' use is complicated to use, does not save time and effort as was promised, and does not yet, after an entire year, have even a small percent of the test objectives in the system. objectives were loaded, totally a waste of time. With onlycone computer per school, even if the standing in line to use the computer is Why not hire one person, if the system , to generate the tests and send them to the buildings in school mail\"? must be used This is what the IRC used to do with the math I believe if you poll objective tests, and it worked just fine. the teachers, you will find that the majority feel that the district wasted a lot of tax-payer money on the Abacus System. A lot of revenue could be recovered by sending back the majority of the system. Secondly, if you must cut something from our schools, take PE teachers, rather than computer lab attendants. The computer lab attendants have special training and experience in using the computer labs to enhance student academic performance that it will take the teachers years to achieve. lab will be greatly diminished for years to come. The effectiveness of computer However, teaching PE, as done in the elementary schools, can readily be done by the classroom teachers. The teachers are responsible for writing the PE plans already anyway, so teaching the objectives they write would not be that much more difficult. Do not purchase the ten new computers for each school. We don't need them. All elementary schools have 30 computers in the labs and maximum class size is 27. be a waste of money. Purchasing ten new computers would Cut administration some more. There are still too many administrative positions. eliminated. Responsibilities could be combined and excess positionsFILED u n. onfRCT COURT EASTERI district ARKANSAS HU) -16 IMS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Cy: OEP- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF Intervenors respectfully move the Court for appropriate further relief. The desegregation plan contemplates that the school district will follow all state laws and regulations of the Department of Education and that the district would not waste its resources by employing persons for administrative positions requiring State Department certification who are uncertified. The Court's budgeting concerns also contemplate that the district will not continue to waste its resources. Employment of unqualified persons in major administrative positions has been roundly condemned in this case. The Court may recall that at one time the then business manager of the district, Vance Jones, acted as superintendent. He was not certified. The district faced the loss of accreditation by his presence. He was removed. The Court is faced with a similar situation in the case of the incumbent associate superintendent of the Little Rock Public Schools. Appropriate and further relief is necessary to protect the interests of the Joshua Intervenors. For cause, the JoshuaIntervenors respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-915 provides: [The ex officio financial secretary of each school district in the state shall file on or before October 1 of each year a list of all personnel, certified and noncertified, employed by the district for the current year setting forth the annual salary of each and such other information as the State Board of Education may prescribe.] 2. Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-919 provides: [(a) All warrants issued in teachers' salaries are void unless: payment of 3. (1) The teacher has a valid teachers' certificate filed in the county supervisor's office\n(2) The teacher has been employed by a valid written contract\nand (3) Copies of such contract are on file in the office of the county treasurer and the county supervisor. (b) The county supervisor or the district superintendent of schools and his surety shall be liable for any warrants which he countersigns in payment of teachers' salaries unless and until there is a valid teachers' certificate and contract for the teacher on file in the county supervisor's office. (c) The county treasurer and his surety shall be liable teachers' for all warrants in payment of salaries which he pays unless and until there is a valid contract in file in his office.] Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-920 provides: (a) It shall be the duty of the county supervisor, when the teachers' contracts are filed with him as required by  6-13-620 and 6-17-919, to examine such contracts. (b) If the county supervisor finds that any board of directors has entered into contracts with teachers which total less than the amount earmarked by  6-17-905, 6-17-907, and 6-17- 908 or with a teacher who has not recorded with him a valid teachers' shall immediately notify certificate, the board he of directors in writing to correct the contract 2or contracts to conform to the legal requirements. (c) If the board does not make contracts in accordance with  6-17-905, 6-17-907, 6-17 908, 6-17-910 - 6-17-913, 6-17-918, 6-17-919, and other legal requirements, the county supervisor shall notify the county treasurer that the contracts are invalid. (d) It shall then be the duty of the county treasurer to refuse payment of warrants issued upon the contracts, and he and his sureties shall be liable for failure to do so\n(e) Moreover, the county supervisor and his surety shall be liable for any warrants which he countersigns which are inconsistent with the provisions of this section. 4. The Joshua Intervenors have an interest in insuring that the rules of law and regulations of the State of Arkansas be followed with respect to (a) school certification of Little Rock School District administrative employees and (b) whether the Little Rock School District is violating any rule or law in paying or promising to pay any uncertified or uncertifiable person for performing administrative duties. The Joshua interests are. therefore. in seeing that the financial resources of the Little Rock School District are devoted to meeting the educational needs of black children and other similarly situated children in the manner provided by law. 5. On or about August 1, 1992, the Defendant Board of Education of the Little Rock School District employed Janet L. Bernard as Associate Superintendent of its schools at an annual salary of $65,000. In addition to that amount, she was to be paid on the benefit schedule provided for district administrative employees. She was also awarded a car allowance of $1,200 per year. 36. The Defendant School Districts employment of Bernard contemplated that she would promptly obtain appropriate certification from the State Department of Education. This is a necessary contemplation of the position of Associate Superintendent of Schools in that the position ultimately supervises virtually all certified positions within the Little Rock School District. 7. Through March 10, 1993, Defendant Bernard had taken no steps to obtain either provisional or permanent certification from the State Department of Education. Moreover, Defendant Bernd, through that date had taken no steps to require Defendant Bernard to meet the educational certification requirements of the State of Arkansas. 8. The State Department of Education requires that all teachers and school administrators possess appropriate educational certification as a condition of employment for the position of teacher or administrator of matters which have educational policy import. Defendant Bernard does has not applied for and thus does not possess appropriate certification. Moreover, she has neither obtained or sought to obtain provisional certification. 9. Defendant's Bernd and the Little Rock School District are aware of the deficiencies of Defendant Bernard, and of the requirements of law cited herein, yet these defendants continue to pay Defendant Bernard. Such pay continuation is in willful and deliberate violation of law and of school district policy. Furthermore, it is in violation of the budgeting requirements of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 4Arkansas. 10. On or about October 1, 1993, the School Defendants sought to comply with the provisions of A.C.A.  6-17-915 by filing a list of certified employees. They, however, knowingly and willfully omitted the name of Janet L. Bernard. 11. Defendant Bernd is either aware or should be that Bernard's failure to obtain certification requires that the State Department of Education cite the district as being in violation of state law and, further, to either place the district on probation or to have the district lose its accreditation. 12. Defendants Bernd and Bernard have sought to avoid loss of certification for the district by the lack of qualification described, supra, by simply being silent about it. 13. The Pulaski County Treasurer continues to honor Little Rock School District warrants for Defendant Bernard despite Bernard's obvious failure to meet the provisions of A.C.A.  6-17- 919(a)(1). 14. The educational interests and needs of the Joshua Intervenors and the class whom they represent are being diminished by the defendants' faiulre to adhere to law, thus, enabling an unqualified admininistrator to administer Little Rock Public Schools. Such lack of qualification is also a reason for the school district's failure to meet the United States District Court's budgeting expectations. 16. Defendant Bernd is \"liable for any warrants which he [has countersigned] in payment of \"Defendant Bernard's salary and 5benefits\" unless and until there is a valid contract for Defendant Bernard in Defendant Bernd's office. A.C.A.  6-17-919. 17. The Joshua Intervenors have no effective recourse other than this action for further relief and for restitution. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that Defendant Bernd be personally required to repay the funds which he has allowed to be unlawfully paid to Defendant Bernard\nand that the Court further find that the school district has violated the desegregation plan by its mismanagement of funds and by its assignment of unqualified personnel, as a matter of law, to administer the school district. The Joshua Intervenors also pray that the defendants be enjoined from making arrangements to continue paying Defendant Bernard from a fund other than the salary fund while she is without appropriate certification. The Joshua Intervenors further pray that the Court determine that Defendant Bernard is not certifiable under Arkansas law for the position of secondary school administrator in that she does not have sixty (60) hours above the masters degree in school administration or a masters degree plus thirty (30) hours in school administration. John W. Walker Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of March, 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 A John 'W. Walker c:Irsd.mot 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUN 2 5 1993 June 24, 1993 Oiiice of Desegrsgation Momtcnng TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. (Mac) Bernd, Superintendent of SchoolsClJ SUBJECT: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS POSITION I reconunend that Ms. Jeanette Wagner be appointed Director of Communications effective July 1, 1993 on the Administrative Non- Certified Salary Schedule at 04-7, which is a salary of $40,080.00 for the 1992-93 school year.HALL HIGH SCHOOL 6700 \"H\" STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 Victor Anderson, Principal (501) 671-6200 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mrs. Estelle Mathis, Superintendent vl^Victor Anderson, Principal Hall High School : Staffing of the Secondary Schools July 26, 1993 At your request I have been reviewing the master schedules of the secondary schools since July 7. The process has been to check the number of course requests for individual courses and to authorize the number of sections of those courses for the master schedules. Small courses (enrollment under fifteen) have been eliminated in most cases, unless the course was a graduation requirement, was a magnet area of concentration, or was the only option available to students. Each small class that was authorized was evaluated on its need for meeting the curricular needs of students. In a few cases a small class was authorized because the elimination of the course from the master schedule would not have resulted in any personnel savings through transfer of the individual in question. In those cases it was felt that it was more appropriate to allow the students needs to be served than to cancel the class and have the staff member do supervision or a duty assignment. After the sections were authorized, surplus individuals were identified and transferred to schools where vacancies had been created due to resignations or transfers. FoUowing the placement of surplused personnel, vacancies were filled through transfers and by hiring new personnel. These steps in the process were coordinated with the Director of Human Resources and the principals. The net changes in full time equivalents in each building were calculated. The data were provided to the Director of Financial Accounting and the Director of Human Resources. Position control forms for the addition of new positions, elimination of positions, transfers, and new employment have been submitted by the principals. After review and verification of need from position control documents, authorized position changes will be approved.1 : O o o \"S Cr: s r r , Maria Parker AssoaSuci. Oesegretaocn 'Student AseigninanI r 1 Jeanelle Wagner I CoTmunicalioro ] \"~l ToBeAnnxnced AssoixSuol. School Oparat Rudolph Howard Hearing OHcer BOARD OF DIRECTORS I Estelle Matihls interim Superintendent T i I Qrady Qadberry I labor Relatione I Little nek School District Org tional Structure JULY 1993 Q 4 Arma Hort Oaeagragallcr FadlMalor Debbie Milam Voltmtaar* In Puttie Schocia Martha Rodgai Soloro- a After tn ler-i School 0AR6'- rI Qedw Rather -Parent Recruitmen'. Coordln^or Caiherina 6l\u0026lt;T Parent Coadinclof { Alice Stovall Reading 1 E EAstseslao Ma^atil^h.b CurrtcUum I I To Bo Announced HumonRaaources 1 To Be Announced MatmRascuces and Sand Support I I ] *Fino Arts Carol Green VocalronoJ Marte Millhollon ControHar Gone Parttar J Leon Adama 3 (Maroaral CrorrittiDr Aset. Supt., Elem. leSwota r I J [Lony S. Aobertcon I Aeet. Sept., Elam. J 14S^oale I [To So. inouncad Asst. Supt.i Sao. 13 Sdioola I- La^UMaAda/ Principote Principaia D T bt Pilnclpab Teoctiara Toachon Teoohen Foreign LangLtago Donnie Glasgow Setenco Dianne Wood Malhematlcs r ineaiwlw j S^coto Repomibaily of Appfoprfaia Aaioclate Supeitaleodei.i 4r ' 1. u Linda Young New Fulurea AtWatIca Olholte Falaon Allematlvo Laamrng ^Inslrudtonal Technology Phyeical Educaiton ! i.0on Aoama ' Pedoral Prugrejna' I Gmria { Dr.PoRy.Kohlar Excedionel Chibran Doug Eoipn Focilitlos Sanrices CharSa Neal Procursment Bred Montgomery Transporlalion 4 Jo Evelyn Elston Drug Education Merlo A- McNenJ Social Studies 4___ |_Poonita Hudspeth Pai Price EaiV ChlUftood ] { Pauletto Martin Adult Education 1 Lucy Lyon I LIbwry Sarvlcoa \"'Sltt!' Development 4 Jodda BDyMn r^ood Ssrvicaa Bill Bamhouss securityyRtsk Monaaemant Dave KIngaalla WonneUonSenicei 11 i  07'20'93 16:07 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @001 DATE: TO: FROM\nSENDER'S FEONS^\nSUET ECT: little rock school district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501} 324-2032 ^^3 f f. SPECLAL INSTRUCTIONS: s 1 J i. Number of Pages (include Speed Dial .__ cover page Fax Phone Numl^er J? 'C)/ I F-- 1 - 2 -1 . J rBoard Of Directors I Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent I To Be AnmurKsd Special Asalstant to Supt Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo Aaaoc. Superlmendeni lor Oes^regaten sterling Ingram lodas for IrwtnKtlon to ths Deputy Suptrintendi nt Jeenette Wagner Communications 'Student Assignment ] lihtfarst CrMDlWon Lany S. Robeitsen 1 Asst Elem. i- Astt Supt Eleni. ISSehooto KSchoote Dr. Victor .Indwaor AcBng AasL Sup., See, IS Se hook Alice Stovall Reading Arma Hart Desegregation Facilitator DebP MSam Votunteere m PutslicSdiod Bedw Rather Parent Recrvnmani Coordinator { Parent Involvement Brad Montgomery Tranaportaiion Principals Teadie rs [ Principals Piincipais Teachers Teachers Inceraive Schools Linda Yourtg New Futures 'Athletics Othedo Faison AKemativs teaming Caiw ] *Rcsponsibi]ity of Appropriate Associate Superintendent Gene Parlter Lar^uage Arts/ Foreign Language Dennis Glasgow { To Be Announced Mathematics { Marie A. McNeal Social Studies E Or. Unda Watson Hearing Officer ] ] Catherine Gil Parent Invofvementl E 'Fine Alts 'Instiudional Technology 'Physical Educational Jo Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Pat Price Early Childhood 4: I Donita Hudspeth I Staff Develojxnent Little Rock School District Organizational Structure December 2,1993 DRAFT #4 Mrk MIhollen Acting Uaieger for Support Services To Be Announced! Planning,'Research and Evaluation Carol Green Ananeial Services Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants Dr. Patty.Kohler btc^ion^ Chimn Pauiefte Martin Adult Education Doug Eaton FadWes Services Jadde Bo0dn Food Services Charlie Neal Procurement [ 5 I Dave Kingsell Informson Senneas lla Busness Systems ][ I Student Systems ] Brady Gadberry Labor Relations To Be Announced Human Resources 4 Lucy Lyon Lbrary Services ] BiK Bamhouse Security/Risk ManaoementBoard Of Directors I Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent I To Be AnnouiKsd Special Aufttam to Supt Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Dr. Rum Mayo Asaoc. Superlmandent for Oaaag regal Ion Steiling Ingram AaaocMa lor Instruction to the Deputy Suparintandari Jeenene Wagner Communicatlona Student Assignment Margam GremlUlon LanyS. Robaitaon 1 Aaat Sept. Elem. -t- AaaL SipL Etom. 16 SctMOls KScltoola Arma Hart Desegregation Facilitator DeOtow Milam Votunteers in Public SdTOOi Bectn Rather Parent Recrunmeni Coordinaior { Parent Invotvement Prindpais Taachers Principals Teachers lincertive Schoote 4:Brad Montgomery Transportation ] *Responsibility of Appropriate Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District Organizational Structure December 2,1993 DRAFT #4 Mark Mlhollan Acting ManagerforSupport Sanricas [To Be Announced! Planning, Research I and Evaluation I [ I Dave Kingsella IntonnaSon SarvKW I J Business Systems Studer* System 3 D(. Victor Andoraor Acting AscL SupL. Sk. 13 Schools Alice Stovall Reading { Fino Arts Carol Green VocaionBi Education Principais Linda Young New Futures Athlelics Othello Faison ARenMrve Learning Centar Gene Parker Lat^uage Arts/ Foreign Language Dennis Glasgow To Be Announced Mathematics {Marie A. McNeal Social Studies {Dr. UnPa Watson Hearing Officer Instructionai Technology Physical Educational do Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Pat Price Early Childhood ] Catherine Gl\u0026gt; IParenl lnvoivement| Oonita Hudspeth I Staff DevelapirTwnl Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants Dr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Chi\u0026amp;ron Exc Pauietle Martin Adult Education Lucy Lyon Ubrary Sendees Rnancaal Sorvicos Doug Eaton FadMies Services Jadde Boyldn Food Services Brady Gadberry Labor Relations Charlie Neal Procurement BII Bamhouse Seeunty/Risk Martaoement To Be Annourtced Human Resources e: !(! . * !|f TRANSACTION REPORT P.Ol JUL-20-93 TUE 16:56 I I\n' D' START SENDER RX TNE PAGES TYPE NOTE I X f iXXXXXXXX ' JUL-20 16:54 501 324 2032 j3\" VE OK X X X X X X X X  U^xt,fmUi-AIOXXXX*'* \"*   .XIXXOJKIX^Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 12, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: n Brown Subject: LRSD Communication Assistant Position 1 wrote you on December 3, 1993 regarding the status of the unfilled Communications Assistant position, but still have not received an answer to my letters inquiries. 1 will appreciate your early response to the questions 1 posed last month in my letter: By what date can the Court expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled? Also, will this position be part-time or will it be full-time? Thank you very much. LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 143 P01 JAN 19 94 17: 13 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 19, 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Dr. Mayo has been given my approval to fill the position of Communication Assistant. has concluded his interviews, It is my hope, that after he filled. the position will be I understand that he has narrowed his choices, and that filling this position is a priority. sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools /bjf 810 West Maricham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 Rscsn/en November 1, 1994 '5 1994 Oiiice 3i De. Katherine P. Mitchell, Ph.D. 1605 Welch Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing asking that you work for and vote for the continuation of hiring registered nurses to provide health care to our school children. Many of our students receive no health care other than what is provided at their school site. Registered nurses are qualified to provide professional assessments, emergency care and referrals, health education. and the all important mental health care. are not qualified to act in such an independent role. Licensed practical nurses In my consultation with the Little Rock School District, I have become aware of countless cases where elementary, junior and senior high students as well as faculty members have not only received excellent health care and mental health/suicide prevention/intervention but are alive today as a result of the professional assessment, quick response and committment of the school nurses of the LRSD. district should be proud! They are certainly a group of xdiich the As our society becomes more complicated, so do the lives of our students and faculty and so do the health problems demanding professional nurses in our schools. Let's not sell our kids short. Please continue your support of our registered school nurses and giving our students the quality health care they deserve. Thank you very much. * Sincerely Mary Paal, M.S.N..,R.N. ,c. Certified Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse cc: Linda Poindexter Dr. Henry WilliamsCA c? cAocAHCAacAann CsHisCZsOQCCsflsWsCS|* gZ5qg^cflK\u0026gt;g c z e 10 n Cfl CA c 0 s \u0026lt; c r M ro CA t-3 S M t-t O O O Z Z S 5fl I -fl n 1-3 O P3 n h-i 30 cn \u0026gt;o0 z (Tl UI o\u0026gt; o o o o o (7 s o o CT\\ a\\ w o o5 CM \u0026gt;H n  W CA ou h3 H o X CA a O' UI o M Co o *4  O \u0026gt; W W W o Cfl CA o w PO wo O OOMO OMI-l-OOOh-W ooooooooo OOtUOHMMOO OOOOOOOOO Ok-iMOOOOOO O Cft 00 o O h- O o o o o OO'tUOOOOOO 'jmoooooo 'fl o CA A w  CA s CMA h3 H oK \\ cs 5S r o g Cm w fl a Cfl O 3S H5 w fl Z  t* tr I I co I g \u0026lt;\u0026gt; I n I z I I 5 \u0026gt; H _ c'fyl Z ?d n es se lU 8 w n sgf D s O *9  N CA CA fl CA h3 ITE-, r, ?^z, -Atiimwiww.-r(S^mssmS^.^wsasssj^^ APR 1 3 1995 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Office Of DescyftQSiiOd ivicniioriiio April 13, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: In John Walkers parting remarks in court Monday, he suggested that we were moving toward segregated staffs and were out of compliance with the racial balance of two of the districts departments\nthe student assignment office and information services. Since his allegations were not refuted in court, I want to offer the following information as evidence of how carefully we are balancing the administrative services of the district. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Student Assignment Coordinator Information Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parent Recruiter 2 2 1 1 2 Student Assignment Assistant Secretary 4 1 5 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 4 6 10 5 5 10 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 INFORMATION SERVICES 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Manager - Systems Development Manager - Computer Operations Computer Electronics Technician Computer Operator Programmer Analyst Systems Analyst Training Coordinator Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 6 12 7 5 12 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools e 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 28, 1993 72201 Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation Mr. Mark Milhollen, Controller Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director - Human Resources Ms. Rita White, Administrative Assistant Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1993-94 LRSD Staffing Process On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, we met for the purpose of implementing a process to staff the elementary schools for the 1993-94 school As directed by the Board of Directors, year. our goal was to achieve staffing efficiency to the extent possible without sacrificing the District's ability to provide high quality desegregated educational programs. Accordingly, it was agreed that a collaborative effort on the part of the persons responsible for various components of the total process would have the greatest likelihood of success. We utilized the following data and information: 1. Actual pre-registration enrollment data for 1993-94 as of July 21, 1993, for LRSD elementary schools (area schools. magnet schools and incentive schools) . This information was contained in a computer run received from the student assignment office. 2 . 1993-94 building capacities indicating the number of classes at each grade level for 1992-93. This information projected the number of classes needed at each grade level for 1993-94 based on the assumption that all currently assigned students (except 92-93 sixth graders) would remain and advance. This information was, likewise, received from the student assignment office and compiled on individual memos from the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation to each building principal. A request was made that each principal correct or adjust the list before returning it to the Student Assignment Office.Ingram, Gadberry, Milhollen and White July 23, Page 2 1993 3. Human Resource's list of existing staffing, reguest for transfers and vacancies by school. This included: position control:alpha report as of June 21, (a) 1993, showing all positions and employees\n(b) position control site report as of June 8, 1993, showing positions and employee names by school\nand, (c) 1993 transfer requests as well as a booklet containing vacancies in the District by school. 4 . 1993-94 Payroll Budget as of May 5, 1993, listing number of kindergarten and grades 1-6 certified positions budgeted for each school. To fulfill our mandate to \"staff lean,\" building capacity forms on a school-by-school basis. we reviewed the 1993-94 We noted the number of classes needed at each grade level during the 1992-93 school year. We compared that with the number of classes requested at each grade level for the 1993-94 school year. After determining the number of students actually enrolled in the particular grade as of this staffing process, we attempted to determine whether the number of classes was reasonable available data. in light of all currently Keep in mind. in making such determinations, considerations such as applicable state standards (i.e.. important maximum class size by grade level) desegregation plan requirements (i.e., maximum individual classroom enrollments at Incentive Schools of 18 in four-year-old classes\n20 in kindergarten, 23 in grade 1-3\nand 25 in grades 1-6, etc.) and other applicable guiding principles, (i.e., use of cross-grade grouping where possible to do so within applicable class-size limitations, considered and observed. etc. ) had to be Those requests which appeared to be reasonable based on the available information were honored. out-of-line with either the available Those which appeared to be developments were adjusted accordingly. data ( However, or anticipated such was done with the understanding that adjustments and refinements would have to be made as more complete data can be made available. By using cross grade grouping in the area schools, we attempted to maximize staff efficiency by minimizing the numbers of instances where class size did not come close to the standard applicable to the particular grade level. There was not a need to make use of cross grade grouping at magnet schools as there are enough students registered and on the waiting lists to maximize utilization of staff. Further, we are currently investigating whether the same would be permissible for incentive schools.HI  \u0026gt;. o 3^ Mt^*\u0026gt;i**iI^Xk'\u0026gt;*\u0026amp;W\u0026gt;'. RECE!'\"\"'' OCT 2 1 1995 FILED u S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUM  -noMurir n FRK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS^^ McCORMACK. CLER WESTERN DIVISION By:------------ clerk By: t I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 ! I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defendants under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation. The problem arises from the following set of circumstances and facts. At several of the hearings before the Court, the Joshua Intervenors have objected to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the Little Rock School District which the Joshua Intervenors contend are racial in effect. Most recently. the Joshua Intervenors repeated their criticism of exclusion or absence of staff of African American descent in the early childhood programs (infants through third grade) at Rockefeller Incentive school and at the supervisory staff level of the Little School District desegregation office (where the entire staff of seven or eight persons is white). These criticisms were first intended and submitted as constructive areas for dialogue. Then, when no changes were instituted, they were presented as areas forI direct and rather prompt action. They were also submitted as items for further inquiry or study as the district seeks to implement the plan in good faith. The parties have met with Ms. Ann Brown, ODM Director, almost weekly since on or about July 17, 1995 in an effort to reduce the areas of their disagreement and to find ways to improve the implementation of the desegregation plan. During these meetings, the above stated problems have again arisen. The positions of the two primary litigant parties are as follows: (1) Joshua contends that faculty and staff desegregation. properly defined, includes inclusion and placement of staff of both races in such way as not to allow the appearance, inference or complaint that some jobs are being intended for one race or the other, or that schools programs, programs, activities or grade levels are so intended. It includes inclusion throughout the administrative corps so that African Americans participate in leadership positions in all areas, providing open evidence to the community of the operation of a racially nondiscriminatory school system. Joshua further contends that the \"root and branch\" requirement of law requires elimination of exclusion and segregation as \"vestiges\" of discrimination. (2) The school administration contends that it is not obliged to provide a racially diverse staff in the early childhood program, at least at Rockefeller, or in the seven or eight positions of authority within the school desegregation department of the district headed by Dr. Russ Mayo. For the administration, if the plan does not specifically state a thing.Rm it is not required. The parties therefore have a material disagreement, the resolution of which is essential if the desegregation plan is to be implemented in a meaningful manner. The Court's action is therefore respectfully sought. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the Little Rock School District with respect to faculty and staff. In the alternative, depending upon the administration's reply to this motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray for an immediate evidentiary hearing on the subject at which time the school superintendent and school desegregation assistant superintendent would be called upon to explain their faculty and staff implementation procedures. If the Little Rock School District positions are correctly stated above, then the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court adopt the ODM findings and order the Little Rock defendants to implement the remedies recommended by ODM. * Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 By: 72206 uniMi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded U.S. mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on this day of October, 1995. Jo: Walker ! RR\" * OCT 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 1995 JAMES w. McCormack, clerk By:____________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION D=P CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT PRACTICES One need look no further than one of the precedesors of this litigation to find that it has been settled for thirty years that desegregating faculty and staff in all schools, programs and offices is an essential ingredient of the transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. In Clark v Board of Education of Little Rock School District. 369 F2d 661, 669 (Sth Cir. 1966), the Court wrote\nwe agree that faculty segregation encourages pupil segregation and is detrimental in achieving a constitutionally required non-racially operated school system. It is clear that the Board may not continue to operate a segregated teaching staff. Bradley v School Board of City of Richmond. 382 U.S. 103... (1965)\nSmith v Board of Education of Morrilton School District. 32 No. 32, 365, Fed 2d, 770 (Sth Cir. 1966)\nKemp v Beasley, supra. also clear that the time for delay is past. It is The desegregation of the teaching staff should have begun many years ago. At this point, the Board is going to have to take excelled and positive action to end discriminatory practices in staff assignment and recruitment.I See also Green v County School Board. 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968) (including \"existing policy and practice with regard to faculty [and] staff...[as] among the most indicia of a segregated system\"). The Supreme Court again addressed the issue of faculty and staff desegregation in 1971 in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1. The Court reiterated the above quoted language from Green (id. at 18), and approved generally the requirement of thoroughgoing desegregation throughout every component of the faculty. 1 The Supreme Court in Swann reiterated that district courts possess broad equitable authority in the remedial phase of a school desegregation case. Swann. 402 U.S. at 15. Therefore, courts directed that a particular adminstrative position be I filled by a black person in order to further the goal of evidencing the transition to a unitary school system. See Smith V St. Tawwanv Parrish School Board. 489 F2d 415 (5th Cir. 1971) (assistant principal)\nDavis v School District of City of Pontiac. 487 F2d 890 (6th cir. 1973) (assistant superintendent). In the light of the foregoing history, the amended plan for the Little Rock School District is replete with provisions supporting the relief sought by Joshua Intervenors in the 1 See also United States v Jefferson County Board of Education. 380 F2d 385, 394 (5th Cir. 1967) (en banc) (\"forbidding discrimination in the hiring, assignment and promotion \"of teachers and other professional staff members\" and requiring that the defendants... take steps to assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system\".) (subsequent history omptted).accompanying motion regarding the inclusion of black faculty and staff in every facet of the school system. Among other things, it is clear that the Court has authority to direct the Little Rock defendants to desegregate the staff of the internal monitoring office forthwith  and that authority should be exercised. See Smith and Davis. supra. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR By: Certificate of Service 72206 I do hereby state that the for to all counsel of record on this mail. igoing memorandum was forward day of October, 1995 via U.S. n W. Walker 2 See \"Desegregation Plan, Little Rock School District (April 29, 1992), at 1, first paragraph\nE.\nlast paragraph\nat 2 last \"bullet\" on page\nat 3 last paragraph at 191 C.\nat 192 A. 3. Moreover, defendants evidence their awareness of the requirements which Joshua Intervenors find it necessary to reiterate by including in each quarterly monitoring report assignment figures by race for staff at each school and in their administrative corps. r\u0026gt;Cf CC. TO: FROM: 4* DATE: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Federal Monitor RECE OCT 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregaiion M. Brady Gadberry, Director of Human Resources October 26, 1993 Number of LRSD Employees n Enclosed you will find the information you requested from me in your October 18, 1993 memo. This information was gathered from the data in the Position Control System. useful. I hope that you find it /ra 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361w o \u0026lt; 0\u0026lt; Em 3 tJ z X EM U N X o u X Em O so so rs PM U I \u0026gt;4 CD X PO tn so U o4 w 2 u U Em Q PO (A Os X J m PM X \"x. O o X w gg gg w EM X X u 3 X n CD OS co m PM r* os EM O X H X O \u0026lt;4 8 X u w X M Em UI Cm g (A Q H X EM X W O b g (fl Q H EM X H U z o z (A H M s w 8 C. Jcrf^^ 3 J .'3 5\n.-.u 0\n3 ' JOaJ.^T ' ArtrA.MSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 6 1995 '-'AiVicS n By: fr, Ujf A f neo f^, OP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. 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 On motion of the defendants Little Rock School District without objection of the Joshua Intervenors, and for good cause shown to the court, defendants' Motion for Extension of Time is granted. The time within which defendants must respond to the complaint is extended to and including November 13, 1995. , /ha- STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED STATES DI JUDGE DATE: rWIS DOCUME^'T ENTcHED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CaVFLlAMCEiViTH RULE53 ANiWR79{a) FRCP CN BY tT' 2 5 5 9IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership Filed U S 013' iCTCCURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n1996 -J' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 3\\ Wl 'M cQQR\\MAICbK, MClIRrK V OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD) to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc,#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612], I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan pxQvisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2-remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481] and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483] have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506]. In its motion Joshua argues that (1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program. research and evaluation instrximent for the next five years. (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its a desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3-The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped II Draft tl and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether 'settlement' constitutes this a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, settlement. public This policy 'settlement' prohibits this type of purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an \"escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or ServiceMaster agreement. modify the It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the teras of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a -4-contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. Order, at 5-6 [doc.#2586]. On December 22, 1995, Joshua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]. Joshua states they have not completed their presentation in support of their initial motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract, and they argue the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it has set forth in its motion. The Court has considered the matter and remains convinced that its interpretation of the contract was correct and that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. See Order, at 6. Joshua cites Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) , in support of its motion. The Court finds Joshua's reliance on Union Nat. Bank to be misplaced, however, as that case involved a termination clause between the parties to the contract, see id. 860 F.2d at 849, while the case at Bar involves a purported settlement between contracting party and a third a party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling -5-party. Union Nat. Bank is thus distinguishable and provides no support for Joshua's motion for reconsideration. In any case, even if Joshua is correct that such a unilateral escape from contractual obligations would be permissible under Arkansas law, the parties in this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to f 14,12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. Accordingly, the Court denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995, Order. With respect to that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing, the Court finds that this aspect of the motion should be and hereby is denied as moot. The Court notes that the December Sth hearing was not completed because Joshua specifically requested that the matter be continued so that it could file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Order. Tr. at 92, 97. Indeed, Joshua stated that such an appeal would \"resolve a lot of matters.\" Tr. at 90. It was only after Joshua concluded that the Order was not appealable that Joshua now asks that the hearing be completed. However, because the Court's docket is full. the Court is unable to schedule the matter for a hearing in the immediate future. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, and because the Court in any case denies Joshua's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following -6-bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506] should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua may refile the motion to the extent they wish to pursue the matter after reviewing today's order. Should Joshua refile the motion, the Court will schedule the matter for a hearing. III. On September 14, 1995, the PCSSD filed a motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]. PCSSD seeks to clarify those parts of the plan and programs that are or were calculated to further desegregate the southeast sector schools within the PCSSD, i.e., the Talented and Gifted Program within the southeast sector. the Fine Arts Program at Landmark, the Specialty Program at Bates Elementary, and Harris Elementary. The Court has considered the motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua has not filed a response to the motion even though they would appear to be significantly affected by the matters contained therein. In any case. the status of this motion is questionable given the subsequent motions of PCSSD regarding potential school closings and new construction that would affect the schools in the southeast sector and elsewhere. Should PCSSD refile this motion, Joshua is expected to file a timely response stating their position on the matter. -7-IV. The LRSD moves for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to the LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement or the terms of the plans [doc.#2573]. The Court finds that the motion for an order of dismissal should be and hereby is denied. Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed. at least as technical matter. The Court finds. however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion. to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. II Little Rock School a List. V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made) . Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and -8-complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. V. On October 25, 1995, Joshua filed a motion asking the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]. Joshua objects to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the LRSD and contends that the parties have a material disagreement. Joshua seeks an Order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the LRSD with respect to faculty and staff. The Court has considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. The obligations of the LRSD regarding faculty and staff are clearly set forth in both the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan and need not be repeated here. Moreover, the parties have agreed in their Stipulation that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans remain deficient in terms of compliance. Should the parties be unable to reach agreement regarding faculty and staff desegregation, Joshua may refile its motion. -9-VI. On October 26, 1995, PCSSD filed a motion for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]. In its motion, PCSSD asks for permission to begin construction on one permanent classroom at Jacksonville Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. On January 29, 1996, PCSSD filed a subsequent motion regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. This latter motion supplements and essentially supersedes the previous motion filed on October 26, 1995. In its supplemental motion, PCSSD seeks permission to begin construction on two permanent classrooms at Cato Elementary, two classrooms at Arnold Drive Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. The Court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that PCSSD's request is consistent with the district's long-range plans for replacement of portable buildings. The construction will not increase the capacity of the aforementioned schools, with the exception of Pine Forest Elementary.' Accordingly, the motions for an Order regarding portable buildings are hereby granted. 1 On September 15, 1995, the Court approved a motion granting the PCSSD permission to add a kindergarten class to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary. The district has represented to the Court that one of the permanent classrooms would reflect the additional capacity resulting from the new kindergarten class. -10-VII. In sum, the Court denies as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481], denies as moot LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483], denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995 Order [doc.#2594], denies as moot that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506], denies without prejudice PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520], denies LRSD's motion for an Order of dismissal [doc.#2573], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544], and grants PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#'s 2546 \u0026amp; 2612]. 'A IT IS SO ORDERED this ay of March 1996. mis DOCLi.Mt.NT ent: :d on docket sheet in COMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -11- C  C/= LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 26 96 8:41 F-. 02/02 LrrrLE Rock School District LRSD Administrator Accepts Fosiiion April 26. W96 For more information Suellen Vann, .524-202.0 Tire Little Rock School Districts budget director has announced his resignation. Fred Smith. Manager of Support Services, has accepted a position uith Laidlaw Transit In addition r bis financial .and budgetaD' responsibilities, Snuih also .d sen'ices, purchasing, transportation, facilities, and safety and security for tl, RSD. I welcome the opportunity to return to the private sector, and 1 look torward to ling to be involve. th the transportation of children of the Little Rock Sc!io(.\u0026gt;i Dnnict in my nosmon wi',!i i \"  said Mr. SmitL -Mr Smith has made improvements in our budget preparation and reporting 'du'es'. said Dr Henr/ Williar''- OSD nerintendent, and I wish him well in his \u0026gt;11. '.v's District Dire ir of Opeialions for Tennessee and  effective May 15 99ti. :tle Sock, .Lrkaii^ias 721101  (50.1)334 2000 . r I. 810 Wf.,\nV a.rlii.. Ill Street 03*-26- 98 21:47 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI -- ODM 002'008 Little Rock School District For Release\nafter 8:00 p m. March 26,1998 For more information: SueUen Vann, 324-2020 Superintendent Fills Administrative Posts The Little Rock School Dishict (LRSD) superintendent has appointed four top-level administrators. Tonight the LRSD Board of Education approved the appointments recommended by Dr. Les Camine. The four positions and appointees are\n Associate Superintendent for Administrative Sendees - Junious Babbs, Jr. Associate Superintendent for Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Operations - Dr. Victor Anderson Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation - Dr. Katherine Lease \"These appointments will help us as we work with principals and other staff to improve our schools,\" Dr. Camine said, Each of these individuals brings a great deal of experience and expertise to the position, and I look forward to working with each of them as we enhance the quality of education we provide our students.' Camine explained that these are replac nent positions, not new positions, although there may be some change in responsibilities if the new Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which has been submitted to the federal court is approved. Camine added that there might be some consolidation of responsibilities and reorganization of central administrative functions later this year. (more 810 Wssf Msrkhatn Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 7220 1  (501)324-2000 03-26 98 21'. 48 0501 324 2023 LRSD C05IMUNICATI 0D3I @003-006 LRSD Administrative Appointments Page 2 of 5 Babbs position as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services includes responsibility for desegregation functions of the district as well as other areas which will be designated following the courts action on the Revised Plan, according to Camine. Babbs Cjirently serves as principal of Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet fligh School, a position he has held since 1985. Prior to that, he served as a biology instructor at Central High (1973-79), administrative assistant at Hah High (1979-80), assistant principal at Central (1980-83), and principal at Pulaski Heights Junior High (1983-85). Babbs earned a Bachelor of Science from Henderson State University in 1973 and a Master of Science in Education Iron! Henderson State University in 1975. Lesley will serve as the districts leader of curriculum in her role as Associate Superintendent for Instruction. I am confident that Dr. Lesley will provide us strong leadership as we evaluate our curriculum and recommend strengthening our academic program, Carnine noted. Lesley serves as the .Associate Superintendent and Chief of Staff of the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. She previously held the position of Associate State Superintendent for Standards and Curriculum for the Delaware Department of Public Instruction\nAssistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support Services in the Austin, Texas Independent School District\nand Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction in the Waco, Texas Independent School District (more)03 26 99 21\n49 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATI ODM @004/006 LRSD Administrative .Appointments Page 3 of 5 Lesley earned e Bachelor of Arts in 1962 from the University of North Texas, the Master of Arts in 1968 from West Texas State University\nand the Doctor of Education degree in 1989 from Baylor University. In assuming the position of Associate Superintendent for Operations, Anderson will lead business and planning functions of the district Dr. Andersons background as Assistant Superintendent responsible for secondary schools and as a building principal will help us significantly as we plan for the next several years, Carnine said. .Anderson, who .has served as Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools since 1995, joined the LRSD in 1970. He served as English instructor at Horace Mann High School (1970-71) and at Parkview High School (1971-74) and as Dean of Students at Dunbar Junior High (197-U77). Following a sabbatical to obtain his doctorate, .-Anderson served as assistant principal at Horace Mann Junior High (1978-80) and at Forest Heights Junior High (1980-83). He was principal at Forest Heights Junior High (1983-87) and at Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Junior High (1987-88). .Anderson served as .Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation from 1988 until 1990, when he became principal at Hall High School. .Anderson earned a Bachelor of Arts from Hendrix College in 1970\na Master of Science in English/Educaiion from th.e University of Central .Arkansas in 1974\nand a Doctor of Pliilosophy in Educational Administration frr- George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University in 1978.03 26 '98 21:49 oOl 324 2023 LRSD COMMVXICATI ODM @005-'006 LRSD .Administrative Appointments Page 4 of 5 As Director of the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Lease will supenise the districts planning and assessment functions. Dr. Lease brings to our district a diverse background in secondary education and counseling which will help us as we review' our assessment tools and provide assistance to our teachers and curriculum specialists, Carnine said. Lease presently serves as Director of Secondary Education in the Fayetteville School District. Prior to that, she had sert'ed as an assistant principal, counselor and teacher in Hot Springs, and served as chairperson of the Guidance and Counseling Department of the Texarkana, .-Arkansas School District, Lease taught at Parkview High School from 1973 until 1975 and served as a counselor at Pulaski Heights Middle School in 1975. .Lease earned a Bachelor of Science in Education in 1971 and Master of Education in 1972 from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. She received a Doctor of Education from the University' of Arkansas at Little Rock. Salaries have not been set for the positions, but Carnine said they would be within the advertised salary ranges. He anticipates the appointees will assume their new roles by this summer. Vacancies created by Babbs and Andersons appointments will be advertised immediately, and the superintendent will empanel selection committees to review and recommend candidates. .Additionally, the title of .Assistant Superintendent Sadie Mitchell has changed to Associate Superintendent for School Services. Mitchell oversees the district's elementary (more)' 03* 26. 98 21:30 501 324 2023 LRSD CCMMVXICATI ODM  006 006 LRSD Administrative Appointments Page 5 of 5 schools. Another Assistant Superintendent position, which also supervises elementary schools, will be advertised\nMargaret Gremillion who retired this year- formerly occupied the positioc.JIJ N - O 5 - ? WED o ? : o 1 F . 0 1 Southujcst Office Supplies j Semes * Conveaie: 4723 Bise Line Rond  L\ni  SefscaoQ R.C'Cic AR , 2209 (501)562-6621 FAX (501)562-2466 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: ^1 -4\u0026gt; TIME: z4/X FAX # CALIuED: TO: FROM: : 4 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET\nT IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING TRA2JSMI2SI0N, PLEASE CALL (501)562-6621 REMARKS: 7J 1.1 H - O 5 - ? WED Q ? : O 1 P . 13 D Witnessing the submission of the reorganization plan to the School Boatd last Thursday night was one of the most iiTesponsible actions of the superintendent that has been done lately. Not suipiisingly, he tried to persuade the Board to approve the plan without a great deal of discussion or explanation. Tliis plan is a major play by two, maybe tluee players. The players include Dr. Williams, Brady Gadbeny, and perhaps Linda Young. None of these people actually know what the staff of the curriculum depaitments have done or attempted to do in our schools. Dr. Williams seldom goes to the IRC to discuss issues dealing with rhe curriculum, or has .Brady Gadbeny made it Iris objective to find out what goes on in the schools. Is he even qualified? Does being principal of a junior liigh make him an expert in curriculum'? Does being a Labor Relations Director make him an expert'? I don't think so. Yer, he has placed himself as Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum. 1 wonder what he knows about the National or State Frameworks for Math, Science. Social Studies, 'English, or Reading. Wliat does he know about integrating the curriculum and making it applicable for our students today? Since his illness has often sidelined him for long periods of time, I wonder what he knows about these topics or what goes on in our schools. Linda Young has been made a Director. 'What exactly does her duties as a Director of New Futures include? The Special Assistant to the Superintendent will be placed under her jurisdiction to do what duties'? Tills seems to be a lofty title for someone who was laired as a liaison for a special gi'aiic program only nine years ago. Does planning a reception tor the superintendent and solicting funds for the party deserve being named a director' .Serving on committees and advising the superintendent seems to go a long way. Does working in four' junior high schools and organizing the teaming approach for these junior high schools deserve the title of a Director? Someone seems to think so. When does dedication to schools and qualification for the job count? How has she worked with the curriculum people in reorganinzing the schools? Communication with most of the supervisors has been very limited. Gene Parker has seemed to be the only supervisor who has worked with her. 'Where does he nt into the structure? Word has it that he may resign since he was not placed in a liigh position. Sour grapes??? He is allowed to \"do ids work at home\" since the stress of the District bothers him. Ooooo, nice perks for someone who seems so tempermental at times. How cooperative a player is he? Whose team is he playing for? He often doesnt show for meetings at the time set by the group and wants the time changed for his convenience. disjomtedness. This seemed to an area of It seems as if responsibilities for the curriculum, the central theme of our schools, is getting left out of the whole plan. No one from the upper level of the administration has made it their task to find out what is going on in the trenches. Margaret Gremillion, Sadie Mitchell, and Vic Anderson are in the schools almost everyday. Ask them how much the curriculum staff works in the schools\nask the principals who haved asked for assistance. A comment which was included in the narrative of the business case states that 'the efforts of the present structure of the curriculum is disjointed. It I wonder how any one would know that as a fact. How much commumcation has been done with all the instructional supervisors or the specialists who are in the schools on a daily basis? What discussion has /J IJ N - O 5 WED O 2 taken place with the principals who requested assistance or the teachers who have been helped? Sta,ft development has been orchestrared by the various curriculum departments. This inservice has been the best in the state. No other school district in this state has specialists who can deliver inservice like the teachers in our district are receiving. Other districts must rely on coop stalT or other paid consultants. Our needs as the larcest and most integrated District in the state are special. Did any of the upper level staff see, hear, or participate in this training? No, I dont tliink so. Tliis staff development was done with a dedicated staff that planned and conducted the inservice with the iiishest level of professionalism. Teachers were provided with instruction, supplies, and guidance. Where else in this State could this much preparation be done and instruction be delivered? Planning was done jointly and cooperatively. AU areas of the curriculum were involved. Dividing the instructional staff up will be detrimental to continued joint planning. Will the current assistant superintendents continue to oversee the everyday operation of their schools, as well meet with the curriculum teams assigned to tliein, plan curriculum inservice, and advise building level administrators? Nothing was explained in the plan as to how or who would supervise, advise, or oversee the teams other than just saying they would operate under an assistant superintendent. Would the curriculum department still remain intact or would these teams by split up and placed in different areas? How can, or will, joint planning take place' Who will be placed on these teams? What personnel will be cut or moved? Nothing has been explained. Does the \"appointed\" assistant superintendent in charge of curriculum know about the strategies that have been implemented in our schools? Not since Dennis Glasgow worked as \"acting\" assistant superintendent for curriculum has the instructional staff felt as if they were a part of the school district. Issues were discussed openly, decisions were made jointly, no secrets were discussed behind closed doors, and efforts were made to do the best tilings for the students and the school district. I guess Maybe this is why Dr. Williams removed Mr. Glasgow from this position. Integrity and honesty apparently count for nothing in the eyes of our superintendent. I guess qualifications aren't worth much either, since Mr. Glasgow has the credentials needed to fulfill the position of an assistant superintendent for curriculum. I hope the Board takes a long and hard look at the reorganizaiional structure that Dr. Williams is proposing. If his contract is bought out by the Board, his structure should not be put in place for someone else to reorganize. Confusion and a feeling of being unsettled would exist again in our District. Should the superintendent and/or Board have some discussion with the staff and other people who will be affected by this plan? This District has some 25,000 students that wiU be affected by this reorganization. Is this the best tiling for our District? It seems that cutting some of the top administration would address cutting the Special Assistant to the Superintendent and some of the Director level positions. Most of the instructional staff are teachers, working at the same .salary level of the teachers in the district. Moving the instructional staff as a curriculum team under an assistant superintendent does cut cost. Many people do not realize that most of the people S'..T u N -05 WED O ? O 3 at the IRC are not on admirostratton level contracts. These people work longer hours than most classroom teachers and are paid as a teacher, The Board asked the superintedent to make cuts^ as tar away from the students as possible, but making certain people directors and retaining special assistants does cut away from the students. Our students beneht from the specialists going into the classrooms because they set special programs, and their teacheis get on the job training in the latest techniques in teaching strategies. Check into the creditiais of the specialists in our District. Most of them are award winning teachers, on the state and national level, who have continued their special training to enrich their education and provide better service for our students and our District. It seems as if the superintendent must have somethin: to hide since he wanted this plan approved so quickly. What is his underlying message? Does he ___ ____ special\" people placed in \"special\" places before he leaves? Most of the Board doesn't seem surprised at this action. Is this another one of his actions which may prove deadly to our Distnct? Does he even care? How much has he cared about our District since he want some of liis came here? Lip service doesn't show concern. The fact that this will be discussed and possibly voted on at a luncheon meeting next Thursday frightens most teachers. This should be done at a regular session. He says he has done what he was .hired to do, get us out of coun. He hasnt done that. He is riding on the coat rails of the people m the trenches who have worked with our students for many years. Who has done the ultimate work in the schools? Surely he doesn't think he has. How most teachers. many days has he spent in the schools since he was hired compared to the number of days he has spent looking fc. another job? Making token visits to a school does not help one understand what is being done on a day to day basis. Let him teach in a junior high ciass for a week, see the new strategies used in an elementary classroom, or do a hands-on activitv in a iiieh school class. He needs to understand that it has taken many people and many years to get out of coun. Tills District needs a leader who cares about all facets of leaining, visits with the st^, takes a true interest in the community, is not afraid to listen and understand, not one who acts 30 arrogant and oblivious to the needs of the entire communi tv. .3 tor Verbiage doesn't become action unless the person is truly dedicated to making this school distria the best in the State. Our students and teachers deserve the best! had the best that someone has to offer! We all wish that weJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTIDROCKARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (SOI) 374-375S FAX (501)374-4187 lOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER /K KIMBERLY R. DICKSON [DELIVERED BY FAX 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] December 12, 1996 E\u0026gt;r. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Roberts\nI do not know whether I will be able to work with you as contemplated as long as Victor Anderson, Gail Bradford and Brady Gadberry are in positions of policy and continue to manifest attitudes negative to blade students. This is a concern which I have expressed to you before and it is of serious proportion. For the moment I am going to keep an open mind, but I ask you to examine their practices from a historic perspective as well as on an ongoing basis within the context of our monitoring reports. My views are particularly important as far as Mr. Gadberry and Mr. Anderson are concerned because I believe that they will be eventual superintendent contenders. raised. I will be happy to visit with you and them as well to explore these concerns which I have Thank you for your attention to this matter. :rel \u0026gt;hn W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Victor Anderson Ms. Gail Bradford 30  d 00I0IZ2 01  a  d a3~,nBn  fl nhof upaa 06:11 9661/31/3: '\u0026gt;4 3HN W. WALKER ALPH WASHINGTON ARK BURNETTE USTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED litC 1 5 1397 December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-82-866 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development. I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with Associate Superintendents postings, i.c v-w --- i---_-------- position being open ended defined as negotiable. one There is We have previously had extensive budget hearings. budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators may be able to make legitimate claims for upward pay adjustments. This will include principals and other persons at the Director no level. Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to The Court is reminded that there administrators in the District. has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special School District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of whom are unnecessary. Dr. Carnine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyPage 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. You will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims Gadberry. for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe. more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result May I in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anti-Dr. Camine letter. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely. i John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Leslie Camine Chris Heller Ann Brown i i PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9. Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of Schools'J- JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of the implementation of all aspects of the desegregation plan so that organizational and learning equity are achieved in the Little Rock School District. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITrES\n1. Assists with the technical implementation of the Districts desegregation plan. 2. Assumes the responsibility of developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, increasing student learning in incentive schools, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning and proposal development. 3. Assumes the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating the Districts desegregation plan with the authority to make written requests for changes in the central office or building practices which give evidence of impending implementation as well as the spirit of the desegregation plan. 4. Assumes the responsibility for the coordination of central office departments in the implementation of various policies, procedures, and practices relating to school desegregation. 5. Maintains contact with State and federal officials so as to keep abreast of statutes, regulations, court decisions, and legal options which pertain to the desegregation of the schools. 6. Assists school principals to develop a site-based decision-making process based on the Eflfective School research. This decision-making process will place high emphasis on teacher participation. 7. Assists school principals and teachers to continually improve learning quality and equity through the application of research-based instructional supervisory techniques. 8. Attends the Board of Directors meetings and prepares such reports for the Board as the Superintendent may request. 9. Other duties as assigned by the Superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: $70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance.APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE\nINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Superintendent of Schools. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST  December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.To supervise, on a constant, ongoing basis, the translation of the Districts educational .. f! philosophy, goals, and objectives into active terms that directly benefit each individual student. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Attends Board of Directors meetings, as necessary, and prepares such reports for the Board as the Superintendent may request. 2. Serves as the chief advisor to the Superintendent pertaining to instruction. 3. Monitors instruction K-12. 4. Works with Educational Programs staff and principals to determine educational priorities and goals for the District and schools. 5. Provides leadership and support to Assistant Superintendents for School Operations and to principals so that they can conduct effective building level needs assessments. 6. Assumes responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of personnel as may be assigned by the Superintendent. 7. Assumes responsibility for assisting the Assistant Superintendents for School Operations, Educational Programs staff and principals to encourage and involve community, staff and students, when appropriate, in decision making related to educational programs and instruction. 8. Other duties as assigned by the Superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: $70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel.SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM .STR PET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST  1 5 December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, is required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problemsolving, and decision-making skills needed for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a foil understanding of the relationships required between student, parent, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district. 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing, is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of SchoolsJOB GOAL: Serves as Chief Financial Officer and Business Manager responsible for the implementation and coordination of all District financial services including budgeting, forecasting, and accounting. Provides leadership in developing, implementing, and monitoring support services and programs for the District in areas such as building construction, maintenance and operations, purchasing, accounting controls, warehousing, food services, safety and security, and risk management. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. As Chief Financial Officer, administers all financial services for the District. Includes direction of all accounting, payroll, budgeting, forecasting, and tracking activities\ndisbursement, accountability and investment of funds\nverification of bank accounts\ndevelopment of issuance of financial reports. Manages the process whereby support services and programs needs are developed, modified, implemented, and monitored to achieve desired results, cost objectives, and District goals\nInvolves\n(A) maintaining all physical plant facilities, including the coordination of new construction, renovation, repair, and custodial services to insure that high standards of workmanship, cleanliness, and safety, are maintained in a cost-efficient manner\n(B) controlling the procurement of supplies and equipment required for operation of the District, initiation contracts and purchase orders, securing bids and quotations, insuring quality of vendors products, managing inventory levels and coordinating central warehouse operation\n(C) planning, policy formulation, and implementation of food service requirements to meet District, State, and Federal guidelines by managing financial transactions, administering lunch and breakfast programs, controlling food service equipment and coordinating the purchasing, storage distribution and accounting of food and related supplies at the various units\n(D) administering a self-insurance loss program to ensure a high level of cost efficiency while maintaining a low loss ratio\n(E) implementing and maintaining security and safety programs to provide a high standard of security and safety throughout the District. Serves as advisor to administrators in the resolution of grievances based on terms and conditions of existing collective bargaining agreements. Attends Board of Directors meetings, prepares reports and presentations to the Board as requested by the Superintendent.5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent, and serves as liaison with all professional staff, students, and the community on matters relating to financial and support services. SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM. STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation. 5. Evidence of successful experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.JOB GOAL\nTo assist the Superintendent in providing the Board of Directors with pertinent evaluation data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. To manage the process whereby the Board identifies, on a yearly basis, the programs and services which have priority for evaluation. 2. To supervise the development of an evaluation design for each of the programs and services which have received priority for monitoring and evaluation. 3. To supervise the implementation of planning and evaluation designs which have been approved by the school district. 4. To provide technical assistance in the compilation and statistical analysis of data that will enable the district to utilize such evaluation results in the development, improvement, and/or elimination of programs. 5. To assume responsibility for coordinating the process for selecting outside planners and evaluators when they are needed. 6. 7. 8. To supervise the design and implementation of a district-wide testing program. Serves on such patron and staff committees as the Superintendent may direct. Assumes the responsibility for developing such reports as necessary to keep patrons and staff better informed about programs and services, and to facilitate their participation in planning and decision making. 9. 10. Assumes the respo\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_755","title":"Staffing","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":["1989/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Staffing"],"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/755"],"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":["206 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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV J 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation INTERVENORS Moniicnng RESPONSE TO ~JOSHUA MOTION... . REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF DESEGREGATION For its response. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD is in compliance with its desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation. Joshua seeks to impose upon LRSD requirements which are not found in the LRSD desegregation plan. Joshua is entitled only to enforce the terms of the LRSD plan. The court must reject Joshua's efforts to impose upon LRSD obligations which are not contained in its desegregation plan. In exchange for the \"commitments set forth in the Plans 2. and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, II Joshua agreed to release all claims against LRSD and to dismiss this litigation. The district court retains authority to monitor the implementation of the desegregation plan and the Settlement Agreement, but not to impose additional obligations on Iaihy\\LRSD-Fac. Reathe parties. The relief requested by Joshua goes well beyond the requirements of LRSD's desegregation plan and should be rejected by the court. 3. The LRSD has long been unitary with respect to its faculty and staff. Vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable. Unless Joshua can prove that new constitutional violations have occurred concerning faculty and staff within LRSD, the court is without authority to impose additional remedies. WHEREFORE, for the reason set forth above and in the accompanying brief, Joshua's \"Motion\" concerning faculty and staff desegregation within LRSD should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley By: Christopher Hellerf Bar No. 81083 kaihyUlSD-Fac.Rai 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Joshua Motion Regarding Faculty and Staff Desegregation has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller liuhyXLKSO-Fac.Ra 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIViO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV 1 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Mom wring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN RESPORSg TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGN P PRACTICES I. Introduction. In their Motion, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua) complain that the staff of the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Student Assignment Office do not include a sufficient number of African- Americans. Apparently referring to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's (\"ODM\") September 15, 1995 \"Status Report on Staffing, Joshua prays that this Court adopt \"the ODM findings\" H and \"implement the remedies recommended by ODM.\"' Joshua's Motion, p. 3. In effect, Joshua is asking this Court to require that every 1 LRSD does not intend to suggest that it opposes the recommendations set forth in ODM's September 15, 1995 monitoring report. LRSD's position is that although LRSD may choose to accept those recommendations. desegregation plan recommendations. and the recommendations are not part of its it cannot be ordered to accept the louhyM-RSD-Fac.Nllschool, grade level and administrative department within LRSD meet some unspecified racial quota. The LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement. To impose such a requirement on LRSD would constitute a modification it the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Because Joshua cannot establish changed circumstances justifying modification, Joshua's motion should be denied. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993). Likewise, there is no constitutional requirement that every grade level and administrative office of LRSD have some quota of African-Americans. See Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist^, 868 F.2d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1989)(\"[S]tudents do not have a 'constitutional right to attend a school with a teaching staff of any particular racial composition. t II ), quoting Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ.. 706 F.2d 757, 762 (6th Cir. 1983). Because LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligations with regard to faculty and staff, this Court lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1976). II. Background. In 1971 the district court in Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, 328 F.Supp. 1205, 1211 (E.D. Ark. 1971), held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. For more than two decades. LRSD has aggressively recruited qualified African-American teachers and administrators. As part of 1973 agreement in Clark which a k\u0026gt;lhy\\LRSD-F\u0026gt;c.NI3 2resulted in a seven year moratorium on litigation, the parties stipulated that: \"The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel.\" Exhibit A, Stipulation filed July 6, 1973. In 1982, the district a court in Clark concluded, \"[T]he Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . fl Exhibit B, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, P- 16. The court specifically found that LRSD had complied with the court's orders regarding faculty and staff. See Exhibit B, p. 13. The district court in Clark rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the proportion of African-American faculty and staff should mirror the proportion of African-American students in LRSD stating, \"The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. II Exhibit B, p. 13. According to Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), African-Americans constitute less than 10% of the relevant labor market. See Exhibit C. LRSD has had at least triple that percentage for more than 20 years. See Clark v. Bd. of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist., 465 F. 2d 1044, 1048 (Sth Cir. 1972)(\"The record shows that the faculty of the Little Rock School District consists of 70 percent white and 30 percent black k*tfay\\LRSD-Fac.N 13 3teachers.\"). Currently, 35 Q. 'o of LRSD certified personnel are African-American. See Exhibit D. LRSD's superintendent is African-American, and three of seven board members, including the board's president, are African-American. LRSD's history of exceeding the legal requirements relating to faculty and staff explains why the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no specific obligations in this area. with the exception of staffing at incentive schools. Moreover, LRSD's outstanding record with regard to faculty and staff is evidence of LRSD's good faith commitment to a constitutional course of action. See Freeman v. Pitts, 306 U.S. 467, 491-92 (1992). III. The LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The superintendent and school board must examine the racial makeup of all categories of employees including the administrative, teaching and support staff so that future recruitment and placement of persons to fill positions will be done on an equitable basis. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 2. As ODM has recognized, \"The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in staffing and reviewing staffing patterns.\" ODM Monitoring Report, September 15, 1995, p. 9. The LRSD Desegregation Plan does not define equity.^ For the purpose of interpretation and enforcement. consent decrees are to be construed as contracts. U.S. V. City of Fort ^See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 660 F.Supp. 637, 642 (E.D.Ark. 1987)(\"'Equity' is simply not a synonym for desegregation.\"). k\u0026gt;ihy\\LRSD-Fc.NI3 4Smith. 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (Sth Cir. 1985). Accordingly, words used in the LRSD Desegregation Plan should be given their \"plain. ordinary meaning. II See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milburn. 269 Ark. 384, 386, 601 S.W.2d 841, 842 (1980). Webster's Dictionary defines \"equity\" as \"freedom from bias or favoritism.\" Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). Therefore, LRSD's obligation with regard to faculty and staff is to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. LRSD has complied in good faith with its obligation to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. does not allege that LRSD has discriminated with regard hiring and assignment of African-American faculty and Joshua to the staff. Rather, Joshua complains that LRSD has failed to take affirmative steps to ensure that the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and the LRSD Student Assignment Office include an unspecified quota of African-Americans. Because the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement, Joshua's motion must be denied. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. IV. Remedial Authority of District Court. Joshua argues that this Court has \"equitable authority\" to grant them the relief they seek. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Joshua has agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan is their complete and final remedy for the past discrimination of Webster's Dictionary defines \"equitable It as II having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.\" Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). kBtfay\\LRSD-Fc.N13 5LRSD. The creation by this Court of new obligations beyond the plan would constitute a modification of the plan which would require proof of changed circumstances. See Crumpton, 993 F.2d at 1028. Second, because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, this Court is divested of authority to order any additional remedies relating to this aspect of school operations. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436 (1976). Each of these reasons for denying Joshua's motion will be discussed in detail below. A. Modification of a Consent Decree. As a part of the September 1989 settlement of this case. Joshua agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan would be the complete and final remedy for all past acts of discrimination by LRSD. See Exhibit E, Release of All Claims Against the LRSD. Joshua agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of this case and all consolidated cases involving LRSD, with the exception that this Court retained jurisdiction \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Exhibit E, Release. The Settlement Agreement further provides: \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Exhibit E, Settlement Agreement, p. 19. Like LRSD, Joshua is bound by the terms of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the September 1989 settlement agreement, and this Court has no authority to expand the lathyVLRSD-Fac.NlS 6obligations of LRSD over its objections. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028\nsee also U.S. V. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1173 (Sth Cir. 1987) . In Crumpton. SUpra, the defendants in school desegregation case filed a motion asking the district court to \"clarify\" a consent decree to make clear that the defendants were to give an absolute preference to minorities when laying off teachers. The district court granted the defendants motion and approved of the preference in favor of minority teachers. The teachers' association appealed contending that the preference constituted an impermissible modification of the consent decree. The first issue for the court of appeals was \"whether the clarification was in fact a modification.\" Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. In resolving this issue, the court first recognized that: While a consent decree is a judicial pronouncement, it is principally an agreement between the parties and as such should be construed like a contract. contract, the scope of consent decree [LJike a \"must be discerned within its four corners. II United States v. Armour \u0026amp; Co.. 402 U.S. 673, 682, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971), and, hence, a court construing such a document is \"not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree.\" 1985). Berger v. Heckler. 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. a a Id. Applying these principles, the court of appeals found that the \"clarification\" was in reality a modification because the consent decree made no mention of layoffs. Id., at 1029. In remanding the case for determination as to whether modification was a permissible. the court noted that \"one party to a consent decree cannot unilaterally rewrite the agreement over another party's objections, in order to pursue a course of action favored by it ... katfay\\UtSD-Fftc.N13 7where the course of action IS not authorized by the consent decree.\" Id., at 1030. As in Crumpton, Joshua requests that this Court 'define[] or interpret[] II the LRSD Desegregation Plan to require that LRSD maintain an unspecified quota of African-Americans within every area of its faculty and staff. There is no requirement in the LRSD Desegregation Plan that every administrative department and every grade level have some quota of African-Americans, and nothing within the four corners of the plan can reasonably be interpreted to create such a requirement. Therefore, Joshua's request for an interpretation is in reality of request for a modification. In Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard. the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393. Joshua does not allege changed circumstances which justify modification of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, and as a result, Joshua's motion must be denied. B. LRSD Is Unitary With Regard to Faculty and Staff. Once segregated by law, LRSD is obligated to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. Bd. of Educ. V. Dowell. 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991). LRSD has met that obligation with regard to faculty and staff, and consequently, this Court kalhy\\LRSD-Fac.NI3 8lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37. 1. Eliminating the Vestiges of Discrimination. The requirement to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff is three-fold. First, a school district must assign faculty and staff so that the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school is substantially the same as the racial composition of the faculty and staff in the district as a whole. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 1218 (Sth Cir. 1970). In 1971 the district court in Clark, 328 F.Supp. at 1211, held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. Second, following the initial reassignment of faculty and staff, a school district must hire, fire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. See, e.g., United States v. Desoto Parish School Bd., 574 F.2d 804, 819 (Sth Cir. 1978). Since at least 1971, LRSD has hired, fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. This fact distinguishes the cases cited by Joshua in support of its Motion. The orders in Davis v. School Dist. of the City of Pontiac. 487 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1973), and Smith v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 448 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1971), requiring that a particular position be filled by an African-American were part of a comprehensive remedy which included desegregation of the faculty and staff. Because the faculty and staff of LRSD has been desegregated since 1971, these cases are inapposite to the case at hand. Compare Cunico v. Pueblo School Dist. No. 60, 917 F.2d 431, 437 (10th Cir. 1990). 4 louhyUJtSD-Fac.Nn 9There is no requirement that a school district maintain the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school at the district wide ratio. The Fifth Circuit noted in Desoto Parish, SU pra, that \"Singleton does not require that such ratios be maintained permanently\nrather, it contemplates an initial reassignment so the racial ratio at every school reflects the systemwide ratio, followed by the utilization of nona discriminatory hiring, firing, and assignment policy thereafter.\" Desoto Parish School Bd. , 574 F.2d at 819. That no such requirement exists is demonstrated by recent cases granting school districts unitary status. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ., ___ F.Supp. ___ ___ , slip opin. p. 49 (D.Del. 1995)(granting unitary status where \"[ajpproximately 80% of the schools in the 4 districts have fallen within a [plus or minus] 10% variance each year. With the exception of 1981, over 9 0% have fallen within a [plus or minus] 15% variance.\")\nStell v. Bd. of Educ.. 860 F.Supp. 1563, 1584 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (granting unitary status where 80% of schools in the district fell within a plus or minus 10% variance and 98% fell within a plus or minus 15% variance)\nand, Tasbv v. Woolerv, 869 F.Supp. 454, 470 (N.D.Tex. 1994)(granting unitary status where 97 of 191 schools fell outside a plus or minus 15% variance). Finally, a school district must make a sustained, good faith effort to recruit African-Americans so that the proportion of African-Americans on its faculty and staff approximates the proportion of African-Americans in the relevant labor market. See kBQQr\\LJ\u0026lt;SD-Fc.N13 10United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, (1987)(relevant labor market)\nOliver. 706 F.2d at 763 (6th Cir. 1983)(\"The record indicates 'the type of sustained good faith effort to recruit minority faculty members so as to remedy the effects of any past discriminatory practices.' [citation omitted] This is all the remedy to which the Kalamazoo students were entitled.\"). See also Fort Bend Independent School Dist. v. City of Stafford, 651 F.2d 1133, 1140 (5th Cir. 1981). For over two decades, LRSD has aggressively recruited African-Americans for faculty and staff positions. These efforts have resulted in the proportion of African-American faculty and staff of LRSD far exceeding the relevant labor market. For the 1995-96 school year, 35% of LRSD's certified personnel are African-American compared with 10% in the 5 relevant labor market. See Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, F.Supp. , slip opin. P- 44 , (D. Colo. 1995)(granting unitary status where \"the District has achieved minority faculty percentages that far exceed those that exist in the available labor pool\"). Therefore, LRSD has desegregated its faculty and staff\nhired. fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner for over 20 years\nand recruited and retained African-Americans faculty and staff members well in excess of their proportion of the The parties recently met and agreed that the relevant labor market is certified personnel in Arkansas. The racial composition of the certified personnel in Arkansas was provided by the ADE. Although invited to participate, counsel for Joshua did not to do so. kallv\\LRSD-F*c.NI3 11relevant labor market. In other words, LRSD has eliminated to the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff to the extent practicable and is unitary with regard to this aspect of school operations. 2 . Equitable Authority of a District Court. Because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, there is no constitutional violation for this Court to remedy and no basis for this Court's exercise of its II equitable authority. II A district court's equitable authority \"may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation\" and the \"nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.\" Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971). Once constitutional violation has been remedied. a district court's equitable authority ends. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37\na Authur V. Nyguist, ___ F.Supp. ___ ___, 1995 Westlaw 646372, p. 1 (W.D.N.Y 1995)(\"In supervising a desegregation case. a district court's authority is limited: 'A remedy is justifiable only insofar as it advances the ultimate objective of alleviating the initial constitutional violation'\"). It is irrelevant that LRSD has not yet requested unitary status with regard to faculty and staff. See Hull v. Quitman County Bd. of Educ.. 1 F.3d 1450, 1454 (5th The LRSD Desegregation Plan is a six year plan. and the September 1989 settlement agreement releases LRSD from an further desegregation obligations at the end of those six years. Exhibit E. Thus, the September 1989 See settlement agreement contemplates that LRSD will be completely unitary after the six years of implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Overton. 834 F.2d at 1173. See Ialliy\\LRS[\u0026gt;-Fc.N13 12cir. 1993) (district court may decline to order additional remedies where a school district is unitary despite the fact that school district has not requested unitary status). IV. Conclusion. Therefore, Joshua's Motion must be denied for two reasons. First, to grant Joshua's Motion would constitute a modification of the LRSD desegregation plan, and Joshua fails to allege changed circumstances which would make modification permissible. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 393. Second, LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligation in desegregating its faculty and staff. and consequently, this Court lacks authority to order additional remedies with regard to that aspect of LRSD. Accordingly, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 kalhyVLRSD-Fac.NB By: 13 Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 kthyUJlSD-FK:.N13 c\n^istopher Heller\u0026lt; 14IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEJVED DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) ' Defendants. ) STIPULATION NOV I 3 1995 Office of Desegregafion Moriiicnng No. LR-64-C-155 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT f A Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother or sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5. The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of \"tracking\" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term \"tracking\" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of \"achievement grouping\" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the secondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings. 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' In resolving desegregation problems. The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will Initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ''ROBERT V. LIGHTS Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973 . ATTESTlT^ - . ( 1,. Secretary President Page 3 received NOV 1 3 1995 FILED U.8i OISTRCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 Otiioe 01 Desegregation MOnilwin^N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - - WESTERN DIVISION Ci Byu R. S, CLERK DEP. CLERK DELORES CLARK, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the \"Partial K-6 Plan\".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation. 2 the plaintiffs and the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. was The pending case, which in 1964. simply a continuation of the original litigation, was filed j DEFENDANTS I EXHIBITThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Decli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b. 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7^5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs, increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. 5 The following chart illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 3 . Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of V/hites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents in against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composeu of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an ele- mentary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling, is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further as relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buraen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"propo-rtionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence tnat a school has been \"closed or downgraded\" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Fur- thermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. lished by the evidence. No such agreement has been estabFurthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the Parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied to dictate the terras of an attendance plan in 1982.- - so as During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivatea by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenaent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman 1 J was recommended by Dr. Masem for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replai him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one am ce and he harbors some bitterness toward the District. 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influencea personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. 15 There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices. surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to ao so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnisli the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Arlc. Stat. 8 0-404, et seq. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scaools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here. the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance pl \"racial an. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable are legitimate factors which the educational benefits of : aspects of a K through 6 grouping 1 may be considered when weighing one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-6 Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 36 37 33 39 DRAFT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATION DATA (AUGUST 17,199S) CEHTIRi ARTK-M i Jki wHrre BLACK STATE ION AREA UAI g 302 BUSINUa eOUCATIOM BNOUiH joumiAuui arcecM pmmcm ap ANISH HEALTH RHYSJCAL eOUCATlON COAOtlHS mOUSTRIAL ANTS MATHEMATICS VOCAL MUSIC K-1\u0026gt; INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC K-1E GUIDANCE ELEMCNTARV GUIDANCE SECONOARY SOCIAL STUDIES OAT TRACE K-aaMENTARY 1.4 SLEMENTARV SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY SPEa GIFTED AND TALENTED ADULT ED. RSADING MEDIA SPECIALIST HOME ECONOMICS GENERAL SCIENCE BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS PHYSICAL SCIENCE SPECIAL EOUCATlON SPEECH PATHOLOGIST ADMINISTRATOR ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL SECONDARY PRINCIPAL CERTIFICATION AREAS (ABOVE) ALL CERTIFICATION AREAS 21 640 59 129 48 73 1091 2983 1227 292 1187 298 544 127 441 2802 960 63 1137 61 79 86 31 88 1 1388 1021 297 178 391 173 29 1132 586 1512 20938 33921 FEMALE MALE 840 1514 4030 176 433 347 444 668 1182 373 4 1673 315 481 962 938 2476 34 7241 14449 329 880 232 1080 1479 1195 1333 1108 238 81 283 1293 742 234 1137 307 50877 82782 12 42 0 10 8 2 95 256 74 47 134 31 58 8 43 194 26 7 ^77 2 12 a 3 0 144 94 29 3 61 20 3 83 79 167 1976 3142 FEM AL ?\u0026lt;r TOTAL 1117 231 330 3 SO 36 13 52 103 2 2 120 58 SO 114 111 248 __8 438 1825 18 50 62 89 118 150 143 120 37 5 71 161 42 29 180 88 5308 8608 2013 5082 243 M2 439 S34 1886 4529 1708 306 2888 1203 1113 1201 1538 6721 448 7748 17588 411 1023 371 1168 1888 1346 3011 2343 681 277 811 1647 816 1478 1992 2074 79200 123454 S DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT % BLACK 1iO% - 84% 34% 84% 10.0% 24% 7.8% 3.01i 16.1% 84% 7.4%' 8.7% 104%' 104% 7.7% 7.2% 5.7% 11.4K 5.1% 54% 194% 9.2% 7.2% 11.1% 9.7% 9.1% 10.1% 24% 164% 11.0% 54% 7.6%l 13.8% 123\u0026lt; 9.1 9.1 WOV I 3 Office of Desegregation Monitoringf 5 receive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF 1995-96 AZOV 1 J Office of ^esegregaticn Monii SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS nk^ VARIANCE Central High School Fair High School Hall High School McClellan Community High School Parkview High School Metropolitan Vocational High School Cloverdale Junior High School Dunbar Junior High School Forest Heights Junior High School Henderson Junior High School MabeIvale Junior High School Mann Junior High School f:\\home\\fl oa(w\\lrsd2.cha 63.62% 72.74% 67.57% 80.91% 51.65% Not Available 87.29% 60.56% 76.70% 78.21% 74.27% 53.81% 37.96% 41.43% 30.99% 29.87% 32.84% 21.74% 45.28% 51.92% 39.06% 50.70% 28.85% 40.00% \u0026lt; 6.23% 9.70% .74%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 1.86%\u0026gt; 1.11% \u0026lt; 9.99%\u0026gt; 6.45% 13.09% .23% 11.87% \u0026lt; 9.98%\u0026gt; 1.17% 73.81% 72.41% 66.67% 65.71% 59.26% 80.00% 88.89% 81.82% 52.00% 71.43% 52.38% 70.83% 5.02% 3.62% \u0026lt; 2.12%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.08%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 9.53%\u0026gt; 11.21% 18.18% 11.81% \u0026lt;18.01%\u0026gt; 1.42% \u0026lt;17.63%\u0026gt; . 82% 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT I .SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Forest Park Elementary School Franklin Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Garland Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School M. L. King Elementary School Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Elementary School Meadowcliff Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School f:\\home\\lloaiw\\lrsd2.cha 47.71% 92.75% 48.85% 91.50% 74.17% 54.61% 43.08% 55.04% 68.71% 53.13% 76.18% 98.34% 31.03% 46.34% 27.78% 61.54% 45.83% 26.67% 19.44% 37.21% 27.27% 24.24% 18.52% 44.44% 3 \u0026lt; 3.83%\u0026gt; 11.48% \u0026lt; 7.08%\u0026gt; 27.00% 10.97% \u0026lt; 8.19%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;15.42%\u0026gt; 2.35% \u0026lt; 7.59%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;10.62%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;16.34%\u0026gt; 9.58% 64.29% 91.43% 69.57% 82.14% 64.71% 81.25% 81.82% 52.38% 68.75% 55.56% 88.89% \u0026lt; 7.31%\u0026gt; 19.83% \u0026lt; 2.03%\u0026gt; 10.54% \u0026lt; 6.89%\u0026gt; 9.65% \u0026lt; 4.93%\u0026gt; 10.22% \u0026lt;19.22%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 2.85%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;16.04%\u0026gt; 17.29%% SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Pulaski Heights Junior High School Southwest Junior High School Badgett Elementary School Bale Elementary School Baseline Elementary School Booker Elementary School Brady Elementary School Carver Elementary School Chicot Elementary School Cloverdale Elementary School Dodd Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School f:\\hofnc'.f1oa(w\\lrsd2.cha 56.35% 80.87% 78.92% 70.85% 75.47% 53.19% 63.57% 51.52% 78.85% 85.16% 58.97% 'll .62^^ 21.88% 48.98% 42.11% 29.63% 44.00% 38.00% 25.00% 26.09% 33.33% 53.33% 32.00% 50.00% 2 \u0026lt;16.95%\u0026gt; 10.15% 7.25% \u0026lt; 5.23%\u0026gt; 9.40% 3.14% \u0026lt; 9.86%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 8.77%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 1.53%\u0026gt; 18.47% \u0026lt; 2.86%\u0026gt; 15.14% 73.68% Not Available 75.00% 68.42% 75.00% 93.75% 89.47% 62.50% 46.67% 73.33% 64.71% 71.43% 3.67% Not Available 3.40% \u0026lt; 3.18%\u0026gt; 3.40% 22.15% 17.87% \u0026lt; 9.10%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;24.93%\u0026gt; 1.73% \u0026lt; 6.89%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; .17%\u0026gt;SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Otter Creek Elementary School Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rightsell Elementary School Rockefeller Elementary School Romine Elementary School Terry Elementary School Wakefield Elementary School Washington Elementary School Watson Elementary School Western Hills Elementary School Williams Elementary School Wilson Elementary School f:\\home\\floatw\\lrsd2.cha 41.95% 46.27% 95.54% 64.87% 71.76% 44.44% 85.41% 64.75% 80.00% 65.82% 51.10% 77.69% 20.83% 26.92% 56.00% 18.42% 39.29% 30.30% 58.62% 42.86% 26.67% 36.36% 27.03% 32.14% 4 \u0026lt;14.03%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 7.94%\u0026gt; 21.14% \u0026lt;16.44%\u0026gt; 4.43% \u0026lt; 4.56%\u0026gt; 23.76% 8.00% \u0026lt; 8.19%\u0026gt; 1.50% \u0026lt; 7.83%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 2.72%\u0026gt; 63.64% 84.62% 95.24% 82.35% 76.19% 57.89% 66.67% 86.11% 75.00% 46.67% 60.00% 68.42% \u0026lt; 7.96%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.02%\u0026gt; 23.64% 10.75% 4.59% \u0026lt;13.71%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 4.93%\u0026gt; 14.51% 3.40% \u0026lt;24.93%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;11.60%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.18%\u0026gt;SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Woodruff Elementary School Alternative Learning Center (Junior High) Total All High Schools Total All Junior High Schools Total All Elementary- Schools Total LRSD NOTES: (1) (2) (3) (4) f:\\home\\floatw\\lrsd2.cha 66.93% 41.67% 66.75% 69.55% 64.83% 66.28% 38.89% 55.56% 31.73% 38.83% 34.86% 35.16% 4.03% 16.73% 50.00% 80.00% 68.79% 70.01% 71.60% 70.91% \u0026lt;21.60%\u0026gt; 9.99% Percentage of black students will be based on Little Rock School District tenth day enrollment count 1995-96. Percentage of black certified positions and support positions will be based on Little Rock School District staffing/school personnel as of 10-13-95. Certified principal, positions classroom include teachers, principal, vocational assistant teachers, counselors, media specialists, resource/teacher, speech therapists, music, art, and P.E. Support positions include attendance clerk, cafeteria workers, custodians, media clerk, registrar, secretary, nurse, security instructional aides, and supervision aides. officer, 5RECEfVEO NOV I 3 J995 Office of Deseflregation l^onitcrin^ PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) 2 defendants I exhibitPULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989)PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. General Provisions 2 III. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Magnet Funding Calculation .............. Magnet Surplus Credit.................... Magnet Operational Charge................ Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools . . Continuation of Existing Funding ........ Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs . . Conditions to Settlement ................ Act 34 Exemption ......................... Staff Development........................ Recognition of Autonomy.................. District Budgets ......................... Prohibition of Punitive Action .......... Rededicated Millages .................... Limit of Liability ....................... Majority to Minority Provisions.......... Consent Order............................. 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 State's Role in the Desegregation Process . . 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. . L. M. Monitoring Compensatory Education........ Statement of Support for the Plans .... Petition for Election..................... Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation............................. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative....................... Commitment to Principles ................. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement............................... Test Validation........................... In-Service Training....................... Recruitment of Minority Teachers ........ Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates ............................... Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff .... School Construction...................... 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 11IV. Dismissal of Litigation 18 A. B. C. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release................................... Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts......................... Reserved Issue ........................... 18 19 19 V. Attorneys Fees 20 VI. The LRSD Settlement 22 VII. A. B. Payment Schedule and Terms Loan Provisions.......... The PCSSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Financial Settlement 1. Magnet Payments . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . Food Services. . . . Housing............ VIII. The NLRSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Magnet Payments....................... Compensatory Education Payments. . . . Additional Payments................... Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs .................. IX, Execution ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Release of Claims Release of Claims State LRSD Release of Claims' - PCSSD Release of Claims NLRSD 111 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36I. Introduction The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989) , the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989) , the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 1986 (as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation P2an (February 15, 1989) (the \"Plans\") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the \"Districts\"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") and the State of Arkansas in Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (\"this Litigation\") is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA) . The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. 1-AII. General Provisions A. Magnet Funding Calculation Each Districts magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to the a a Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available\n(2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available\n(3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCSSD, 2LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years. the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.1. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts' obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 E. Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 515 351 660 935 991 Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4(1) The States portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that (2) District's table rate for distribution of MFPA\nMajority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation\n(3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee expenses as currently allocated\n(4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools\nTransportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation\nand (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development. or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done). As used in this agreement, \"final approval\" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained. no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability or intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by the Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue. or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculation represented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt\nand (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education. early childhood education. and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act requirement that 70% of net 34' s current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four \"release days\" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days. one per semester. shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8These \"release days\" will have the effect of shortening by four days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts' school calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9K. District Budgets The Districts may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years budgets and if this is done. neither the previous years deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the courts order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. 0. Majority to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arlcansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to ma)ce payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of 11educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each districts obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. (4) Beginning the first year an Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCSSD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by both districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containing the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process A. Monitoring Compensatory Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor. through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed. the undersigned parties will not object based upon lac)c of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settlement agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the time of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation. and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemptioA will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation.  E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains committed to the following principles: a. There should be remediation of the a racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegregation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search 15 ifor programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the States testing program to determine if students race. sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test. that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher 16graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty. subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicants for those positions so as to create balanced. a desegregated staff at all levels. 17M. School Construction The ADE will develop criteria for site selection of new schools. major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide desegregation impact a statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed hereto as Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or finding of 18 aunitary status for any District. Further, the settlement is contingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students. their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement. the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and {b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts D Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised. in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. C. Reserved Issue / J The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private 19schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to public schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional claims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreement more than five months after the attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein. over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars)\nthe LRSD's portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars)\nthe PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars)\nand NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCSSD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of 21the settlement and July 1, 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSDs share of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated\n22(1\u0026gt; Payments for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 / 844,811 -V July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 I I July 1, 1998 152,387 I January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 - $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education) between July 1 , 1989 and July 1, 1999 in cumulative amount of not more than a $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24equal annual payments of principal beginning seven years following the execution of the loan\n(2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 1989\n(3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum. such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below\n(4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education (or designee), the LRSD Superintendent (or designee) and a designee of Joshua. The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, purchase of instructional equipment and supplies, program development and implementation costs. 25consultants' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates\n(5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing. extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses) , such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel\n(6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students) , the escrowed funds will be 26paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. If the 90% goal is not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set forth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 271. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may. at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCSSD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 $3,000,000 07/01/91 $2,500,000 07/01/92 $2,500,000 07/01/93 $2,500,000 07/01/94 $2,500,000 28as (b) The State shall make the following payments cash equivalents in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement\nWithin 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 B. 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 Staff Development $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD IS exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29make it financially possible to implement. ADE assxunes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. C. Food Services LRSD agrees to contract with PCSSD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B, Compensatory Education Payments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance. beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year. the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31is in its special education program. The formula for such payments is as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point. to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools. (Total Black Population \"TBP\") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education \"BSE\") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education (\"Black Placement Rate\"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32years 1989-90 through 1995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration. if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 X 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students. which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out. 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and BSE in 1989-90 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated 33with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program and placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education. the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers. if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above. will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER IS $1,944.55 and. assuming $74.00 per year 34 aincrease, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, this would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year (inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula IS $1,276,825. If the eimount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the formula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. 35D. Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD's Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR: By(r Christopher Helle, One of Its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO._1 By:_ M.^^amue jOne of I 1 Jones . / ts Attorneys 36 * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC By: StepW^n W. Jones One of Its Attorneys * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Z}  By: H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: C6hn W. Walker One of Their Attorneys KNIGHT HT ^TERVENORS By: Pau^J. Ward One'^of Their Attorneys 31 /Shn M- WalkiPKRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond ATTACHMENT A2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors3 EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By:____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative By.____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. By_____ NLRSD Class Representative 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By__________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative4 * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS 72201 By____________________ LRCTA Representative By___________________ PACT Representative By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release IS attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees. employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination. segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration IS not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that thelitigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper V. Aaron, Norwood V. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Little Rock, AR 72201 By_____________________________ Chairman, Board of Directors By:____________________ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: * WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative and By_____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP/ 4 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By_____________________________ NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL KNIGHT INTERVENORS 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By___________._________ LRCTA Representative By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By___________________ PACT Representative * By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions. causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children. based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C2 District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Zinnamon v. Pulaski County School District, LR-C-68-154) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the PCSSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Christopher Heller\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_183","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1988-10-03"],"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":["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 integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/183"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["118 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nOctober 20, 1 988 TO: Board of Directors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation -:\n-5 THROUGHD: r. George Cannon, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Enrollment Report - October 3, 1988 cc: Executive Staff '  TOTAELN ROLLMENT Seni1:i1' Hich Schools Central r o\nY' H,:i 11 McCl el 1 an P11rkvif.W TOTAHL IGHS CHOOLS Jun 1 or Hi ':JI, School::\nC1overdale Dunbar Forest Heights HPnriP.rson Mabelva1e M.:rnn t-'1..11~ 5k i I It\ni gh't!: D....,.~ l',\\/.!916 TOTAJLU NIORH IGHS CHOOLS Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Ful ::iri ght Garl dt1d Geyer Spy,ing~ lsh Jefferson King ENROLL~ERNET? ORT October 3, 1988 ENROLLMENT 26,543 ~,070 920 1, ~68 1 I 191 847 6,296 712 741 770 954 581 882 1394 734 6,068 279 414 400 447 560 ,. 446 414 341 423 442 598 299 239 197 488 94 HJGH SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN: White ~ 1,\":\u0026gt;~r/ C,e~ tra l 1 e. ,-/\" ~ h:nr 5\n- ,:-Pt/J\u0026lt; Hall 16 :P/j\u0026lt;Jc McCle~lan 7 ~ Parkvicw 6 TOTAL 35 ... ~ NONBLACK a/ BLACK ,O 16,753 9,790 63 1 . 105 885 57 466 454 S1 635 633 50 (i1 ~ 576 ~2 493 354 ~e .1,j~4 2,0O'.I 6~ 424 208 60 600 141 81 4g2 278 fi4 614 340 64 1? fi 256 56 516 366 ~y 429 26t\n62 ~12 r!~~ 70 3,912 2,156 b4 202 77 72 297 117 72 292 108 73 278 169 62 363 197 65 281 165 G3 270 144 65 247 94 72 251 172 t:\n9 414 ?.8 91\\ 327 271 , .. ~:) 276 23 92 1 ~ / 62 6G 178 19 00 272 c16 56 88 6 94 R)Rck Other Total /,-ti~-~ 49 .50 f ~pqO 11 16 3 19\n-\n:J\u0026lt;!. /  . 13 20 ---(\u0026lt;H- pI a 11 1 18 87 1 1?. 3 ~\"~' p  rJ~t'l\"~ --. '. .. ENROLLMENT BLACK NONBLACK % BLACK Elementary Schools (Cont.) Mabevl ale 586 373 213 63 McDermott 506 298 208 59 Meadowclfff 456 312 144 69 Mit che 11 261 220 41 84 Otter Creek 361 207 154 58 Pulaski Heights 326 226 100 70 Ri ghtsell 241 196 45 81 Rockefeller 300 255 45 85 Romine 472 360 112 76 Stephens 233 227 6 97 Terry 522 307 215 59 . \\ akefi el d 501 316 185 63 Watson 465 297 168 65 Western Hills 332 213 119 64 Wilson 412 289 123 70 Woodruff 221 163 58 74 TOTALE LEMENTASRCYH OOLS 12,276 8,452 3,824 68 Elementary Magnet Schools Booker 647 355 292 55 Carver 446 222 224 50 Gibbs 335 172 163 51 Willi ams 475 246 229 52 TOTALE LEMENTAMRAYG NETS 1,903 995 908 52 TOTALE LEMENTARY 14, 179 9,447 4,732 66 ~~ 3c),,,e/2, /1J/,Ju'S\nA-1,,pe,(y 11-J:.J\ns--/vo\u0026lt;\"\n)~ G,:\u0026gt;1 i..A.I c:?,CJ70 //i'~ gg--5 7\n=?0 , -Y'J / 9 t' .\n?O~O /, /.,,3(:p g,'?? ~\"/4 v-.,L 9.,:,0 IC.. ~\" '1/~ ~/ 909 -Y5S \"'1/-1/7 /(,., ~o/o ,,t-/4J/ /~Cf c\ni55 r:..~\"f.3 /9 -3 ~(:!,, /~~/ .:::, /i c\n~,\ni,, Gl1 -5}/ % oveL- .. '\\ ... ~/ :i\u0026gt;/J( J/,( ~ '/J( ~\u0026lt;74-//4J /19/ \u0026lt;\n,/5 S?C, :\n)..J c:\u0026lt;0 13 7 (,,..S. //7/ C::,eJ~ ::ff~ c\n~/'% TOTALE NROLLMENT Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClelian Parkview TOTALH IGHS CHOOLS Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabel vale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTALJU NIORH IGHS CHOOLS Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jefferson King ENROLLMERNETP ORT October 3, 1988 ENROLLMENT 26,543 2,070 920 1,268 1 , 191 847 6,296 712 741 770 954 581 882 694 734 6,068 279 414 400 447 560 446 414 341 423 442 598 299 239 197 488 94 BLACK NONBLACK % BLACK 16,753 9,790 63 1 , 185 885 57 466 454 51 635 633 50 615 576 52 493 354 58 3,394 2,902 54 424 288 60 600 141 81 492 278 64 614 340 64 325 256 56 516 366 59 429 265 62 512 222 70 3,912 2, 156 64 202 77 72 297 117 72 292 108 73 278 169 64 363 197 65 281 165 63 270 144 66 247 94 72 251 172 59 414 28 74 327 271 55 276 23 92 157 82 66 178 19 90 272 216 56 88 6 94 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1988 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSI NCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN t~ ( 1/,'BLACK BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Amboy ~,\nd\" 169 427 39.6% Argenta 95 116 211 55.0% Baring Cross 8 8 16 50.0% Belwood 82 67 149 45.0% Boone Park 249 309 558 55.4% Crestwood 119 90 209 43.1% Glenview 128 100 228 43.9% Indian Hills 285 158 443 35.7% Lakewood 145 98 243 40.3% Lynch Drive 162 116 278 41. 7% Meadow Park 136 140 276 50.7% North Heights 235 173 408 42.4% Park Hill 164 98 262 37 .4% Pike View 240 185 425 43.5% Pine 101 107 208 51.4% Redwood 114 172 286 60.1% Rose City 125 109 234 46.6% Seventh Street 189 148 337 43.9% TOTALS 2,835 2,363 5,198 45.5% NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1988 SCHOOLS NONBLACK ~ ~ Baring Cross __ 1_1 __n_ _n (Secondary Students) SUBTOTALS 11 22 33 SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 403 301 704 Lakewood 328 122 450 Ridge road 341 284 625 Rose City _.2Q2_ _ill _ill. SUBTOTALS 1,281 865 ~ 2, 146 Northeast 742 338 1,080 Ole Main ---2fil __il_ 1,037 SUBTOTALS 1,323 794 2,117 SECONDARTYO TALS 2,615 1,681 4,296 ELEMENTARTYO TALS 2,835 (Including Kindergarten) 2,363 5,198 DISTRICT TOTALS 5,450 (Including Kindergarten) 4,044 9,494 BLACK PERCENTAGE 66.7% 66.7% 42.8% 27.1% 45.4% 43.1% ~:.4 0.3% 31. 3% 44.0% 37.5% 39.1% 45.5% 42.6% -~ NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT .,:.. AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1988 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSE XCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Amboy 205 157 362 43.4% Argenta 83 96 179 53.6% Baring Cross 8 8 16 50.0% Belwood 65 57 122 46.7% Boone Park 219 244 463 52.7% Crestwood 107 84 191 44.0% Glenview 116 83 199 41. 7% Indian Hills 238 147 385 38.2% Lakewood 112 92 204 45.1% Lynch Drive 135 107 242 44.2% Meadow Park 113 123 236 52.1% North Heights 183 159 342 46.5% Park Hill 131 89 220 40.5% Pike View 192 169 361 46.8% Pine 99 79 178 44.4% Redwood 112 129 241 53.5% Rose City 99 102 201 50.7% Seventh Street 187 111 298 37.2% TOTALS 2,404 2,036 4,440 45.9% NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT .,- AS OF OCTOBERl, 1988 SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTAL Baring Cross __ 1_1 _ll --1.J. (Secondary Students) SUBTOTALS 11 22 33 SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 403 301 704 Lakewood 328 122 450 Ridge road 341 284 625 Rose City _fQ2_ _ill. ---11 SUBTOTALS 1,281 865 2,146 Northeast 742 338 1,080 Ole Main -2fil ~ 1,037 SUBTOTALS 1,323 794 2,117 SECONDARTYO TALS 2,615 1,681 4,296 ELEMENTARTYO TALS 2,404 2,036 4,440 (Excluding Kindergarten) DISTRICT TOTALS 5,019 3,717 8,736 (Excluding Kindergarten) BLACK PERCENTAGE 66. 77. 66.77. 42.8% 2 7. li. 45.47. 43. li. 40.Ji. 31. Ji. 44.0i. 37.57. 39. 17. 45.9% 43.0% ::.7 \"31 (c)7: ~9 PUL. C) SPL SCH DI'3T -.-- ..  .._ A..'\"nold I ~J\u0026lt;er I :2Lt~S ! 5..::.VOl1 :--ieco ! Cato Coli. 5tal ~ Du:::::-e~. I F'ul1er , ,,.,..-:..~ Ja'\u0026lt;-. Ele.\u0026lt;:i. -L~C..'7'il.:\"J\u0026lt;: c-cWSOr. Ci\"\\.-: Grove J ~ i\u0026lt;:::rooke -?!..\"1e Fores~.\\ ?ineivecd n _Eg.9~on Ii Sco-:t ] St-e.=-\n,'00'.i ~ S'llvan !-iills Ta\",.\"1or i Tcll,:\nSC,n f!\"('{T' llf. J:'T .\n:i..f . I I Fw . .Ler Jr . Jax. North Ja:\u0026lt;. South I Nortrr...rocd ~- Jr. S Hills Jr 'r(\"/i'~~ JP Ja:{. H.l.gh Mills 1' NO. Pulaski Oak Grove Rcb. Hiah I s. Hill~ Sr 'I'OT.?il. SR. - GRAND 'IOI'AI. . 61 58 i ri 4 , ~ , , l 100 I 93 ' 354 220 264 29,t 54 ~5 161 \" .. 0.\n158 - 95 - 71 122 125 1i2 84 3.231 375 128 174 2.68 86 218 1.151 I ~6 322 [ ' 145 11 6 95 I 163 , 107 5.489 t 1988--89 E~RGI..:..MENT OCTOBER 3,  l 968 0 310 j 371 248 I 306 379 ,, I 7G j. . \"a' I 598 51~ I 634 88 I 188 395 I ,t38 , 'if\n\"lJJ 4 f, 7 F, ~' 535 799 333 627 302 356 490 555_ 500 661 513 596 519 677 379 474 142 213 444 566 611 736 i? Cl 441 4 \"i7 541 q Ii?? l2,2:i3 452 827 439 567 486 660 746 9 1 A _ .. 395 . ~., .. 0 - 781 999 3,299 \u0026amp;. .d.50 920 I 1186 463 I 785 721 866 s:\\?n Q's I- 352 4. 4 7 785 .9 .. a 4.061 5 163 - 16 382 -11...0.. ! ~---- P.2 ... 16 I 84 .J..9 i 3.!. 49 I ::, .L 3 I 97 t l8 r 82 53 I 47 1 ~ I Sl : I 58 - 42 J? I F,R 33 I 67 47 53 15 85 I 12. 88 24. I i6 14 86 23 77 20 80 33 67 22 l 78 17 :33 25 I 75 H 8.i 26 74 I ~ _L_ 45 55 23 77 26 14 18 8? 18 P. / 22 I 7 P, I I --- ? ii l 7~ I I 22 I 7 P, i 41 SQ 17 A1 1 ') RR 21 ! 7q l ~ - I 83 I ' 21 10 ' r  I I I 25 75 I { . t ' ~--..-..... --:,1.,:. - ..:.!'J.  ut.,' -- :.-( ,c~i. - r' ._r1-::\n_ c F -I_IL:-0. SPL SCH DIST l'-..........,. .. .... -.....n-u--.1--..er Jr. Jax. North Ja..'\u0026lt;- Soutl'-. Nortrn,ooo - Rob. Jr. s. Hills Jr 'rr-YT'I.. T TR - Ja.\"\u0026lt;. Frigfi I -- Mills -No. Pu.Laski Oak Grove Rob. Hiah I s. Hill~ Sr ___,__ .-.i \",1 -:J 128 J.7~ .lc8 e.e-, 218 - 1..1~fa I 266 322 145 I H6 7 : 95 I 163 NROL:..MEN1' OCTOBER 3, l %8 452 827 439 567 486 660 746 9 ,. . .. 395 4 o\"'\"_l 781 T- 999 3,299 -~_,_1_5 ~ 920 1186 463 785 721 I ~66 \u0026amp;20 =__j3F 352 ,!_ 4 7 785 .9 .. a 81 - 4,2 -\n,_q I --: 67 _1 53 I 85 I 68 'I 26 14 22 L1 41 - 17 - , ? - 21 1 - --~- ~- -I ------! _ri~.:==: rror.r..SJR... l , 0 7 - - I 4 061 5. !.63 21 l ~----...,_.-----1------ F---J\u0026lt;:l - I --- - - - ~- I I -- _gy,ND 'illTAI. s 489 16,382 t_D__,~7- +- - . .J. 25 . ----- t i ,,...,_,._,. __. ,._. ..... . 75 ::'NRO LlE-JT 0 TC'\u0026gt;_ Efi. 3 LS88 Tavlor 1 1 J  )g 4 4 l 2 5 \": ToJles:-n 84 !1\u0026amp;:\n7 541 ~6 84 I 3,231 l.t:. 2 :\u0026gt;J 26 74 - -----------~-------t------- ...-.--.-.-- -+------.,,_- I ...,..__,.. _________ -1---------t,------- ..... -------+------- r. 375 4\"-12 827 ~5 55 -+----~\n._-----+---__\n_,\n_\n__...,_ __ =------1.--~:\n..._---+---.-...,---- t-L rt h 128 439 567 23 \"'7 d-\n.. ~=-uth 174 486 G60 26 \"'4 Nort.ru,.'Xld 168 I 74 6 ::nrt 13 \u0026amp;? P.ob. Jr. 88 395 483 13 A? S Fills Jr: 218 781 999 22 13 1.151 3.299 4 4Sn 74 Ja'I{. Hign 266 920 .lJ.80 22 1~ M,lls i 322 463 785 41 c:\n.Q No. Pulaski 1 145 721 866 . 17 Rl fl\n:i'c\n: G..-ove. 11,:\n820 9~~ 1 ') ~~ n. Fob. Hiah 95 352 441 21 1() r - s. Hills Sr 16\"3 785 948 17 81 'It)TAL SR. , 1 n 7 4 061 5.158 21 7,0 . - GP.AND'r CTAI.. 5 4 89 16.382 2 l 87 l 25 75 p ASK Co TY 5 ITT 501 0 F X  4 . . _::\n..___....\n.:\"-------- Fro w ti ~ Yo r CHO L Drs . ox 860 7221 Ir ud rcr i r I 1 H I -t .. .:, #. J\nn C )'. * 't t r:t ~ .:**: .: n:ni,. :t:t:::u::o::t:.:.t:n*:,::,cu:,at::* P, 01 * r * UNP 91 MON8: 44 * l - ' Jl\"'i .. ~t:. t l .E %, c' Rr t.'.: ' ~ JK *\n.: * + ~ h t t ) \" t tq p * ( h ,1,t:i:Lt: **inn: i l f \nn.::uU Of., ~ 1i t n:.u~iu ,  q,n*~-H*'U . ~ . . . . P . .: ~ ~ - ,t' .L , .OF \u0026lt; - I ..,. .. ck I :~ ., .I. C k I '::\u0026gt;ta . [%a :..a. k /% :fon-BlaGi\u0026lt; I I\n, I -, 21 )3,\n~? I ::p_ ' ! -' l 6.!. EO .3 7 1 I 16 ti .. j:,O t t 1\ns: - ~ .. ~ I .:,3 24 8 I ~ .. I , ,\n~ -:,79 7,\nj . 49 I ., l. !:-,VOL: :!E.':O , \"' ...,n~ '398 1 '17 ':ato , ' ,. i:\n.) I 634 . \u0026amp; I 82 Col:. Sta. 18~ ') 3 4.., -- 100 88 I l).1oree C) 3 B:, 1138 H I ,. . Fuller 3'14 ? 'in Fi 1 () C:R ..'-: \" 1-1\u0026lt;.1.. .- \u0026lt;: 2?0 4 fl 7\n:\n1n\nn I \"\nJax. Ele.rn. 2t:i4 535 799 33 I \"-,~ Landma.:: l\u0026lt; 294 333 627 47 53 Lawscn } 1 30 :' 3 _,fj 15 35 03}, Grove 65 -4 90 555 12. aa ca.ld)rooke 161 sc: 661 24 76 ?1..\":e Forest. 83 'H3 596 1-t d6 - ? :.r.ew'C-Od 158 519 67i 23 77 -~'b\nn.,on Ii 95 379 474 20 80 S::., t 71 -,: 213 33 67 - s - 'O Qd I 122 . 566 22 78 -- -'1 Hi:..ls 125 736 17 8 - r 11' ~  4 4 l 2:i 7-:J - . .-.:son 21 457 54  16 8.1 - I 'T\"O'l- i:\"T~ 3 231 '1 '.'122 lL,.: ::\u0026gt;J 26 74 - - --- r Ler Jr. 375 4 ..,. . 827 .. s 55 Jax. North 128 439 567 23 77 Ja'\u0026lt;. South 174 486 660 ' i\n7t. -!.\"lortrr.~ 168 746 914 g? fu. . Jr. 88 J95 483 ) ~ P.? S. Hills Jr 218 781 999 ,. 22 7 P. 'J'rYi'!. T. \"JR 1 151 3 299 4 4 \u0026lt;\n() '.\u0026gt;h it. Ja:{. H:.gh 266 920 l.l.8 6 22 7P. Mills 322 463 785 41 'I q '-Io. Pulaski l~ 5 721 806 17 fl1 Oak Greve J l 6 820 936 , ? RR Rob. Hich 95 352 447 21 ,c\ns. Hills Sr 13 785 948 17 8 'TCfr\n.\n:__ SR . l Hi7 4.061 5 168 21 GRA:'~\u0026gt; 'ial'AI '\u0026gt; 489 15. 38 2  t ~\"7 \u0026amp;.  I 2'\"l 75 I --I - - ULAS TY PEC AL C O L S RICT 1 0 o RoAo/ . 0. 8 x 8601 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72216 501 490-2000 Fa 3 0 From:  \u0026lt; .. \u0026lt; t\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1104","title":"Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1988-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, 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/1104"],"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":["28 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.\nLong-Range Plan for  School Facilities Little Rock, Arkansas 1988 Stanton Leggett and Associates West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard. Ma9s. 0'2575 Educatfonal Coosultants September 1988 Board of Directors Little Rock School District Joyce Kelly-Lewis Director W.D. Hamilton James L. Rutherford Robin Armstrong H.M. Faulkner Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli Superintendent of Schools Dr. George Cannon RECE~V~D JUN 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Mc,,!tc::n\ni Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments - A Report to the Little Rock School District The Grier Partnership 6532 EASf HALBERT ROAD BETHESDA. MARYLAND 20817 (30 1) 229-4454 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND FUTURE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS A Report to the Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Eunice and George Grier The Grier Partnership in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates June 1988 I . INTRODUCTION Objectives of the Demographic Study The demographic study of the Little Rock School District is part of an overall examination of the District's existing physical facilities undertaken by Stanton Leggett and Associates. In order to help determine what types and sizes of facilities will be needed over the next decade or so, it is necessary to know how the school system's pupils are likely to change in numbers, characteristics, and location of residence. As a first step in the demographic study we reviewed recent trends in enrollments and evaluated the accuracy of some past enrollment projections. We then examined some of the external factors which could influence enrollments, such as birth rates and migration patterns, overall population growth, and the economy of the Little Rock area. Because the Little Rock School District recently enlarged its boundaries, acquiring several schools and about 7,000 additional pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, we also assessed the likely impact of this change on future enrollments. Some Special Considerations in the Little Rock Situation Racial Factors For several years the Little Rock School District has been under federal court order to maintain racial balance within its schools. While the racial composition of the schools has shifted slowly in the past several years, there has been a gradual increase both in the number of black pupils attending Little Rock schools and in their proportion of total enrollment. In 1980-81 black enrollment totalled about 13,000 or 63.6 percent of the total enrollment of 20,500. By the 1986-87 school year the number of black pupils had grown to almost 13,800 out of a total of 19,300\nthey were 71,3 percent. (See Table 1.)* TABLE 1 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1987-88 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Year Black Nonblack Total % Black 1980-81 13,009 7,446 20,455 63.6% 1981-82 13,004 6,743 19,747 65.9% 1982-83 13,238 6,064 19,302 68.6% 1983-84 13,355 5,722 19,077 70.0% 1984-85 13,466 5,450 18,916 71.2% 1985-86 13,644 5,479 19,123 71.3% 1986-87 13,769 5,536 19,305 71.3% 1987-88 16,101 10,479 26,580 60.6% Source: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollments. In both 1980-81 and 1986-87 the proportion of black pupils was highest in the early grades and lowest in the high school years. However, racial change at all grade levels has been slow. Both total enrollment and white* enrollment reached their lowest points in 1984-85 and began climbing again thereaf-ter. In order to meet the conditions of racial balance set down in the latest federal court order, Little Rock pupils are assigned to schools based on parents' expressed preferences and desegregation guidelines set by the court. *There will sometimes be small differences between enrollment numbers cited in this report for the same year. The differences occur because they have been taken from different source materials furnished by the school system and were assembled at different points in the school year. **Although there are a handful of nonblack nonwhite children in the Little Rock School District, for all practical purposes the terms \"white\" and \"nonblack\" are synonymous and are used interchangeably in this report. -2- Since the racial balance requirements are likely to remain in force for some years, the projection methodology must consider not only the size of the pupil population by race, but also its projected location within the district. Expanded Boundaries Until Fall 1987, the Little Rock School District took in only about twothirds of the land area and child population included in the city of Little Rock. The remainder of Little Rock, together with other parts of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River, was served by the Pulaski Special School District. By order of the federal court, the boundaries of both districts were changed effective in school year 1987-88. This change brought about 7,000 more pupils into the Little Rock Distric~, and made its boundaries virtually contiguous with those of the city. It also reduced the percentage of blacks in the district's population to 60.6 percent--three percentage points below their proportion in 1980. As in the earlier years, the black proportion was highest in the early grades (65.1 percent) and lowest at the high school level (50.1 percent). We could obtain almost no historical data to help judge what changes in school enrollments are likely to occur in the annexed territory. Metroplan estimates for 1986 indicate that much of the total population growth in the city of Little Rock took place in the annexed school territory, and Metroplan projects further growth in the years ahead. A comparison of 1980 census data with 1987 school data suggests that both black and nonblack pupils have increased in some parts of the annexed territory since 1980. Since we have no data for intervening years, however, .there is no way of telling whether the increases occurred in the early years of the decade but have now halted for one or both racial groups, or whether they have occurred more recently, or have taken place at a constant pace throughout the period. Nor can we obtain census data on the child population by race for census -3- tracts in which the total black population numbered fewer than 400 persons in 1980, even though they may have grown since then. Several of these tracts are in the annexed school territory. -4- II. Recent Trends in School Enrollment Trends in the System as a Whole (Old boundaries) Overall, the Little Rock School District's enrollment declined somewhat during the early years of the 1980s decade, as Table 1 indicated. From almost 20,500 in 1980-81, it dropped to about 18,900 in 1984-84--a decrease of about 1,600 pupils or 7.5 percent. In recent years, however, the trend has been reversed. Small gains were registered in 1985 and again in 1986, making up for some of the losses in the early 1980s. By 1986-87 enrollment was up to 19,300, 5.6 percent below 1980. In 1987 the enrollment again increased. This time, however, the reason was an expansion in the District's boundaries which added about 7,000 pupils from the Pulaski Special District. Some grade levels reached their lowest points earlier than others. The first to bottom out were the junior high grades (7-9), which had their lowest enrollment in the 1982-83 school year. Kindergarten was next in 1983-84, followed by the primary grades (1-3) and high school (10-12) in 1984-85. The intermediate grades (4-6) were the last to reach bottom in 1985-86. All but kindergarten and the junior high years increased their enrollments in the last year before the District was enlarged. (See Table 2 and Figure 1.) Racial Differences in Enrollments (old boundaries) Except for Grades 1 to 3, all grade levels from kindergarten to high schools had larger black enrollments in 1986-87 than in 1980-81, although the change from year to year was rarely very large. Overall, the number of black pupils increased by less than 800 in the six-year period, or by 5.8 percent. The number of white pupils, on the other hand, was smaller in 1986 than in 1980 at every level except kindergarten. The changes were also greater as -5- TABLE 2 TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1986-87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BLACK PUPILS GRADES 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 1,120 1,072 1,141 1,059 1,142 1,211 1,160 1-3 3,800 3,842 3,815 3,768 3,754 3,728 3,729 4-6 2,879 2,987 3,136 3,264 3,243 3,237 3,267 7-9 2,712 2,679 2,735 2,871 2,960 3,099 3,086 10-12 2,498 2,424 2,411 2,393 2,367 2,369 2,527 TOTAL 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13, 769 NONBLACK PUPILS GRADE 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 434 459 420 413 393 429 475 1-3 1,636 1,276 1,114 1,069 1,077 1,104 1,159 4-6 1,645 1,430 1,191 1,083 971 915 926 7-9 1,627 1,650 1,574 1,540 1,450 1,363 1,257 10-12 2,104 1,928 1,765 1,617 1,559 1,668 1,719 TOTAL 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 TOTAL ENROLLMENT GRADE 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 1,554 1,531 1,561 1,472 1,535 1,640 1,635 1-3 5,436 5,118 4,929 4,837 4,831 4,832 4,888 4-6 4,524 4,417 4,327 4,347 4,214 4,152 4,193 7-9 4,339 4,329 4,309 4,411 4,410 4,462 4,343 10-12 4,602 4,352 4,176 4,010 3,926 4,037 4,246 TOTAL 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 SOURCE: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollment. (J) ..-i ...... 6600 6200 5800 25400 4- 0 ~ 5000 E :) z 4600 Figure 1 TRENDS IN TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 1 1/ /\n/ / . jl/ . I /I/ /\n'/ .1/ / l' I / ----~ - I  / ---:-------- - - - - - - - - J/1 4200 - ------- -~ ---=-=---- - ==--- -===-- - - - - - - - - f ------------ ------- -------------~-:::-:::i --- ----- - -- - --- ----------------- 3800--i----------r------.--------,------,--- - - ---,---- - -r-- ----, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 well, although still quite gradual. By Fall 1986 there were about 1,900 fewer white pupils enrolled in the Little Rock School District than in Fall 1980, for a drop of 25.7 percent or roughly 4.5 percent per year. However, all grade levels except 7-9 had begun to see their white pupil enrollments grow again by the 1986-87 school year. White students in the primary grades (1-3) reached their low point in 1983-84, and began to climb thereafter. Kindergarten and high school both saw their white pupil populations begin to grow again the following fall. White enrollment in the latter continued to grow in 1986-87, as it did in the primary grades. Whites in grades 4-6 dropped continuously through 1985-86, then gained slightly in 1986-87. (See Figures 2 and 3.) Hence the white decline appears to have leveled off, and may even have been reversed, before the court decision added pupils from the Pulaski Special District. Locational Differences (old boundaries) Historical data by geocode area of residence within the District were furnished by the school system for each individual grade. These were combined for our analysis in two ways. The first was by grade levels--kindergarten, primary (grades 1-3), intermediate (4-6), junior high (7-9), and high school (10-12). Second, in order to make the analysis more manageable, the individual geocodes were combined into subgroups--e.g. all geocodes beginning with 01 were combined under Group 01, all beginning with 02 under Group 02, and so on. We then chose Primary grades 1-3 and High School grades 10-12 for further examination and compared the changes in enrollees at these two grade levels from Fall 1979 to Fall 1987. The data for these levels have been mapped, and the results are shown in Figures 4 through 9. Within the old district boundaries, total enrollments in both grade levels declined substantially (more than 100 pupils) in some neighborhoods close to -6- 4600- 4200- Figur8 2 TRENDS IN BLACK ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 38oot--------------------------\" / / / (J) // / ~..... / / // J3400 // 4- __________________________________ ,,.,,. / 0 ------- a\n3000- -------- -- - - - _/ ~ ----- E ----- :) z 2600- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- -------- ---------- - - --- 2200- ./ /. _/  / ./ 1900-------r--------r------r-------.----..------....-------,, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 (/) ........ ...... 3400 3000 2600 t2200 4-- 0 ~ 1800 E :J z 1400 1000 Figure 3 TRENDS IN WHITE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 I / / 1 I ------- ./ I I ------- I / / I ------  I I/ ---- __\nI I -- -------- ____ _...- I ..._...__..._ - - ------------ I I/ ....... _____ -- -- /1 -....._ -- -- I .............. ..._..._ I ..... ._._ - - _/ I ._..._..._ I --- I - __::::._--:--:-_=:-.::.:-:::.:::.:===~,---------------- I I ------ I ______________________ / 600+-------.----------r-----r-------T------r-----r--------, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 54 05   04  Figure 4 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Total: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numelical Change  :t 50 @ +51-100 @ +101 or more  -51 to 100  -101 or more 54 17 @ Figure 5 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51 to 100  - l0lor more the city's center. (See Figures 4 and 5.) These correspond to geocodes 1, 2, 3, and 4. There were also drops in enrollment in the upper northwest section of the city--substantial for the primary years and less so for the high school grades. Total enrollments changed relatively little, on the other hand, in neighborhoods west of University Avenue (Geocodes 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and in the areas east of University but north of West Markham (geocodes 7, 8, and 9) although here there were occasional spots of decline. There were no geocode groups where total enrollments increased by more than 50 pupils in the primary grades, and only two in which they increased this much in grades 10 to 12. One such area is south of !630 and east of University (geocode 05). The other is also south of 1630 but west of Barrow to !430\nits southern boundary is West 36th Street (geocode 17). Some of the geocode areas which remained stable did so because increases among black pupils offset white losses. (See Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9.) This was true of areas below !630 and west of University for both grade levels (geocodes 17, 18, and 19). There were also small losses among whites in some neighborhoods east of University, but blacks did not always gain sufficiently to offset these losses. Losses among black students, on the other hand, were substantial in some downtown neighborhoods for both the primary and high school grades. White enrollments in these areas, which were small to begin with, changed little between 1979 and 1987. As the maps indicate, there has been a clear movement of black pupils toward the western part of the city, but not to the higher-priced northwest. Whites have moved out of the areas where black enrollees have increased (or white graduates have not been replaced by younger whites). However, whites have contributed little to public school enrollments in the northwest despite substantial new construction. Since much of the recent construction has been of apartment units, new occupants may include relatively few school-age chil- -7- 54 17  04  Figure 6 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D 25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more 54 17 @ 04 CD Figure 7 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D -t-25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more 54 17 @ 04  Figure 8 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 N umeiical Change \u0026lt;D t-50 @ + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75  - 76 or more 54 04 CD Figure 9 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D 25 @ +26 to 75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more dren. These areas also include some of the city's higher-income neighborhoods, where between 30 and 50 percent of school-aged children were reported to be attending private schools at the 1980 census. Private school attendance probably remains high in these areas. Locational Changes (Expanded Boundaries) As already indicated, we were able to obtain no reliable historical data on school enrollments which could be used to make a precise assessment of recent trends in the territory added to the Little Rock District in Fall 1987. Metroplan's 1986 population estimates indicate substantial new residential construction in much of the annexed territory, and considerable increase in population as well. In fact, it is in the new territory that much of the city's new residential construction and population gain has taken place, according to Metroplan. (See Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 10.) It is likely, therefore, that school enrollments have also increased, offsetting some of the decline in neighborhoods closer to the city's center. Much of the new construction has been in multi-family units, however, and this may have tended to hold enrollments down. At the time of the 1980 census, apartments in Little Rock yielded an average of 1.9 persons, compared with 2.41 persons for single family homes. Furthermore, about 40 percent of the city's total population growth occurred in one far northwest census tract (42.03) where about a third of all children of elementary and junior high age were in private schools in 1980. More than half the units built since 1980 in this tract, according to Metroplan officials, have been apartments. In adjoining tracts (22.01, 22.03, 22.04, 22.05 and 24.01) the ratio of apartments was even higher. In the tracts in the southwest part of the city (24.02, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, and 42.04) single family units have -8- 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 10 Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-86 40.01 Percentage Change \u0026lt;D + 1% @ 2-5% @ + 6% or more  - 2-5%  - 6% or more TABLE 3 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 1986 Census Change 80-86 Tract 1980 1986 No. Pct. 1 860 1,090 230 26. 7% 2 4,491 4,430 (61) -1.4% 3 2,726 2,890 164 6.0% 4 1,508 1,490 (18) -1.2% 5 4,904 4,940 36 0.7% 6 3,956 3,880 (76) -1.9% 7 2,969 2,920 (49) -1.7% 8 773 760 (13) -1.7% 9 806 790 (16) -2.0% 10 4,391 4,340 (51) -1.2% 11 4,831 4,750 (81) -1. 7% 12 2,675 2,630 (45) -1.7% 13 5,262 5,170 (92) -1.7% 14 3,417 3,420 3 0.1% 15 8,175 9,270 1,095 13.4% 16 5,258 5,350 92 1.7% 17 867 850 (17) -2.0% 18 6,406 6,350 (56) -0.9% 19 5,029 5,280 251 5.0% 20.01 5,748 5,900 152 2.6% 20.02 5,568 5,480 (88) -1.6% 21.01 8,468 8,740 272 3.2% 21.02 4,095 4,050 (45) -1.1% 22.01 5,196 5,710 514 9.9% 22.03 4,935 5,510 575 11.7% 22.04 7,938 8,830 892 11.2% 22.05 6,940 9,570 2,630 37.9% 24.01 11,100 12,170 1,070 9.6% 24.02 7,378 7,530 152 2.1% 40.01 2,705 2,860 155 5.7% 41.03 3,813 3,800 (13) -0.3% 41.04 1,154 1,490 336 29.1% 41.05 6,211 6,480 269 4.3% 41.06 6,660 6,930 270 4.1% 41.07 4,058 3,990 (68) -1.7% 41.08 6,361 6,250 (111) -1.7% 42.03 7,512 13,970 6,458 86.0% 42.04 2,615 3,460 845 32.3% Total 177,759 193,320 15,561 8.8% *Some census tracts extend into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. Only the population of these tracts living within the city of Little Rock are included in the numbers given for both 1980 and 1987. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population, updated by Metroplan to include territory annexed by Little Rock aftei 1980. 1987 estimates from Metroplan, January 1988. predominated in new construction, but except for the extreme southwest, the number of new homes has been relatively modest. Table 4 Housing Permits Issued for New Housing Units, 1980-86 in Census Tracts with 100 or More New Homes Little Rock, Arkansas Census Tract 1 3 15 16 19 20.01 21.01 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.06 42.03 42.04 Mul ti-Familz: 152 130 727 60 204 154 243 271 372 464 1,386 439 2 122 64 2,073 110 Source: Metroplan, March 1987 Single-Familz: 0 2 31 45 6 6 18 80 29 133 227 259 135 5 137 1,462 324 Total 152 132 758 105 210 160 261 351 401 597 1,613 698 137 127 201 3,535 434 It is possible to obtain some indication of enrollment change in the annexed areas by comparing data on school-age children from the 1980 Census by census tract with data for the same tracts from 1987-88 school data. While school data are recorded for geocodes and not for census tracts, about 83 percent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. Among many of the remainder which cross tract lines, it is apparent from an examination of maps that the majority of residents live within one of the tracts. In these cases we assigned all of the children to that tract. While this procedure may result in some errors, they are probably small, and the results can be considered illustrative, if not definitive. -9- The census data are for 5-year age groups rather than by grades as are the school data. In the analysis, therefore, we used children aged 5 to 9 years in 1980 as a proxy for kindergarten to grade 4, making an adjustment to take out those attending private schools. We have data on the total population without regard to race for all census tracts. However, no 1980 racial data are available for those tracts in which the black population as a whole numbered fewer than 400 persons in that year. Several tracts within the annexed territory fell into this category, although 1987 school data now show sizeable black school populations. We also do not have separate data on private school attendance for blacks and nonblacks. The analysis of the 1980 and 1987-88 data can give us only a rough indication of changes in enrollment patterns and the direction of change in the territory recently added to the Little Rock School District. (The annexed territory includes all or part of census tracts 20.01, 20.02, 24.02, 40.01, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, 41.07, 41.08, 42.03, and 42.04.) Nevertheless, they do indicate a clear increase in enrollments in the lower grades in much of the annexed area since 1980, primarily south of I30 and east of Heinke Road (tracts 41.05, 41.06, and 41.08). The comparison shows little change west of Heinke (tracts 41.03 and 41.04) and in the far northwest part of the school district (tract 42.03), although Metroplan reports a considerable amount of new construction of both multi-family and single-family dwellings. In one tract (42.04) there was a sizeable decline in enrollment.* (See Figure 11.) Since most census tracts in the annexed territory had relatively small black populations in 1980, it is difficult to tell much about racial change within the new area. At least a few tracts, however, appeared to have drawn increases in both black and nonblack enrollments between 1980 and 1987-88. (See Figures 12 and 13.) -10- 42.04 24.01  24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 11 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87 \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100  - 101 or more 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.01 40.03 Figure 12 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Black: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980} Numerical Change, 1980-87 \u0026lt;D + 25  + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75 @ - 76 or more 42.04 24.01  24.02  40.03 Figure 13 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts White: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87  + 25 @ + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75  - 76 or more Overall, it appears that there have been few if any radical and rapid shifts in the pupil population of the Little Rock School District over the past several years. Total enrollments have declined steadily from year to year (except for the recent increase due to the annexation), but the drop has been gradual. Black enrollments have grown somewhat while white enrollments have decreased, but the pace has been quite slow in both directions. In gen-eral, change in the schools appear to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a whole--population losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. While much of the city's total growth has gone into the northwest and southwest, however, some of these areas have gained rela-tively few public school pupils, at least in the lower grades.* Black population and black school children have tended to move out of the older areas to the east and in the center and toward the west and southwest. In some of these areas they are clearly replaced white pupils. In other areas white enrollments appear relatively stable. *Metroplan staff expressed surprise at the drop in the K-4 enrollment in this tract (42.04) where their figures show a 1980-86 total population increase of 1,452 persons and the addition of 432 dwellings, three-fourths of which were single-family units. We have no reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. -11-  III. FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS Expectations for Growth There are several sources of population projections for Pulaski County, two of which were consulted for this study--those made by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which produces the official projections for all counties in the State of Arkansas, and those made by Metroplan. UALR's projections are for the total population of Pulaski County by race, sex, and five-year age groups. The projections are given for intervals of five years to the year 2000. There are no separate figures for subareas of the county. Metroplan projects the total population of Pulaski County, along with the three other counties (Saline, Faulkner, and Lonoke) that make up the Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area, and also distributes the projection among census tracts in the urbanized areas. The census tract projections are only for the year 2010 with no figures for intervening years. UALR projects the population of Pulaski County to reach more than 441,000 persons by the year 2000, an increase of more than 100,500 or 29.6 percent over the 1980 population of 340,600. (This represents approximately one-fifth of the total increase projected for the entire State of Arkansas in the 20-year period.) About one-fourth of the increase is estimated to have occurred between 1980 and 1985, with about an equal increase expected every five years thereafter to the turn of the century. Metroplan has a somewhat higher projection, expecting the county to reach more than 474,000 persons by 2000 (an increase of 39.3 percent over 1980), and 530,000 by the year 2010, a gain of over 189,000 persons or 55.6 percent in just 30 years. -12- Only UALR projects the county's population for whites and blacks separately. Because of their higher rate of in-migration--during the 1970s the nonwhite rate was 19.6 percent compared to only 2.7 percent for whites-nonwhites are projected to number about 148,800 in the year 2000. They will then constitute one-third (33.7 percent) of the Pulaski County population, compared with 25.2 percent at the 1980 census. Our informant at UALR expects this in-migration to continue for the foreseeable future. Since Little Rock now has a substantial black community, he believes it will continue to be attractive to blacks now living elsewhere in Arkansas. Where the Growth Will Go Only a limited amount of the growth projected for Pulaski County in the next 20-30 years is likely to go inside the current boundaries of the city of Little Rock. Much of the central area has been losing population in recent years, and much of the rest of the city is already well developed. In 1980 the city contained almost half of the county's total population, and since then several tracts of land on the west and northwest sides of the city have begun to fill up. Described by one informant as \"the place to live in Little Rock\", the area of greatest growth in Pulaski County during the 1980s has been the northwest section of the city. To a lesser degree, the area to the south-west has also been attractive. This latter area was described by the same informant as popular for \"entry level\" housing for first-time homebuyers of more modest means. Almost everyone consulted for this study agrees that growth will continue on the city's western borders. There are still several large tracts of undeveloped land now prime for development. A number of major residential, commercial or institutional construction projects are in the planning stages or beyond. Census tract 42.03 in the northwest alone is projected by Metroplan -13- to increase its population by almost five times between 1980 and 2010. Tract 42.04 extending directly westward from the city will grow by almost three and a half times. Other tracts in the same general area will also grow, though more modestly. (See Table 5 and Figure 14.) Altogether, Metroplan has projected that the census tracts on the city's west side will gain almost 50,000 new residents by the year 2010. Only part of that growth will occur within the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District, however. While part of the growth area lies within the recently-annexed territory of the school system, most of the census tracts where growth is projected also extend well out beyond current city limits into the remainder of Pulaski County--and hence, beyond the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District. While the city of Little Rock may eventually annex some of the newly developed area, it is not axiomatic that the children living there will also be annexed by the Little Rock School District. At the same time, it is unlikely that a large segment of Little Rock's black community will participate in the westward movement to the city's borders and beyond. These areas contain some of the highest priced housing in the city, and blacks in Little Rock still have a considerably lower median incomes than do whites. Instead, the movement of blacks has tended to be on the near west side of the city and toward the southwest below 1630 where housing is more affordable. It is likely that this movement will continue unless steps are taken to re-direct it or to open up other options. Other Population Change in Little Rock As already noted, like almost all American cities, Little Rock has been losing population at its core. Between 1980 and 1986 Metroplan estimated that there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the -14- TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 Census 1980 2010 Change 1980-2010 Tract Total Tract Total Tract No. Pct 1 860 1,600 740 86.0% 2 4,491 4,000 (491) -10. 9% 3 2,726 3,200 474 17.4% 4 1,508 1,000 (508) -33.7% 5 4,904 5,200 296 6.0% 6 3,956 4,000 44 1.1% 7 2,969 3,200 231 7.8% 8 773 800 27 3.5% 9 806 800 (6) -0. 7% 10 4,391 4,600 209 4.8% 11 4,831 4,600 (231) -4.8% 12 2,675 2,200 (475) -17.8% 13 5,262 4,800 (462) -8.8% 14 3,417 3,800 383 11.2% 15 8,175 10,000 1,825 22.3% 16 5,258 5,100 (158) -3.0% 17 867 850 (17) -2.0% 18 6,406 5,900 (506) -7.9% 19 5,029 4,500 (529) -10.5% 20.01 5,748 5,700 (48) -0.8% 20.02 5,568 5,600 32 0.6% 21.01 8,468 8,000 (468) -5.5% 21.02 4,095 6,000 1,905 46.5% 22.01 5,196 5,600 404 7.8% 22.03 4,935 5,300 365 7.4% 22.04 7,938 8,800 862 10.9% 22.05 6,940 9,500 2,560 36.9% 23 920 950 30 3.3% 24.01 11,100 16,800 5,700 51.4% 24.02 7,378 13,800 6,422 87.0% 40.01 5,539 4,500 (1,039) -18.8% 41.03 3,813 5,500 1,687 44.2% 41.04 1,354 6,800 5,446 402.2% 41.05 6,211 12,200 5,989 96.4% 41.06 6,660 8,400 1,740 26.1% 41.07 4,058 4,900 842 20.7% 41.08 6,361 7,200 839 13.2% 42.03 8,260 38,900 30,640 370.9% 42.04 6,614 22,000 15,386 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases, the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincor-porated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, Pulaski Area Transportation Study, May 1987.  42.04 42.03  24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 14 Projected Change in Total Population Little Rock 40.01 Census Tracts 1980-2010 Percentage Change  t 5% @ + 6-25% @ + 26% or more  - 6-25%  - 26% or more city, in the tracts close to downtown, and in those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. Several of these tracts are projected by Metroplan to continue their population decline through the year 2010 while others, including some close to the city's center, will gain slightly. Some of the 1980-86 gainers west of University or south of 20th Street are projected to turn into losers or to stabilize by 2010. Since \"declining\" neighborhoods are usually \"aging\" neighborhoods as well, these areas will probably lose school-age as well as total population. However, some losers in the southeast are projected by Metroplan to become gainers by the year 2010. One close-in prospect for population gain is the neighborhood just to the east of the old downtown where there has been recent rehabilitation of old Victorian homes by young middle-class couples and families (Census Tract 6), However, the size of the area available for such gentrification is severely restricted not only by the number of dwellings but also by physical barriers to its extension. To date, whatever physical changes have taken place in the area's housing has had little effect on the pupil population living within the area. Future Growth of the Child Population Children are usually the most difficult group in the population to project. Unlike adults whose births are already a matter of record and whose survival from one age group to another can usually be tracked based on past experience with mortality and migration, how many children there will be in the future is subject to many more uncertainties. How will the birthrate shift? Will there be a trend toward larger families? or having babies at earlier ages? or later ages? If migration patterns for an older group changes, how will this affect the migration of children? -15- The number of children born to Pulaski County residents (we have no separate data for Little Rock) has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years. Except for a dip in 1978 (considered by several sources as an obvious error in the data), the number of births did not vary by more than a few hundred between 1977 and 1986. Births to both blacks and whites have also remained almost constant\nthe difference between the highest and lowest numbers in any one year has been little more than 300 for each race. (See Figure 15). Despite the constancy in births, the child population of Pulaski County, like the total population, is projected by UALR to gain by the year 2000. However, like child populations nationally and in most communities across the country, their growth rate will be substantially below that of the total population. According to UALR's projections, children below age 20 will increase by only 16.7 percent between 1980 and 2000, an increase of fewer than 19,000 in the 20-year period. Furthermore, the largest number will be ages 15 to 19, with smaller numbers at each descending 5-year age group. The smallest number will be children below five years of age. Thus, unless there is a substantial in-migration of young children it is likely that the seeds are present for even more slender growth of the county's child population in the future. Still, children will total almost 130,000 in Pulaski County in 2000. And they will be almost 30 percent of the county's total population. (See Table 6.) All of the gain in children and then some will be among black children who are projected to grow from under 37,200 in 1980 to almost 57,800 in 2000. They will be almost evenly distributed among the four age subgroups. White children, on the other hand, will decline slightly in number--from about 74,200 in 1980 to about 72,100 in 2000. There will be more than 2,000 more white children ages 15 to 19 than under five years. -16- 8000 7000 6000 CJ) -.5 5000 ..L... CD Figure 15 BIRTHS IN PULASKI COUNTY TOTAL AND BY RACE - 1977 TO 1986 't\n4000 -------- L a, ---- -------------- ----------------------- ........................... ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ----- -- ............ ,,,,.,.,,,,,,. .0 5 3000 ...,_,.,. :z 2000 - - - - - - -------  1000 0-+---------r-----r----~-----r-------,-----r----r------r------, 1977 1978 1979 Total births 1980 1981 1982 Year of Births White births 1983 1984 1985 1986 Nonwhite births TABLE 6 PROJECTIONS OF THE CHILD POPULATION BY RACE - PULASKI COUNTY TOTAL CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 28,291 32,599 32,649 31,923 31,370 5 to 9 years 28,117 28,074 32,385 32,496 31,848 10 to 14 years 25,870 28,358 28,404 32,804 32,981 15-19 years 29,047 26,423 29,042 29,142 33,682 TOTAL 111,325 115,454 122,480 126,365 129,881 WHITE CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 17,903 20,201 19,504 18,132 16,966 5 to 9 years 18,350 17,267 19,488 18,818 17,496 10 to 14 years 17,662 17,975 16,915 19,092 18,437 15-19 years 20,252 17,766 18,084 17,016 19,212 TOTAL 74,167 73,209 73,991 73,058 72,111 NONWHITE CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 10,388 12,398 13,145 13,791 14,404 5 to 9 years 9,767 10,807 12,897 13,678 14,352 10 to 14 years 8,208 10,383 11,489 13,712 14,544 15-19 years 8,795 8,657 10,958 12,126 14,470 TOTAL 37,158 42,245 48,489 53,307 57,770 II SOURCE: Research and Public Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock. If there has been no rise in the number of births among Pulaski County residents, then why is the number of children in the county expected to growF? According to our informant at UALR the explanation lies in the migration patterns to the Little Rock area which have recently shown an increase in the in-migration of blacks from elsewhere in Arkansas. Blacks who might formerly have gone to Chicago, Detroit or Memphis, he states, are now drawn to Little Rock because of the size of its black community. As long as there continues to be a sizeable black population remaining in rural or small-town Arkansas, he expects that the migration to Little Rock will continue. We have found no projections below the county level for children so it is difficult to say what proportion of them are likely to end up in the Little Rock School District. Some are probably members of young families whose best prospects for starter housing may lie outside the city limits. Still, while less than half of Pulaski County's total population lived in Little Rock in 1980, almost 63 percent of its black population resided there. If this ratio- or close to it--continues into the future, a substantial proportion of the county's additional child population could go to Little Rock schools. We note that the UALR projection calls for an increase of somewhat over 1,000 black children per year in Pulaski County between 1980 and 2000, Over 600 of this increase, by the figure just cited, will occur in Little Rock. Enrollment figures so far in the 1980s, however, have shown a fairly consistent increase in black pupils averaging only about 127 per year. We have no explanation for this difference. However, we note that our projections, which will be discussed in the next chapter, indicate not a gain but a gradual decrease in overall black enrollments in future years. Because of the possibility that enrollment trends may be in the process of shifting, we recommend that they be monitored closely for the next several years and that revised projections be developed if necessary. -17- Influence of the Little Rock Economy A major shift--either up, down or dramatically different--in Little Rock's economic picture could affect migration patterns, and hence its school enrollments. This is unlikely to occur. One informant, a businessman with several decades of experience in living and working in Little Rock, described its economy as extremely stable--\"Good times, bad times, we grow about 2 percent a year. This isn't going to change\". Centers of government are often fairly recession-resistent, and Little Rock is probably no exception. When times are good, most people share in the prosperity. If times turn bad, government often steps in with new programs or expands old ones. In addition to being the State Capital, Little Rock is also a trading and distribution center for the upper south central region. It is also a major education and hospital center. It has a campus of the University of Arkansas as well as several regional medical centers. Its economy, in addition to growing steadily, has been moving in concert with the national economy. Manufacturing employment is down but not out, white collar and service industries are up. In 1985 the largest number of jobs (53,700) in the four-county Little Rock-North Little Rock metropolitan area were in wholesale and retail trade, according to the Arkansas Employment Security Division. The second largest number were service jobs (47,200). A substantial majority of these were in professional and related services, such as hospitals, other health services, and education. Service jobs had grown by 28 percent in the five years since 1980. In third place were government jobs (44,400). While manufacturing was in fourth place (33,800), the number of manufacturing jobs had declined by 10 percent since 1980. The drop, however, was more than overset by gains in other sectors so that the overall number of jobs was greater in 1985 than in 1980, by more than 9 percent. -18- IV. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Record of Prior Projections According to informants in the school system, its earlier enrollment projections have come remarkably close to the mark. In one recent year, for example, the actual enrollment was off by just a single pupil. Projections made in 1981 in an earlier study by Stanton Leggett and Associates also came close. When based on earlier enrollment trends, the Leggett figures fell just 136 pupils short of actual enrollment in fall 1985, or 0.7 percent. When based on the geographic distribution of the student population, the shortfall was only 79, or 0.4 percent. Most pupil enrollment projections are made by some variation of the \"cohort survival\" method. Basically, the method begins with data on the current school population by grade. It then \"ages\" that population, moving it up one grade for each succeeding year. At the same time, it \"survives\" the population, employing ratios developed out of school system experience which indicate what proportion of the children in one grade can usually be expected to show up in the next. The \"survival ratio'' is often a decimal fraction smaller than one\nhowever, it can be greater than one if youngsters migrating into the area from outside are added to the population in later grades. For children who are not yet old enough to be in school, the number of births in the appropriate year is used to develop the ratio. When the projection goes beyond the children already born, assumptions are made about the future fertility rate of the population. The comparative accuracy of past projections in the Little Rock School District is a tribute not just to the skill of the projectors, but also to the steadiness of past enrollment trends. In the present situation, however, one -19- II II II II II   II     II factor makes the projections particularly risky. This is the 1987 addition of a large number of pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, about whose \"survival\" almost nothing is known. Thus, we cannot develop survival ratios for almost a third of the current Little Rock pupil population based on their own trends and behavior. Projections for System-wide Planning Several sets of projections were developed and evaluated. All but one involved some variation of the \"cohort survival\" method, although they were also compared with independent data sources such as those furnished by Metroplan and UALR to determine if they were consistent both with current demographic and economic trends and future projections. Table 7 presents the final projections for each grade level which we recommend for current planning. We suggest strongly, however, that these be reviewed and updated annually as more data become available on the pupil population in the annexed territory. For the projections of black enrollment we used a three-year average of survival ratios for the old district. Past data were first projected to 1986 for the old district and compared to the actual 1986 enrollment. When the two compared quite closely, the three-year ratio was applied to the actual enrollments in the expanded district in fall 1987 and projections made to future years. White enrollments received somewhat different treatment. They had declined during the first years of the 1980s, but then began to turn up again. Some grade levels among whites began the reversal earlier than others, and the junior high years from 7th to 9th grade never did change directions. Since we could not determine whether the reversal was merely a temporary blip or presaged a change in trends, we used only one year's survival ratios--that of -20- TABLE 7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL AND RACE 1987-88 TO 1997-1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Current Projected 1987-88 1990-91 1995-96 1997-98 Total Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total Black Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total Nonblack Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total 1,846 6,449 5,820 6,064 6,401 26,580 1,184 4,196 3,819 3,695 3,207 16,101 662 2,253 2,001 2,369 3,194 10,479 1,834 6,059 5,494 5,966 5,952 25,305 1,156 3,797 3,593 3,712 3,219 15,477 678 2,264 1,900 2,253 2,732 9,827 1,797 6,072 5,180 5,297 5,605 23,951 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,167 3,128 14,490 662 2,262 1,930 2,131 2,477 9,462 1,797 6,072 5,158 5,269 5,389 23,685 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,115 2,913 14,223 662 2,262 1,908 2,154 2,477 9,463 *Ratios have been calculated on basis of enrollments within the boundaries which existed prior to the 1987-88 school year, but projections are based on enrollments in the expanded district in that year. 1986--for the white projections. These trends especially will require careful monitoring to determine their staying power. Total enrollments were arrived at by combining the black and white projections. In addition, as already noted, all of the projections assume that pupils in the annexed territory will behave in exactly the same way as those in the old territory. This is a risky assumption at best that should also be evaluated as reliable data on the new territory becomes available. Since data on births are available only for children who will be entering kindergarten through 1992, for later years we assumed that there would be the same number of both black and white births in the years thereafter as in 1986. As already noted, except for a temporary decline in 1978 (which many people attribute to an error in the figures and for'which an adjustment was made), the number of births has remained remarkably stable for the past ten years in Pulaski County. Overall, the projections indicate that total enrollment will continue to decline moderately through the 1997-98 school year. The drop will be largest at the junior and senior high school level. Both black and white enrollments will decline. Black junior and senior high school students will grow slightly by 1990, then drop off, while the number in grades 1 to 3 will be somewhat larger in 1995 and 1997 than in 1990. The number of white pupils at every grade level above 3rd grade will decline from its current level. Kindergarten and grades 1-3, on the other hand, will experience almost no change. Small-Area Projections Projections have also been made of the K-4 enrollments for individual census tracts throughout the expanded school district. They are shown in Figures 16 through 18. -21- 42.04 24.01  24.02 \u0026lt;D 41.06 @ 40.03 Figure 16 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 40.01 1987-88 lo 1990-91 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100 @ - 101 or more 42.04 24.01  24.02 @ 41.06 @ 40.03 40.01 Figure 17 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1995-96 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ + 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100  - 101 or more 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.01 40.03 Figure 18 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1997-98 2 @ Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100 @ - 101 or more Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools Stant.on Leggett and Associates  Educational Consultants West Tisbury, Mass. 02575 REPORT\nMEETING THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES NEEDS OF SEVEN RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas June 1988 RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS A school with 76% or more Black enrollment is designated as racially identifiable. These schools will have major enhancements to their programs Including the following:  Tutortng programs  Reduced teacher /pupil ratio- a ratio ofl8 children to one teacher will be used.  Extended day care will be provided with costs based on a sliding scale.  Home Instruction will be supported for preschoolers  Individual school programs will be implemented with areas of emphasis.  Renovations of buildings are proposed to put these buildings In top physical condition. RENOVATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SETTINGS FOR LEARNING In order to create in the seven racially identifiable schools the appropriate environment for learning, a series of major enhancements to these buildings have been proposed. These enhancements are detailed In the Appendix and are summarized in Table 1. To the seven racially identifiable schools has been added the Franklin School. This building is in the general area of the seven schools and can be involved In the effort to provide improved facilities for the seven schools. Table 1 shows estimated costs of enhancements. Those at Franklin are considered minor enhancements. Table 2. following, shows enrollments in the fall of the 1987-88 school year at the various schools. A map follows showing the relative locations of the schools and the major arteries. -2- Table 1 Racially Identifiable Schools and One Borderline School, with Estimated Costs of Physical Enhancement School Cost Franklin 22,350 Garland 396,890 lsh 124 ,770 King 1,1 97 ,815 Mitchell 106,470 Rockefeller 53 ,350 Stephens 964 ,720 Washington 742,730 3 ,609 ,095 Table 2 Enrollment by Grade for Selected Schools, 1987-88 Spec School K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ed Franklin 55 56 62 66 51 64 49 Garland 34 48 46 47 41 45 45 23 lsh 18 39 33 23 32 31 30 8 King 32 44 53 32 32 41 35 Mitchell 32 43 47 29 37 39 21 8 Rockefeller 50 48 42 32 33 42 42 Stephens 14 49 36 24 30 32 33 Washington 31 42 24 24 37 26 30 Total 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 2192 FRA~Kl I ,J 0 .STEP48\\JS 0 0 l'Si+ fv'\\t\\f S-4--\\ov.J/1-lG Rid.A:TIVE L~110NS OF ~L Bui LD/J--JGS 1r-J fd:F-ORr o,-.i RAUA LLY t,N\n,\u0026gt;Jn l=\"IABLE. ~oLS u',a I -4- Calculation of Capacity: Racially Identifiable Schools The capacity of a school is a Yariable depending upon policy decisions as to class slze and the provision of speciallzed staff that serve the student body as children are drawn out of the regular classes for this purpose. The provision of special education self-contained classes and resource rooms also affects capacity as these are withdrawn from the regular classroom supply. In this analysis kindergartens have been treated as classrooms since the program is a full-day operation. In the analysis of major enhancements of schools that are racially identifiable, the matter of providing adequate working conditions for the specialized staff assigned to the school becomes important. One measure of the school system's concerns in this area is given by the specialized (other than kindergarten and classroom) facilities provided for new schools. Table 3, following, shows the spaces provided in the three most recently constructed schools of the school system. Analysis of these data suggests that in terms of staff and programs added to the schools, the following number of rooms should be set aside for the uses indicated. These rooms do not contribute to capacity of a school as students use these in addition to the regular classroom to which they are assigned, except for self-contained special education rooms. There should be at least one self-contained special education room in each school. This number is the average required by the system, including those in its five-year plan for special education. The rooms may be assigned differently from year to year, depending upon incidence of handicapped students among those assigned and the desire to provide primary and intermediate levels in program. The special education program provides a resource room in each school as well. Children attend programs for help in such a room, leaving the regular classroom for this purpose. In addition there are needs for reading and math laboratories for the ALP program, a computer laboratory and a music space which can be either a specially designed room that will control the sound or the use of the stage, suitably separated from the dining area. In consequence. for each school, six rooms must be deducted from the classroom inventory. Further. some of the major enhancements offered in the schools require rooms outside the capacity of the school. For example, the introduction of a Write-to-Read program requires a computer laboratory outfitted with IBM computer in order to function. Such a room uses a classroom that cannot be counted as capacity. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS FOR RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS THAT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ROOMS Garland: Mass media specialty does not require special space. X ISH: A science laboratory is required to support environmental education program. X King: A program for four-year olds will require space. A greenhouse laboratory is called for. Full-time art, music and foreign language, as well as environmental education specialists, will require science. foreign language and art spaces. With so many specialists the likelihood is that a departmentalized program will be used to schedule students to special classes. It has been assumed that the addition of a science laboratory and a room for four-year-olds will be required. Mitchell: Artists in residence for drama, writing, speech, and mime will be utilized. One space should be provided. - - -6- Capacity is calculated by deducting from the number of classrooms that are available in a building the number of rooms that will be required to be used for special purposes, including special education. ALP programs, music, and special offerings related to the program of enhancement. The number of regular classrooms is multiplied by eighteen, the maximum class size in racially identifiable schools. Kindergarten is treated like a regular grade since the program is a full-day program. Since a common standard of provision of special rooms has been used for the seven racially identifiable schools equal to the best that the school system has used in its most recent schools. and since additional special rooms are allocated based upon the program enhancement of the schools, the capacities of the schools are substantially lowered. The capacity of each of the schools is shown in the following table. Desirable School Size The schools under consideration are generally small schools built at a time when only classrooms were provided in the building. When the specialized rooms required for today's educational program are deducted, the schools become very small. The capacities of the schools under consideration are grouped by size below. Less than 200 Student Capacity: King 136 student capacity Washington 172 student capacity Stephens 190 student capacity 200-300 Student Capacity Mitchell 208 student capacity Garland 226 student capacity Ish 226 student capacity 300 Student Capacity and Up Franklin 352 student capacity Rockefeller 370 student capacity It is important to note that the capacities of the eight schools under consideration total 1880 students. when an adequate number of rooms for specialized use are deducted from the total available number of classrooms. This compares to the enrollment in the fall of 1987-88 of 2192 students. Any enhancement program based upon fixing up the existing buildings will not have dealt with the matter of providing adequately the services to be offered children in the schools, including the program enhancements required by the programs. To continue the buildings without change in spaces provided will cause these buildings either to be sharply overcrowded or to fall behind the system in providing services commonly provided across all schools, as well as program enhancements to make these schools educationally attractive. Size and School Organization In looking at school size, it is important to see the numbers with respect to the classroom organization that students pass through. The schools are organized as kindergarten to six grade units. That is, in order to have one section to a grade it is necessary to have about seven times 18 students, or 126 students, as total enrollment. To have two sections to a grade requires about 14 times 18 students per class. or 252 students. While children do not come in neat packages of 18 to a grade, it takes a somewhat larger school to accommodate such changes and still maintain the grade org~nlzation. TABLE 4 Calculation of Capacity: Seven Raclally ldentlflable Schools and Franklin Elementary School Capacity No. of Assign CR's Required- Rooms Not Capacity One Self- School CR's* 6 CR's Spec. Use by Total Assigned Remaining Contained to Spec. Enhancement Special to Spec. CR's x 18 Spec. Ed. Use Function Use Use @ 10 Students CR's (1)-(4) [Incl In (2)) ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Franklin 25 6 6 19 342 10 Garland 18 6 6 12 216 10 lsh 19 6 7 12 216 10 King 15 6 2 8 7 126 10 Mitchell 16 4 5 11 198 10 Rockefeller 20 Q-** 0 0 20 360 10 Stephens 17 6 7 10 180 10 Washington 16 6 7 9 162 10 1800 includes kindergarten rooms.  Building has additional rooms suitable for ALP program. Therefore four set aside for special programs. Building has many specialized rooms in addition to classrooms and kindergarten space available to meet needs for special use rooms. Fall Total 1987-88 Capacity Enrollment (8) -'. .j ' 352 403 226 329 226 214 136 269 208 256 370 289 190 218 172 214 1880 2192 -8- When a school has a capacity well under 252 students and with more than 126 students representing one class to a grade. it is necessary for the school to organ.lze classes so that more than one grade is in a classroom. Most parents find this approach to be less desirable. It is possible to organize differently than by the chronological grade, using what is called an ungraded organization. In such a situation the children are dMded among the classrooms by some measure of maturity, or skill at reading, or some combination of devices. It can probably be said that with all the problems that the school system Is faced with, forcing a reorganization to some different kind of grade organization by maintaining small schools is unwise. It will no doubt be resisted by parents. concerned about their children, who do not see the need for such a change. Currently the schools avoid the issue by not having the special rooms that In this study are assigned to the schools in order to keep them at the level of provision of school facilities now found in the best school facilities of the system. A desirable size school that relates to the school organization ranges from 500 to 600 students with the equivalent of four sets of kindergarten to six units. or 28 rooms with 18 students each, for a total of at least 504 students. While children do not come to school In neat enrollment packages. In a moderate size school It is possible to accommodate. for the most part, dilTerences In enrollment from grade to grade without resorting to the placement of two grades in one classroom. Size and Staffing One should weigh the prudence of spending large sums of money to conserve buildings with limited enrollment and less adequate facilities as against providing larger schools with superior facilities that can be staffed so that there is room to work and the extensive specialized staff will be fully utilized. Any consideration of proposals for improvements in the seven racially identifiable schools must necessarily involve specific choices among a number of possible alternatives. For example. a decision must be reached on the question of school size. Should Little Rock continue to maintain and operate very small school units. however outdated and costly to efficiently maintain and operate they may be. because such little school units can also provide pupils a higher degree of personal attention with smaller class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios? Moreover, do not such smaller older schools often provide a sense of neighborhood identity and intergenerational stability which can give Individuals a sense of \"roots\" and belonging and continuity in a constantly changing larger community? By contrast. is it not also true that because of these very same smaller enrollments. such smaller schools often cannot provide many full-time services of such specialists as nurses, art and music teachers. counselors, and physical education Instructors, and cannot provide separate full-time specialized rooms for art, science, music, remedial reading, computer instruction. and similar costly services and facilities? How should a community choose between these competing alternatives? For example. in many small schools an art teacher may be assigned for only nine weeks per year. and for the rest of the year pupils are without this teacher's instructional services. While at the school such a teacher may do his/her work. based upon a stage, in a teachers' lounge or workroom, or may even carry needed supplies and work tools In the trunk of his/her car. These teachers may work with pupils, not In an art room but In a comer of the lunch room, or In an area of a regular classroom. and In some cases even in a stage or storage area or In a recessed part of a hallway. Moreover, if there is a reasonably useful space available, such teachers will -9- have to compete with the needs of other part-time specialists who also will be seeking space as a base of operations. We note with approbation that the established enhancement plan for stalTing proceeds for the assignment of many such specialists on a full-time basis and the consultants have therefore included necessary facilities for such specialists In their calculation of building capacities and recommended new facilities. Frequently there are also contrasting advantages which come with having larger units. With a large enough pupil base. three or four teachers can combine their skills at any given grade level, and pupils benefit. Thus one teacher may delight In teaching reading while another may have special skills and enthusiasm for teaching arithmetic. One may have a rich background in one area and another have hobby interests and competencies of a different kind. The larger school. with its larger staff. can offer many such benefits. Thus, too, because of the larger number of pupils, the cost per pupil for specialized full-time instructors In subjects such as art, music, crafts, health. computer science, and other diversified curricular offerings, become economically feasible. In addition, the costs of administration and overhead services can be reduced. One set of overhead costs in a larger building can be far less than the combined costs for similar services In two or three smaller units. Hence the decision as to what constitutes a desirable optimum size of a school involves an analysis of many factors. The consultants believe that an optimum size elementary school unit would be one having about four sections per grade level and preferably 500-600 pupils. Such a selection could provide an efficient base for personalized and specialized instructional services and at the same time provide an economical overhead and administrative cost basis also. Based upon the foregoing considerations, we believe that the enhanced instructional programs established by the policies of the Little Rock Board of Education, in conformity with the overall Court directives and decisions which have been previously established, can be well served by the recommendations herein presented. The Condition of the Building as a Criterion for Enhancement Some buildings are of a basic condition or have reached a point of wear where the enhancement of the building will not cover up the major problems that exist in the structure or the mechanical systems of the building. When schools were built as economically as possible, such buildings do not last forever, even with major repairs. The condition of the core of the building should be weighed in assigning children to these schools over long periods of time. An example is the Garland School. This building has masonry bearing walls and a wood frame inside. It is a multistoried building. A building of this type would not meet today's building codes and could not be built now. It is unwise to spend money on a building where the core is not that which should be in use today. In the case of Washington School, for example, the mechanical systems are worn out. The windows are rusting and should be replaced. The system of ventilating the rooms through the corridors by use of corridor fans represents the possibility of spreading flames in the event of fire. Washington School is not of sufficient quality to warrant substantial expenditures to patch it up. The proposed building program dealing with the seven racially identifiable schools attempts to apply current standards of quality to the buildings rather than accepting the existence of some buildings that. were the school district able to do so, would have been retired long ago. It is not wise to enhance a basically unsatisfactory structure. II II II II II II II -10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of remodeiing and rehabilitation of the schools. either as major or minor enhancements. has been estimated at $3.600,000. Such enhancement did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been provided by the school system in its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools. A series of alternative proposals have been suggested to combine four of the schools into two buildings each of about 600 student capacity. These are to add to Franklin Elementary School to bring its capacity to 600 students. requiring fourteen classrooms. The other move would be to combine Stephens and Garland Schools in one new building at the Stephens site. with a capacity of about 600 students. Add to Franklin Elementary School to Accommodate King Elementary School The estimated cost of adding to Franklin to bring the capacity to 600 students is based on the cost of 14 additional classrooms. These rooms, at 780 square feet each, the size of rooms under construction at the new Carver Magnet School. would require about 10,900 net square feet of space. Adding the necessary circulation. toilets, mechanical space to the net area would result in about 16.000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, using the basis for Carver Magnet School, the addition would cost $800,000. To this should be added the costs for upgrading Franklin School. first through the minor enhancements called for in the amount of $22.350 and, secondly, the probable need for further improvements necessary to upgrade Franklin School. These costs can be determined more accurately when architectural studies are started on the project. The amount of $100,000 has been tentatively allocated for the project. The total cost ls estimated to be $922,350. Major enhancement of King Elementary School was estimated to cost $1,187,815. With a capacity of 136 students. unchanged by the enhancement, the cost would be $8,700 per student. The new Carver Magnet School will have a cost for new construction. equipment. grounds. fees. and the like, of about $4,000 per student. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has a capacity, depending upon the use of rooms and using the same measures of capacity as the other schools in this analysis, of about 568 students. Adding two classrooms by using the stage as a music room and reducing the storage for specialized spaces would result in a capacity of approximately 600 students. Using the cost of the Carver School as a measure. the new school would cost about $2,500,000. The combined budgets for enhancement of Garland of $396.890 and for Stephens of $964,720 is $1,361,600. This does not take into account that the Garland School is constructed with brick bearing walls and wood frame. It is suggested that a new school of 600 capacity be-constructed to replace Garland and Stephens Schools. The two schools are located only about seven blocks apart in an area with small block size. By using the Stephens site expanded. as the site of the new school. the new school could be expedited. There is much vacant land and many abandoned houses that could be secured to expand the site. -11- Add to Ish Elementary School and Distribute the Students Now Attending Washington Elementary School Between Rockefeller and Ish Schools Washington Elementary School ls a building that requires substantial rehabilitation. When completed, the result will not be a building that will be as effective as either Rockefeller School, which represents the best of the elementary schools in the area, or Ish. which is a more recently constructed building, fully air conditioned and with the capability of becoming one of the finer school buildings of the system. Both Ish and Washington have 214 student enrollments as of the fall of 1987-88. The service area of Washington School lies in part across Roosevelt Road from the school. It is proposed that students living north of Roosevelt Road attend Rockefeller School. If the capacity at Rockefeller of 370 students will not accommodate its present load of 289 students plus the students from Washington living north of Roosevelt Road, new classroom construction suggested here for Ish could be transferred to Roosevelt. until an appropriate balance has been reached. Assuming that the 80 student excess capacity at Rockefeller Is used, there would be a total of 134 students now assigned to Washington who could be assigned to Ish Elementary School. The Ish School has a total of twenty classrooms. and an enrollment of 214 students. The total enrollment. including Ish and part of Washington. would be 344 students. From the number of classrooms should be deducted six specialized rooms assigned in all schools and two additional specialized rooms related to the specialty of the school. Ish as an environmental education focus needs a science room and Washington would require a Write-to-Read laboratory. A total of eight specialized rooms would be needed. With twenty classrooms. reducing the count by the specialized rooms would result in twelve rooms. A series of changes are proposed. One is to move the cafeteria from the center of the Ish building and replace this outside the walls so that the noise is moved from the building. The space should be converted to a library and its supporting services. The present kitchen can be converted to a science room, the present library can be a computer laboratory. The new construction of an all-purpose room can include a stage that can be designed for music use. Thus three of the eight special rooms required can be provided. The additional five specialized rooms are deducted from the twenty classrooms available. The fifteen rooms available as regular kindergartens and classrooms at eighteen students a room would have a capacity of 270 students. With an anticipated student load of 344 students and an existing capacity of 270 students. there is a need for four classrooms. bringing the capacity to 342 students plus ten in a special education self-contained classroom, for a total of 352 students. The new rooms could be constructed at either Rockefeller or Ish, as was noted above. They are calculated under Ish capacity at this time. New construction would involve a new all-purpose room and kitchen described as 1,000 square feet of space for kitchen and auxiliary space, 1,600 square feet for the main floor, and 1,000 square feet for a stage usable for music along with storage. Four classrooms at 780 square feet, the size in the Carver Magnet School, would require a net area of 3120 square feet. The total net area required would be 6,720 square feet or an estimated 10,000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, the estimated cost is $500,000. To the cost of new construction should be added $125,000 for enhancements to the original structure and for repair to damage at the mechanical room and the nearby exterior wall. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $625,000. The estimated cost of enhancement of Washington Elementary School is $742,730 and oflsh is $204,311 for a total of $951,041. X X X -12- Mitchell Elementary School The needs of the school, as suggested in the original program for major enhancement in the amount of $106.470. should be expended as planned. The needs for the combination of Mitchell Elementary School and Rlghtsell should be approached in the light of overall needs of this area of the city. These needs should be analyzed In connection with other schools in the area. IMPACT ON CAPACITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES The resulting capacities of the seven racially identifiable schools and Franklin are as follows . King-Franklin Garland-Stephens !sh-Washington Rockefeller-Washington Mitchell Total 600 students 600 students 342 students 370 students ~students 2120 students The fall of 1987-88 enrollment in the schools was 2192. The Mitchell School should be modified and recommendation wlll be made for this school in relation to other schools in the area. This wlll provide opportunity to change capacity further. Mitchell shows an enrollment of 256 students and a capacity of 208 students. Much of the apparent deficit ls caused by the difference at Mitchell. Summary: New Construction and Enhancements of Schools as Planned or for the Period of Time Necessary to Complete Major Changes Washington Elementary School Provide enhancements for period of time necessary to make permanent changes Rockefeller Elementary School Make planned enhancements Mitchell Elementary School Make planned major enhancements. Garland Elementary School Make enhancements to building for use until new GarlandStephens ls completed Stephens Elementary School Demolition and site work New Stephens-Garland School King School Make enhancement to the school anticipating combining the school with Franklin $75,400 $53,350 $106.470 $86,300 $50,000 $2,500,000 $80,000 X -13- Franklin Elementary School Improvements to Franklin including minor enhancements New construction. fourteen-classroom addition !sh Elementary School Make planned enhancements and correction of fault in mechanical room and exterior wall New construction of cafeteria and four classrooms with stage also usable as music room Total cost rounded to $122,350 $800,000 $125,000 $500,000 $4,498,870 $4,500,000 The diITerence between the approximately $4,500,000 for this program and the $3,600,000 budgeted probably can be resolved with closer cost estimating and with savings in operational costs that would be involved. The major improvement brought forth by the alternative suggestion would be that the new schools resulting from additions would be related to good basic buildings and that the new school proposed could be controlled in quality of educational environment. The original proposal involved encapsulation of building cores that do not represent high quality in the enhanced schools and in so doing accepting a lesser standard for the educational environment for children in these schools for years to come. The significant factor in the dUTerence in cost between the original estimates of cost of about $3,600.000 is caused by the difference in capacity between the original proposal and the alternative suggested here. There is a difference of 240 student capacity between the 1880 capacity of the original proposal and the 2120 capacity of the alternative. Using the $4,000 per pupil approximate cost of the new Carver as a gauge. the 240 student capacity involved would cost about $960,000. or close to $1,000.000, eliminating the financial advantage of the original proposal. r- CL::Ni /\u0026lt;AL fllG\"'f\u0026lt;..:YJ-\\TL 0 te/c.11 rSGLL AJ.. Tt:RJ.lAnVG ./4pp,2,DN-J-lb.5 TO tM PQO VI '-J \u0026lt;\n, Bf(Si~AL FAC! I LfT76 MAf S-1--\\o~Jnk\nRf:lAT/\\)E LoC.AnONS or= ~L BUI LD/NGS IN f.2GFbR, ON Rl.L(A LLY /Df\nNn l=\"IABLE. ~oLS ,.'.. . .p. ' Conformity with Previously Established Major Enhancements Proposals and Time Schedules -15- It should be noted that these proposals are sufficient to house all present and contemplated 1989- 90 enrollments. and do not require a declining enrollment to be feasible. Whether the Central City school-age population actually remains stable, declines, or increases, it remains true that in the final analysis the number of children attending these schools will be determined by assignment and will not be determined by local residential status. However, the consultants believe that the recommended school size range from 500 to 600 pupils is desirable for both educational and economic reasons and has therefore been the basis of these proposals. If there be completely adverse reaction to the concept of not conforming completely with he original Court-accepted plans and time schedule. the consultants suggest that every effort be made to conform with the major elements of such plans as previously approved, and that consideration be given to securing approval of certain modifications by consideration of the following . 1. We believe that the work could and should proceed immediately as previously planned at Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Ish. All such enhancements will be of continuing use and value to the pupils and staff therein. 2. We believe that such work previously planned at Garland, which will be of primary benefit and usefulness to the pupils in their final year of occupancy of this school, should go forward as planned. Work which is long-term preventative and primarily structural and mechanical in nature should be deferred and re-evaluated. It is recommended that this building become the much needed improved housing for the Instructional Resource Center, which is now located In former Lee Elementary School. The Garland School cafeteria facility should continue to function as a community center until such time as the newly constructed school achieves recognition of its own community center status. It is, of course, true that plumbing, site, heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical requirements for thirty to forty adult occupants are far less than those needed for hundreds of pupils. We earnestly suggest that public funds invested in the recommended new school would be of substantially greater benefit to pupils and taxpayers than would be the case if pumped into an eighty-year-old building. Moreover, by utilizing Garland for the Instructional Resource Center and disposing of Lee (which requires much work). the resource staff and program can function more effectively. Garland's facilities can be retained as a community center for as long as required, and substantial repair costs can be saved at both Garland and Lee. 3. We recommend that proposed work previously planned at King, and Intended primarily for pupil safety. comfort, and instructional effectiveness, be started immediately. The same considerations suggested for Garland should apply to King for the final year of pupil occupancy at this building. All savings from work that can be deferred and transferred to the King-Franklin addition should be sertously considered. A possible future use of the present King facility as an administrative unit for housing assistant superintendents and their staff could be considered, and such use would not require the major mechanical. site or structural renovations previously planned for effective occupancy by hundreds of pupils. Because the future use of King involves substantial consideration of possible future administrative reorganization policies and patterns. we believe that it would be judicious to keep current investment in this plant at a minimum consistent with short-term -16- utilization by present pupils. until final decisions are made to determine the final use of this facility . 4. To provide an effective new school to replace Garland and Stephens, the simplest procedure would be temporarily to spread Stephens' projected fall enrollment into not more than three or four nearby schools, which have the excess capacity to enroll them, and which can and will offer adequate facilities for their education. The present Stephens structure could then be demolished. and the site graded and prepared and a totally new school erected as recommended. There is much available vacant, boarded-up and low-cost property adjacent to the existing Stephens site. However, site acquisition takes substantial blocks of time, as well as funds. Other alternatives might include retaining some of the existing Stephens plant and building a part of the new school adjacent thereto, and then proceeding with final demolition and completion of the entire new plant. Still another choice could involve retaining some portions of the existing facility and building an addition thereto. In the consultants' view. this latter course could be as costly and more time consuming in the long run than the erection of an entirely new school. 5. In the case of Washington, it is recommended that the same consideration be given as previously recommended for Garland and King. Work should proceed immediately for items necessary for pupil safety and effective educational utilization for the coming school year. Those other Items beneficial to long-term plant and site use should be deferred while the addition at Ish is constructed. The community could continue to use the cafeteria facilities for as long as desired, while future use of the old building is determined. One suggestion might be to lease it for a nominal sum and required maintenance and operational expenses to the Annie Casey Foundation for their use as an administrative headquarters. IBtimate use or sale could await future developments. A simple chart illustrating the above concepts follows. While ultimate costs of this group of alternative proposals will be largely determined by how much is demanded and/or required to be done at the buildings to be given up after only one year of further pupil use. we believe that by careful selection, the entire program of new construction can be provided close to the the cost parameters previously suggested. If this is done, more than a thousand pupils. and perhaps as many as 1500, could benefit by these new and improved facilities. We further believe that these proposals for new construction can be completed within a time frame actually and realistically required for the previously proposed projects. We therefore recommend that they be given serious consideration, if our original recommendations are not acceptable. Time Frame for Facilities Improvement The consultants. based upon their combined experience of almost one hundred years of responsible leadership involving literally billions of dollars in school plant planning. construction and operational development in widely scattered geographic areas, believe that any proposed development of new or significantly improved school facilities must involve substantial amounts of time. School districts are typically enshrouded in massive amounts of regulatory procedures or \"red tape,\" which cannot be legally ignored. Boards of education and their staffs take many mandated. specifically stipulated legal actions to employ qualified engineers and architects. to procure financing, to hold public hearings, to advertise for bids, to approve architectural plans, -17- and to seek approval from various state, local and federal authorities having responsibilities for conformance with such things as fire, electrical, health, safety, zoning, and sanitary codes. labor laws, anti-discrimination regulations. and minimal education standards, etc. When finally approved, specifications and bids must be advertised for stipulated minimum periods of time, and contracts must be legally awarded within the parameters of literally thousands of Court decisions concerning such awards. Many of these statutes and regulations require time periods which are beyond the immediate control of the local board. Fortunately for Little Rock, Federal Court intervention may indeed expedite or \"short circuit\" some such procedures. Nevertheless, it is always also true that such things as shortages. procurement of critical building materials, approval of alternate components, preparation of shop drawings, selection of subcontractors, clarification of specification requirements, possible labor difficulties, delayed inspections and approval by regulatory bodies for code compliance, inclement weather. necessary change orders as work progresses. and many similar or unforeseen obstacles may delay progress of the work. In our experience. many of these delays occur, whether the total project be large or small. In general, it is our experience that such contrasting projects as a small elementary school addition or a massive new high school take a minimum of thirteen months for completed construction. In practice. larger contractors employ larger work forces and seem to have more \"clout\" in expediting necessary non-construction aspects of the projects. Consideration of all the required legal processes, adequate planning time, proper supervision and inspection of the work in progress. and final acceptance of the work typically require a year to a year and a half of elapsed time. We see no reason to believe that the time frame for Little Rock's construction procedures would be significantly different from those in other areas. While it is true that by utilizing overtime shifts. double-time labor, and paying premium prices for various components, and by using and paying for completion penalty and liquidated damages clauses in contracts. work progress can sometimes be significantly accelerated, we believe the proposed financing levels for Little Rock's school modification and construction projects leave little room for any such practices. Addendum The following material shows the original planned major enhancements for the seven racially identifiable schools. The suggested action for buildings that may be replaced or combined are shown in this compilation as alternative moves. The alternative suggestions are included In the summary of costs that appeared above. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Washington Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect\ndevelop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished Washington Elementary School Interior Toilet partitions Painting Floor tile, cafeteria Carpeting, classroom Exterior Partial re-roof Window replacement Clean and waterproof exterior Plumbing Piping and fixture replacement Heating and Ventilating All new system, HV only Air condition cafeteria Electrical All new system Other Equipment -18- New furnishing and equipment storage in classrooms, sinks in classrooms, modify chalkboard heights Subtotal Special conditions (10%), miscellaneous (5%), contingency (5%), professional services (lOOAi) Total building upi,:ade Site Development Paving and curbs Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Security Miscellaneous Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 2-1-89 3-1-89 3-1-89 Estimated Cost Orlg1na1 Alternative 10,500 9,450 9,450 2,500 2,500 40,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 25,800 12,000 40,000 167,300 10,000 10,000 154,400 18,230 13,000 500,180 54,950 150,000 12,000 650,230 66,950 30,000 5,050 32,650 8,850 4,050 4,050 4,500 3,000 Washington EL School (cont'd.) Subtotal - Site Contingency Total Grand Total Rockefeller Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strateflies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Rockefeller Elementary School Waterproof outside wall. early childhood area Roof repairs Repair HV AC units Repair carpeting Subtotal - Building Site development Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Miscellaneous Subtotal - Site Total -19- 88,100 4,400 92,500 742,730 4,400 75,400 DeadHne Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 5-15-88 ~15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 6-15-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-15-88 E8tlmat.ed Cost Original Alternative 2,CXX\u0026gt; 2,CXX\u0026gt; 12,000 12,CXX\u0026gt; 8,CXX\u0026gt; 8,CXX\u0026gt; um 2.CXX\u0026gt; 24,CXX\u0026gt; 24,000 2,330 2,330 10,320 10,320 8,950 8,950 5,850 5,850 um um 29,350 29,350 53,350 53,350 . Garland Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Garland Elementary School Interior Portable stage for cafeteria Stage storage Replace toilet floor tiles Repartition all toilet rooms Replace tack strips and bulletin boards Replace carpeting Paint interior Plumbing Replace all flush valves Replace sinks with vanities Electro-Mechanical Additional electrical service A/ C with window units Exterior Re-roof Clean and waterproof exterior masonry Site Development Build flammable storage Paving/ curbs Play areas Grassed area Planting Outdoor equipment Security Retaining wall construction Subtotal Miscellaneous. fees, contingency Total -20- Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-1-88 7-15-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 9-15-88 ~ Estimated Cost Original Alternative 1.em 7$X) 6,500 8,00'.) 2.00J 10,500 1,500 1,500 40,000 10,00'.) 13,500 13.500 3,500 3,500 l,OOJ 1,00'.) 2,00J 2,00'.) 32,700 00,00'.) 12,00'.) 2.500 18,250 30,00'.) 5,500 10,300 8.950 14,500 15.700 30.500 305,300 91.500 15,00'.) 396,890 86.300 r:---- Stephens Elementary School : Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance -21- \"The consultants view the elapsed time suggested there as insufildent. The project involves construction of a gym. total replacement of electrtcal and heating. ventilation and air conditioning system. replacing ceilings. replacing windows. and the like. In our judgment the project will take thirteen months at least to complete. Project to be accomplished. Stephens Elementary School Plumbing Replace plumbing fixtures. pipes. fountains. 1950 unit Extertor Replace all windows. 1950 unit Replace window operators Paint all trim Reroof, partial Interior Carpet all classrooms and replace asphalt tile Replace suspended ceilings. 1950 unit Install insulation. 1950 unit Refinish interior. doors. walls. paint. etc. Install new toilet partitions Electro-Mechanical All new electrical system All new HVAC system Subtotal for Building Misc. fees. special conditions. contingency@ 300Ai Total for building New Construction Multipurpose gym Fees. contingency. equipment. 20% Total new construction Deadffne CW:rent Altemative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 1-1-89* 2-1-89* 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-1 to 12-1-ffi 10-1-89 to 1-1-00 Estimated Cost Orlg1nal Alternative 40,000 24,000 1.460 1,430 58,650 51.600 10,100 4.0C.O 23,100 13,650 107,250 179,000 515,150 154.550 669,700 191,750 38.350 230.100 Stephens El. School (cont'd.) Slte Development Develop plan Paving play area. walks Grass area Planting trees and shrubs Fencing Equipment Lighting Subtotal Misc. fees. contingency. 15% Total site work Grand total -22- The alternative is to build a new school replacing Stephens and Garland Demolition New construction \"The approximate cost for the Carver Magnet School. recently bid and unde::- construction. was this amount. Martin Luther Klng, Jr. Elementary School Implementation Schedule strate2:1es Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance \"The consultants view the current tJme schedule as optimistic. In the judgment of the consultants this project.will take a minimum of nine months to complete.  Projects to be accomplished, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School .s.afm:: Enclose fire stairs (south) Provide fire stairs (north end and from auditorium) Replace wood transoms with fire-rated enclosure San1tarv Replace all piping and plumbing fixtures 2.9f.O 5.5CO 19.000 9.750 11.200 4.200 rum 56,450 8.470 64.900 964.700 so.cm 2.soo.000 Deadftne Current .Alternative 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89* 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 4-15-89 5-15-89 Fat:hnated ~..est Orig1nal Alternative 2.990 9,800 4.700 87.500 2.990 Martin Luther King (cont'd.) Stn.ictural -23-  nderpin and repair wall and floor slab. remove north sta.trs and en- 3.S:CO close are:i. Roof Re-roof 1949 and 1953 sections Exte!\"!or Repair masonry anc! repair wood w1ndows and sills Interior Install new tile ceilings. 1939 and 1949 units with Insulation Install doors. toilet panitions Replace floor.ng, all classrooms. cafeteria and audltortum Electro-Mechanical Remove present elecL-tcal service over roof. install proper equipment in new switch gear location. Including distribution Rewire for increased fi.-ctures. outlets and unit ventilators, 1937 and 1949 ur,its Install new fixtures throughout Install new heating system Subtotal. building Misc .. special conditions. fees. contingency @ 30% Total bulld!n~ Site Work Pavtng/curbing, including driveway and parking for 30 cars Curbs Walks Steps Play area basketball court Retaining wails at drive Retaining walls at west play field All grassed areas Planting and shrubbery Equipment Playground Baseball backstops Soccer goals Security lighting poles Security feIJ.cing Tree removal and clear stumps Subtotal. site work Misc .. fees. continge:::icy. 20% 12.300 2.240 14.750 2.830 45,000 40,950 75,00) 48,750 227.500 579,310 173.790 753,100 8,970 7\n3SJ 5,46) 3.250 5,00) 24,700 37,400 25,700 4,940 8,400 2,275 975 6.lCO 10.300 ~ 156,670 31.3.:0 12.300 2.240 2.830 20,36) 29.620 8.970 7::BJ s.a:o 8,45:) 2.275 975 ~ 38.820 7,7fJJ Martin Luther King (cont'd.) Total. site work Additional Upgrading Air conditioning Replace windows with aluminum Double-hung, double-glazed sash Equipment Painting and finishing Build greenhouse Build outside flammable storage building Subtotal. additional Misc .. fees. contingency, 30% Total. additional upgrading Grand total I Mitchell Elementary School , Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Mitchell Elementary School Air condition. window units Additional electric service Clean and waterproof exterior Paint interior Build outside flammable storage Replace or repair bulletin boards and tack strips Site work Subtotal Misc., fees, contingency, 30% Grand total -24- 188,000 46,500 63,375 62,400 40,000 19,200 10,000 ~ 2,500 197,475 59,240 256,715 2,500 1,197,815 78,700 rounded to 00,CfXJ Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 1-1-89 2-1-89 5-15-88 6-7-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 11-1-88 12-1-88 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 33,900 5,CfXJ 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 81,900 24,570 106,470 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 81,900 24.570 106,470 Ish Elementary School Implementation Schedule -25- This schedule ls for implementation of Items on current schedule and does not Include schedule for new construction. The site work planned for Ish should be scheduled after new construction Is completed. Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Ish Elementary School Exterior Exterior walls. clean and waterproof Additional electrical and wiring Roof repairs Replace flush valves Interior Install glass partitions to sound-isolate cafeteria Install acoustic material on wall panels Carpet classrooms Replace louvered door with wall 1n ALP room Subtotal. building Misc .. fees. contingency. 20% Total. building Site work. Incl. fees. contingency Grand total Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-1-88 5-21-88 6-7-88 8-1-88 8-21-88 5-12-88 6-7-88 6-21-88 7-1-88 8-15-88 8-28-88 Esttmated Cost Original Alternative 12,000 12,000 15,000 15,000 1,500 1,500 3.500 3.500 3,640 3,640 1.500 1.500 25.500 25.500 2W) ~ 65,440 65.440 13.100 13.100 78,540 78,540 ~ il.2.3.Q 124,770 124,770 Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock The School Buildings of Little Rock It has been said that 'What the wisest and best informed parent would want for the education of his or her child. the Board of Education should seek to provide for the education of all the children of all parents.\" In conformity with this challenging axiom. the Board of Education of Little Rock and its chief administrators have sought objective information to assist them In arriving at decisions and establishing policies that will provide maximal educational opportunities for the youth of the community. One of the important ingredients of an effective educational system to provide such optimal educational opportunities for all citizens is the school plant, which works as a tool to assist the instructional staff. Students learn best when school facilities provide an effective learning environment. Eight years ago, the Little Rock School District sought the services of the present consultants to evaluate the buildings and sites, to judge how they were maintained and operated, to consider how they were used by the public they served, and to determine how their physical settings support the process of education of children attending the public schools of the district. The findings of that 1980-81 study were published in a two-part report that provided specific information as the basis for specific recommendations and specific cost estimates for implementing the changes so recommended. Because the passage of time and events have validated much of the proposals and cost estimates then made, the consultants were asked to again study the physical facilities, to review the impact of national and local demographic changes and trends, and to update their recommendations on physical facility needs and priorities and the cost estimates related thereto. Early and particular emphasis and attention was to be given to the facility needs of seven racially identifiable schools, as well as to an objective evaluation of how those needs were related to the totality of facility needs within the expanded boundaries of the enlarged Little Rock School District. In response to this multifaceted assignment, the consultants have provided preliminary and updated versions of their findings on the racially identifiable schools, have completed the demographic studies and projects, and are herewith submitting this third aspect of their report, suggesting the prioritized needs and current cost estimates of physical improvements in each of the school buildings within the system. Each school was given expert and careful examination of buildings and site conditions. Comments, suggestions and concerns of administrators and staff in each building were carefully noted. Comparative evaluations of the impact of observed conditions upon both building operational efficiency and integrity and educational effectiveness were established. Based upon these evaluations, preliminary task lists and cost estimates were established. In conferences with the Director of Plant Services and Maintenance and his two top assistants, these preliminary lists were then updated and prioritized as the most pressing needs for each facility. As each school facility was visited, the consultants checked the recommendations made in the 1980-81 study and determined which poor conditions had been corrected, which recommended -2- improvements had been carried out, and which poor conditions still existed or had been exacerbated by almost eight years of additional continued wear and deterioration. In a very real sense, the perspective given by this two-fold exposure over an extended time period gave the consultants added effectiveness In forming their judgments on priorities and projected costs. The consulting cost expert, who had compiled the initial cost estimates of the 1980-81 study. then took the task lists and updated costs of the former tasks yet remaining, and the reported new condition and proposed projects that were observed and listed at visits to the various buildings in April and May. As a further step in the process. the consultants discussed the educational impact of perceived plant needs with various administrative instructional personnel and also considered the goals sought by the desegregation and assignment programs, which are the primary determinants of actual enrollments in each individual Little Rock school. After this information had been collected and the demographic study reports had been compiled and submitted. the final parameters of the study were more clearly defined by several board policy decisions and actions related to the facilities situation. The Board acted with dispatch in authorizing work related to the major and minor enhancement programs as recommended to and accepted by the court. The Board agreed that the Washington and King Schools should be closed. It approved the recommendation for an addition to Franklin and directed that architects be assigned for designing a replacement school for Washington. It further stated that Stephens School should be replaced, but preferably not on the existing Stephens site. In addition, the work on the major and minor enhancement schools was to proceed, even though the responsibility for. and ultimate sharing of, costs for such work are yet to be determined by the courts. Under such authorization, this work has proceeded effectively and with dispatch. The Board has further authorized funding for certain major roofing projects of approximate costs of $1.5 million, plus approximately $3 million for air conditioning all the classrooms in those schools that do not now have such an important environmental improvement. as well as an additional sum of approximately $500,000 for Exxon energy grants. As a most significant and far-reaching step, the Board, supported by effective volunteer community executive, professional. and industrial leaders. has courageously decided to submit a referendum request for approval of an 8 mil tax increase. This additional levy is to apply 2.5 mils to physical plant improvement. with a minimum annual income to support an approximately $20 million program. In working with the Director of Facilities and Maintenance and his two assistants, the consultants sought final reviews of proposed work, work to be accomplished or already completed under the major and minor enhancement, air conditioning and roofing program, and ongoing maintenance. The evaluated project lists were adjusted to reflect latest costs and prioritized. Following all these steps, an adjusted program of about $18.5 million is recommended herewith. It should be noted that many prior requests for voter approval of tax increases have not been successful. However. there is a growing nationwide understanding of the importance of an effective education for all citizens for the survival of our democratic way of life. Industry has come to realize the need for an effectively educated labor force to compete successfully in the marketplace, and business understands that it is the educated consumer who provides the market for all the new and varied products and services that their enlightened customers demand. At both the state and local levels, volunteer groups of distinguished citizens from all walks of life have stepped forward and given freely of their time and talents to create an informed public 11111 II II II -3- awareness of the Importance of education and of the needed fiscal support to provide such an effective education. Their objective reviews of ongoing programs and their educational goals and results. and actual physical and fiscal realities of the local educational process can be an important motivator for significant change and improvement in the city schools. We believe that as a result of this awakened interest, the leaders of the Little Rock community can not long ignore the accelerating effects of continuous neglect of school facilities. Their informed and understanding support. plus the responsible and courageous leadership of the Board of Education and its chief administrator. can literally work wonders in producing a changed climate of public support for better education of the children who are the principal ingredient of the future of Little Rock. As a concomitant aspect of this report. we wish to point out that any program for the improvement of school facilities cannot overlook the fact that it is human beings who must operate, use. maintain, repair, preserve and protect the tremendous public investment in those facilities . As consultants. with broad knowledge of comparative educational operations elsewhere. we believe that custodial care and operation of Little Rock schools can be substantially Improved. We believe the recommendations we made in 1980-81 for the better organization, more adequate staffing, and Improved and increased supervision and training of the school custodial, maintenance and operations staff are now more important than they were eight years ago. We decry the almost impossible work load placed upon the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. and we reiterate our recommendations with respect to the importance of increasing and reorganizat!ng staff support for the supervision of this costly public service. The Little Rock School District has increased the district's school facilities by fourteen school buildings. increasing by roughly one-third the floor area to its maintenance operations and custodial work loads. It has not added any supervisory or administrative staffing in maintenance or operations to affect either the prior inadequacies or the added load of the additional facilities. We believe that continuance of such a situation is \"penny wise and pound foolish.\" These comments and recommendations for additional staff assistance are in no way intended to imply that the Director and his present limited staff are failing to produce. In fact. the work accomplished in the past semester and short summer season on the magnet schools, and in getting work done in the major enhancement and minor enhancement schools. while at the same time carrying on urgent and necessary repairs in all other buildings, is a magnificent accomplishment. The Board of Education can indeed be proud of the fact that so much has been accomplished, in so short a time and by so very few. However, it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that such a pace can continue for very long. To emphasize our concern, we also strongly recommend that if the millage for plant and facilities improvement is enacted. the district should immediately provide an assistant to the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. We further recommend that engineering and architectural services should be provided and district-wide specifications and bids be used in such a manner as to \"cluster,\" or to bring together many similar type projects in the various buildings (such as roofing, air conditioning, new intercom systems, rewiring, relighting. etc.) . By contractual services, such design people can help ensure district-wide fixed responsibility and the authority and opportunity to make on-the-Job decisions to foster prompt continuance of the work. Use of Planning Committees The best planning for adequate educational facilities should involve the input of those who, by experience, judgment, knowledge and technical skills. can contribute to the successful design of superior and effective teaching tools. Administration can foster such input by the creation of organized procedures for gathering these insights or inputs and transmitting them to the persons entrusted with the design of such facilities. Planners can be helped in such diverse -4- fields as instruction, administration. community and personnel use. maintenance, operations. and civic pride and citizenship education. as they go about their work. Who best can tell what Is necessary or desirable for effective teaching in various subject areas? Who can ensure that architects design a facility that will facilitate learning by pupils? Who can tell what facilities help an administrator to best operate a school program in harmony with student. community and staff needs? Who can tell how best to design a kitchen or lunch room layout. or to assist in designing facilities for proper custodial care and operation? The answer. seasoned by use in countless communities. lies in creating planning committees of administrators and staff experts who pool their knowledge to create educational specifications, as well as material specifications. thereby advising architects and engineers on desirable design elements. and who can screen out obvious design ''bloopers\" before they are transformed into enduring concrete and steel that forever plague their users during the life of a facility. The consultants have strongly recommended, and are pleased to observe. that such planning committees are being created to assist and strengthen the designing of future projects. In commenting upon the form of this report, we state that because we are aware of the existence and use of copies of our voluminous prior reports in various administrative offices, we have not included a reiteration of those reports here. Copies of significant aspects of such reports can be readily produced in administrative offices whenever their use is of interest. As a final comment. we wish to thank the Board. its administrative staff, and the host of its employees for the absolute cooperation, patient assistance, and supportive actions of all personnel, which have assisted in the production of this report. We trust that it will contain much useful information for the improvement of educational opportunities for the youth of Little Rock. Respectfully submitted. Stanton Leggett Frederick Hill Stanton Leggett and Associates Ill -5- An Extended Overview: Further Comments Priorities and Costs in the Preceding Listings. We have indicated those projects that the consultants believe will be most significant to improving the service life and educational utility of the present school buildings. We have intentionally leveled the total cost of these priority needs to a sum less than the proposed $20 million \"ceiling\" envisioned by an eight mil increase. There is no accurate way to determine the time frame that will pass, nor to determine the economic climate that will prevail. before specific projects are undertaken. nor can we guess what unexpected breakdown or emergencies may occur in the intermittent time period. We have consulted with top staff in establishing the estimated cost and priority of the included items, but the final responsibility of this listing rests with us alone. It is our intent that the difference between our listing and the amounts made available by an increased millage shall serve as a cushion to absorb any changes in cost, to cover emergency items, and to provide some leeway to permit the inclusion of some additional items that may be strategically or politically desirable. Administrative Facilities. We have not included any projects for the betterment of administrative facilities. Without question. much money could be spent to provide more adequate housing for those administrative and instructional services now housed at Lee and the administrative anne.'\u0026lt;:. Maintenance and Operations needs additional and more effective space and equipment. The main administration building and Board service areas could be improved. The food service function and equipment storage are poorly housed. There is need for housing an extended personnel function. The purchasing department requests more space and double decking some of its present space, etc. We have evaluated all such needs to presently be of lower priority than the needs of the individual school buildings. Moreover. lf and when the new school facilities are constructed. administrative use of old facilities then released may be carefully considered. Ultimately, also, such administrative needs may be again reconsidered each time a subsequent bond or current improvement program Is established. Failure to include any such item in our present listing may be viewed unhappily by those with genuine needs\nnevertheless, it is the consultants' recommendation that they not be included at this time. The Specter of Asbestos. The Board of Education and its staff have sought and received careful engineering evaluation of all locations of asbestos within the Little Rock schools. They have complied with all inspection and rectification and removal procedures related thereto. In those few remaining locations where it exists. it is safety encapsulated and in non-friable condition. Nevertheless. the environmental agency regulators continue to grind out increasingly tough and almost bizarre regulations. In some instances. observing all their rules can cause a $300 ceiling or floor tile repair to cost thousands of dollars. Then sometimes what starts out as replacement of a leaky pipe, obsolete lighting fixture, or broken floor tile can become a nightmare of unbudgeted (and many believe unwarranted) expenditures of scarce public funds for asbestos removal. It is not unrealistic to estimate that perhaps as much as $3 or $3.5 million could be required as an auxiliary hidden cost of some of the electrical-mechanical corrections and improvements that may become necessary in the future. Air Conditioning Program. The Board of Education has wisely provided for the air conditioning of all classrooms that do not have it now. However, there are many cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums, offices, and work rooms and conference areas that could also be so -6- equipped. This will undoubtedly be requested for future consideration. and additional funding would then be required. Portable Replacement. In June of this year. the Little Rock School District used 64 portable buildings. of which seventeen were judged to be \"below standard.\" or in poor condition. Their many problems, such as leaky roofs, deteriorated floors and structural elements, damaged siding. vandalized utilities. unsightly appearance, etc .. make it neither economically feasible nor desirable to repair them. It makes good sense to use portables to house temporary peaks in a growing school population. When capital funds for new construction are hard to come by, portables provide a way out. However. in areas of declining population or In those cases where a school's enrollment is determined not by residence but by assignment. the need for portables can be anticipated and controlled. In the case of Little Rock. where all such factors are prevalent, it is likely that portables will be needed in the foreseeable future . We believe a ten-year program of replacing about six portables per year, if all portables are to be eventually replaced. or a three-year program involving the 17 worst present ones. is called for. Replacement of these would be desirable. Staff has estimated that local costs for either program would be approximately $100,000 per year. Window Replacement. There are many inefficient and obsolete windows in various Little Rock school buildings. Windows can be a source of both light and delight to the occupants of school classrooms. We believe most teachers and most pupils prefer the airy and spacious feeling of larger, old-fashioned windows in high-ceilinged rooms, rather than the claustrophobic atmosphere that prevails in some modem school rooms with low ceilings. non-opening windows. and single-slit windows with constant need for operational. artificial means of illumination and ventilation. There is a clearly existing modem reconsideration of the many functipns of windows. as well as genuine concern that the closed recirculation of air in some modem ventilation and air conditioned systems is contributing greatly to a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses and infections. Nevertheless. despite the controversies that may be involved, it is a fact of life that spiraling energy costs have spawned the need for forced replacement of many leaky and rotten old windows and window casings in many buildings. and we believe that many of such replacements. at a cost of approximately $350 per window opening, may be anticipated. Needed New High Schools. As population changes now are indicated. the major growth of school population could possibly occur in the areas east of the airport complex where the Badgett and new Carver schools are serving. There is more opportunity for entry-level rental and purchase of homes in this area than in other sectors of the city. At some future date, these residents could demand secondary school facilities. In the area west of 430 and north of 300, there is indicated growth of expensive apartments. condominiums. and more expensive single-family dwellings. Should economic conditions change enough to decrease such construction, less expensive housing units with families likely to have older children of high school age might be erected and at some point local high school facilities could be demanded. Likewise, in the area west of Chicot and south of Baseline. the availability of land for middleincome. single-family dwellings, which would likely be purchased by older family groups having few elementary but some secondary age children. could require new high school facilities in this area. Moreover. the gradual deterioration of older existing high schools could make the replacement with new buildings economically desirable. At such time the new buildings could be relocated and could be the result of abandoning and/ or consolidating older high schools. II -7- Other Needed Schools. Current nationwide demographic data indicate that the populations of core areas of many cities are declining, as residents are moving to the outskirts of the city and into suburban areas. Despite inmigration, the total enrollment in most given areas of the inner cities has declined. In Little Rock, similar factors are at work. There is a perceived westward trend of the center of population. The older sections of the city have older school buildings and generally smaller enrollments. To ensure good educational opportunities for inner-city children, to provide more economical services with less overhead and administrative cost, and to economically replace antiquated structures, at some point it becomes feasible and desirable to replace. and in some cases to consolidate, these older, smaller units. Such trends and opportunities should be carefully monitored, and future bond issues may be required for such new construction. Instructional and Operational Equipment. Much of the instructional equipment in the Little Rock schools has been updated, and the use of computers and vartous audio-visual devices has been introduced into every building. Nevertheless. there is much in the way of antiquated and obsolescent furniture, laboratory desks. demonstration equipment. teaching stations, and 1V and VCR equipment, and limited supplies of items of such nature as musical equipment, art, science and health instructional equipment, shop equipment, and office equipment that should be updated or increased in quantity and capacity. Other costly equipment, such as truck and bus fleets. tractors, mowers. and all manner of maintenance, operation and custodial care devices, should be placed on long-term replacement cycles. Central office bookkeeping, accounting, word processing, and duplication equipment, as well as sophisticated data processing and data and record filing and retrieval equipment are all developing and changing at a rapid pace and are becoming essential purchases of modern school districts. Other kinds of costly equipment. in such areas as security controls, energy management. pupil accounting, personnel records, purchase and supply management, automated maintenance and Job controls, etc., indicate an ever increasing potential cost of equipment in Little Rock schools of the future, and much of such purchasing will likely be initially fmanced by bond funds. These various factors are highlighted together in this section merely to alert those interested in the wider concerns that may well be involved in future capital budget planning. They are not recommended or included in the initial listing of priority needs, but they are classes of recurring need that must eventually be considered for inclusion in a future listing. -8- Fiscal Capacity for Capital Improvement Programs Bonds Outstanding. Any proposals for long-term capital Improvements In the Little Rock public schools must realistically consider the existing and potential financial capacity of the district to support such programs. A study of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the district. as of June 30, 1989, indicates that there will be $43,395,081 in bonds owed, of which $3,035,529 will be due and payable as of that date. This indebtedness covers thirteen Issue dates, from December 1, 1965 through June 1, 1988, with more than one-half the total Indebtedness being from nine to over twenty years old and approximately one-fifth being less than two years old. This is a good \"spread\" and provides a stable base for any future debt service schedule. A listing of outstanding bonds is presented below in Table 1. TABLE 1 Schedule of Bonds Outstanding as of June 30, 1989, Litt le Rock School District Maturity Maturity Date Prior to After Original Interest Issued 6/30/89 6/30/89 Total Amount Rate 12-1-65 199,000 1,606,000 1,805,000 4,485,000 3.60 12-1-67 138,000 144,000 282,000 1,963,000 4.50 12-1-70 110,000 241,000 351,000 1,586,200 5.00 4-1- 73 185,000 193,000 378,000 2,410,300 4.90 6-1-73 120,000 705,000 825,000 2,051,000 5.00 6-1-77 350,000 3,565,000 3,915,000 6,482,700 5.10 3-1- 79 260,000 4,160,000 4,420,000 6,134,565 6.00 3-1-80 335,000 2,670,000 3,005,000 4,889,200 6.00 3-1-84 0 Refunded 8.30 11-1-85 0 Refunded 8.50 6-1-87 50,000 7,776,000 7,826,000 7,826,000 7.70 5-15-88 5,512,750 5,512,750 5,512,750 7.20 6-1-88 131,000 3,240,000 3,371,000 3,371,000 6.60 PCSSD* 1,157,529 10,546,802 11,704,331 3,035,529 40,359,552 43,395,081 *Please note that when various Pulaski County schools were absorbed into the Little Rock school system, the accompanying bonded indebtedness was also transferred into the total amounts shown. -9- Debt Service Requirements. Toe tax loading Imposed by outstanding bonds constitutes a mortgage upon all future revenues of the school district until the bonds are amortized. In addition to the prtnclpal cost. the district taxpayers must also provide the interest required at varying rates for the Individual issues, and such total of maturity and Interest payments constitute the debt service requirements of the district In each year until all maturities are paid. Table 2 summarizes the declining maturity value of bond prtncipal payments due In succeeding fiscal years until present debt Is paid. TABLE 2 Present Bond Maturities Payable by Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Maturities Ending June 30 Payable 1989 3 ,035,529 1990 3 ,224,798 1991 3 ,299 ,093 1992 3,377,525 1993 3,455,282 1994 3,694,616 1995 3,613,462 1996 1,930,577 1997 2 ,945,463 1998 1,335,625 1999 2 ,450,737 2000 1,750,882 2001 1,125,458 2002 1,216,882 2003 1,310,155 2004 960,000 2005 1,040,000 2006 1,120,000 2007 1,210,000 2008 1,300,000 43,396,084\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1133","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988-08-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Report"],"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/1133"],"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":["35 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\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 12, 1988 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Henry Woods Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee, via this report, is responding to your request to provide information and recommendations on the issue of unfilled interdistrict magnet school seats for the 1988-89 school year. We have worked closely with the three districts, the State, and the Joshua Intervenors on this issue for several weeks and have recommended actions that will, in our estimation, benefit the interdistrict magnet school program. The 1988-89 school year will begin on August 29, 1988. The need is urgent to move quickly as a judgment in this matter affects decisions on transportation, budgeting, staffing, student assignment, and parent notification of assignment. (501) 758-0156 We request that you respond on or before August 19, 1988 to facilitate a smooth transition into the new school year. We realize that this is a deviation from the normal timeline for the Court's response but feel that the immediacy of this situation warrants swift action. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary -i- The Honorable Henry Woods -2- August 12, 1988 to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~~~ Marcia Harding, ck'airperson Arkansas Department of Education ft.~~4gt} Pulaski County Syecial School Distr/2:ct ~t~ad/ Little Rock School District )j~ ~ Jame s Smith North Little Rock School District MH:sl Enclosure -ii- R~e~ Arkansas Department of Education ~ LJ Evelyn Jackson Joshua Intervenors ~ Donna Grady er Executive Director, MRC MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT August 12, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Simulation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Magnet Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendices: Appendix A - Magnet Review Committee Letter to Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix B - Court Response to the Magnet Review Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix C Appendix D - Simulation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Magnet Assignments/Vacancies/Waiting Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix E Appendix F - Parkview Capacity Information......... 15 - Debt Service Information ...... .... .... 16 BACKGROUND The issue of unfilled seats was addressed in the original Stipulation regarding the interdistrict magnet school program. The information listed below provides background data on the Court-adopted guidelines for filling vacant seats in the 1987-88 school year: \"On July 15, 1987, fifty percent of any unfilled magnet seats allocated to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District will be released and made available to the Little Rock School District students. On August 3, 1987, 80% of any NLRSD and PCSSD unfilled seats will be released and on August 24, 1987, 100% of the NLRSD and PCSSD unfilled seats will be released and made available to LRSD.\" The Magnet Review Committee recognized the need to address the issue of unfilled seats for the 1988-89 school year and, on June 30, 1988, initiated contact with the Court regarding a delay in determining the disposition of vacant interdistrict magnet seats until August 15, 1988, so that the Magnet Review Committee might recommend a course of action to the Court. (See Appendix A.) By letter, the Court granted the Magnet Review Committee's request and, additionally, required a report and accompanying data be filed on or before August 15, 1988. (See Appendix B.) -1- I I RECRUITMENT The Magnet Review Committee, the Magnet Educational Team, and each of the three districts have made every effort to recruit students for vacant seats in the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year. Listed below and attached is a recap of some of the recruitment activities, all of which were approved by the Magnet Review Committee as recruitment tools. Recruitment Efforts Print Media: The Magnet Educational Team has placed recruitment ads in the following newspapers: Arkansas Democrat - main news ads and flyers Arkansas Gazette Arkansas State Press North Little Rock Times Maumelle Monitor Spectrum High School Newspapers: Joe T. Robinson, Jacksonville, and Sylvan Hills Radio: The Magnet Educational Team has generated Public Service Announcements and/or recruitment ads on the following stations: KABF KARN KIPR KITA KKYK KOKY KWTD Television: The Magnet Educational Team has placed Public Service Announcements and/or paid recruitment advertising on the -2- I I I I following stations: KARK - Channel 4 KATV - Channel 7 KJTM - Channel 38 KLRT - Channel 16 KTHV - Channel 11 Brochure Distribution: The Magnet Educational Team and the Magnet Review Committee collaboratively produced 70,000 brochures. In addition to student/parent distribution, several thousand brochures have been distributed via: The three school districts The Arkansas Department of Education Area real estate agents Area hospitals Area grocery stores Selected area churches Selected area businesses Speaking Engagements: Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee and Magnet Educational Team liaison, addressed the following groups on the interdistrict magnet school program and Magnet Educational Team recruitment efforts: Williams Magnet Gibbs Magnet Booker Magnet Parkview Magnet Mann Magnet Jacksonville Rotary Club Junior League of Little Rock Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Little Rock Chapter Delta Kappa Gamma Sorority, Little Rock Chapter Parents in the Mills High/Fuller Junior High/PCSSD area Other Activities: Students from all magnet schools appeared at local civic and professional functions including: 9th Annual Conference for the National Committee for School Desegregation Riverfest State Capitol -3- I I I I I I I Two groups of students representing each Parkview Arts Magnet High School theme area (visual arts, vocal music , instrumental music, drama, and dance) made recruitment visits to all North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District junior high schools. Magnet Review Committee Director and staff, and the three district Student Assignment Officers and staff placed calls to parents of students on waiting lists to generate interest in available interdistrict magnet school openings. Magnet Educational Team members hand- delivered announcements regarding available vacancies to area churches. During Fest '88, scheduled for August 19 and 20, 1988, the Magnet Educational Team and selected interdistrict magnet school students will staff a booth to provide information on the interdistrict magnet school program. The Magnet Review Committee Executive Director and selected interdistrict magnet school program staff and students set up and staffed recruitment booths at Mills High School and Fuller Junior High. The Little Rock School District held open school week and open house during evening hours. The Magnet Review Committee staff attended all events. The Magnet Educational Team has produced a 15-minute slidetape for viewing by potential magnet school parents, students, and other interested parties. The slidetape and viewing machine are available for checkout at the Magnet Review Committee office. This has been, and will continue to be, utilized by the Magnet Review Committee, the Magnet Educational Team, the three districts, and interested parties. Attempts have been made to circulate recruitment flyers to area movie theaters. We anticipate a positive response in the near future. -4- SIMULATION REPORT In order for the Magnet Review Committee to consider the potential impact of moving additional Little Rock School District students into the magnet schools, Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Little Rock School District, was asked to provide a simulation report which would reflect possible long-range effects upon interdistrict make-up of the magnet schools. A variety of assumptions was developed in order that the Magnet Review Committee could consider potential impact. At the elementary level, assumptions are based on filling all vacant seats whereas, at the high school level, the simulation was calculated on 100 vacancies. No simulation was necessary on the junior high magnet since it is considered filled. In analyzing the simulation report, it was apparent that moving Little Rock School District students into the vacant seats would initially increase Little Rock School District's representation in the interdistrict magnet schools beyond their stipulated allotment. However, it was also shown that, by limiting this action to only the 1988-89 school year, it would be possible in the future to move the schools toward a balanced representation by again controlling entry level district seat allocations and assigning seats vacated by attrition to North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The simulation report is included as Appendix C. -5- MAGNET ASSIGNMENTS The Magnet Review Committee recognized that it is preferable to tailor any solutions or remedies to the unfilled seats issue to the actual vacancies that exist within each organizational level of the program (elementary, junior high, senior high). To facilitate this, the Magnet Review Committee's Executive Director and the three Student Assignment Officers for the districts initiated a series of regular meetings to update and verify the status of student assignment, exchange information, and report to the Magnet Review Committee the current student assignment data and remaining vacancies. As much as possible, the Magnet Review Committee was provided up-to-date information on filling magnet seats, which is a fluid process. The Magnet Review Committee did then provide the Magnet Educational Team, its recruitment arm, with continually updated information on magnet vacancies so that recruitment efforts could be highly targeted. The most current written report of magnet assignments, vacant seats, and districts' waiting lists are included as Appendix D. -6- RECOMMENDATIONS The Magnet Review Committee recommends the following course of action for management of the unfilled interdistrict magnet school seats for the 1988-89 school year. In concert with the Magnet Review Committee's belief that solutions should be tailored to organizational levels, the Magnet Review Committee identified two programs where program capacities should be adjusted downward. This is reflected in the recommendations and would result in a need to reduce the number of vacant seats shown to be available. Appendices are attached. 1. The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the capacity of Parkview Arts Magnet be reduced by 100 students - from 1,150 to 1,050 (see Appendix E). 2. The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the Little Rock School District attempt to fill 100 additional Parkview Arts Magnet vacant seats from the Little Rock School District waiting lists. In selecting students to fill seats at Parkview Arts Magnet, there must be no adverse impact upon the racial balance of the sending and receiving schools. The student should express an interest, ability, or need for the vocal music or instrumental programs at Parkview, since this is the area where vacancies currently exist. 3. The Magnet Review Committee recommends a continued high level of commitment to recruitment of Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District students for the remaining Parkview Arts Magnet vacancies after Little Rock School District has attempted to fill 100 vacancies. 4. The Magnet Review Committee recommends the elimination of one Kindergarten class (20 students) at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School. This will not displace any student currently assigned to this school. 5. The Magnet Review Committee r e commends the following strategy for the remaining elementary vacancies: a. The Little Rock School District should attempt to fill the available seats from the Little Rock School District waiting lists, so long as there is no adverse effect on the racial balances of the s e nding and r e c e iving schools. -7- When filling seats available for black students, preference for seating should be given to black students in major and minor enhancement schools, so long as it does not adversely affect the racial balance of the receiving school. b. Should any seats remain unfilled after Little Rock School District has assigned students in the above manner, these seats will revert to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District to attempt to fill. 6. The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the arrangement agreed to by the parties and stipulated for payment of debt service on unfilled seats for the 1987-88 school year be continued for the 1988-89 school year (see Appendix F). -8- APPENDIX A Magnet Review Committee Letter to Court -9- Magnet Review Committee 22nd and Poplar P.O. Box 687 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director June 30, 1988 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 The Honorable Henry Woods Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse P. o. Box 3683 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Woods: (501) 758 -3545 The Magnet Review Committee has discussed the issue of vacant interdistrict magnet school seats for the 1988-89 school year. The Little Rock School District has filled all its magnet vacancies. There are approximately 39 elementary vacancies (14 for North Little Rock School District and 25 for Pulaski County Special School District) and no junior high vacancies. At Parkview Arts Magnet there are no vacancies in the drama, visual arts, and dance areas, and there are approximately 47 North Little Rock School District vacancies and an estimated 146 Pulaski County Special School District vacancies in the vocal and instrumental music areas. During the June 28, 1988 Magnet Review Committee meeting, the Committee decided by formal motion and unanimous vote to ask the Court to: 1) allow additional time for recruitment of students from North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\n2) postpone the disposition of vacant interdistrict magnet seats until August 15, 1988. In the interim, the Magnet Review Committee will: a) report status of recruitment\nb) provide data on status of vacant seats and waiting lists\nc) make recommendations for disposing of remaining unfilled seats. The Honorable Henry Woods -2- June 30, 1988 We ask for a timely response to this request so that we may proceed accordingly. Please contact Donna Grady Creer if you need additional information or clarification. s:\n:,::\n~#/-~ :a\n~~~--\narding, ~::fii2.son Magnet Review Committee c: Aubrey v. Mccutcheon, Jr. Attorneys of Record Dr. Joe Austin, NLRSD Dr. George Cannon, LRSD Eddie Collins, PCSSD James Jennings, LRSD Bobby Lester, PCSSD Andrew Power, NLRSD APPENDIX B Court Response to the Magnet Review Committee -10- I I I I I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. s. POST Onie[ \u0026amp; C0UltT House P. o eox 3ee3 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 HENRY WOODS JUDGE Ms. Marcia A. Harding Chairperson Magnet Review Corrmittee P.O. Box 687 July 7, 1988 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Dear Ms. Harding: I have received and considered your letter concerning the Magnet School vacancies. I concur in your proposal to continue recruitment from Pulaski County Special School and North Little Rock School District until August 15, 1988. On August 15, 1988, please provide to the court and Special Master Mccutcheon a detailed report on the remaining vacant magnet seats, if any. Would you indicate the schools and grades where there are vacancies, as well as the racial breakdown of those seats. Please inform both the court and Mr . Mccutcheon of the waiting lists from each district. Include each applicant's 1988-89 school assignment, his or race and 1988-89 grade level . Some additional information about the Parkview vacancies and applicants should be included if a major area of study, i.e. vocal music, is a criterion for admission . You must, of course, work closely with Mr. Mccutcheon so that he can determine the most effective desegregative use of any seats remaining after August 15. Your staff and corrmittee are to be corrmended for the outstanding work you have done. ye. yours, / C /4cJ2- / e s ,r1 Ms. Harding, Chairperson July 7, 1988 page two cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Walter Paulson Mr. M. Samuel Jones Mr. Phil Neal Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Lazar M. Palnick Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton Mr. Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. Mr. Norman Chachkin Mr. Philip K. Lyon Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sharon Streett Mr. H. William Allen Mr. Timophy Humpheries Mr. Richard Roachell APPENDIX C Simulation Report -11- ,.....,,..1 ~ Little Rock School District August 5, 1988 TO: Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation ~ SUBJECT: Simulation on Magnet Vacancies CC: Dr. Cannon Executive Staff Leon Adams Arma Hart Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 SIMULATION ON MAGNET VACANCIES Assur.iotion 1: LRSD fills all vacancies as of 8-02-88 Elementarv (8 -2-88) LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Total Oist,ic: Total 1214 259 442 1915 0/ of Enrollment 63% 1 ,1 0/ 23% , 0 \"\"!\" 10 Stipulation OI 45. 6~  15. 7~ - 38.7% ,0 District Total 1214 259 442 1915 Additional Vacancies 99 0 0 Re 11i sed Total 1313 259 442 201tl % of Enrollment 65% 13% 22% Stipulation% 45.6% 15:7% 38.7% Assumption 2: LRSD fills all vacancies as of 8-02-88, a 11 sixth graders, graduate and kindergarten seats are allocated among districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSO Tot.= Revised Total 1313 259 442 20i.: 1988-89 Sixth Grade Seats 243 47 59 3.1s: Total W/0 6th Grade 1070 212 383 166: 1989-90 Kindergarten 100 35 85 22C (220 Seats) 1989-90 Total 1170 247 468 i3S: % of Enrollment 62% 13% 25% Stipulation% 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% Assumption 3: LRSD fills all vacancies as of 8-02-88, all 1988-89 sixth graders, graduate, all 1989-90 sixth graders, graduate\nand ki.nde1cg9-rten seats are allocated among districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL 1989-90 Total 1170 247 468 1885 1989-90 Sixth Grade Seats 194 36 67 297 Total W/0 6th Grade 976 211 401 1588 1990-91 Kindergarten 100 35 85 220 (220 Seats) 1990-91 Total 1076 246 486 1808 % of Enrollment 60% 14% 27% Stipulation% 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% Assumption 4: Vacancies filled by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD LRSD NLRSD PCSSD \"TOTAL District Total 1214 259 442 10- ~ I J (8-2-88) Additional Vacancies 0 57 42 99 Revised Total 1214 316 484 201.!. % of Enrollment 60% 15.7% 24% Stipulation% 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% Assumption 5: Vacancies filled by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD, all sixth graders, graduate, and kindergarten seats are allocated among districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL District Total 1214 259 442 1915 (8-02-88) Additional Vacancies 0 57 42 99 Revised Total 1214 316 484 2014 1988-89 Sixth Gr:ade Seats 243 47 59 349 Total W/0 6th Grade 971 269 425 1665 1989-90 Kindergarten 100 35 85 220 (220 Seats) 1989-90 Total 1071 304 510 1885 % of Enrollment 57% 16% 27% Stipulation% 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% Assumption 6: Vacancies filled by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD, all 1988-89 sixth graders, graduate, all 1989-90 sixth graders, graduate, and kindergarten seats are allocate~ among districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL 1989-90 Total 1071 304 510 1885 1989-90 Sixth Grade Seats 194 36 67 20- - I Total W/0 6th Grade 877 268 443 153S 1990-91 Kindergarten 100 35 85 22: (220 Seats) 1990-91 Total 977 303 528 1808 % of Enrollment 54% 16.7% 29% Stipulation% 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% High School (8-2-88) Assumption 7: LRSD fills 100 vacancies at Parkview as of 8-02:88 LRSD NLRSD PCSSD District Total 562 49 254 Additional Vacancies 100 0 0 Revised Total 662 49 254 % of Enrollment 69% 5% 26% Stipulation% 33.9% 15.4% 44.7% Assumption 8: LRSD fills 100 vacancies, all twelfth graders , graduate, and seats are allocated among districts . LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Revised Total 662 49 254 1988-89 Twelfth Grade Seats 222 8 56 Total W/0 12th Grade 440 41 198 1989-90 10th Grade Seats (384 Seats) 153 59 172 1989-90 Total 593 100 370 % of Enrollment 56% 9% 35% Stipulation% 33 .9% 15.4% 44.7% ------ TOTAL 865 100 963 tenth grade TOTAL 965 286 6-o I., 38J. 1063 Assumption 9: LRSD fills 100 vacancies, all 1988-89 twelfth graders, graduate, and tenth grade seats are allocated among districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 1989-90 Total 593 100 370 1989-90 Twelfth Grade Seats 195 14 90 Total W/0 12th Grade 398 86 280 1990-91 10th Grade Seats (384 Seats) 153 14* 217* 1990-91 Total 551 100 497 % of Enrollment 48% 9% 43% Stipulation% 33.9% 15.4% 44.7% *(Note: NLRSD's allocation cannot exceed 100 students. Additional seats given to PCSSD). Assumption 10 : 100 vacancies fi 11 ed by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD LRSD NLRSD PCSSD District Total 562 49 254 Additional Vacancies 0 ST 49 Revised Total 562 100 303 % of Enrollment 58% 10% 31% Stipulation% 33. 9~~ 15.4% \"44.7% TOT ..\\ L 1063 299 764 384 1148 TOTAL 86S 1CO 96:i Assumption 11: 100 vacancies filled by NLRSO \u0026amp; PCSSO, all twelfth graders, graduate, and tenth grade seats are allocated among districts. LRSO NLRSO PCSSO Revised Total 562 100 303 1988-89 Twelfth Grade Seats 222 8 56 Total W/0 12th Grade 340 92 247 1989-90 10th Grade Seats (384 Seats) 153 8* 223* 1989-90 Total 493 100 470 % of Enrollment 46% 9% 44% Stipulation% 33:9% 15 .4% 44 .7% Assumption 12: 100 vacancies filled by NLRSO \u0026amp; PCSSO, all 1988-89 twelfth graders, graduate, all 1989-90 twelfth graders, graduate, and tenth grade seats are allocated. LRSO NLRSO PCSSO 1989-90 Total 493 100 470 1989-90 Twelfth Grade Seats 195 14 90 Total W/0 12th Grade 298 86 380 1990-91 10th Grade Seats (384 Seats) 153 14* 217* 1990-91 Total 451 100 597 % of Enrollment 39% 9% 52% Stipulation% 33.9% 15.4% 44.7% *(Note: NLRSO's allocation cannot exceed 100 students. Additional seats given to PCSSO.) TOTAL 965 286 679 384 1063 TOTAL 1063 299 764 38~ 1111.s SIMULATION SUMMARY (ELEMENTARY) ASSUMPTION LRSD NLRSD PCSSD //1 LRSD fi 11 s a 11 vacancies 65% 13% 22% Stipulation % 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% //2 1989-90 62% 13% 25% Stipulation % 45.6%- 15.7% 38.7% //3 1990-91 60% 14% 27% Stipulation% 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% --------------------------------------------------------------- #4 Vacancies filled by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD 60% 15. 7% 24% Stipulation% 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% //5 1989-90 57% 16% 27% Stipulation% 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% //6 1990-91 54% 16.7% 29% Stipulation% 45.6% 15. 7% 38.7% Simulation Summary page two (SENIOR HIGH) ASSUMPTION #7 LRSD fills 100 vacancies at Parkview Stipulation% //8 1989-90 Stipulation% //9 1990-91 Stipulation% LRSD 69% 33.9% 56% 33.9% 48% 33.9% NLRSD PCSSD 5% 26% 15.4% 44.7% 9% 35% 15 .4% 44.7% 9% 43% 15.4% 44 .7% --------------------------------------------------------------- #10 Vacancies filled by NLRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD 58% 10% 31% Stipulation% 33.9% 15.4% 44.7% //11 1989-90 46% 9% 44% Stipulation% 33.9% 15 .4% 44.7% //12 1990-91 39% 9% 52% Stipulation % 33.9% 15 .4% 44.7% APPENDIX D Magnet Assignments -12- Little Rock School District EXCERPT ONLY August 2, 1988 To: Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee From: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation -::f-:5 Subject : Report on Magnet Assignments as of July 25, 1988 810 \\Ve5t Markham Street  Little Rock , Arkansas 72201  (501).3743361 LRSD B BOOKER 228 CARVER 163 GIBBS 121 WMS. 197 TOTAL . 709 ASSIGNMENTS TO ELEMENTARY MAGNETS (as of August 2, 1988) NLRSD PCSSD NB B NB B NB Total 129 33 81 116 64 651 (B- 377) (NB- 274) 79 25 51 40 98 456 (B- 228) (NB- 228) 128 26 18 21 23 337 (B- 168) (NB- 169) 169 14 11 21 59 471 (B- 232) (NB- 239) 505 98 161 198 244 1915 DISTRICT TOTAL 1214 259 442 (58% Blk) (38% Blk) (45% Blk) LRSD - 63% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 45.6%) LRSD - 14% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 15.7%) Pesso - 23% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 38.7%) % BLACK 58% 50% 50% 49% LRSD ASSIGNMENTS TO MANN ARTS \u0026amp; MATH/SCIENCE (as of August 2, 1988) PCSSD B NB B NLRSD NB B NB TOTAL % BLACK ARTS 141 125 18 29 132 46 491 (B-288) (NB-191) MATH 173 149 8 11 75 64 480 ( B-256) (NB-224) TOTAL 314 274 26 40 207 110 971 (B-547) (NB-424) DIST. TOTAL 588 66 317 (53% Blk) (39% Blk) (65% Blk) LRSD - 61% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 48.1%) NLRSD - 7% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 17.5%) PCSSD - 33% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 34.4%) 59% 53% 56% PARKVIEW DIST. TOTAL LRSO B 312 562 NB ASSIGNMENTS TO PARKVIEW ARTS MAGNET (as of August 2, 1988) NLRSD PCSSD B NB B NB TOTAL 250 25 24 160 94 865 ( B-497) (NB-368) 49 254 (56% Blk) (51% Blk) (63% Blk) LRSD - 65% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 33.9%) NLRSD - 6% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 15.4%) PCSSD - 29% of total enrollment (Stipulation - 44.7%) % BLACK 57% APPENDIX D Vacancies -13- INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL VACANCIES August 12, 1988 Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade Totals 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Total Booker 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 Parkview 102 83 97 282 Carver Gibbs 0 9 7 0 5 4 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 15 16 Williams 21 8 12 11 0 0 0 52 TOTAL OF ALL VACANCIES AT INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS= 378 APPENDIX D Waiting Lists Little Rock School District -14a- BOOKER 06 GRADE SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 915586 KILLINGSWORTH MICHELLE2I 201 372-7728 CLOVERDALE 1901 BRAGG 2 915587 KILLINGSWORTH DANIELLE2). 201 372-7728 CLOVERDALE 1901 BRAGG 3 916646 BRANAM NATALIE 23 201 374-8636 DODD 9 o 7 ~ 3\", 2223 COMMERCE ST \u0026lt;72 9 \u0026lt;\nr C ':?'-' ''3 (,..'\u0026lt;' .\u0026lt;--., ,, C\\ I\":\u0026gt;. C\\.'CO \u0026lt;\"'\\ 4 917131 HOWARD ELDRIDGE 2 'f 201 375-6378 NOT ASSIGN 2021 E 38TH ST 5 915868 JACKSON DESHAWN 2s 201 375-5230 DODD 2013 COMMERCE I  6 917037 WALKER MICHAEL 1 202 758-3477 NOT ASSIGN PO BOX 45371 7 917048 GUPTON PRINCESS 2 C. 202 374-4066 NOT ASSIGN 724 CORNING 8 916468 HENRY KEVIN 27 203 372-2421 MEADOWCLIFF 1423 E llTH APT 305 9 915531 ELGEN JOHNNY l.Z 203 562-7667 GEYER SPGS 4725 HOFFMAN APT 7 10 916232 HOLMES NATASHA 2 \u0026amp;' 203 ROCKEFELLER 3324 E 9TH ST 11 916268 HOLLOWAY MIKEL 2 f 203 224-1922 TERRY 2109 ROMINE 12 916692 HANDY TORRELL 2 /a 203 375-5312 MEADOWCLIFF 91 1.,- 'J-'bt.\\ 1609 COLLEGE \"1'\"f\"~- .'.) )D'{ 51.'.i\"- IL\\\\\\ ~_\\,.\n_,\u0026lt;:--_1-,, 1\n-._ \\- A.'-' -re. 1, (1 13 915969 Mc A rrR'ER\"'',foRAsA 13 2ll 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 4905 BALLINGER 14 916404 CARLTON ANDREA 2 II 2ll 375-9647 MEADOWCLIFF 207 EAST 27TH 15 915814 BROWN ANTOINE 2 1)-_ 2ll 376-1550 CLOVERDALE 221 EAST 28TH I I BOOKER 06 GRADE 00 I I SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 915959 BRILEY BRITTANY 1\" 211 225-5989 FAIR PARK I 12133 SOUTHRIDGE s 17 915970 MCCARTHER LARRY 1 211 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 4905 BALLINGER I 18 916430 REECE TIFFANY 2825 WELCH 2 /3 211 372-6124 WOODRUFF 19 916467 STANLEY ADRIAN 2 1v 211 374-8673 BADGETT 2116 BRAGG I, 20 916677 LAWHON RYAN 1 211 565-2193 MEADOW CLIFF 7319 DENISE 21 916679 KELLY CARL 215 211 568-0028 CLOVERDALE 2 SOMERTON APT 2 7 22 916701 HANSEN SUMER 1 211 663-6711 WILSON 1726 LILAC CIR \"'- ,,.,,,.\nI Wn'/T :\n:. I I BL--t4Ck. ,=. ,Z__, BOOKER 06 GRADE 01 I SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 9104 72 SHAW LAKISHA 2 I 376-1169 JEFFERSON 2012 WRIGHT 2 911054 GOODWIN CRYSTAL 1 374-0534 NOT ASSIGN 2123 SCOTT 3 911963 MITCHELL RANDALL 2\n}._ 663-0872 MEADOWCLIFF 1000 MAPLE 4 910481 BEASLEY AMOS 2 ') 371-9732 WAKEFIELD 1615 E 3RD 5 912198 WILLIAMS SHARONDA 2 '1 374-6819 BOOKER 1713 E 21ST :2-- 6 915184 JAMES JEREMY 1 227-0359 BRADY 5 BRADFORD .3 7 915660 LOWE MICHAEL 1 227-4137 NOT ASSIGN 1502 GREEN MTN APT 13 8 910733 WILLIAMS DERRICK 2s 568-1797 BASELINE 5413 VALLEY 9 910400 VAUGHN MARTINA 2\" 101 374-3183 DODD 1705 COMMERCE 10 913235 JACKSON DEANGLEA 7 2 101 666-6668 FOREST PARK 1804 S MARTIN ! 11 907615 DONLEY ANITA 2 101 663-2954 JEFFERSON 116 MONROE 12 910382 HUGHES CHI-RA 2' 101 375-2631 MEADOWCLIFF 1219 WELCH 13 910209 JOHNSON CRYSTAL 2 / 6 101 372-0388 MEADOWCLIFF 1419 COLLEGE ,, 14 910285 GRAGGS JASON 2 101 372-6406 MEADOWCLIFF 1400 E 38TH ST 15 ,\"' 915876 WILLIAMS RODERICK 2 101 664-2057 RIGHTS ELL 1417 S RINGO I I BOOKER 06 GRADE 01 I SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I ,s 16 908184 UMEH ESTHER 2 102 661-8088 MCDERMOTT I 3100 W 11TH ,,\n17 909558 ARMSTRONG RANDALL 2 102 375-0564 OTTER CREEK 2210 SUMMIT I 18 913922 ROBERTS TARSHA 2'$ 102 375-9856 MEADOWCLIFF 1504 HANGER ,~ 19 910775 WALKER KATRINA 2 102 374-0985 MEADOWCLIFF 1303 COLLEGE ,1 20 913376 HIGGINS TAMEKIA 2 102 376-1939 CLOVERDALE 2012 E 4TH 21 910191 JACOBS TAKAKO 2 ,s 103 374-9320 MABELVALE 1712 BROADWAY APT 3 22 915855 GOYNES HARLISHA 2 11 103 375-7832 MABELVALE 1007 CALHOUN 23 911619 HALL MICHAEL 2 ,, 103 375-5943 MABELVALE 2005 S STATE ,,J 24 914171 WILLIAMS CONSTANCE 2 103 374-1550 DODD 2020 BRAGG \"'v 25 913344 MONROE CHRISTOPHER 2 103 378-7907 WAKEFIELD 1100 BOUNDLESS ,,j 26 910770 THOMAS VERNON 2 104 375-5649 MABELVALE 1615 CHESTER APT 208 ,.:/ 27 909962 BOYKIN KRISTOPHER 2 104 374-6530 FOREST PARK 2324 W 11TH ST ~ 28 910318 JACKSON TANISHA 2 104 374-5570 CHICOT 2009 E 6TH 29 908381 \" )JJI BRILEY BENJAMIN 1 111 225-5989 FARI PARK 12133 SOUTHRIDGE 'Z,~ 30 911942 STANLEY KARIM 2 111 374-8673 BADGETT 2116 BRAGG BOOKER 06 GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ,-,1 31 910388 HUNTER EVAN 2 111 225-3327 BAKER 3519 SUSSEX ,., 32 908025 JOHNSON ARLENA 2 111 376-0245 BASELINE 45 KIRSPEL s 33 897421 FOWLER CHARLES 1 111 BASELINE 410 1/2 9TH .,, 34 910230 JONES PATRICE 2 111 888-6466 ROCKEFELLER 1 LENORA LN :\u0026gt; 35 910108 FORD MONIQUE 2 111 644-5188 FAIR PARK 4109 W 12TH 36 907901 AARON RICARDO 2 ,, 111 375-9841 MCDERMOTT 1521 EAST 15TH APT 4 ,.,,, 37 907209 JOHNSON STEFAN 2 111 374-2400 BRADY 116 S OAK\n\u0026gt; 38 897454 WASHINGTON BERRY 2 111 371-0571 FOREST PARK 2022 ROCK ~1 39 910733 WILLIAMS DERRICK 2 111 568-1797 BASELINE 5413 VALLEY 'Y 40 913173 MCCULLOUGH LUCHELLE 2 111 FAIR PARK 1300 SUMMIT APT 3 3~ 41 915749 THOMAS AMTROSHELL 2 111 375-7139 FOREST PARK 2414 W 13TH ST y 42 909985 BUCKLEY FELICIA 2 111 565-6166 WATSON 9307 OAK GROVE LN Jc 43 913307 CANE KAMETRA 2 111 375-4703 BAKER 3023 MARSHALL 37 44 910379 SAMUEL ALLEN 2 111 375-9563 FRANKLIN 603 CORNING f . 45 916738 WOODFIELD JESSIKA 1 111 663-8901 FAIR PARK 1413 S FAIR PARK BLVD BOOKER 06 GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 7 46 907210 KELLY MELISSA 1 112 562-2598 MEADOWCLIFF 17 BELMAR + 47 910637 MILLER MARY 2 112 568-1076 MABELVALE 10402 MILKYWAY ~J 48 911498 MAYS BRANDY 2 112 661-9072 PULASKI HGTS E 1815 JOHNSON 49 910848 STEWART LYNDSEY 2 'I\" 112 455-0565 DODD 4711 N TIMBERLAND DR ,13 50 910170 HARDIN OPIO 2 112 562-6974 WESTERN HILLS 32 LOBLOLLY 1/,/ 51 916766 OLIVER TIFFANY 2 203 376-3833 MABELVALE 2518 RINGO 52 916956 IM CHANG-HAN 6i 203 223-3119 ROMINE 1912 GREEN MTN DR APT 4 53 915610 ALESSI CHRISTINA 1' 204 225-7362 ROMINE 3503 HAPPY VALLEY ,o 54 916338 COLLIE WILLIAM 1 204 224-8038 MCDERMOTT 8 FLINTWOOD ,p 55 907727 STUBBLEFIELD GARY 2 204 376-0853 MABELVALE 2323 ROCK ST 56 916781 LOFTIS KIMBERLY 1'' 204 228-0964 FRANKLIN 4710 SAM PECK APT 1171 57 915262 HAMPTON HAROLD 112- 211 227-7416 FULBRIGHT 12823 ST CHARLES BLVD 58 916055 BISHOP MICHAEL 1 13 211 374-9102 ROCKEFELLER 803 ROCK APT 10 -1\" 59 91 6887 RAGSTON NATOSCHA 2 211 376-0858 ROCKEFELLER 923 W 24TH BLr9Ck. - :2_\nl!TE :\n. I SEQ# STUDENT 1 894479 2 895040 3 894837 4 890365 I 5 892233 6 891703 7 896143 I 8 893210 I 9 895207 10 896768 11 894299 12 894745 I 13 896444 14 894414 15 896326 # BOOKER 06 GRADE 02 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL CAREY CHARLES 2 372-5787 WILLIAMS 420 W 31ST y' KING CHELLA 2 372-4292 PULASKI HGTS E 1614 W 20TH ~ SHELTON TOSHUA 2 372-1632 WILSON 908 BEDFORD ABAEKOBE SANDRA 2 \" 661-9835 CHICOT 2620 E CAPITOL s PENNINGTON SHAVONNE 2 MCDERMOTT 64 MONROE \u0026gt;- MARBLEY NINA 2 375-5312 MEADOWCLIFF 2609 WELCH 1 RUMPH CYNTHIA 2 666-4857 FAIR PARK 3302 LAMAR f ALFORD LASHEA 2 ROCKEFELLER 409 E 17TH 'i TAYLOR CHRISTOPHER 2 771-1847 FOREST PARK 1923 W 16TH /6 BLACK LOUIS 2 897-4038 MCDERMOTT 13202 QUAIL BEND CROSS AKINA 1 565-3909 BALE 7100 TALMAGE ,1.. BUZBEE JOHN 1 224-4628 GIBBS 2 HEARTHSIDE ,, THOMAS MELISSA 2 372-5747 BALE 5019 W 28TH ,,,, BEASLEY KELVIN 2 MEADOWCLIFF 1610 BOYCE I.? WASHINGTON JANELLE 2 663-1675 BALE 1620 SPINE I BOOKER 06 GRADE 02 ~ SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 3 16 909674 WARG TRISTAN 1 568-0735 MABELVALE 8510 COULTER LN ,.,, 17 914512 CLAY KENDRICK 2 375-6411 NOT ASSIGN 2723 CUMBERLAND 'I 18 916292 } 1 TRAN TRUNG 1 223-0956 ROMINE  10 LARIAT CT ( 19 907152 ~ FARNAM JESSICA 1 225-1835 ROMINE 401 GAMBLE ' 95 - - d 20 915180 WEST RACHEL 1 221-0453 BRADY 1912 GREEN MTN DR ,s- 21 896585 FLOWERS DIONDRA 2 101 374-2759 MABELVALE 1323 WRIGHT AVE APT 314 7 22 907475 J MCLAUGHLIN JASON 1 101 565-0267 WILSON 3800 STANNUS J\u0026lt; 23 894454 KILLINGSWORTH BRANDEN 2 101 372-7728 DODD 1901 BRAGG 17 24 895846 STAGGERS ANDRE 2 101 664-8058 DODD 4305 27TH 1i 25 897326 TURNER TINISHA 2 I 101 374-3604 BASELINE 3706 AMERICAN MANOR APT 1 26 902266 MIGNONE LINDSEY 1' 101 ROCKEFELLER 11222 KANIS 11 27 897763 HARRIS TRESTON 2 101 MEADOWCLIFF 17051 1/2 BOYCE 2,0 28 895127 HUDSON TERRENCE 2 101 376-9674 MEADOWCLIFF 1225 GEYER APT 614 11J 29 895228 MAHLER SAMANTHA 1 101 228-0192 ROMINE 11701 MARA LYNN NW HILLS 30 896529 MANYLATH SAKOUNKEO 6 101 664-7152 KING 2524 SOUTH BROWN I BOOKER 06 GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ,,, 31 914901 HENRY CHRISTOPHER 2 101 562-7170 GEYER SPGS 7714 MOORE RD .,,v 32 896625 YOUNG KELLY 2 101 223-9084 TERRY 9116 WEST 35TH II 33 908048 COLLIER MELANIE 1 102 374-6791 ROCKEFELLER 907 CORNING AVE ,,  34 894698 BURL WILLIAM 2 102 664-4628 DODD 4106 W 25TH ,,j 35 893584 BRADLEY TERESA 2 102 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE 1,$ 36 896352 GAY NEFERTAR 2 102 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PL 7,I. 37 897271 RAWLS MATTHEW 2 103 663-2579 JEFFERSON 4807 W 22ND ,z,I 38 894504 DIXON ALICIA 2 103 DODD 2718 S COMMERCE ,, 39 893354 JOHNSON DAWON 2 103 666-9203 FRANKLIN 1403 S VAN BUREN .. 1 40 894530 FOWLER KAWUN 2 103 375-9255 DODD 1314 W 15TH 12. 41 897420 FOCHT IDA 1 103 371-0256 ROCKEFELLER 2022 CENTER 3 0 42 914875 BOYCE ANAIAH 2 104 565-4837 CLOVERDALE 2 SOUTHAVEN CT 4 'JI 43 891404 MURRY ANTONIO 2 104 375-5491 DODD 503 E 20TH J'V 44 904061 STEWART KIMBERLY 2 111 490-1763 BADGETT 6 PICKETT ~~ 45 894470 WEST ROY 2 111 374-6929 WOODRUFF 1410 E 38TH BOOKER 06 GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ,. 46 910406 SHAW SUMMER 1 111 BADGETT 1900 HAVEN RD ~~ 47 898554 BROWN ANTOIN 2 111 565-5734 GEYER SPGS 85 LANCASTER RD ,,, 48 907187 ,. t}I NEWKIRK KIMBERLY 1 111 562-5919 CLOVERDALE 4 ALTHEA CR ,.: 49 164598 RYAN ROLISA 2 111 376-1550 CLOVERDALE 221 E 28TH ,\" 50 895178 HUNTER HAROLD 2 111 225-3327 BAKER 3519 SUSSEX CR\n? 51 896834 WILLIAMS ELIZABETH 2 111 228-9787 JEFFERSON 1700 SANFORD APT 1 31 52 913644 WILLIAMS GREGORY 2 111 372-7917 JEFFERSON 217 S ELM ST APT 2\n1 53 912550 JONES BABE 2 111 371-0350 WAKEFIELD 816 ROGERS AVE # 54 894480 CARTER CHRISTIAN 2 111 376-1481 WASHINGTON 1500 GEYER 111 55 891375 STOKES ANNDREA 2 111 378-0349 JEFFERSON 2507 W 13TH JS' 56 915180 WEST RACHEL 1 111 221-0453 BRADY 1912 GREEN MTN DR APT 34 57 895171 HARRIS DENNIS 2 ~v 111 227-5971 TERRY 12 LABETTE CT I(, 58 911099 WYERS MARK 1 111 374-3066 RIGHTS ELL 1614 CUMBERLAND 59 896807 MICKENS JAMES 2 ~~ 111 224-8220 MCDERMOTT 4 WOODWIND DR 17 60 903938 SOUCY DERRICA 1 111 224-2474 FULBRIGHT 1614 PICKERING DR BOOKER 06 GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 61 890258 THOMPSON SHANEKA 2 *4 111 565-1356 GEYER SPGS 3124 BOYD 62 167939 NICHOLS LAWRENCE 2.p 111 565-7353 CLOVERDALE 5300 BASELINE RD APT 32D 63 896302 MARTIN SHENEKA 2 l/1,, 111 376-3011 FULBRIGHT 1917 MAIN 64 896417 HARRIS MISTY 2 ~7 111 374-8844 MABELVALE 1503 WOLFE .,\u0026amp; 65 895017 SAMUEL NATASHA 2 111 375-9563 FRANKLIN 38 KIRSPEL PL .f-t 66 890225 SURRATT STEPHANIE 2 111 372-1286 ROCKEFELLER 1205 GEYER 67 896326 WASHINGTON JANELLE 2 5\" 111 663-1675 BALE 1620 SPINE s' 68 895152 DOZIER CRYSTAL 2 112 664-1298 FOREST PARK 2201 STYLER 69 $ 897309 BROWN JUSTIN 2 112 378-7816 MITCHELL 1707 S CHESTER APT 115\n3 70 894410 HILL JASON 2 112 374-1559 CARVER 1909 SCHILLER s 'i 71 894411 REED LASHARON 2 112 376-8934 FAIR PARK 56 HIGHLAND CT s:s 72 908777 BALLARD GARY 2 112 490-2848 BADGETT 9 SHELBY CR 5fo 73 902303 MILLER TASHA 2 112 565-0434 MABELVALE 4320 PINECONE DR ,t 74 896830 C STEEN JEB 1 113 225-5615 MCDERMOTT (1 9705 OVERBY CT ,: } 75 896406 BRANCH JULIAN 2 113 376-2714 CHICOT 2901 IZARD BOOKER 02 GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL st 76 913640 SMITH SIDNEY 2 113 374-1894 BADGETT 2925 S CHESTER 51 77 895190 LEWIS ARTENIS 2 113 227-4883 ROMINE 2022 ROMINE i6 78 894520 JOHNINSON MATTHEW 2 113 374-1064 FULBRIGHT 1915 MARYLAND ,1 79 896028 BUTLER WHITNEY 1 113 225-2225 FRANKLIN 13510 BECKENHAM DR :0 80 915822 RAYBON PAMELA 1 201 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRELL APT H2 81 915251 GARBETT JENNIFER 1 l' 201 565-6049 ROMINE 6013 FORESTVIEW RD 82 915763 MARBLEY QUANTRELL 2 \"' 201 375-3986 DODD 1812 S VANCE 2, 'l/ 83 916858 BRADSHAW MELISSA 1 212 565-4825 CHICOT 5804 VALLEY DR APT 2 I /3Ll?CI{ \"' .z., w11-1rE =o- I BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 890178 MCNUTT ANTIONETTE 2 372-3444 WILSON 7824 PARKWOOD / 2 166728 ROGERS KIMBERLY 1 375-2151 NOT ASSIGN 2618 BARBER .,,. 3 170294 MOSS NATRASHA 2 371-9271 MABELVALE 2719 CROSS ..I 4 907103 WARD INAS 2 375-0433 MITCHELL 2301 BATTERY 5 890320 PIGGEE RAYDIA 2 \" 374-5350 MABELVALE 1406 STATE s' 6 167067 SCOTT KIM 2 374-1733 CHICOT 5 SELMA PL 7 893553 BELL MADELLA 2 \"' 225-5927 PULASKI HGTS E 9600 W 36TH 8 890258 THOMPSON SHANEKA 2 565-1356 GEYER SPGS 3124 BOYD 1 9 890259 TURNER MIZZ 2 565-4513 CHICOT 17 DEE CT s 10 891675 MORRIS TAMIKA 2 375-8764 NOT ASSIGN 2800 CONFEDRATE 11 890342 /. RASES MARY 2- 1 663-9278 NOT ASSIGN 5720 N COUNTRY CLUB /0 12 892115 HOBBS CLARENCE 2 375-6200 GIBBS 1207 S SPRING 13 891811 MITCHELL TRENA 2 \" 376-2563 BRADY 1515 W 20TH , .... 14 890238 GREEN KEISHA 2 375-7324 DODD 1800 VANCE 15 904934 WILLIAMS LAKEISHA 2 ,, 661-1662 GARLAND 3607 W 26 BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT# NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 898192 ).,_, BELL ERIC 2 /V 490-0681 NOT ASSIGN 4709 E 39TH 15\" 17 890301 BELCHER JOYCELYN 2 666-5634 FOREST PARK 1913 S VALENTINE ,, 18 907137 WILLIS RAMONA 2 6641342 WAKEFIELD 6 GUARDIAN CT 17 19 167310 ROBERTSON MICHAEL 2 374-9615 GEYER SPGS 315 E 21ST 1? 20 896416 GREGORY RAVEN 2 374-4670 CARVER 2815 CROSS 3 21 891425 ADAMS DAVID 1 666-9148 ROCKEFELLER 605 E 16TH 11 22 892193 CARTER KAMILAH 2 666-7467 FRANKLIN 1908 S TAYLOR ,J 23 170505 SHERRILL ANGELA 1 562-6686 MEADOWCLIFF 7420 DENISE 24 GOMEZ GAIDA 227-4389 NOT ASSIGN ' .,_o 25 165381 GREENWOOD DAVID 2 374-8426 BADGETT 917 PICRON 26 896050 fl', REAGAN GABRIEL 5' 1 225-9363 FULBRIGHT 2111 HINSON J ~ .-0,,,id_.ol\" (, 27 YSIEGLE RESA 1 455-1131 NOT ASSIGN 28 891110 DAVIS CARLOS ,,,, 2 101 376-4021 OTTER CREEK 3106 LOUISANA .,,v 29 911986 JUNIEL ANNETTE 2 101 371-0571 DODD 322 E 21ST ,,? 30 164330 SMITH JARED 2 101 372-3871 DODD 1801 BRAGG BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL\nv 31 911809 HAMETH PETRICA 2 101 372-4740 MABELVALE 2513 BROADWAY 32 909467 POUND JUMAYLIA 2 p 101 MABELVALE 2001 MAIN ST APT 12 7 ., 33 910659 J9-sl CASS SHAWN 1 101 664-2031 KING 6900 CANTRELL APT Gll ( \" ,i\n/'~ I' V 34 910346 MARLATT RYAN 1 101 227-9814 OOMHffi-- 12500 VALLEYWOOD -\n,'- 35 890376 JOHNSON CALVIN 2 101 568-0366 DODD 5611 OLD HICKORY 36 914903 HENRY KAMISHA 2 2, l 101 562-7170 GEYER SPGS 7714 MOORE ?,'l 37 890455 GAY KEONA 2 102 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL ,, 1 38 890223 WALKER ANIKA 2 102 374-0985 MEADOWCLIFF 1303 COLLEGE .30 39 164522 MARION KEITH 2 102 374-4702 CHICOT 2616 IZARD 40 892648 JACKSON RICHARD 2 3/ 102 375-6227 MABELVALE 3316 BATTERY , v 41 893579 BRADLEY TRAMAYNE 2 102 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE 42 166104 HARRIS DAMION 2 33 102 666-6668 PULASKI HGTS E 1804 S MARTIN , 43 907242 { o) GLENN RENEE 1 102 565-2437 MEADOWCLI FF 19 ARDMORE , /I 44 911100 YOUNG PAUL 2 102 376-4324 MABELVALE 2612 BISHOP BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 35 46 168123 MARSHALL KAVIN 2 103 664-6871 MCDERMOTT 1404 S VAN BUREN 47 163027 LEE EDMUND 2 Jb 103 663-2579 JEFFERSON 4807 W 22ND 37 48 893570 TAYLOR SANTRIMEKE 2 103 374-1550 DODD 2020 BRAGG ~1 49 164599 PARKER KIANA 2 103 OTTER CREEK 3101 CENTER ,., 50 892188 HALL SHANNON 2 103 663-0419 MABELVALE 2005 STATE 51 890152 HUGHES BRANDON 2 tjO 103 WILSON 2319 W 12TH JI/ 52 155163 SALAAM AHMAD 2 104 375-0806 MCDERMOTT 2309 W 13TH 53 890465 KELLEY MAURICE 2 1/-Z-- 104 372-3724 CHICOT 36 E KRISPEL 54 892999 HUDSON ALBERT 2 '/3 104 664-5852 DODD 4116 W 22ND /0 55 915012 -\" STOGNER AMY 1 111 562-4834 WAKEFIELD 1 DAVEN CT I\n56 890394 BLAND EBONY 2\"' 111 WOODRUFF 1404 E 38TH 57 892477 NORWOOD WILLIAM 2-t..J 111 376-1561 ISH 3209 RINGO 58 913503 SMITH MARWAN L. 'J\u0026amp; 111 376-6627 FAIR PARK 1225 GEYER APT 610 59 159818 GRANT HORRACE 2 ,J 111 661-9637 BALE 4805 W 29TH ,, 61 898883 CARWILE CHANTELE 1 111 RIGHTSELL 2100 RINGO BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL (V 61 893217 CHAMBERS JOSHUA 1 111 562-2113 WILSON 3716 KATHERINE  I 62 164310 WASHINGTON TAMELA 2\n, 111 371-0571 FOREST PARK 2022 ROCK 63 892794 ROBINSON RICKELA 2 111 375-3898 ROMINE 9600 W 36TH APT 407 13 64 904998 WILSON REBEKAH 1 111 562-6212 WATSON (I 1  6 CAYLOR LN 65 890301 BELCHER JOYCELYN 2  111 666-5634 FOREST PARK 1913 S VALENTINE 66 165789 PRATER DESHUN 2 111 565-8066 WESTERN HILLS 4202 GILMAN 67 911191 BROWN CRYSTAL 2 111 376-1550 CLOVERDALE 221 E 28TH 68 908864 NEAL NIGEL 2 111 568-8792 CHICOT 9501 WILDERNESS APT 82 69 165381 GREENWOOD DANIEL 2 111 374-8426 BADGETT 917 PICRON ,r 70 899954 FOWLER ANTHONY 1 111 BADGETT 2801 LOMA DR -~ 71 155191 HARRIS MICHAEL 2 111 372-0525 BALE 2906 S TAYLOR 72 890121 PALMER DEMETRUS 2~ ~ 111 666-2629 KING 4813 W 23RD ~ 73 896847 i MUELLER PIPER 1 111 225-7391 MCDERMOTT 11 LUDINGTON COVE 74 898616 BROWN TONY 2 ~l 111 565-5734 GEYER SPGS 85 LANCASTER BOOKER 06 GRADE 03 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 76 904105 KELLY KARDRA 2 112 568-0028 CLOVERDALE 2 SOMERTON CT APT 2 ,t,. 77 891928 KELLY CHARLEY 1 112 ...e2 2s9s- MEADOWCLIFF 17 BELMAR '163-JMla 78 164353 MURRY JERAMIE 2  112 375-5491 CLOVERDALE 503 E 20TH ST 79  915856 GILLMORE CARLOS 2 112 MABELVALE 909 WELCH 80 903682 SHAVERS SHUNDA 2 112 490-0398 BADGETT 4 ROSE MEADOWS PL . ' - 81 893008 HARRIS DANELLE 2 112 374-0962 ROCKEFELLER 2001 MAIN ST ~, 82 891824 BREWER GEORGE 2 112 490-1228 BADGETT 2003 E 5TH 17 83 916834 CASSEL JASMINE 1 112 FRANKLIN 2002 SCOTTY CT 84 913494 FORD DERAN 2 113 565-2939 CLOVERDALE 4 2 S WAKEFIELD 85 890346 WESLEY KEVIN 2 113 225-4854 GEYER SPGS 3223 SUMMIT 86 890961 GARRISON TERRENCE 2 113 374-2901 MEADOWCLIFF 1322 ROCK APT A ,r 87 896033 ADAMS DESMOND 1 113 224-2628 BRADY fY 3 PERDIDO 0 88 890308 FLEMING ELIZABETH 1 ,r 113 661-1758 FOREST PARK 5405 SHERWOOD 89 892412 MARBLEY SHAMIKA 2 201 375-3986 DODD 1812 S VANCE ,.,., 90 915461 FREDRICK KELLY 1 201 224-0159 NOT ASSIGN 38 INVERNESS I - I SEQ # 91 92 93 94 STUDENT # 915869 896050 916875 909846 BOOKER 06 NAME AND ADDRESS SMITH SHAQUITA 1306 LOUISANA ~ REAGAN GABRIEL ~ 2111 HINSON APT 16 THURMAN TODD 1875 A GLICK PL TORRES HARRY 2600 S STATE GRADE 03 RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ,. 2 201 WESTERN HILLS zJ 1 211 225-9363 FULBRIGHT '.).2,, 1 211 FULBRIGHT\n.' 1 212 376-6527 BASELINE = I = 2-, BOOKER 06 GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ., 1 162324 BELCHER CLIFTON 2 666-5634 FOREST PARK 1913 S VALENTINE ::\n_ 2 160431 WOODS LAKESHIA 2 375-9062 NOT ASSIGN 2721 BARBER 7 3 164323 BIVENS RONNIESHA 2 224-5503 MCDERMOTT 2706 TATUM 4 900883 HOWARD ARCHIE 2j/ NOT ASSIGN 2705 MARSHALL S' 5 163888 PORTER EBONY 2 374-4581 WATSON 1924 SCHILLER ~ 6 891714 ROUSSE MARQUIS 2 NOT ASSIGN 1515 W 20TH .,, 7 167014 PEARSON THURLO 2 374-6839 CHICOT 2823 STATE y 8 167293 LOGAN LATISHA 2 374-9975 PULASKI HGTS E 1600 S CEDAR , 9 891478 RANDALL RICKY 2 NOT ASSIGN 7 SELMA 10 167955 BECTON AMANDA 2 'O 374-0908 GIBBS 108 THAYER 11 /, 167697 MITCHELL SHARANDA 2 663-0872 MEADOWCLIFF 1000 MAPLE /2-- 12 891463 BEASLEY RICK 2 NOT ASSIGN 1615 E 3RD 13 893060 CLINKSCALE AUDREY /3 2 374-4260 MCDERMOTT 3519 CROSS 14 892333 JORDAN TWYLA l 'Y 224-6554 MEADOWCLIFF 9600 W 36TH ,\u0026lt;5 15 162344 NAGEL ALLISON 2 666-0060 FOREST PARK 5411 CENTERWOOD BOOKER 06 GRADE 04 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I 16 911956 ROTHBERG SHIRA 1 NOT ASSIGN 2700 N GRANT 2. 17 913610 9 ROSS SAMUEL 1 664-8225 PULASKI HGTS E 2185 VALENTINE 18 163906 CLAY KESHAN 2/? 374-5618 RIGHSELL 1860 RINGO 3 19 916338 ri COLLIE WILL 1 224-8038 MCDERMOTT 8 FLINTWOOD II 20 893776 ANDERSON MISTY 2 / 7 101 375-7931 BADGETT 3721 HIGHLAND 21 166685 TOLLY THERESA I 101 ~ ,C l\\CJ .,-t\" 565-3891 MABELVALE 9407 WOODFORD 22 167113 POINTER CRYSTELL 2// 101 664-4410 BALE 1409 MAPLE 23 159551 DAVIS PHYLLIS / 1 101 374-8636 DODD 2223 COMMERCE ,,,. 24 915289 DAVIS TAMEKA 2 101 562-9402 WAKEFIELD 6119 BUTLER RD APT Dl3 ,,_\n25 160021 HUGHES KHOMEINI 2 101 375-2631 MEADOWCLIFF 1219 WELCH S' 26 165515 MARKS BRADFORD 1 101 227-6586 MCDERMOTT 8116 ALVIN LN .,_v 27 160384 COOLEY TONIA 2 101 372-0908 DODD 619 E 22ND -p-3 28 153397 HARRIS JANICE 2 101 663-2954 MCDERMOTT 116 S MONROE -i/ 29 161019 GRAY SALONICA 2 101 663-9672 PULASKI HGTS E 3918 W 11TH 30 902572 NASH JONATHAN 1\" ' 101 562-7573 WAKEFIELD 12 ROSEMOOR BOOKER 06 GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 7? 31 160017 ROBINSON LAMONT 2 101 227-5927 TERRY 32 DARTMOUTH DR ,,I- 32 914902 BRADLEY SHEMEKA 2 101 562-7170 CHICOT 7714 MOORE -\n7 33 156961 GAY NICHOLE 2 102 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KISPEL .,,1 34 163178 DUNN BROOKE 2 102 562-2290 MEADOW CLIFF 7 LAMONT -,.1 11 35 167506 FORD DARIAN 2 102 375-6227 MABELVALE 3316 BATTERY 7 36 907345 ~ GLENN ANDREA 1 102 565-2437 MEADOWCLIFF 19 ARDMORE y 37 167700 MORRISON RICHARD 2 102 374-8623 CHICOT 1115 CALHOUN JI 38 153992 SHAVIS BRODERICK 2 102 375-4342 ROCKEFELLER 1315 COLLEGE 3-Y 39 164416 BORKINS NECOLE 2 102 378-7800 MEADOWCLIFF 1717 E 21ST J3 40 167110 GAY TAMEIKA 2 102 372-4848 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL 31 41 163886 BRADLEY TANESHA 2 102 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE DR JS 42 156962 GAY TINA 2 102 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL J \" 43 153976 SWINTON SHAUNTAE 2 103 372-3306 OTTER CREEK 2924 LOUISANA 3 7 44 914874 BOYCE CECIL 2 104 565-4837 CLOVERDALE 2 SOUTHAVEN CT APT 4 - :JI' 45 166401 HUNTER ANDREA 2 111 225-5321 BAKER 3519 SUSSEX CR -  BOOKER 06 GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL\n:, 46 167084 SCOTT JAMES 2 111 375-3796 BADGETT 912 S BEDFORD .,., 47 898960 CHEFFEN KATINA 2 111 562-1393 DODD 5 TIMBER VALLEY ,\n/ 48 161542 WATSON ERIC 2 111 375-5182 JEFFERSON 2415 W 16 (' 49 904826 WILBANKS JULIE 1 111 562-3296 CLOVERDALE 3 SOUTHERN OAKS V2-- 50 891797 GREENWOOD DERRICK 2 111 374-8426 BADGETT 917 PICRON y3 51 166670 HARRIS PHILLIP 2 111 372-0525 BALE 2906 TAYLOR t 52 899948 FOSTER NATHANIEL 1 111 568-2502 MEADOWCLIFF 4 ROSEMOOR yV 53 165735 RIDOUT JALONDA 2 111 224-1618 TERRY 9410 LABETTE s\u0026lt;S 54 907447 FONEY KANESHIA 2 111 372-7917 JEFFERSON 217 S ELM APT 2 y,: 55 163875 STRAIN LATOYA 2 111 663-7810 KING 2523 SPINE / d 56 910004 GANNADY LAURA 1 111 224-0733 TERRY 1502 GREEN MTN APT 111 57 896557 BASS LATASHA 2 YI 111 562-0260 WILSON 3104 LOUISANA ,,,r 58 892000 MATTHEWS FABIAN 2 111 372-4188 MABELVALE 2202 BRAGG I I/ 59 911191 ~.,, :t:1,OORE PAULA 1 111 562-2869 BALE I .J\\\".g STONECREST v? 60 164219 JOHNSON CORNELIUS 2 111 664-9045 FAIR PARK 22 PINEHILL TERRACE I I I I I I BOOKER 06 GRADE 04 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ,0uLBRIGHT JOHN I Z. 61 163452 1 111 562-6935 WESTERN HILLS I 103 GREENLAND CV ,j\"6 62 166940 WATSON KEVIN 2 111 375-5182 JEFFERSON 2415 W 16TH ,5'/ 63 160349 WILSON PERRY 2 111 372-4436 PULASKI HGTS E 2123 BRAGG :,Y 64 167290 SMITH KANGELITA 2 111 375-4703 BAKER 3023 MARSHALL s.J I 65 168878 PERRY KIMSON 2 112 372-1298 RIGHTS ELL 2121 S IZARD APT 2 13 66 899388 DAVIS TAMMY 1 112 375-1942 FAIR PARK 100 RICE ST APT 1 .::-, 67 166919 BROWN DIONNE 2 112 224-8025 FULBRIGHT I 2522 ECHO VALLEY 1 )1 68 165807 LAVENDER LILAC 1 112 374-2811 FRANKLIN 223 RICE I /t{ 69 900505 MARKINS ASHLEY 1 112 562-8569 MEADOWCLIFF 5815 FREELAND ss I 70 159220 ROBINSON TASHARA 2 112 374-5815 ROCKFELLER 1919 W 38TH J I, 71 891946 MCCOY KIA 2 112 666-6677 GIBBS I 3904 W 27TH Cl 72 165674 LEWIS ANDRE 2 113 227-0741 ROMINE 2022 ROMINE / ~ 73 163177 PENDLETON DANIEL 1 113 562-2558 MEADOW CLIFF 44 SHERATON 74 910680 WILFORD RACHEL 2 a 113 565-1979 WESTERN HILLS 18 LAKESIDE / / I 75 915821 RAYBON JULIE 1 201 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRELL APT H2 S\\ \\ --, --,,u 0. c\\\\, ,~ \\,.),\\' I ~ ) J t ....... ' ' ' ''\\f''C\\ 1  '-, '\\,,~ '\\\n::,E \\ \\\\\\ t:'\\ CJ, '\\ \\  '\\\\.  ,\\ \\,,)ca~ I I I I I I I SEQ# 76 77 STUDENT # 915254 909835 ..i BOOKER 06 NAME AND ADDRESS HAMPTON SCOTT 12823 ST CHARLES BLVD ORRES LUIS 2600 STATE GRADE 04 RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I! 1 211 227-7416 FULBRIGHT 19 1 212 376-6527 BASELINE I /3LA('_f\u0026lt;.. == p(_ \u0026amp;)\n-f1T :=. j SEQ # STUDENT 1 907233 2 892538 3 157120 4 157082 I 5 153775 6 161661 I 7 158349 I 8 89 6877 9 157075 I] 10 161677 11 892378 I 12 159643 13 904933 14 905250 I 15 167133 I I I BOOKER 06 # NAME AND ADDRESS WALKER MICHAEL 2008 MADISON PACE CHAVELIA 2509 BISHOP LOVELACE DETRA 2814 BARBER STEWART KENDRA 822 E 24TH RINEY TUTREA 2316 GUNPOWDER HOLMES YASHEKA 2504 MAPLE NEIDHARDT JASON 26 HUNTINGTON SCOTT DECTRICK 4204 W 2ND PRICE BRYAN 2717 BARBER FLOYD CAROLYN 812 ABIGAIL WARREN LATOSHA 1421 CHESTER GULLEY DEMETRIOS 1604 IZARD WILLIAMS LAKEISHA 8501 DREHER Kl I ~ WILSON RACHEL p\u0026lt;{ 1080l BIRCHWOOD PATTERSON CHRISTOPHER 711 S MAPLE GRADE 05 RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 2 664-7414 NOT ASSIGN .,_ 2 374-1230 CLOVERDALE j' 2 376-7289 CHICOT !' 2 374-2572 MEADOWCLIFF S' 2 224-3341 MCDERMOTT t 2 661-0929 BRADY I 1 227-5954 GIBBS 7 2 374-4720 WESTERN HILLS I 2 376-8226 CHICOT '1 2 663-8188 JEFFERSON 2'0 376-4709 WAKEFIELD I/ 2 376-2863 MITCHELL 2/l, 562-4467 OTTER CREEK 1.:2- NOT ASSIGN 13 2 666-5713 PULASKI HGTS E I I I BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL .J 16 900146 MEADOWS BRAIN 1 MITCHELL 7613 DENISE ,J- 17 152344 BEASLEY CARL 1 WAKEFIELD 1615 E 3RD ,v 18 167484 SMITH JOHNNY 2 224-4249 TERRY 11214 MESA APT El2 s 19 912850 VINSON ASHELY 1 224-8624 NOT ASSIGN 11810 PLEASANT RIDGE APT 1402 l, ,t\u0026gt; 20 161610 BURDEN MATTHEW 1 221-2577 NOT ASSIGN 5 KESWICK CV 21 893272 LYONS ANTHONY 2'6 372-3304 PULASKI HGTS E 615 W 13TH ST 22 905054 WOODBURY FELICIA 2 l\u0026lt;c 562-5597 BASELINE 9500 S HEIGHTS APT 187 7 1 23 VANTEYCH TUESDAY 1 664-5208 NOT ASSIGN r 24 161965 CROOM JAMES 1 FAIR PARK 1610 N HARRISON 25 152382 SIMMONS TAMMY 17 2 CHICOT 2818 BARBER 26 ILOGHI CHRISTINE 2\nf 374-1482 NOT ASSIGN 27 913686 CRANE KATHERINE 1' 664-8387 PULASKI HGTS E 6505 CANTRELL 28 /0 ... 911824 BROWN BRANDY 1 221-3765 NOT ASSIGN 9201 KANIS APT 1-D II 29 914531 MANUEL TIMOTHY 1 455-5008 DODD 6711 HONEYSUCKLE 30 914450 JOHNSON NICOLE 2 I'/ 375-6411 NOT ASSIGN 2723 CUMBERLAND BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 20 31 913667 IRBY JAMAR 2 562-1817 CARVER 8419 BASELINE APT 50 -u 32 160904 COLLIER KARY 2 663-4055 WOODRUFF 3519 MARYLAND ,,, 3 3 162126 MARKS DEREK ,2 1 101 227-6586 FRANKLIN 8116 ALVIN LN ,:v 34 153931 EVERHART RONALD 2 101 376-1550 MABELVALE 221 E 28TH ~ 35 159444 WASHINGTON TASHIA 2 101 378-0079 DODD 322 E 21ST z.\u0026lt;I 36 903515 RUTH CHRIS 2 101 568-0385 BASELINE 8223 SCOTT HAMILTON -z\u0026gt; 37 161712 STAGGERS ANDREA 2 101 666-7782 DODD 2600 SOAK -z.\" 38 904170 SWIGGINS STACIE 2 101 568-0768 WAKEFIELD 9800 SUNSET LANE\n.3 39 160942 YOUNG CASEY 1 101 562-8954 WOODRUFF 25 GLENDALE 40 156007 ROBINSON WILLIE -zJ 2 101 227-5927 TERRY 32 DARTMOUTH DR -z r 41 153983 BARNES GREGORY 2 101 372-2808 DODD 600 E 22ND 42 167095 TIDWELL DOMINIC 2 1.-'J 101 374-4091 MABELVALE I 1708 IZARD APT 114 43 .JD 156861 ROUNSVILLE LEVAR 2 101 375-6667 CHICOT 814 MAXWELL I 44 165325 SMITH KEVAN JI 2 102 377-3613 DODD 916 W 16TH APT 305 I J l  45 157339 ARMSTRONG ALEXA 2 102 375-2649 OTTER CREEK 2210 S SUMMIT I I I I I I BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 I SEO# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 33 46 160998 UMEH ERNEST 2 102 661-1740 MCDERMOTT I 3100 WEST 11TH 3'1 47 161700 MCBRIDE MAKESHA 2 102 227-9242 JEFFERSON I 9518 DARTMOUNT 48 163127 BURL SHANDRAIL 2\"35 102 DODD 4106 W 25TH I :5' 49 1614 77 STEWART TARYN 2 102 225-6033 FULBRIGHT 11220 BRAINBRIDGE 11- I a, 50 907372 SHANNON GLENN 1 102 565-2437 MEADOWCLIFF 19 ARDMORE ,.s 51 902440 MOORMAN MARCI 1 102 568-1792 CHICOT I 7709 CLAYBROOK J7 52 911101 YOUNG SHANNON 2 102 376-4324 MABELVALE I 2612 BISHOP 53 FLOWERS JAMES 31 156629 2 103 CHICOT 716 FOLSOM I 54 898224 BENNETT SHAUN 237 103 568-0702 CLOVERDALE 5504 DREHER ,, ,-. 55 901123 JOHNSON CAITLIN 1 103 376-3021 FULBRIGHT 5 FOREST MAPLE CT I/~ 56 156975 WILLIAMS NAKILLE 2 103 375-5169 CHICOT 35 HOLLINGSWORTH 57 159090 SMITH WHITNEY -fl 103 227-6331 ROMINE I 10005 KANE 58 1/ 161394 BULLOCK KERRIE 2 103 375-5943 DODD 2005 STATE I 59 903325 RIDDLING DIXIE 1'' 104 BADGETT 3012 RICHLAND I 60 PASHA ZARIFA fv 160241 2 104 374-5570 MEADOWCLIFF 2009 E 6TH I I ' BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 SEQ # STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL ~3 61 155740 ROSBY EBONY 2 111 372-4456 PULASKI HGTS 3107 BISHOP 62 161710 SIMMONS TAMARA 2 vr 111 565-2360 BALE 19 HATFIELD 11 63 901938 MARLIN LAURA 1 111 2~2292 FULBRIGHT 17 POWDERHORN CT ~ 64 167917 HOOD SHAMIONKA, 2 111 BADGETT 5420 E ROOSEVELT 'll 65 897694 WALKER CORY 2 111 375-6082 MABELVALE 1212 W 37TH ST 2.0 66 908926 MOGSTAD GRETCHEN 1 111 225-0241 BRADY 5 TIMBER PARK 67 157055 HODGES SUNTAYE 2 '(] 111 375-7139 FOREST PARK 2414 W 13 68 155961 ANDERSON DERRICK 2 '{( 111 661-1499 OTTER CREEK 1523 ADAM 69 161538 WATSON NELSON 2 'I? 111 375-5182 JEFFERSON 2415 W 16 70 161689 GRAY CHASSIDY 2~ 111 563-3178 BALE 2115 SOAK .5/ 71 160929 BUSH CAMERON 2 111 565-2358 WAKEFIELD 35 SHEFFIELD 72 892341 CARTER BRANDON 2 S\" \u0026gt;- 111 376-1481 WASHINGTON 1500 GEYER :i.l 73 912659 ELDER JESSICA 1 111 664-7128 KING 2918 W 26TH 74 904997 WILSON RACHEL l'2. 1 111 562-6212 WATSON 6 CAYLOR LN 75 ,n 161385 RAMEY KENNETH 2 111 375-0582 FULBRIGHT 1418 WOLFE BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL :rl/ 76 154372 VAULT NATASHA 2 111 490-0661 ROCKEFELLER 1 TALESMAN PL tS 77 160923 NICHOLS NIKKI 2 111 565-7353 CLOVERDALE 5300 BASELINE RD APT 320 23 78 915011 LJ,L.,,,' STOGNER WENDY 1 111 562-4834 WAKEFIELD J't l DAVEN CT s(. 79 151383 HARRIS REGINALD 2 111 372-0525 BALE 2906 TAYLOR 80 n 160127 HIGGINS EDMAR 2 111 663-2335 KING 5000 W 24TH ,5! 81 153913 SPENCER CHARLES 2 111 664-5188 FAIR PARK 4109 W 12TH 82 898881 CARWILE ANNA BELL 2..f 1 111 663-6361 BASELINE 2100 RINGO APT 4 83 903451 ROSBY KRISHAMA 2,:5 111 490-0143 BADGETT 10 DEVEREAUX bo 84 162403 PAGE RICKY 2 111 372-7917 JEFFERSON 217 S ELM APT 2 1,/ 85 159624 BROADWAY KENDRIA 2 111 376-3011 JEFFERSON 1210 DENNISON 86 ~5 159557 LINSLEY ERIC 1 111 374-4990 RIGHTS ELL 1505 S BROADWAY 87 ~'2, 916588 CULBERSON BRANDI 2 111 BASELINE 8700 COMMUNITY RD 88 898659 BUCKLEY MOLINDA 21,3 111 565-6166 WATSON 9307 OAK GROVE LN 89 166721 ODEM JACK 21,\u0026lt;/ 111 374-8844 MABELVALE 1503 WOLFE 90 158277 COPPING FREDRICK 1 'J_/, 111 224-1281 BRADY 1400 OLD FORGE DR BOOKER 06 GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 91 901343 JORDAN MICHAEL 1 :J7 111 562-1579 WASHINGTON 6819 DAHLIA c..S 92 155659 HUBBARD AMBER 2 112 375-3931 PULASKI HGTS E 3921 BARROW D ~c.. 93 157990 MCFADDEN BURGESS 2 112 227-0562 BADGETT 5 TALISMAN .,7 94 159595 HOOKS DOUGLAS 2 112 490-1228 BADGETT 2003 E 5TH 2.1 95 897855 ALEXANDER TIMOTHY 1 112 568-1261 DODD 8105 SOPHIA r 96 159102 MILLER BILLY 2 112 374-5215 ROCKEFELLER 1919 E 38TH ~, 97 898061 BALLARD LAURA 2 112 490-2848 BADGETT 9 SHELBY CR 98 910662 CASS JEDEDIAH l:t'i 113 664-2031 BALE 6900 CANTRELL APT G-11 99 157847 1 BRANCH ARABY 2 113 376-2714 CHICOT 2901 IZARD 100 158388 LOVELACE TERRY 2 1/ 113 374-4044 MABELVALE 23 WHITMORE CR 101 157322 MARBLEY LAURY 2 1v 201 375-3986 DODD 1812 S VANCE 102 916161 BLACK ANDREW r' 202 568-2401 FRANKLIN 18 BERKSHIRE 103 916461 PICCOLO MARISSA lJ/ 202 661-5806 PULASKI HGTS E 4301 W MARKHAM SLOT #632 104 899794 FAULKNER RICHARD 1 31- 202 224-3171 ROMINE 6 SOUTH SWEET BAY CT 105 915924 REEVES JASON 1 J3 211 223-3421 FAIR PARK 4710 SAM PECK RD APT 1148  w /-I I ~ .:= I /3 LAC.IC .=.. .i__, I CARVER 21 GRADE 00 I SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I 1 915371 /MAYWEATHER SHANNON 2 201 376-1461 CHICOT I 505 FLETCHER 2 916291 1TRAN THAO 4 201 223-0956 TERRY 10 LARIAT CT 3 915531 z. ELGEN JOHNNY 1 201 562-7667 GEYER SPGS 4725 HOFFMAN #7 I 4 916091 :z WATSON SAMANTHA 2 201 372-2514 NOT ASSIGN 921 TOWNSEND 5 916232 .3 HOLMES NATASHA 2 201 ROCKFELLER 3324 E 9TH 6 917048 y GUPTON PRINCESS 2 201 374-4066 NOT ASSIGN I 724 CORNING 7 917016 0 JONES SHELLY 2 201 562-6533 BASELINE 4618 STRATTON LN \"Joll,39 .3 \u0026amp;r, f(: ,7 llct,on S-p I 8 915868 c\nJACKSON DESHAWN 2 203 375-5230 DODD 2013 COMMERCE 9 915586 7 KILLINGSWORTH MICHAEL 2 204 372-7728 CLOVERDALE 1901 BRAGG ST 10 915587 J' KILLINGSWORTH DANIELLE2 204 372-7728 CLOVERDALE 1901 BRAGG 11 916692 f HANDY TORRELL 2 204 375-5312 MEADOWCLIFF 1609 COLLEGE 12 917037 yWALKER MICHAEL 1 204 758-3477 NOT ASSIGN PO BOX 45371 I 13 915347 .5' CLAYTON BETH 1 211 225-0756 MCDERMOTT 19 COACHLIGHT DR I 14 916281 (, WILBERN ZANE 1 211 568-5268 GEYER SPGS 7506 VEGA 15 915969 J MCCARTHER TORASA 1 212 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 4905 BALLINGER II II II CARVER 21 SEQ # STUDENT# NAME AND ADDRESS 16 915970 ( MCCARTHER LARRY 4905 BALLINGER 17 916474 ,0 DENNIS GARRY 2206 FAIR PARK GRADE 00 RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 212 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 2 213 224-3539 MCDERMOTT VJ H- I TE = I (3 LA C.. K. =-\ni___, CARVER 21 GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 911054 t GOODWIN CRYSTAL 1 374-0534 NOT ASSIGN 2123 SCOTT ST 2 910271 Z. KING TASHA 1 371-0203 BRADY 407 BOND 3 910379 I SAMUEL ALLEN 2 375-9563 FRANKLIN 603 CORNING 4 908307 ,3 SPICKES GARY 1 565-9137 ROCKFELLER 9 CURTIS CV 5 915184 fl JAMES JEREMY 1 227-0359 BRADY 5 BRADFORD 6 j WILBERS ZACHERY 1 568-6268 NOT ASSIGN 7 898466 'BRADSHAW MELISSA 2609 DORCHESTER 1 568-4825 NOT ASSIGN 8 910765 z. THOMAS SHANA 2 375-7827 JEFFERSON 2514 W 13TH ST 9 915855 3 GOYNES HARLISHA 2 101 375-7832 MABELVALE 1007 CALHOUN ST 10 914161 4- THOMAS NICOLE 2 101 375-7356 MEADOWCLIFF 8801 HERRICK LN 11 911886 f. RICHARDSON DERRICK 2 101 375-7902 CHICOT 2301 EAST 8TH 12 908190 6 DANIEL CARLTON 2 101 376-3012 CHICOT 711 CORNING 13 910115 7 FRAZIER LATARHIA 2 101 371-9759 CHICOT 713 CORNING 14 910191 8 JACOBS TAKAKO 2 102 374-9320 MABELVALE 1712 BROADWAY 15 911581 9 PHILLIPS ALEXANDRIA 2 102 663-5756 DODD 1411 BROWN CARVER 21 GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 16 910657 ? FRANKS NATHAN 1 102 666-3522 FAIR PARK 5501 \"A\" ST APT B 17 911619 /D HALL MICHAEL 2 102 375-5943 MABELVALE 2005 SOUTH STATE 18 910318 I/ JACKSON TANISHA 2 102 374-5570 CHICOT 2009 E 6TH ST 19 910382 JZ. HUGHES CHI-FA 2 102 375-2631 MEADOWCLIFF 1219 WELCH 20 913344 13 MONROE CHRISTOPHER 2 102 378-7907 WAKEFIELD 1100 BOUNDLESS 21 915876 ,JLf WILLIAMS RODERICK 1417 S RINGO 2 102 664-2057 RIGHT SELL 22 909720 B EDWARDS CHARLOTTE 1 103 224-9146 ROMINE 8 CATALINA CT 23 909558 /5 ARMSTRONG RANDALL 2 103 375-0564 OTTER CREEK 2210 SUMMIT 24 910285 lb GRAGGS JASON 2 103 372-6406 MEADOWCLIFF 1400 EAST 38TH ST 25 911700 / 7 POE RACHEL 2 111 374-1506 WAKEFIELD 704 KIMBALL 26 911267 / r BESTER KENT 2 111 375-0410 CLOVERDALE 219 CROSS APT 1 27 915574 /7 FRAZIER KELLY 2 111 374-9406 WAKEFIELD 709 APPERSON DR 28 907310 , STEPPIG TALYN 1 111 227-5347 FAIR PARK 13717 RIVERCREST 29 907311 STEPPING CHASE ,. 13717 RIVERCREST 1 111 227-5347 FAIR PARK 30 910485 20GILBERT KEAIRRA 2 111 375-0631 BADGETT 46 KRISPEL CARVER 21 GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 909434 1./ JOHNSON ARLENE 2 111 376-0245 BASELINE 45 KIRSPEL 32 907033 \" THOMPSON PHILLIP 1 111 223-3064 ROMINE 4 WOOD HILL CT 33 909585 II BAREL DAVID 1 111 224-0967 TERRY 2 COLEEN CT 34 907631 ,S MILLS HUNTER 1 111 664-5681 MCDERMOTT 1209 RANCH VALLEY RD 35 908278 ZL JONES CHERTIEU 2 111 663-2126 BALE 2321 S JACKSON 36 911989 Z'!\u0026gt; BRANNON CHRISTOPHER 2 112 376-1014 BADGETT 9 CURTIS 37 907031 v\nDAWSON LLOYD 2 112 TERRY 9302 RUTGERS DR 38 913327 2r WHITE STEPHANIE 2 113 568-4165 CLOVERDALE 6817 JUNIPER RD 39 916292 U:, TRAN TRUNG 4 201 223-0956 ROMINE 10 LARIAT CT 40 909955 /ti BISHOP KATHERINE 1 201 225-0985 ROMINE 505 DEERBROOK RD 41 916956 27 IM CHANG-HAN 6 201 223-3119 ROMINE 1912 GREEN MTN DR #4 42 916961 2-'6 BAIRD YASHA 2 201 374-0127 BASELINE 3219 E 6TH ST 43 915610 II ALESSI CHRISTINA 1 203 225-7362 ROMINE 3503 HAPPY VALLEY DR 44 915800 ,6 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER 1 204 661-0376 PULASKI HTS E 7400 EVERGREEN 45 916069 2-1 GATIWALA PUJA 6 212 565-5802 BALE 6310 ASHER APT 608  WH ITF= I r3LA~K~a\u0026lt;,_, CARVER 21 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS 1 893210 ALFORD LESHEA 409 E 17TH ST 2 908048 l COLLIER MELANIE 907 CORNING 3 895017 3 SAMUEL NATASHA 38 KRISPEL 4 911579 Lf LAMB SHELDON 9805 CAPELLA 5 9096385 5 CAMPBELL JORDAN 2115 RICE 6 897518 b MACKINTROSH RAYEN 1519 S HARRISON 7 912532 7 PARKER JOHN 1401 S WASHINGTON 8 911562 \u0026lt;3 THOMPSON MIRANDA 11 CURTIS CV 9 894299 f CROSS AKINA 7100 TALMAGE 10 901229 Cj JONES AARON 4618 STRATTON 11 914901 lo HENRY CHRISTOPHER 7714 MOORE 12 907152 t FARNAM JESSICA 401 GAMBLE 13 894366 ! HARRIS GIBSON 9 NEW HAVEN CT 14 911977 I I HUNTER APRIL 3111 1/2 W 12TH ST 15 907152 ., FARNAN JESSICA 401 GAMBLE RD GRADE 02 RC CODE PHONE .jj rr SCHOOL 2 ROCKEFELLER 2 374-6791 ROCKEFELLER 2 375-9563 FRANKLIN 2 568-5451 NOT ASSIGN 2 372-3977 NOT ASSIGN 2 664-7007 GIBBS 2 664-8815 NOT ASSIGN 2 565-9137 ROCKEFELLER 1 565-3909 BALE 2 562-6533 NOT ASSIGN 2 562-7170 GEYER SPGS 1 225-1835 ROMINE 1 224-7713 FAIR PARK 2 101 DODD 1 101 225-1835 ROMINE CARVER 21 GRADE 02 SEQ~ STUDENT Jj 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 914875 ( 2.. BOYCE ANAIAH 2 101 565-4837 CLOVERDALE 2 SOUTHAVEN CT 4 17 896352 /3 GAY NEFERTAR 2 101 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KRISPEL PL 18 896585 lY FLOWERS DIONDRA 2 102 374-2759 ?-1\".ABELVALE 1323 WRIGHT AVE 314 19 896342 /5 BEENE CHEMER 2 102 374-1836 CHICOT 19 KIRSPEL 20 914048 /6 HIGGINS KELVIN 2 102 376-9354 CHICOT 2015 E 4TH 21 892636 / 7 ENGRAM KWAN D 2 103 666-7748 BALE 1108 S HUGHES 22 894631 5 BROWN CORA 1 104 225-9793 ROMINE 8922 FAIRHAVEN DR 23 894454 18 KILLINGSWORTH BRANDEN 2 104 372-7728 DODD 1901 BRAGG 24 895152 /'j DOZIER CRYSTAL 2 111 664-1298 FOREST PARK 2201 STYLER 25 894366 ' HARRIS GIBSON 1 111 224-7713 FAIR PARK 9 NEW HAVEN CT 26 894438 JONES GALEN 2.D 926 S WOODROW 2 111 666-6144 WOODRUFF 27 896353 21 GILBERT ROSALYN 2 111 BADGETT 46 KIRSPEL 28 896455 l7.. PITTS SHERILY 2 111 374-1506 WAKEFIELD 714 KIMBALL 29 896777 1 CLAYTON SARAH 1 111 225-0756 MCDERMOTT 19 COACHLIGHT 30 895336 23 BROWN JAMAL 2 111 376-1414 ROCKEFELLER 908 HARRINGTON  CARVER 21 GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 89830 ' STEEN JEB 1 112 225-5615 MCDERMOTT 9705 OVERBY CT 32 895031 ,2'-f DAWSON DEBORAH 2 112 227-9857 TERRY 9302 RUTGERS 33 895190 2S LEWIS ARTENIS 2 112 227-4883 ROMINE 2022 ROMINE 34 916686 ' BOWDEN MORGAN 1 201 224-1245 MCDERMOTT 1608 STONEHENGE PL 35 915822 RAYBON PAMELA 1 203 664-3329 FOREST PARK IO 6900 CANTRELL APT H2 36 915799 \" LAWRENCE JONATHON 1 204 661-0376 PULASKI HTS E 7400 EVERGREEN WI-+ I~= /3 L AC... /(._ =- :2_ CARVER 21 GRADE 03 s:::Q .! STUDENT \"-r' NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 891492 ( MAYWEATHER BRIDGETTE 2 376-1461 CHICOT 505 FLETCHER 2 890481 z_ SPRINGS DONNA 2 374-8310 NOT ASSIGN 49 KRISPEL 3 167067 3 SCOTT KIM 2 374-6379 CHICOT 5 SELMA PL 4 890198 '-f KING GLADYS 2 371-0203 BRADY 407 BOND 5 890119 s TRIBBLE AMANDA 2 375-5046 NOT ASSIGN 2405 W 16TH ST 6 893367 b AMIN GEOGINA EL 2 CHICOT 2704 E CAPITAL 7 910659 CASS SHAWN 1 664-2031 KING 6900 CANTRELL G-11 8 914903 7 HENRY KAMISHA 2 562-7170 GEYER SPGS 7714 MOORE 9 915871 D'AREZZO JAMES \"Z, 3119 ECHO VALLEY 1 224-9208 FULBRIGHT 10 890455 g GAY KEONA M 2 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL 11 904303 c\nTHOMAS WILLIE E 2 101 568-3247 MEADOWCLIFF 8801 HERRICK LANE 12 890180 /0 CALDWELL SHAUNTAY 2 101 376-8362 OTTER CREEK 2209 S SPRING 13 890465 It KELLEY MAURICE 2 101 372-3724 CHICOT 36 E KRISPEL 14 914165 /2 WILLIAMS JUANNISHA 2 101 374-7299 DODD 2907 E 6TH ST 15 911100 13 YOUNG PAUL J 2 101 376-4324 MABELVALE 2612 BISHOP CARVER 21 GRADE 03 SEO# STUDENT JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL \" 16 157012 /lf CARROL TERRY 2 102 374-0047 MEADOWCLIFF 1119 COLLEGE 17 892188 /') HALL SHANNON 2 102 663-0419 MABELVALE 2005 STATE 18 891494 /6 PASHA KHALEELAH 2009 E 6TH ST 2 102 374-5570 DODD 19 891497 /7 WILLIAMS KENDALL 2 102 372-5703 BASELINE 38 HOLLINGSWORTH 20 890376 / g JOHNSON CALVIN 2 102 568-0366 DODD 5611 OLD HICKORY 21 892999 /1 HUDSON ALBERT 2 103 664-5852 DODD 4116 W 22ND 22 890178 W MCNUTT ANNTIONETE 2 104 372-3444 WILSON 7824 PARKWOOD DR 23 164786 l BROWN VIRGIL 1 104 225-9793 ROMINE 8922 FAIRHAVEN RD 24 893579 2/ BRADLEY TRAMAYNE 2 104 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE DR 25 890152 2-L HUGHES BRANDON 2 104 WILSON 2319 W 12TH ST 26 898359 Y BONDS SEAN 1 111 565-7112 CLOVERDALE 4624 STRATTON 27 904321 S THOMPSON JILL R 1 111 223-3064 ROMINE 4 WOODHILL CT 28 896387 2-3 WILLIAMS MARLON 2 111 664-0640 BADGETT 823 MAXWELL 29 896945 ' MITCHELL ROBERT 1 111 562-5155 WILSON 1812 RESERVOIR APT 292 30 155188 V{ CLAYBORN NATHAN 4409 W 25TH 2 111 661-9847 KING CARVER 21 GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT .a rt NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 890469 Z.,f LITTLES SHANNON 2 111 376-1414 ROCKEFELLER 908 HARRINGTON 32 162798 7 GOODWIN ADRIENNE 1 111 225-7012 WILSON 2023 DORCHESTER 33 166914 LG GILBERT SHARONA 2 111 BADGETT 46 KRISPEL PL 34 915856 27 GILLMORE CARLOS 2 111 MABELVALE 909 WELCH 35 896927 1 HOLEN CHRISTOPHER 1 111 568-0919 WILSON 4421 FOSTER 36 903682 2.g' SHAVERS SHUNDA 2 111 490-0398 BADGETT 4 ROSE MEADOW PL 37 167112 27 THOMPSON MARCUS 2 111 376-0245 BASELINE 45 KRISPEL 38 891824 )0 BREWER GEORGE 2 111 490-1228 BADGETT 2003 E 5TH ST 39 890346 31 WESLEY KEVIN 2 112 225-4854 GEYER SPGS 3223 SUMMIT 40 894651 3z. HENSON WINFRED 2 113 661-9326 FAIR PARK 3407 W 12TH 41 915869 3-S SMITH SHAQUITA 2 202 WESTERN HILLS 1306 LOUISANA 42 915798 , LAWRENCE ROBERT 1 204 661-0376 PULASKI HGTS E 7400 EVERGREEN 43 909846 fo TORRES HARRY 1 211 376-6527 BASELINE 2600 S STATE 44 915723 ft SIEGEL ROBERT 1 211 455-1131 MABELVALE 33 OLD ORCHARD DR SEQ -!/ STUDENT 1 164416 2 900170 3 157416 4 904805 5 911580 6 909639 7 167276 8 892492 9 10 162379 11 167700 12 899388 13 914902 14 15 166873 d--., I JI Tr CARVER :1 NAME AND ADDRESS \\.\n_). - 1 BORKINS NECOLE 1717 E 21ST 7 GIVENS ALONDRA ., 9719 TAMELA , NOLAN CRISHA _, 6200 ASHER APT 201 '-/ WHITFIELD TIMBUTA 1221 RESERVOIR ,- LAMB CARMEN - 9805 CAPELLA I BRUNSON KEVIN ~ 2115 S RICE 7 PERRY PHILLIP 3117 RINGO . WARREN IRA ! 9418 SOUTHBORO CT\nSTEGNER SARAH 0 FOTI FLETCHER 5018 COUNTRY CLUB 9 MORRISON RICHARD 1115 CALHOUN J DAVIS TAMMY 100 RICE APT 1 / .. BRADLEY SHEMEKA 7714 MOORE L\nBOYCE ANTHONY _\nHARRIS AUBREY 9 NEW HAVEN GRADE 04 RC CODE PHONE JI SCHOOL Tr 2 378-7800 MEADOWCIFF 2 562-6882 CLOVERDALE 2 565-6844 NOT ASSIGN 2 562-4313 MCDERMOTT 2 568-5451 NOT ASSIGN 2 372-3977 NOT ASSIGN 2 375-4502 ISH 2 565-1523 BASELINE 1 682-6292 NOT ASSIGN 1 666-1897 FOREST PARK 2 374-8623 CHICOT 1 375-1942 FAIR PARK 2 562-7170 CHICOT 1 565-48 17 NOT ASSIGN 1 224-7713 FAIR PARK CARVER 21 GRADE 04 SEQ~ STUDENT J.,I NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 899405 :' DEAN DANIEL 1 455-4412 MITCHELL 13 600 OTTER CREEK 17 156961 /, GAY NICHOLE 2 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KISPEL 18 163178 /.' DUNN BROOKE 2 562-2290 MEADOWCLIFF 7 LAMONT 19 914874 /:. BOYCE CECIL 2 SOUTHAVEN 2 565-4837 CLOVERDALE CT APT 4 20 156974 fa WILLIAMS ALBERT 2 375-4925 BADGETT  9 2 4 CALHOUN 21 896468 1::- LITTLES RUTHIE 2 376-7785 PULASKI HGTS E 3324 E 9TH 22 914164 /4 WILLIAMS JAMES 2 374-7299 DODD 2907 E 6TH 23 167110 1 , GAY TAMEIKA 2 372-4848 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PL 24 167129 !, BARNES CATINA 2 375-0812 CHICOT 711 CORNING 25 160910 I THOMAS LATEEFAH 2 MEADOWCLIFF '/ 8801 HERRICK LN 26 156962 ,., GAY TINA 2 374-7487 CHICOT ,, - 50 KRISPEL 27 161162 I BAREL AVIGAIL 1 224-0967 ROMINE 2 COLEEN CT 28 160021 ,') 1 HUGHES KHOMEINI 2 375-2631 MEADOW CLIFF 1219 WELCH 29 167090 ::\u0026gt;: PITTS SHILENEA 2 372-5703 CHICOT 38 HOLLINGSWORTH 30 164416 ~~BORKINS NECOLE 2 378-7800 MEADOWCLIFF 1717 E 21ST CARVER 21 GRADE 04 SEQ:\nSTUDENT ..I NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE JI ,r :r SCHOOL 31 161886 , 'BRADLEY TANESHA 1 104 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE 32 166669 7 BEACHBOARD JOHN T 1 111 224-5205 MCDERMOTT 15 COACHLIGHT 33 160611 .'-'Y ANDERSON KIMBERLY 2 111 664-7097 FRANKLIN 3216 ELAM 34 157609 -~':'.'OLIVER CALVIN 2 111 663-6540 FRANKLIN 4405 W 18TH 35 163177 /c PENDLETON DANIEL 1 111 562-2558 MEADOWCLIFF 44 SHERATON DR 36 898418 )_ BOYD KOKETA 2 111 562-4970 BASELINE 3801 ARAPAHO TR 37 160751 2? JACKSON TIFFANY 2 111 PULASKI HGTS E 4322 W 22ND 38 164448 ~r,, WILLIAMS QUINCY 2 111 664-3258 BADGETT 823 MAXWELL 39 165674 '.\u0026lt;-\n, LEWIS ANDRE 2 112 227-0471 ROMINE 2022 ROMINE RD 40 167084 .:.,c, SCOTT JAMES 2 112 375-3796 BADGETT 912 S BEDFORD 41 168323 --, , PASHA SHAMARI 2 112 374-5570 GIBBS 2009 E 9TH ST 42 908909 3.,, ROBINSON BILLY 2 112 MABELVALE 34 HATFIELD 43 911852 I\nKACHMAN WILLIAM 18 COACHLIGHT 1 112 824-3430 STEPHENS 44 899183 :s CRAIG KRISTI 2 112 562-3192 CLOVERDALE 9806 RAMONA 45 167177 _y JONES JENNIFER 2 112 664-5435 FOREST PARK 2012 S VAN BUREN CARVER 21 GRADE 04 SEO:! STUDENT jj NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE jj SCHOOL -r :r 46 910680 -:\n, WILFORD RACHEL ~ ~ 18 LAKESIDE DR 2 112 565-1979 WESTERN HILLS 47 913929 ,(. ALLEN CEDRIC 2 113 565-4165 CLOVERDALE 9817 JUNIPER 48 899388 I ) / DAVIS TAMMY 1 113 375-1942 FAIR PARK 100 RICE ST APT 1 49 915821 13 RAYBON JULIE 1 203 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRELL APT H2 50 909835 / :. TORRES LUIS 1 211 376-6527 BASELINE 1 2 600 STATE uJ.\n-\nT6 = I .ISL.A:')( - al......, SEQ:/ STUDENT 1 152908 2 891834 3 912850 4 904062 5 903952 6 911824 7 914531 8 9 914427 10 11 911731 12 900815 13 900748 14 902440 15 150976 CARVER 21 JI NAME AND ADDRESS -r I JONES KNELL 5716 VALLEY DR APT 1 .1 MCGAUGHEY TAMIKA 30 KRISPEL / VINSON ASHELY 11810 PLEASENT RIDGE 3 STEWART LAKETA 4305 W 22ND ST 2 SPICKES LISA 9 CURTIS CV 3 BROWN BRANDY 9201 KANIS APT 10 r MANUEL TIMOTHY 6711 HONEYSUCKLE S BRANCH JENNIFER C HARCOURT LEA 4710 SAM PECK APT 1189 7 MITCHUM JOHN y HOLT NATAUSHE 1812 RESERVOIR APT 138 ? HOLLEMAN MELISSA 8601 HERRICK APT 12 04 6 HILL NICHOLAS 8021 PRESTON MOORMAN MARCI 7 7709 CLAYBROOK c_. WARREN BYRON 4009 W 11TH GRADE 05 RC CODE PHONE JTTI SCHOOL 2 NOT ASSIGN 2 376-7716 CHICOT 1 224-8624 NOT ASSIGN 2 JEFFERSON 1 565-9137 ROCKERFELLER 1 221-3765 NOT ASSIGN 1 455-5008 DODD 1 776-0621 NOT ASSIGN 1 227-2000 NOT ASSIGN 1 568-1309 NOT ASSIGN 2 223-9818 NOT ASSIGN 1 565-9144 RIGHTS ELL 2 565-2762 MABELVALE 1 568-1792 CHICOT 2 374-4029 MCDERMOTT CA.R'lER 21 GRA.DE 05 S'.:'Q :: STUDENT - :N\n\u0026gt; '1E _\nND .\nDDR,:\n,SS RC CODE PHONE .:L SCHOOL 16\noE~OWN CATHERINE 1 661-5828 NOT ASSIGN 17 155757 7 .\nLBRIGHT 3010 HIGH DE'KOREY 2 101 372-0428 MABELVALE 18 156629 ,v FLOWERS JAMES 2 101 CHICOT 7 1_ o~ FOLSOM 19 156975 i WI:SLL\\MS NAKILLE 2 101 375-5169 CHICOT 35 HOLLINGSWORTH 20 153775 It RIN:C:Y TGTREA 2 101 224-3341 MCDERMOTT 2316 GUNPOWDER 21 902440 11 Y!OOR.vf.AN MARCI 1 101 568-1792 CHICOT 7709 CLAYBROOK 22 91-il66 ~ 3ER..qYHILL ERIC 2 101 375-4517 DODD 290, W 6TH ST 23 159932 1!__ .:l.CST:::::r BRIAN 2 101 790-0612 BADGETT 2 ROSE MEADOWS PL 24 161394 / j BC'LLOCK KERRIE 2 101 375-5943 DODD 2005 STATE 25 915582 /:,' ALLEN DEREK 2 101 666-7196 PULASKI HGTS E 2420 RIVERFRONT APT 166 26 911101 ,,s YOUNG SHANNON 2 101 376-4324 MABELVALE 2612 BISHOP 27 903515 ii:, RuTH CHRIS 2 102 568-0385 BASELINE 8223 SCOTT HAMILTON ElO 28 156968\n7 NELSON SHALONDA 2 102 372-3213 CHICOT 79 HOLLINGSWORTH 29 164200 I BCRK JAMES 1 102 224-0265 TERRY - ~10910 BRECKENRIDGE RD 30 160241 /.?PASHA ZA.RIFA 2 102 374-5570 HEADOWCLIFF 2009 E 6TH - I C.:\\RVER 21 GR:.\\DE 05 S\"::Q = STuDE~TT .J N~~1E .~\"TD ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE .J SC'.-IOOL 31 156352 . /'f MOORE TONY 2 102 371-9635 CHICOT 801 ~.PPERSON 32 167095 ~o TIDWELL DOMINIC 2 102 374-4091 .ABEL VALE 1708 IZARD APT 114 33 157365 2/ PI?PINS ERIC 2 102 372-0289 OTTER CREEK 1614 W 23RD 34 163190 :?2- GAINES MONICA 2 102 666-3797 MCDERMOTT 917 JEFFERSON 35 156861 73 ROUNDSVILLE LEVAR 2 102 375-6667 C'.-:ICOT 814 M.AXWELL 36 165325 _,.,, SMITH KEVAN 2 103 377-3613 DODD 916 w 16TH APT 305 -,~ ~ I 157339 JS AR}!STRONG ALEX-:\\ 2 103 375-2649 OTTER CREEK 22 J.O s SUMMIT 38 161473 ,?l. MOR.-qis JIMMY 2 103 224-2358 BALE 3124 ECHO VALLEY DR 39 913440 13 TRABAL LILLIAN 3 104 376-1004 STEPHENS 1221 1/2 w 33RD 40 157990 .n MCFADDEN BURGESS 2 111 227-0562 BADGETT 5 TALISMAN 41 159595 lJ HOOKS DOUGLAS 2 111 490-1228 BADGETT 2003 E 5TH 42 897855 2VALEXANDER TIMOTHY 2 111 568-1261 DODD 8105 SOPHIA DR 43 155765 ,Jo JACKSON JAMES 2 111 372-3290 FAIR PARK 2509 IZARD -.,.., 166391 /tf WALTER PHILIP 1 111 225-3320 ROCKEFELLER 12581 SOUTHRIDGE DR -\u0026lt;, :-:, 156969 J, PITTS REGINA 2 111 374-1506 WAKEFIELD 714 KIMBALL GRADE 05 S~Q :: STUDENT ..,..i N~~E AND ADDRESS RC CODE PEONE ..i SCEOOL 46 156871 J2WILLIA.:.~S TERRELL 2 111 375-9508 BADGETT 823 MAXWELL 47 916262 (~CA~DWELL NATHAN 1 111 666-7083 BALE 400 N UNIVERSITY APT 100 48 910662 !e, CP.SS JEDEDIAH 1 112 664-2031 BALE 6900 CANTRELL APT Gll 49 903988 ,,\nSTAMPS KHA.RI 2 112 565-0672 BASELINE 10 ROCCO DR 50 912659 r\nELDER JESSICA 1 112 664-7128 KING 2918 w 26TH 51 903475 ,t ROWE TAMARA 1 113 568-5346 CLOVERDALE 8309 KEATS DR 52 916683 /.- BOWDEN CULLEN 1 201 224-1245 MCDERMOTT 7 1608 STONEHENGE PL 53 916461 .\n:_,PICCOLO MARISSA 1 203 661-5806 PULASKI HGTS 4301 W MARKHAM SLOT 632 54 899794 )/FAULKNER RICHARD 1 203 224-3171 ROMINE 6 s SWEET BAY CT CARVER 21 GRADE 06 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 909599 /RICE MARK 2 225-9380 NOT ASSIGN 1223 JENNIFER 2 912843 1 SUTTON BEN 1 562-2698 MITCHELL 7712 BUNCH 3 892059 J COONEY MISCHA \"6311 BOYLE PARK 2 666-5353 TERRY 4 160441 J TOOMBS BRIAN 2 562-4853 CHICOT 3946 ARAPAHO TRAIL 5 902439 .).. MOORMAN JARED 1 568-1792 CHICOT 7709 CLAYBROOK 6 904733 3 WELLS EDWARD 1 568-0982 WAKEFIELD 5001 W 65TH 7 907364 'j WHITEHURST LESLIE 1 221-0203 JEFFERSON 27 LEDGELAWN 8 158238 s WILLIAMS LIBBY 1 224-4843 WILLIAMS 8214 REYMERE 9 153218 (, DEAN WILLIAM 1 455-4412 MITCHELL 13600 OTTER CREEK PKWY APT 140 10 152472 i/ GAY CORETTA 2 101 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PL 11 137441 ,5' MEANUS FREDDIE 2 101 376-1975 BASELINE 709 CORNING 12 902283 1 MILLER JENNIFER 1 101 565-8227 GEYER SPGS 6614 ONYX 13 900826 C, HOLLIS FAITH 2 102 327-8040 BASELINE 9500 SOUTH HEIGHTS APT 247 14 156895 11 TIDWELL CAROLS 2 102 374-4091 MABELVALE 1 1708 IZARD APT 114 15 157244 y ARMSTRONG KARLOSTENA 2 103 375-5135 OTTER CREEK 2210 S SUMMIT CARVER 21 GRADE 06 s:::Q # STUDENT .,!,L. NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 154933 ') BUTLER SHANDELYN 2 104 666-6147 FAIR PARK 2119 S HARRISON 17 909477 '( JACKSON STEPHANIE 1 104 223-3694 FRANKLIN 1004 FAWNWOOD RD 18 894348 10 JAJ1ES TONYA 2 104 223-9084 TERRY 9116 W 35TH ST 19 151477 II AARON PAMELA 2 111 375-4925 BADGETT 924 CALHOUN 20 893202 / .? SHEPHERD KENDRICK 2 111 376-7515 WAKEFIELD 1115 CALHOUN 21 161500 /' BLAIR CALVIN 2 111 228-9268 JEFFERSON J 1770 BARROW RD APT 102 22 159761 /\nt, DOZIER ROX ANN 2 111 664-9404 FULBRIGHT 2201 STYLER 23 901117 l JOHNSON BRANDY 1 112 BASELINE 5813 BASELINE RD APT 101 24 904866 1 - WILLIAMS ANDREA 2 112 562-0198 MABELVALE ~ 9531 WOODFORD DR APT B 25 154516 It. JONES TEMEKKA 2 112 568-1084 DODD 5609 OLD HICKORY RD 26 901543 /u LACY JERED 1 112 568-6751 WAKEFIELD 10 APPLE COVE 27 900079 I/ GARRETT DANIEL 1 112 565-3515 MABELVALE 9403 WOODFORD 28 899184 J,7 CRAIG MICHAEL 2 112 562-3192 CLOVERDALE ' 9806 RAMONA 29 158042 /J ISUM TENESHA 2 113 227-6012 TERRY I 1915 KIMBERLY JO 915551 /2. COOK CHARLA 1 201 225-9382 ROMINE I 8 WALNUT VALLEY I CARVER 21 GRADE 06 S~Q :: STUDENT .\nJ -r NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 915653 ,'~::. GRAY ALLISON 1 201 568-1397 CLOVERDALE 7315 AZALEA 32 917266 I'/ COFFEY JOLEE 1 202 227-0393 NOT ASSIGN 9519 LABETTE 33 915820 ),:- RAYBON JILL 1 203 664-3329 FOREST PARK  6900 CANTRELL APT H2 34 916879 ., LINDSEY LLEWELLYN ''-- 1 204 455-0300 ROMINE 13017 LEMONCREST LN 35 916983 /,7 WALTON MICHAEL 1 211 562-9401 FRANKLIN 4005 WEST DR 36 916723 /3 LOCKWOOD REBECCA 1 211 227-7952 JEFFERSON 8312 REYMERE /J.}\n-/ I TE = I /.j Lr, C-K.. = c:2.., SEQ# STUDENT 1 916038 2 915415 3 916032 4 917045 5 915785 6 915371 7 915422 8 915494 9 915342 10 915531 11 916628 12 916284 13 915656 14 915840 15 916468 .u TT GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 00 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL JACKSON JAY M 01 201 375-5748 ROCKEFELLER 2111 LOUISIANA ALLISON TYRONE J 02 201 375-6723 FAIR PARK 1600 SPARK BURRUSS MAMIE C 01 201 376-3676 FRANKLIN 1617 S BATTERY JONES ALANNA N 02 201 376-6501 NOT ASSIGN 35 IVES WALK LAMB THEODORE R 01 201 225-3863 ROMINE 9006 CLOVERHILL MAYWEATHER SHANNON 02 202 376-1461 CHICOT 505 FLETCHER ST JANS DAVID C 01 202 664-8345 PUL HGHTS E 8 AMARILLO CR BATES STEVEN L 02 202 666-3388 MABELVALE E 1702 WOODROW WARE ANNA D 01 202 227-7855 TERRY 11 PERDIDO CR ELGEN JOHNNY D 01 202 562-7667 GEYER SPRGS 4725 HOFFMAN #7 WILLIAMS DERRICK M 02 202 223-8321 WILSON 3013 VANCOUVER DR MCCLAIN LAUREN 02 203 CHICOT 7717 CLAYBROOK LANE KELVIN W 02 203 661-1615 MABELVALE E 2912 W 25TH ST HENRY LAUREN D 01 204 664-6762 BRADY 7502 CHOCTAW RD HENRY KEVIN L 02 204 372-2421 MEADOWCLIFF 1423 E 11TH ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 00 SEQ= STUDENT Jl NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1t 16 915300 SANDERS WILLIAM 01 204 227-6726 FULBRIGHT 7 CAPE COD COURT 17 907239 GRIFFEN AARON 01 204 562-3443 MABELVALE E 7221 SHADY GROVE LN 18 915868 JACKSON DESHAWN L 02 204 375-5230 DODD 2013 COMMERCE ST 19 915474 EASTER ELESHA J 02 211 372-1690 CENTRAL HIGH 2450 SPARK ST 20 916413 SURRATT KIRK C 02 211 374-6993 RIGHTS ELL 1610 CROSS 21 915279 ALDERFER GARRETT 01 211 661-9472 JEFFERSON 2816 CIRCLEWOOD RD 22 916286 HESSE JORDAN R 01 211 221-0800 TERRY 12611 TIMBER HILL DR 23 915937 MCDANIEL ASHLEY 02 211 666-7231 JEFFERSON 1809 PRINCETON 24 916101 TISDALE ERICA 02 211 664-0978 GEYER SPRGS E 1901 S VALENTINE 25 916093 MADYUN AHMAD S 02 211 372-3712 PUL HGHTS ELEM 1118 HIGH 26 916030 HONAKER MICHAEL B 01 211 666-7832 CENTRAL HIGH 311 SOUTH JOHNSON 27 916389 SYKES BRIAN A 02 211 372-2845 RIGHTS ELL 2001 MAIN #9 28 915496 GREENWOOD JEROME 02 211 374-4616 RIGHTS ELL 2401 W 13TH ST 29 916469 HENDERSON KELLI 02 211 663-5 9 69 BRADY 2123 SPINE ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 00 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 30 916505 BURTON COLBY L 02 211 374-0125 RIGHTS ELL 615 W 14TH ST 31 916510 FINN KRISTINA 02 211 375-8232 RIGHTS ELL 1715 PULASKI 32 916512 JONES MONTAYE 02 211 375-8232 RIGHTSELL 1715 PULASKI 33 916529 HENDERSON DEDRA L 02 211 666-6696 PUL HGHTS ELEM 3412 W 14TH ST 34 916541 KELLY MEGAN A 01 211 562-1627 DODD 8710 WINSTON DR 35 916542 CASTEEL LAURA M 01 211 568-6479 CLOVERDALE E 6609 AZALEA DR 36 916569 WILLIS MARQUIS 02 211 568-6268 FAIR PARK 4815 MABEL. PIKE #4B 37 916620 WOODS ERIC T 01 211 568-6642 MCCLELLEAN 8715 VERBENA 33 916638 BOYKINS LA'TORRIA 02 211 372-4823 RIGHTS ELL 1905 HIGH 39 916656 JONES KATHRYN H 01 211 3 7 4-09.18 ROCKEFELLER 1409 ARCH 40 916675 HAHN MEGHAN E 01 211 372-5963 RIGHTS ELL 209 W 14TH ST 41 916917 BEW ANTONIE 02 211 370-6427 CENTRAL 1812 BATTERY 42 916837 MAYFIELD BRENISHA 02 211 376-8016 CENTRAL 2201 WRIGHT AVE #D 43 916215 HOEY HEATHER M 01 212 664-7519 BOOKER 49 GLENMERE DR - 44 916052 ROBINSON LAURA 01 212 663-1038 PUL HGHTS ELEM 604 NORTH OAK - GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 00 SEQ= STUDENT \"JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE \"JI SCHOOL 45 916421 REID DUANE A 02 212 374-8363 RIGHTS ELL 2219 IZARD 46 915561 WHITE TAMBRA 02 212 664-7835 PUL HGHTS ELEM 4101 WO 21ST ST 47 916499 GOVAN CHRISTOPHER 02 212 224-3740 TERRY 1912 GREEN MN DR #212 48 915969 MCCARTHER TORASA G 01 213 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 4905 BALLINGER 49 915623 HARRISON HUNTER 01 213 663-5065 FOREST PARK 2115 N MCKINLEY 50 915347 CLAYTON BETH ANN 01 213 225-0756 MCDERMOTT 19 COACHLIGHT DR 51 915970 MCCARTHER LARRY 01 213 562-2130 WAKEFIELD 4905 BALLINGER 52 915829 GUESS JOSEPH 02 213 374-5887 RIGHTS ELL 2810 CROSS ST 53 917227 LANE RICKEA 02 374-5815 CLOVERDALE E 1919 E 38TH ST 54 917103 COLEMAN SARAH 02 371-4846 BASELINE 9200 RICKY LANE 55 915711 JOHNSON DANA 01 663-6604 FULBRIGHT 917 N BRYAN 56 916542 CASTEEL LAURA 01 568-6479 CLOVERDALE E 6609 AZALEA 57 917583 FRAZIER EBONY 02 374-2049 WOODRUFF 913 CORNING 58 917580 FORTENBERRY JANE 01 227-6019 BRADY 9 CAPE COD 59 916620 WOODS ERIC T 01 568-6642 MCCLELLEAN 8715 VERBENA  GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 00 SEQ = STUDENT : NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 60 917787 CARUTHERS JOHN 01 666-7092 PARKVIEW 12 BEVERLY PLACE 61 916417 KRULIN MICHAEL 01 227-8906 NOT ASSIGN 25 LONGLEA DR 62 916419 KRULIN JEFFREY 01 227-8906 NOT ASSIGN 25 LONGLEA DR 63 BENNETT JOEY 02 565-1409 NOT ASSIGN 664-5002 64 918523 CRAWFORD JOI 02 376-9812 NOT ASSIGN 2500 CHESTER 65 918639 BARGAR MEGAN 01 225-6264 FAIR PARK 7709 ILLINOIS 66 918634 MCAWAY LANESHIA 02 372-3401 CENTRAL 1215 CROSS uil-1 I Tl= = I ~ LA-C..K = ..2__ SEQ# STUDENT 1 910361 2 912028 3 907358 4 910096 5 907012 6 9103 02 7 907605 8 910035 9 896143 10 905603 11 915184 12 894527 13 913574 14 914036 15 916074 16 913508 # GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL TAYLOR TIRRA 02 376-1449 PUL HGHTS ELE:-1 1314 PARK HARRISON STEFANIE 01 664-2574 FAIR PARK 15 POINT O WOODS GOSS SARAH 01 664-5538 JEFFERSON 7 LOMBARDY LANE FIELDS JONATHAN 01 376-8044 PUL HGHTS ELEM 126 RIVERSIDE DR SCOGGINS ASHLEY 01 666-6462 PUL HGHTS ELE'! 115 S BROWN LEE KAMEELA 02 372-2630 BRADY 1821 MARSHALL WARE KEVIN 01 224-8083 ROMINE 20A LEHIGH CT DANSBY LATHAINE 02 565-6520 CLOVERDALE E 8419 BASELINE #14 RUMPH CYNTHIA 01 666-4857 FAIR PARK 3302 LAMAR ST #B HILL JEFFERY 01 225-3544 MCDERMOTT 8822 OLD SPANISH TRL JAMES JERMEY D 01 227-0359 BRADY 5 BRADFORD DR WALKER JASON 02 376-7042 MITCHELL 1615 CHESTER #306 TAYLOR JERRON 02 562-3080 WILLIAMS 8 ROSEMOOR DR PARKS NIGEL 02 375-0648 RIGHTS ELL 1222 PLEASANT FOREST DR SKINNER ROBERT 01 455-1671 NOT ASSIGN 46 CARROLL CR WALLACE WILLIAM G 02 101 663-2209 OTTER CREEK 3114 W 16TH ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT -ii 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 17 905333 EVERHART CALVIN 02 101 372-4054 DODD 1517 CENTER ST #4 18 911674 HUNTER MARCUS D 02 101 663-3438 JEFFERSON 1760 BARROW RD #114 19 910180 HARRIS BYRON 02 101 MCDERMOTT 1105 THAYER 20 895784 GROSS ROBERT L 02 101 666-8073 DODD 916 W 16TH BLDG 1 - 21 911262 BROWNLEE ADAM 02 101 376-8372 GEYER SPRGS E 1904 RICE ST 22 911827 ROBINSON THOMASINA 02 101 371-0271 MEADOWCLIFF 1404 E llTH ST 23 913162 RUSS ALKIA L 02 101 223-8285 TERRY I] 2124 LABETTE MANOR DR 24 913973 DAVIS SHARESE 02 101 490-0219 FAIR PARK 1712 HIGH ST 25 913182 CLAY DEWAYNE 02 101 375-8674 MCDERMOTT 1515 W 15TH ST 26 913155 ESKRIDGE RACHEAL 02 101 FAIR PARK 1617 S MAPLE 27 913813 MAXWELL ERIN 01 102 225-3676 ROMINE 1414 KINGS MOUNTAIN DR 28 909720 EDWARDS CHARLOTTE 01 102 224-9146 ROMINE 8 CATALINA COURT 29 910804 POWELL JAMIE 02 102 375-3116 MCDERMOTT 1515 BISHOP 30 909997 CALDWELL ASHLEY 01 102 224-3172 WILSON 2713 QUEBEC 31 915473 OSBORNE SIOBHAN 02 102 224-6807 TERRY 3314 DUKE COURT GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT -.,\". NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 32 913181 MAXWELL HEATHER 01 102 225-3676 ROMINE 1414 KINGS MOUNTAIN DR 33 913235 JACKSON DEANGLEA 02 103 666-6668 FOREST PARK 1804 S MARTIN 34 912946 GUESS BRANDON 02 103 374-5887 CHICOT 2810 CROSS 35 910657 FRANKS NATHAN 01 103 666-3522 FAIR PARK 5501 A ST #B 36 909962 BOYKIN KRISTOPHER 02 103 374-6530 FOREST PARK 2324 W 11TH ST 37 910318 JACKSON TANISHA 02 103 374-5570 CHICOT 2009 W 6TH ST 38 910382 HUGHES CHI RA 02 103 375-2631 MEADOWCLIFF 1219 WELCH 39 910775 WALKER KATRINA 02 103 374-0985 MEADOWCLIFF 1303 COLLEGE 40 910589 ASHLEY NELLIE 02 103 375-9828 MABELVALE E 1405 W 17TH ST 41 910191 JACOBS TAKAKO 02 104 374-9320 MABELVALE E 1712 BROADWON #3 42 909558 ARMSTRONG RANDALL 02 104 375-0564 OTTER CREEK 2210 SUMMIT 43 910209 JOHNSON CRYSTAL R 02 104 372-0388 MEADOWCLIFF 1419 COLLEGE 44 913344 MONROE CHRISTOPHER 02 104 378-7907 WAKEFIELD 1100 BOUNDLESS ST 45 907226 GOLLADAY JOSHUA G 01 111 224-5764 MCDERMOTT 910 GILLETTE DR 46 909858 TIMS SHARA 02 111 225-5223 FULBRIGHT 1412 W 14TH ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT .ti 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 47 907766 WAGE ROBERT 01 111 663-8185 JEFFERSON 206 MCMILLEN TRAIL 48 910412 KNOX KAREN R 02 111 565-7729 BRADY 11500 CHICOT #6 49 910236 JONES SHARORA 02 111 375-4261 BRADY 1801 DENNISON 50 910220 JOHNSON TRAVIS J 02 111 375-6703 BASELINE 1516 HIGH 51 907503 PALINSKI ABIGAIL 01 111 224-5293 FAIR PARK 10740 BAINBRIDGE 52 911954 HARDY YASMEEN 02 111 664-0905 FOREST PARK 3814 W 20TH ST 53 914845 KEARNEY JASON 01 111 663-5897 FRANKLIN 1309 S JACKSON ST 54 908273 MONTGOMERY DERRICK A 02 111 666-3588 FAIR PARK 1902 S HARRISON 55 907521 JAMES LAVARUS A 02 111 375-1354 RIGHTS ELL 1604 IZARD #209 56 912246 MARTIN DENNIS 02 111 376-7502 WOODRUFF 619 SOUTH OAKS 57 910848 STEWART LYNDSEY 02 111 455-0565 DODD 4711 N TIMBERLAND DR 58 910608 RUDLEY BOBBIE C 02 111 372-5580 BASELINE 8223 SCOTT HAMILTON =G-20 59 911480 WAYNE CHARLANDA 02 111 568-2912 BRADY 3804 WALKER 60 911124 WILLIS QUENTIN 02 111 664-n71 FAIR PARK 1503 BOOKER ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT .!I TT NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 61 910855 WILLIAMS ALVIN s 02 111 663-5969 BRADY 2123 SPINE ST 62 912974 SHELTON TOMARA 02 111 372-3882 BRADY 2021 W 10TH ST 63 913198 STEPHENS AMBER 02 111 666-4428 TERRY 2021 BROWN 64 911907 FREEMAN MALACHI 02 111 666-5269 FRANKLIN 4908 W 29TH ST 65 894297 BUTTS ANNA 01 111 BRADY 8100 LEAWOOD BLVD 66 915574 FRAZIER KELLY 02 112 374-9406 WAKEFIELD 709 APPERSON DR 67 907310 STEPPIG TALYN 01 112 227-5347 FAIR PARK 13717 RIVERCREST 68 907311 STEPPIG CHASE 01 112 227-5347 FAIR PARK 13717 RIVERCREST 69 909963 BRADY EMILY 01 112 562-2015 WESTERN HILLS 1 LAKESIDE DR 70 913327 WHITE STEPHANIE 02 112 568-4165 CLOVERDALE E 6817 JUNIPER RD 71 910765 THOMAS SHANA 02 112 375-7827 BRADY 2514 W 13TH ST 72 916738 WOODFIELD JESSIKA 01 112 663-8901 FAIR PARK 1413 S FAIR PARK BLVD 73 910637 MILLER MARY A 02 113 568-1076 MABELVALE E 10402 MILKWAY DR 74 907756 MURRAY MELISSA A 01 113 224-3546 FAIR PARK 11170 BAINBRIDGE DR 75 916338 COLLIE WILLIAM 01 201 224-8038 MCDERHOTT 8 FLINTWOOD GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT .u rt NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 76 916269 ELDRIDGE AMY 01 201 664-1662 FAIR PARK 419 BOBWHITE DR #120 77 916757 DAVIS SYLVIA A 02 201 372-6598 NOT ASSIGN 2123 IZARD 78 916765 ROBINSON MELCHISEDEC 02 201 374-2605 MABELVALE E 1615 CHESTER #109 79 916754 EVANS BRANDON 02 201 375-2577 FULBRIGHT 1600 W 23RD ST 80 917136 WILSON DANIEL A 01 201 562-6212 NOT ASSIGN 6 CAYLOR LANE 81 917008 NEWSOME WARDELL 02 201 375-6102 CHICOT 801 APPERSON 82 915610 ALESSI CHRISTINA 01 202 225-7362 ROMINE 3503 HAPPY VALLEY DR 83 915449 FOSTER LAQUSTA 02 202 562-4607 GEYER SPRGS E 57 ROSEMOORE DR 84 916766 OLIVER TIFFANY 02 202 376-3833 MABELVALE E 2518 OLIVER 85 916948 MITCHELL WILLIAM 02 203 372-3614 NOT ASSIGN 1322 W 19TH ST 86 916808 HILTON PETER 01 211 223-9513 ROMINE 3703 TUDOR 87 916950 HILL MARQUITA 02 211 375-4520 RIGHTS ELL 1306 HIGH ST #3 88 916955 ROBINSON MARCUS N 02 211 562-8739 CHICOT 11500 CHICOT RD #11 89 916066 MESKO EMILY 01 224-4566 NOT ASSIG'.1 1807 SHUMATE 90 916814 STRATFORD BRONSON 02 664-1953 BALE 5204 W 23RD ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 01 SEQ# STUDENT J,I. NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE ,. SCHOOL 91 907922 THOMAS ALTELEA 02 227-5253 ROMINE 2106 SCOTTY COURT 92 917379 LOVETT JACOB 01 565-9289 MEADOWCLIFF 43 S MEADOWCLIFF 93 912764 WEBB MICAH 03. 375-1850 ROCKEFELLER 238 E 27TH ST 94 912765 WEBB BIANCA 02 375-1850 ROCKEFELLER 238 E 27TH ST 95 908098 WEBB JUSTIN 01 565-8267 BALE 15 BELMONT 96 907032 EVERLY JEREMY 01 227-7528 ROMINE 12601 VALLEYWOOD DR -I -I W1+1 rE = I /3 L l\"r C /C... = .\ni__. SEQ# STUDENT J! rr 1 162608 2 896196 3 907328 4 909638 5 895035 6 893849 7 905526 8 890113 9 896748 10 893 613 11 893055 12 891587 13 894762 14 895199 15 896585 GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# ALLISON ROY B 02 376-0011 1600 SPARK THOMAS SHANA 02 375-9186 2 914 MARSHALL HOWARD LATOYA 02 2705 MARSHALL CAMPBELL JORDAN 02 372-3977 2115 RICE ST DOCKERY LOUIS 02 227-8193 9600 W 36TH ST COLE MISHAEL 02 372-8792 2110 RINGO SMITH JENNIFER 02 1920 CUMBERLAND #2 PHILLIPS JERMAINE 02 372-6978 1713 TULANE DAVIDSON MICHAEL 02 375-0093 1514 W 20TH ST BROWN KERISTAN 02 5620 SOUTHWICK HUNTER KOURTNEY 02 664-0278 7311 N ST BROWN JEROME 02 1803 WOLFE ALMAN LANEY 01 661-0558 41 SHERRILL HGHTS PARKER CHRISTOPHER 02 227-9956 9414 LABETTE DR FLOWERS DIONDRA 02 374-2759 1323 WRIGHT AVE SCHOOL FAIR PARK MEADOWCLIFF NOT ASSIGN NOT ASSIGN BRADY GEYER SPRGS E RIGHTSELL JEFFERSON GARLAND BASELINE JEFFERSON NOT ASSIGN FOREST PARK BOOKER MABELVALE E GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ= STUDENT .a NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE .a 1T 1T SCHOOL 16 167950 TAYLOR TERICA 02 PUL HGHTS E 1314 PARK ST 17 912289 CALDWELL KIMBERLY 02 374-7965 OTTER CREEK 1105 W 35TH ST 18 894644 RUTHERFORD MARTHA 01 663-9131 FOREST PARK 5604 HAWTHORNE 19 911562 THOMPSON MARANDA 01 562-4453 ROCKEFELLER 11 CURTIS COVE 20 896459 BLOCK TAMIKA 02 376-7205 MABELVALE E 2521 ARCH 21 894530 FOWLER KAWAN 02 375-9255 JEFFERSON 1314 W 15TH ST 22 897326 TURNER TINISHA 02 374-3604 PUL HGHTS E 3706 AMERICAN MANOR #1 23 897464 RICHMOND PETER 01 664-4612 FULBRIGHT 12721 PLEASANT FOREST DR 24 895911 LIPSCHITZ RILEY 01 666-3775 FOREST PARK 3420 HILL RD 25 907152 FARNAM JESSICA 01 225-1835 ROMINE 401 GAMBLE RD 26 894541 PRESLEY SHEMICA 02 101 661-0123 BALE 2001 SOAK 27 892203 EMBRY TEMEA 02 666-0506 BRADY 1217 ADAMS 28 894631 BROWN CORY L 01 101 225-9793 ROMINE 8922 FAIRHAVEN RD 29 894522 HUTCHISON PATSY A 02 101 374-8498 CHICOT 2709 S IZARD 30 909534 OXLEY BRANDON A 01 101 227-5023 ROMINE 16 POINT WEST CR 31 894517 WATSON ROBERT A 02 101 372-0943 DODD 1419 PULASKI ST 32 893278 SYKES BOBBY D 02 101 376-3945 MCDERMOTT 2520 BROADWAY GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ\n/ STUDENT -\" NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL \" 33 914876 BOYCE AARON 02 565-4832 CARVER 10210 STILLMAN 34 896404 ATKINSON SION 02 101 372-2162 CHICOT 3115 S IZARD 35 894542 HUNTER REBECCA 02 101 666-2492 DODD 1505 STATE #A 36 897260 BROOKS DAMIEN L 02 102 376-6667 MCDERMOTT 1302 WOLFE ST 37 893354 JOHNSON DAWON L 02 102 666-9203 FRANKLIN 1403 S VAN BUREN 38 892636 ENGRAM K',-iAN D 02 102 666-7748 BALE 1108 S HlIGHES 39 897420 FOGHT IDA P 01 102 371-0256 ROCKEFELLER 2022 CENTE 40 897298 POWELL DANIEL 02 102 375-3116 MCDERMOTT 1515 BISHOP 41 896460 PIGGEE CHERYLL 02 102 372-9320 MABELVALE E 1800 W 30TH ST 42 896625 YOUNG KELLY D 02 102 223-9084 TERRY 9116 W 35TH ST 43 894299 CROSS AKINA L 01 103 565-3909 BALE 7100 TAL'1AGE DR 44 894698 BURL WILLIAM M 02 103 664-4628 DODD 4106 W 25TH ST 45 893584 BRADLEY TERESA A 02 103 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE DR 46 896616 TOOMBS TRACIE R 02 103 376-6081 MABELVALE E 1900 RINGO 1 47 896835 HINES ADREIAN L 02 103 374-8624 CHICOT 629 CORNING GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT JI TT NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 48 894577 POINTER LANIS H 02 103 664-7956 BALE 1409 MAPLE 49 914875 BOYCE ANAIAH 02 103 565-4837 CLOVERDALE E 2 SOUTHAVEN CT #4 50 896352 GAY NEFERTAR N 02 103 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PLACE 51 897447 BIZZELL LATIFFANY 02 104 666-7816 FOREST PARK 3406 W 14TH ST 52 897309 BROWN JUSTIN 02 111 378-7816 MITCHELL 1707 CHESTER #115 53 908386 CRAIG ERIC F 02 111 666-7157 FOREST PARK 1418 S MARTIN 54 896597 JONES CEDERIC 02 111 376-2380 RIGHTS ELL 2017 GAINES UPPER 55 894410 HILL JASON W 02 111 374-1559 CARVER 1909 SCHILLER ST 56 895040 KING CHELLA K 02 111 372-4292 PUL HGHTS E 1614 W 20TH ST 57 892204 ESKRIDGE MARK 02 111 666-9167 WOODRUFF 1617 S MAPLE 58 897280 BLOCKER TONY J 02 111 374-6030 RIGHTSELL 1200 CROSS 59 894657 HAGUEWOOD RB 01 111 664-3478 FOREST PARK 5300 STONEWALL RD 60 907554 HAHN JOSHUA R 01 111 372-5963 RIGHTS ELL 209 W 14TH ST 61 898331 BLOCK REAGAN 01 111 224-7773 FRANKLIN 148 PEBBLE BEACH I 62 890498 GAINES CHANETRA 02 111 664-0881 FAIR PARK 1000 W JEFFERSON I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT Jj NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 63 897303 RICHARDSON TEMIKA 02 111 375-4477 MITCHELL 1500 CROSS 64 166993 HALE ALBERTA R 02 111 372-1262 JEFFERSON 1721 DENNISON 65 913050 ANDREWS FELICIA 02 111 BADGETT 2100 S RINGO 66 914844 KEARNEY JACKIE 01 111 663-5897 FRANKLIN 1309 S JACKSON 67 896598 JONES LADONYA 02 111 224-2813 RIGHTS ELL 11401 MESA DR #F345 68 894360 SCRIMA XANDER N 01 111 223-3130 OTTER CREEK 12316 SHAWNEE FOREST DR 69 894520 JOHNINSON MATTHEW 02 111 374-1064 FULBRIGHT 1915 MARYLAND ST 70 896028 BUTLER WHITNEY 01 111 225-2225 FRANKLIN 13510 BECKENHAM DR 71 916776 ELLIOTT CORNELIUS 02 111 562-1369 WATSON 43 WARREN DR #83 72 913518 HILL JAMARA K 02 111 661-0616 BRADY 2105 S MAPLE 73 910808 POWELL SCOTT 01 112 374-2923 FOREST PARK 315 N PARK 74 914007 WILSON RYAN C 02 112 GEYER SPRGS E 1710 WOLFE #2 75 897265 HALE KENNETH D 02 112 376-7364 RIGHTS ELL 1801 PULASKI 76 908162 NELSON BRANDI L 02 112 223-8722 TERRY 2105 SCOTTY CT 77 894331 TILLEY MARGARET 01 112 664-3349 BOOKER 301 KINGSROW #110 GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ: STUDENT .!I NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 78 911099 WYERS MARKE 01 112 374-3066 RIGHTS ELL 1614 CUMBERLAND 79 897167 MEMS ALLEN M 02 112 372-4553 ISH 1408 SCHILLER 80 909674 WARG TRISTAN 01 112 568-0735 MABELVALE E 8510 COULTER LAKE RD 81 896417 HARRIS MISTY L 02 112 374-8844 MABELVALE E 1503 WOLFE ST 82 890225 SURRATT STEPHAINE 02 112 372-1286 ROCKEFELLER 1205 GEYER 83 897324 BROWN ROCHELLE 02 113 375-4472 GEYER SPRGS E 1616 S IZARD #201 84 896777 CLAYTON SARAH 01 113 225-0756 MCDERMOTT 19 COACHLIGHT DR 85 908777 BALLARD GARY 02 113 490-2848 BADGETT 9 SHELBY CR 86 895207 TAYLOR CHRISTOPHER 02 113 771-1847 FOREST PARK 1923 W 16TH ST 87 907751 JACKSON JOHN 01 201 375-5748 ROCKEFELLER 2111 LOUISIANA 88 916686 BOWDEN MORGAN 01 203 224-1245 MCDERMOTT 1608 STONEHENGE PL 89 915822 RAYBON PAMELA A 01 204 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRELL #H2 90 894795 HALL BERNARD 01 211 225-3314 FOREST PARK 98 WHITE OAK LN 91 910268 KIMMER JILL M 01 213 227-4299 FULBRIGHT 2 CHATH~1 CT 92 916858 BRADSHAW MELISSA 01 213 565-4825 CHICOT 5804 VALLEY DR #2 GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 02 SEQ# STUDENT Jl NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 93 904461 TYSINGER AMY 01 455-4257 OTTER CREEK 18403 FAWNTREE 94 896516 FIELDS AMANDA 02 661-9090 STEPHENS 4620 W 28TH ST 95 896539 OTISI LILLIAN 02 GARLAND 4512 W 27TH ST 96 896538 OTISI BENJAMIN 02 GARLAND 4512 W 27TH ST 97 896326 WASHINGTON JANELLE 02 663-1675 BALE 1620 SPINE 98 912049 PARKER NATALIE L 02 376-9817 WAKEFIELD 916 W 16TH #201 99 907182 KRULIN KIMBERLY 01 227-8906 NOT ASSIGN 25 LONGLEA 895910 KELLER AARON 01 666-9227 FOREST PARK 5025 STONEWALL 894627 PEARSALL CATHERINE 01 666-5747 NOT ASSIGN 500 BECKWOOD II I l\nJ I-+ I T6 C: I /.3 LA C../c .::: a(_ SEQ# STUDENT 1 907433 2 164390 3 890340 4 890543 5 167324 6 891494 7 160617 8 160024 9 167715 10 163008 11 160660 12 890320 13 892480 14 907334 15 890344 # GIBBS MAGNET NAME AND ADDRESS RC FARR BRYAN 02 1212 BOOKER HARRIS ANTOINE 02 1808 MARSHALL TOOMBS MICHAEL 02 1900 RINGO DEDNER CYNTHIA 02 3314 HOLT WATSON WILLIE 02 1016 W 16TH ST PASHA KHALEELAH 02 2009 E 6TH ST COATES MIESHA 02 3002 W 14TH ST NEASLEY DOMINIQUE 02 3217 SUMMIT ANDERSON COURTNEY 02 2022 HOWARD JONES LATONYA 02 1515 BISHOP JONES LATORYA 02 1515 BISHOP PIGGEE RAYDIA 02 1406 STATE RUNYAN CARMEN 02 2312 SOAK HOWARD TAMMY 02 2705 MARSHALL WASHINGTON WILLIAM 02 910 BATTERY GRADE 03 CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 666-8762 NOT ASSIGN 378-0809 DODD 376-6081 GEYER SPRGS E 371-0199 TERRY 490-0529 MEADOWCLIFF 374-5570 DODD 664-1849 OTTER CREEK BALE 372-2840 MITCHELL 375-3116 MCDERMOTT 375-3116 MCDERMOTT 374-5350 DODD 664-4667 MCDERMOTT NOT ASSIGN 374-4179 ROMINE GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT .u Tt NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 16 895896 SMITH AARON 02 664-6145 JEFFERSON 7218 MST 17 165377 CRAVENS TIFFANY 02 224-8874 NOT ASSIGN 1801 RESERVIOR #123 18 896909 MAYHAN CYNTHIA 02 372-1032 NOT ASSIGN 621 WRIGHT AVE #3 19 907124 BAILEY SIOBBAN 02 TERRY 3804 W 5TH ST 20 167712 COLEMAN LUTHER 02 374-4930 GEYER SPRGS E 3117 S MAIN 21 892475 MOSLEY LAKEISHA 02 NOT ASSIGN 1405 W 14TH ST 22 890259 TURNER MIZZ 02 565-4513 CHICOT 17 DEE COURT 23 911243 BREWER ANTHONY 01 221-3842 CARVER 1714 JENNIFER 24 170306 TOOMBS STEPHEN 02 374-4139 DODD 1915 S WOLFE 25 SMITH STEVEN 02 371-1247 26 891889 GOSS JOHN 01 664-5538 JEFFERSON 7 LOMBARDY 27 903202 RAY CORA 01 562-4776 WATSON 7700 WOODHAVEN 28 893838 GRAHAM TOMEIKA 02 374-1106 BOOKER 916 W 16TH ST 29 909695 DEARBORN NATHAN 01 225-5162 MCDERMOTT 9008 LONGACRE 30 910659 CASS SHAWN 01 664-2031 MCDERMOTT 6900 CANTRELL #G-11 GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 I SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 162199 THOMAS JENNY 01 666-7139 FAIR PARK 213 ENGLEWOOD 32 907016 CRADDOCK ALLISON 01 224-3463 CARVER 2910 CHARTER OAK 33 890488 ADAMS CHRISTOPHER 01 664-0877 FAIR PARK 624 N TYLER 34 915723 SIEGEL BRANDON 01 455-1131 MABELVALE E 33 OLD ORCHARD 35 164786 BROWN VIRGIL 01 101 225-9793 ROMINE 8922 FAIRHAVEN RD I 36 168179 JONES CRYSTALS 02 101 664-6059 JEFFERSON 4705 W 16TH ST 37 166104 HARRIS DAMION L 01 101 666-6668 PULASKI HGTS E 1804 S MARTIN 38 890240 THOMAS BYRANT D 02 101 374-9531 MABELVALE E PO BOX 6044 39 898211 BENNETT ASHLEY 02 102 568-0702 CLOVERDALE E 5504 DREHER LN 40 168123 MARSHALL KAVIN 02 102 664-6871 MCDERMOTT 1404 S VAN BUREN 41 893850 ALLEN WALLACE 02 102 663-0408 PULASKI HGTS E 2504 STYLER 42 891639 MCCOY LYDIA 02 102 374-4272 PULASKI HGTS E 2417 MARSHALL 43 890152 HUGHES BRANDON 02 102 WILSON 2319 W 12TH ST 44 892999 HUDSON ALBERT 02 102 664-5852 DODD 4116 W 22ND ST I I I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 I SEQ# STUDENT Ji NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T I 45 891492 MAYWEATHER BRIDGETTE 02 102 376-1461 CHICOT 505 FLETCHER 46 890455 GAY KEONA M 02 103 374-7487 CHICOT I 50 KIRSPEL 47 163006 WHEELER DAMON 02 103 375-2739 PULASKI HGTS E 1410 S MARSHALL I 48 890223 WALKER ANIKA D 02 103 374-0985 MEADOWCLIFF 1303 COLLEGE II 50 896850 PALMER ASHLEY 01 103 224-4494 ROMINE 32 OLD FORGE CT 51 893579 BRADLEY TRAMAYNE 02 103 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE DR 52 890465 KELLEY MAURICE 02 103 372-3724 CHICOT II 36 E KIRSPEL 53 170299 SHARP SAMATHA 02 103 375-8978 OTTER CREEK 1854 SUMMIT II 54 911100 YOUNG PAUL J 02 103 376-4324 MABELVALE E 2612 BISHOP ST - 55 164599 PARKER KIANA 02 104 OTTER CREEK 3101 CENTER ST - 56 890376 JOHNSON CALVIN 02 104 568-0366 DODD 5611 OLD HICKORY RD 57 890502 HARVEY CYNARA 02 111 664-0881 FAIR PARK II 1000 JEFFERSON ST 58 893854 NELSON BRYANT D 02 111 376-2874 TERRY II 1812 W 14TH ST 59 891925 SHELLS MICHELLE 02 111 661-9363 OAK GROVE E 2421 S OAK I 60 89312 MADYUN AADIL 02 111 666-8363 MEADOW CLIFF 5112 W 30TH ST II I II I I II GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 I SEQ# STUDENT .jj rr NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I 61 912908 DIEMER KAREN 01 111 224-7442 ROMINE 4023 S SHACKLEFORD #148 62 890124 MACK ROGER 02 111 375-4261 BRADY II 1801 DENNISON 63 162200 VINES CHAVONNE 02 111 663-4520 JEFFERSON 7203 INDIANA II 64 890961 GARRISON TERRENCE 02 111 374-2901 MEADOWCLIFF 1322 ROCK #A II 65 900762 HILTON ABIGAIL 01 111 455-4555 ROMINE 3703 TUDOR II 66 890281 DAWSON MUNIR 02 111 374-2868 GEYER SPRGS E 2623 STATE 67 890324 KENNEDY JOSHUA 01 111 225-9785 FOREST PARK II 8801 LONGACRE 68 167279 SCOTT LATRINA 02 111 374-0656 MABELVALE E II 35 WHITMORE CR 69 890547 LANIGAN LEROY 02 111 568-8173 CHICOT 11500 CHICOT RD #103 II 70 890109 MONTGOMERY STEVEN 02 111 666-3588 FAIR PARK 1902 S HARRISON II 71 890541 SETTLES SHAUNA L 02 111 376-2034 MITCHELL 1804 S CROSS II 72 894651 HENSON WINFRED w 02 112 661-9236 FAIR PARK 3407 W 12TH ST 73 890533 GUPTON YASHIKA 02 112 374-9399 MITCHELL II 1220 RINGO 74 159818 GRANT HORACE B 02 112 661-9637 BALE 4805 W 29TH ST II 75 913494 FORD DERAN M 02 112 565-2939 CLOVERDALE E 42 S WAKEFIELD DR -Ill I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 SEQ# STUDENT JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 76 896945 MITCHELL ROBERT 01 112 562-5155 WILSON 1812 RESERVOIR RD #292 77 890308 FLEMING ELIZABETH A 01 112 661-1758 FOREST PARK 5405 SHERWOOD 78 891811 MITCHELL TRENA 02 113 376-2563 BRADY 1913 BRAGG ST 79 915856 GILLMORE CARLOS 02 113 MABELVALE E 909 WELCH 80 907527 COLEMAN MEREDETH 02 201 663-9604 WILSON 3005 ASHER 81 910366 LUISTRO JAIME R 04 201 664-6077 BALE 118 BROADMOOR DR 82 915461 FREDERICK KELLY 01 203 224-0159 NOT ASSIGN 38 INVERNESS 83 915869 SMITH SHAQUITA 02 203 WESTERN HILLS 1306 LOUISIANA 84 893545 VICKERS STEPHEN 01 211 225-1143 FOREST PARK ~ 8100 CANTRELL #1001 85 916875 THURMAN TODD 01 212 FULBRIGHT 1875 A CLICK PL ~ 86 915871 D'AREZZO JAMES 01 213 224-9208 FULBRIGHT 3119 ECHO VALLEY DR - 87 170294 MOSS NATRASHA 02 663-7969 MABELVALE E 2719 CROSS 88 899941 FORTENBERRY ANNA 01 227-6019 BRADY I 9 CAPE COD 89 898324 BLAYLOCK JEREMY 01 225-4693 FULBRIGHT Ill 1 CORAL 90 896926 BROWN CARRIE 01 565-6852 WESTERN HILLS 4908 WESTWOOD II II I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 03 SEQ # STUDENT .!L TT NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE # SCHOOL 91 916298 WILSON JEREMY 01 224-0810 MCDERMOTT 11433 BAINBRIDGE DR 92 916135 STEWART CATHERINE 01 664-2173 FOREST PARK 1220 N GARFIELD 93 899756 EVERLY ASHLEY 01 227-7528 ROMINE 12601 VALLEYWOOD DR 94 918636 USSERY GREGORY 02 375-7022 MEADOWCLIFF 3601 W 29TH ST VJ /-I I r-E -= I /3 '-~ C-,C .:: oL SEQ# STUDENT 1 909639 2 896502 3 891461 4 163906 5 162962 6 160612 7 892489 8 904805 9 909696 10 155766 11 160759 12 153744 13 901321 14 907103 15 162344 .II TT GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL BRUNSON KEVIN 02 372-3977 NOT ASSIGN 2115 S RICE SYKES RESHENA 02 375-9301 NOT ASSIGN 3316 SPRING LAWSON MARRECA 02 565-3976 OTTER CREEK 9115 MANN RD #1 CLAY KESHA 02 374-5618 RIGHTS ELL 1860 RINGO JONES MARKESHA 02 376-3806 WAKEFIELD 2810 SUMMIT BOGARD SHERNETTA 02 661-1832 GEYER SPRGS E 2715 MARSHALL MABRIE BRETT 02 666-9005 NOT ASSIGN 1015 W 15TH ST WHITFIELD TIMBUTA 02 562-4313 MCDERMOTT 1221 RESERVOIR DEARBORN WESLEY 01 225-5162 NOT ASSIGN 9008 LONGACRE JACKSON JOHNNY 02 374-4721 DODD 1402 W 13TH ST COOPER LEE 02 565-0233 WILSON 8224 W 41ST ST KIMBLE CARDALIA 02 663-3281 FULBRIGHT 3108 W 14TH ST JONES SHANNON 02 568-8054 OTTER CREEK 9313 TIMBER VALLEY #9 WARD INAS 02 375-0433 MITCHELL 2301 BATTERY NAGEL ALLISON 01 666-0060 FOREST PARK 5411 CENTERWOOD I II SEQ# 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STUDENT .u 1t 911956 162087 913610 908335 162379 157412 161047 166873 904848 159699 159802 161025 GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# GOMEZ GAIDA 01 227-4389 ROTHBERG SHIRA 01 2700 N GRANT SULLENGER ROBERT 01 224-3248 7620 W HARMON LAMBERT CAROLYN 01 758-7240 223-2618 ROSS SAMUEL 01 664-8225 2185 VALENTINE WILLIAMS AHMUN 02 101 224-5763 2123 LABETTE MANOR DR FOTI FLETCHER 01 666-1897 5018 COUNTRY CLUB BLVD JONES JOY 02 378-0842 2220 W 2ND ST DEAN DANIEL 01 663-3531 218 BEECHWOOD BOYCE ANTHONY 01 565-4837 HARRIS AUBREY 01 224-7713 9 NEW HAVEN CT WILKERSON REBECCA 02 101 568-4051 8804 HERRICK LN EVERHART MICHAEL 02 101 372-4054 1517 CENTER #4 JONES LAVENIA 02 101 376-2380 2017 GAINES HEDRICK JOSEPH 01 101 371-9871 2109 LLOYD SCHOOL NOT ASSIGN FOREST PARK (W) (H) PULASKI HGTS E MCDERMOTT FOREST PARK GEYER SPRGS E NOT ASSIGN FRANKLIN DODD DODD MABELVALE E WOODRUFF GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT Jl NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE Jl TT TT SCHOOL 31 167519 GILLESPIE BYRON 02 101 JEFFERSON 2319 W 18TH ST 32 155803 PICKETT HENRY 02 101 372-2162 CHICOT 3115 S IZARD 33 166943 TURNER ROTRENNIA 02 102 225-2391 DODD 1310 BATTERY #2 34 156961 GAY NICHOLE 02 103 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL 35 163178 DUNN BROOKE 02 103 562-2290 MEADOWCLIFF 7 LAMONT 36 914874 BOYCE CECIL 02 103 565-4837 CLOVERDALE E 2 SOUTHAVEN CT 37 160027 GREENWOOD TAMARA G 02 103 372-2686 DODD 1901 BATTERY ST 38 157400 SHARP AMBER 02 103 375-8978 OTTER CREEK 1854 SUMMIT 39 153992 SHAVIS BRODERICK 02 103 375-4342 ROCKEFELLER 1315 COLLEGE 40 915289 DAVIS TAMEKA 02 103 562-9402 WAKEFIELD 6119 BUTLER RD #Dl3 41 160021 HUGHES KHOMEINI 02 103 375-2631 MEADOWCLIFF 1219 WELCH 42 167110 GAY TAMEIKA 02 103 372-4848 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PL 43 153397 HARRIS JANICE 02 103 663-2954 MCDERMOTT 116 SOUTH MONROE 44 161019 GRAY SALONICA 02 103 663-9672 PULASKI HGTS E 3918 W 11TH ST 45 163886 BRADLEY TANESHA 02 103 MCDERMOTT 108 MONROE DR GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT .u NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 46 156962 GAY TINA S 02 103 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL 47 914902 BRADLEY SHEMEKA 02 103 562-7170 CHICOT 7714 MOORE RD 48 167113 POINTER CRYSTELL 02 104 664-4410 BALE 1409 MAPLE 49 163885 NEWSOME MARQUETTA 02 104 663-3554 OTTER CREEK 2014 S SCHILLER 50 161390 HONORABLE DAVID 02 111 374-8003 JEFFERSON 1619 WOLFE 51 902723 OJUKWU GABRIEL 02 111 562-1365 OTTER CREEK 8223 SCOTT HAMILTON #B21 52 913614 YOUNG LAKESHA 02 111 372-4055 FRANKLIN 2703 WOLFE 53 161636 ROYSTER CHRIS 02 111 374-4676 FULBRIGHT 900 W 16TH ST 54 898332 BLOCK RYAN 01 111 224-7773 FRANKLIN 148 PEBBLE BEACH 55 167534 YOUNG CHRISTOPHER 02 111 666-4715 MCDERMOTT 5016 W 11TH ST 56 894817 FIELDS LAURA 01 111 376-8044 PULASKI HGTS E 126 RIVERSIDE DR 57 164137 WAGNER JENNIFER 01 111 227-7805 FRANKLIN 1517 JENNEFER 58 908909 ROBINSON BILLY 02 111 372-7863 MABELVALE E 34 HATFIELD 59 162053 HILL BRANDON 01 111 225-3544 MCDERMOTT 8822 OLD SPANISH TRAIL 60 892027 SHINE LATOYA 02 111 565-1404 TERRY 8223 W 40TH ST GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT .u NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 61 157417 KING TIFFANY 02 111 372-4292 PULASKI HGTS E 1614 W 20TH ST 62 153745 BAKER KENNEDY 02 111 376-2801 MEADOWCLIFF 2805 S RINGO 63 902724 OJUKWU MAGNUS 02 111 562-1365 OTTER CREEK 8223 SCOTT HAMILTON B21 64 164518 GUY CHADWICK 02 111 661-1202 JEFFERSON 2412 W 18TH ST 65 161637 ROYSTER KRYSTAL 02 111 374-4676 FULBRIGHT 900 W 16TH ST 66 892303 FLANIGAN TAMEKA 02 111 374-8130 BASELINE 1603 CHESTER #215 67 166669 BEACHBOARD JOHN T 01 112 224-5205 MCDERMOTT 15 COACHLIGHT 68 913929 ALLEN CEDRIC 02 112 565-4165 CLOVERDALE E 9817 JUNIPER 69 160567 WASHINGTON TERRICK 02 112 664-5047 JEFFERSON 74 MONROE DR #108 70 915948 LAWHON LESLIE 01 112 758-4447 MEADOWCLIFF 7319 DENISE DR 71 157406 PORTER QIANA 02 113 562-4938 DODD 3 RIATA 72 165807 LAVENDER LILAC 01 113 374-2811 FRANKLIN 223 RICE 73 167290 SMITH KANGLEITA 02 113 375-4703 BAKER 3023 MARSHALL 74 916338 COLLIE WILLIAM 01 201 MCDERMOTT 8 FLINTWOOD 75 910363 LUISTRO AARON 04 201 664-6077 BALE 118 BROADMOOR DR GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 04 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 76 915821 RAYBON JULIE 01 204 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRE #H2 77 915659 MCALISTER LOUISE 01 211 663-5526 JEFFERSON 2214 DURWOOD 78 916690 VICKERS MATTHEW 01 211 225-1143 FOREST PARK I 8100 CANTRELL #1001 79 916063 MESKO BRIAN 01 224-4566 FOREST PARK 1807 SHUMATE 80 159213 THOMSEN MARK 01 225-8648 MCDERMOTT 2115 BRECKENRIDGE 81 905170 ZINAMON MICHAEL 02 562-9381 CLOVERDALE E 7511 AZALEA I 82 902205 MCPHERSON MARK 01 455-0898 OTTER CREEK 242 SILVERMAPLE 83 164355 MOSS JEFFERY 02 374-1784 MABELVALE E I 2719 CROSS 84 165734 NELSON COREY 02 224-0164 FOREST PARK 2917 DOREST DR I 85 917548 WEST SHANA L 01 374-3304 WOODRUFF 105 DENNISON 86 911956 ROTHBERG SHIRA 01 NOT ASSIGN 2700 N GRANT I 87 165740 DAVIS KASI R 02 224-9437 TERRY 9600 W 36TH ST #504 88 892407 AKKAD NADA 06 565-2373 WESTERN HILLS I 6603 ASHER #25 Ill II II II GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 I SEQ# STUDENT Jl 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 167673 BELL MARTISHA 02 374-9140 NOT ASSIGN 1517 W 17TH ST 2 158393 WENGER AARON 01 227-5381 JEFFERSON I 18 HAYFIELD 3 910320 JONES KHALED 02 NOT ASSIGN 13700 EDGEMOND 4 910662 CASS JEDDIAH 01 664-2031 BALE 6900 CANTRELL #Gll I 5 912850 VINSON ASHLEY 01 224-8624 NOT ASSIGN 11810 PLEASANT RIDGE #1402 I 6 903952 SPICKES LISA 01 565-9137 ROCKEFELLER 9 CURTIS COVE I 7 911824 BROWN BRANDY 01 221-3765 NOT ASSIGN 9201 KANIS #1-D 8 913686 CRAN KATHERINE 01 664-8387 PULASKI HGTS E I 6505 CANTRELL 9 150976 WARREN BYRON 02 374-4029 MCDERMOTT 4322 W 28TH ST Ill 10 892900 MURPHY SAM 01 371-0720 WILLIAMS 1912 S CENTER - 11 161281 WARREN ROSE 02 101 661-0581 PULASKI HGTS E 3712 MARYLAND Ill 12 165325 SMITH KEVAN 02 101 377-3613 DODD 916 W 16TH ST #305 13 159918 DUNLAP ANTHONY 02 101 JEFFERSON II 2319 W 18TH ST 14 161477 STEWART TARYN 02 101 225-6033 FULBRIGHT Ill 11220 BAINBRIDGE DR 15 915183 HAYES SONDRA 02 101 376-4404 FAIR PARK 1710 BISHOP I I I I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 I SEQ# STUDENT JI 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I 16 894843 FINNEY LAMONICA 02 101 663-3438 JEFFERSON 1760 BARROW RD #114 17 164592 BENTON KEANNA 02 101 372-2076 CHICOT I 2923 STATE 18 916224 MILTON ELIZABETH 01 101 227-4100 JEFFERSON I 123 VALLEY CLUB CR 19 155757 ALBRIGHT DE ' KOREY 02 102 372-0428 MABELVALE E 3010 HIGH ST I 20 153931 EVERHART RONALD 02 102 376-1550 MABELVALE E 221 E 28TH ST Ill 21 898224 BENNETT SHAUN 02 102 568-0702 CLOVERDALE E 5504 DREHER Ill 22 159708 MITCHELL KEDRIN 02 102 DODD 1406 STATE #1 23 155741 SHEPHERD RICARDO 02 102 BRADY II 2217 HARRISON 24 151944 TURNER LATESHA 02 102 225-2391 DODD 1310 BATTERY #2 II 25 901123 JOHNSON CAITLIN 01 102 376-3021 FULBRIGHT 5 FOREST MAPLE CT - 26 913126 BEASLEY CHRISTOPHER 02 102 375-6199 FAIR PARK 1803 BATTERY - 27 161712 STAGGERS ANDREA 02 103 666-7782 DODD 2600 SOAK 28 164200 BURK JAMES 01 103 224-0265 TERRY II 10910 BRECKENRIDGE DR 29 163127 BURL SHANDRAIL 02 103 490-0484 DODD I 4106 W 25TH ST 30 160942 YOUNG CASEY L 01 103 562-8954 WOODRUFF 25 GLENDALE II -- GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT .u NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL TT 31 160241 PASHA ZARIFA 02 103 374-5570 MEADOWCLIFF 2009 E 6TH ST 32 162865 FLOOD CHOCA 02 103 374-4510 DODD 1316 W 13TH ST 33 163190 GAINES MONICA 02 103 666-3797 MCDERMOTT 917 JEFFERSON 34 911101 YOUNG SHANNON 02 103 376-4324 MABELVALE E 2612 BISHOP 35 157339 ARMSTRONG ALEXA 02 104 375-2649 OTTER CREEK 2210 SUMMIT 36 157335 SPENCER ELETA 02 104 374-1170 BALE 2014 S SCHILLER 37 162256 TWYFORD MATTHEW 01 111 661-1945 FOREST PARK 1905 N TYLER 38 155722 WALLS SALYNTHIA 02 111 664-8698 FULBRIGHT 3420 W 10TH ST 39 896388 COLLINS JAMIE 02 111 DODD 417 E 17TH ST 40 155644 WIMBERLY ERICA 02 111 375-4625 CHICOT 3601 HIGH 41 157421 BAKER ANTIONIO 02 111 376-2801 FAIR PARK 2805 RINGO 42 156397 BROOKS ANTONIO 02 111 376-9445 FULBRIGHT 1415 S SCHILLER 43 891044 EGGERS SALLY 01 111 225-6758 FRANKLIN 1801 JENNIFER 44 160944 BEASLEY TREMAYNE 02 111 664-6276 BRADY 2106 S VALMAR 45 153395 DAVIS JAN 02 111 663-8974 BRADY 1318 S PIERCE GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT J.I TT NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 46 896561 JAMES GREGORY 02 111 375-1354 RIGHTS ELL 1604 IZARD #209 47 910702 MOUGEOT JESSICA 01 111 666-6635 FOREST PARK 14 ARROW RIDGE CT 48 158472 TIMS MARIO 02 111 225-5223 FULBRIGHT 1412 W 14TH ST 49 158388 LOVELACE TERRY 02 111 374-4044 MABELVALE E 23 WHITMORE 50 161038 LAWSON MIA 02 111 661-9363 OAK GROVE 2421 SOAK 51 161374 SANDERS NATOSHA 02 111 372-2501 PULASKI HGTS E 924 RICE 52 891880 SETTLES JEFFERY 02 111 376-2034 MITCHELL 1804 CROSS #A 53 893272 LYONS ANTHONY 02 111 372-3304 PULASKI HGTS E 615 W 13TH ST 54 159532 BROWN MELISSA 01 111 225-9793 WILLIAMS 8922 FAIRHAVEN RD 55 166885 DAWSON JALAL 02 111 376-4425 GEYER SPRGS E 2623 STATE 56 151384 HEDRICK JASON 01 111 371-9871 FAIR PARK 2109 LLOYD CT 57 157347 TOOMBS PHILLIP 02 112 374-4441 BOOKER 2201 HOWARD 58 903475 ROWE TAMARA 01 112 568-5346 CLOVERDALE E 8309 KEATS DR 59 158462 PALMER LAMONT 02 112 661-1274 BOOKER 2705 S FILLMORE 60 160666 PLANT DANNETTE 02 112 225-6596 MABELVALE E 1319 JR DEPUTY RD Ill I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 SEQ# STUDENT JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL lt 61 162285 VILLINES MEREDITH 01 112 664-8434 PULASKI HGTS E 38 SHERRILL HEIGHTS 62 166721 ODEM JACK 02 112 374-8844 MABELVALE E 1503 WOLFE 63 903988 STAMPS KHARI N 02 113 565-0672 BASELINE 10 ROCCO DR 64 897855 ALEXANDER TIMOTHY 01 113 568-1261 DODD 8105 SOPHIA DR 65 159560 MITCHELL TRISA 02 113 376-2563 BRADY 1913 BRAGG 66 158204 RANDOLPH WILLIAM 02 113 227-5398 MCDERMOTT 1601 GLENDA DR 67 898061 BALLARD LAURA 02 113 490-2848 BADGETT 9 SHELBY CR 68 915187 RIGBY KELLY A 02 113 758-1977 TERRY 1012 N OAKS LN 69 162252 MILLER MATHEW M 01 201 664-9220 FAIR PARK 2512 N TAYLOR 70 916161 BLACK ANDREW 01 203 568-2401 FRANKLIN 18 BERKSHIRE 71 916683 BOWDEN CULLEN 01 203 224-1245 MCDERMOTT 1608 STONEHENGE 72 916461 PICCOLO MARISSA 01 204 661-5806 PULASKI HGTS E 4301 W MARKHAM SLOT #632 73 899794 FAULKNER RICHARD 01 204 224-3171 ROMINE 6 SOUTH SWEET BAY COURT 74 162276 NIPPER ABIGAIL 01 211 664-4912 FOREST PARK 1906 N TYLER 75 901777 LONG FELICIA 02 490-0352 SHERWOOD 6 LONGSTREET DR GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 05 I SEQ# STUDENT .u 1T NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL I 76 160290 KING ALGIE 02 374-3568 PULASKI HGTS E 2111 BRAGG I 77 918119 CRAIG RANDALL 01 664-2480 FAIR PARK 2505 KAVANAUGH 78 153779 USSERY MICHEAL 02 375-7022 MEADOWCLIFF 3601 W 29TH ST W\n--1/re-- = I I 4 \u0026lt;-/I C..../c. = ,2__, - GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 06 -SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 157237 MARBLEY DAMON 02 376-2130 OTTER CREEK 1909 S BATTERY 2 151943 STRAW TAMELA 02 375-0533 NOT ASSIGN 1423 WOLFE 3 156743 MARTINDALE REGINALD 02 374-7229 NOT ASSIGN 1419 S RINGO 4 154370 KELLEY TORREY 02 374-3866 WAKEFIELD 2010 MARSHALL 5 150906 JONES CHARLES 02 NOT ASSIGN 2914 ARCH 6 158075 WILLIAMS DAWN 02 227-5891 ROMINE 10008 SUFFOLK 7 912248 BRANT MELISSA 01 568-3192 WAKEFIELD 10114 PROSPECT LP 8 160411 TOOMBS BRIAN 02 562-4853 BALE 3946 ARAPHO TRAIL 9 901333 JONES VICTORIA 02 568-8054 OTTER CREEK 9313 TIMBER VALLEY DR #197 10 913075 BARKINS NATASHA 02 568-6164 WATSON 3930 WOOD DALE DR 11 150100 FALLICA KELLY 01 568-6016 GEYER SPRGS E 9 WOODSON CT #A 12 892058 BULTER BROOKE 01 225-2225 FRANKLIN 13510 BECKENHAM DR 13 896245 WILSON BRYAN 02 664-4107 BALE 1620 SPINE 14 151816 MCCOY ANTHONY 02 375-4871 FULBRIGHT 1720 BISHOP 15 151815 JONES ROY 02 372-6243 FULBRIGHT 1409 WOLFE I - GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 06 I SEQ# STUDENT -\" NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL Tt II 16 156395 BLUE CEDRIC 02 375-6931 MITCHELL 2422 MARSHALL I 17 157452 HARP JENNIFER 01 225-9396 FULBRIGHT 13501 POMPANO DR 18 158059 PEYTON CHANDRA 02 224-7754 WILSON 3303 DOREST 19 904733 WELLS EDWARD 01 568-0982 WAKEFIELD 5001 W 65TH ST #102E 20 158073 WASHINGTON CHARITA 02 224-2643 ROMINE 3001 LENNOX 21 914393 SADOWSKI JENNIFER 01 223-8001 FULBRIGHT 11520 SOUTHRIDGE 22 ROBERTS SARAH 982-9194 666-8686 23 914954 DAVIS CHERYLN 01 455-1506 RIGHTS ELL 1180 VINY RIDGE 24 158238 WILLIAMS LIBBY 01 224-4843 JEFFERSON 8 214 REYMERE 25 153218 DEAN WILLIAM 01 455-4412 NOT ASSIGN 13600 OTTER CREEK #140 26 141490 WATKINS ROSHONDA 02 101 372-7500 OTTER CREEK 2214 S SCHILLER 27 156402 JAMES CRAIG A 02 101 375-8366 OTTER CREEK 2018 SCHILLER 28 159511 ROWE FREDRICK 02 101 CHICOT 2428 SCHILLER 29 158424 COOPER ANGELA 02 101 374-6123 DODD 1820 PULASKI 30 897726 DAVIS SAL'1MY 02 101 374-2453 DODD 1108 S CHESTER GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 06 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE J! 1t SCHOOL 31 152507 ROBINSON NAKIA 02 102 MABELVALE E 1916 LOUISIANA 32 156979 BOZEMAN TOMEKIA 02 102 664-8627 MCDERMOTT 7404 BRIARWOOD 33 901187 JOHNSON NATHAN 01 102 376-3021 FULBRIGHT 5 FOREST MAPLE CT 34 892850 THOMAS DERRICK 02 102 374-6148 MABELVALE E 910 W 24TH ST 35 153696 THOMAS LASONYA 02 102 375-0774 MABELVALE E 3308 MARSHALL 36 152472 GAY GORETTA 02 103 374-7487 CHICOT 50 KIRSPEL PL 37 154933 BUTLER SHANDELYN 02 103 666-614 7 FAIR PARK 2119 S HARRISON 38 894348 JAMES TONYA 02 103 223-9084 TERRY 9116 W 35TH ST 39 157244 ARMSTRONG KARLOSTENA 02 104 375-5135 OTTER CREEK 2210 S SUMMIT 40 151949 WRIGHT KEVIN 02 111 374-6030 RIGHTS ELL 1200 CROSS 41 157874 MITCHELL CHARLES F 02 111 225-7653 FOREST PARK 3019 ECHO VALLEY DR - 42 160898 EDWARDS JEANITTA S 02 111 376-7060 BRADY 118 N BATTERY 43 159765 ROBINSON ROBBIE 02 111 376-2593 BOOKER - 1413 W 15TH ST 44 154516 JONES TEMEKKA 02 111 568-1084 DODD - 5609 OLD HICKORY RD 45 159512 ROWE FELICIA 02 111 663-9109 CHICOT 4416 W MARYLAND -I I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 06 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 46 158405 ONEAL JESSE P 01 111 663-2533 BOOKER 2615 FLAKEWOOD 47 905188 MCFEE RAUSHANAH A 02 111 565-4203 WAKEFIELD 9325 DANA LN 48 896397 COLLINS DARON 02 111 DODD 417 E 17TH ST 49 900763 HILTON ZACHARY 01 111 455-4555 ROMINE 3703 TUDOR 50 153718 HAWKINS WILLIAM 02 111 663-8704 PULASKI HGTS E 1512 SOAK 51 157261 KING SAMUEL D 02 111 372-4292 PULASKI HGTS E 1614 W 20TH ST 52 149974 WILLIAMS SANDRA 02 111 372-4505 BRADY 3022 GAINES 53 152912 DAVIS ASHLEY 02 111 663-8974 BRADY 1318 S PIERCE 54 158042 ISUM TENESHA 02 112 227-6012 TERRY 1915 KIMBERLY DR 55 156805 JOHNSON DARLENE 02 112 FOREST PARK 904 ALLIS 56 161616 RELEFORD LASHONE 02 112 375-5199 MCDER11OTT 3319 WOLFE Ill 57 916568 CUMMINGS MEREDITH 01 112 666-4235 FAIR PARK 5404 STONEWALL I 58 166720 HARRIS KIMONO T 02 112 374-8844 MABELVALE E 1503 WOLFE ST 59 154460 SMITH JAMEESHA 02 113 562-1089 WILSON I 6101 QUEENSBORO DR #A 60 916879 LINDSEY LLEWELLYN 01 201 455-0300 ROMINE 13017 LEMONCREST LN II I I GIBBS MAGNET GRADE 06 SEQ# STUDENT JI NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1T 61 910365 LUISTRO ANTHONY 04 201 664-6077 BALE 118 BROADMOOR DR 62 917266 COFFEY JOLEE M 01 201 227-0393 NOT ASSIGN 9519 LABETTE DR 63 915551 COOK CHARLA M 01 203 225-9382 ROMINE 8 WALNUT VALLEY 64 898286 BLACK ALLISON 01 203 568-2401 FRANKLIN 18 BERKSHIRE 65 898288 BLACK ASHLEY 01 203 568-2401 FRANKLIN 18 BERKSHIRE 66 915820 RAYBON JILL 01 204 664-3329 FOREST PARK 6900 CANTRELL #H2 67 915653 GRAY ALLISON 01 204 568-1397 CLOVERDALE E 7315 AZALEA 68 THOMAS BRIAN 02 568-4853 69 155655 GUIDEN IAN L 02 374-4853 WOODRUFF 2808 IZARD 70 DAILEY MICHAEL 01 562-3416 227-6771 71 917211 CRAIG WILLIAM 666-3542 FAIR PARK 2505 KAVANAUGH II 72 918484 THOMPSON DAMIAN 01 562-3702 WESTERN HILLS 8607 COMMUNITY I 73 916299 WILSON SANDI 02 224-0810 MCDERMOTT 11433 BAINRIDGE I   WILLIAMS 43 GRADE 00 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 1 915422 JAN DAVID 1 201 664-8345 PULASKI HGTS E 8 AMARILLO CR 2 915710 BRANSON BLAKE 1 201 221-3428 MCDERMOTT 1914 BISCAYNE 3 916346 VAN HOOSE STEPHANIE 5 201 562-0862 WATSON 9914 CARRIE LANE 4 915674 ULMSCHNEIDER ASHLEY 1 201 224-4602 MCDERMOTT 3 OLD FORGE CT 5 915840 HENRY LAUREN 1 201 664-6762 BRADY 7502 CHOCTAW RD 6 916380 HENRY RY\n..N 1 201 663-5126 BRADY 6908 BL't\n:C:BIRD 7 915272 MCELRATH JOHN 1 201 221-1030 MCDERMOTT 7 LEAWOOD 8 915517 HOLLAND MATTHEW 1 201 224-2955 MCDERMOTT 8808 BOULDER LN 9 916099 TILLMAN JESSICA 2 201 375-1938 MABELVALE 1604 IZARD APT 109 10 915519 FULMER l\u0026lt;1\"~.RK 1 201 568-7305 MEADOWCLIFF 36 LAMONT 11 916103 JOHNSON CHARLES 2 201 ivESTERN HILLS 3822 WEST 27TH ST I 12 916476 HARTSTEI~I COURTNY 1 201 664-0251 HALL 3 0 PINE :A.ANOR DR II 13 916557 NESBITT SHAYLA 1 201 753-8314 NOT ASSIGNED 5732 CAMP ROBINSON RD BLD 1-2 14 916628 WILLIAMS DERRICK 2 201 223-8321 WILLSON I 3013 VANCOUVER DR 15 916644 PATRICK ANTHONY 2 201 562-6243 BASELINE  5813 BAS:::LINE RD APT 238    WILLIAMS 43 GRADE 00  SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE # SCHOOL  16 916697 FINKBEINER LINDSEY 1 201 227-9861 BRADY 4 PORTLAND  17 917283 LONG SHANE 1 201 223-9345 PARKVIEW 8101 CANTRELL RD APT 1703 18 915240 MCCUIEN HOWARD 2 202 562-9925 MCDERMOTT 1505 SCHILLER 19 915479 CHAN ANN 1 202 224-0838 FRANKLIN 19 ELK RUN COVE 20 915300 SANDERS WILLIAM 1 202 227-6726 FULBRIGHT 7 CAPE COO 21 915412 BULLOCH JUSTIN 1 202 565-1741 WILSON 3 SOUTHMONT CR 22 916460 JANATI KAMIAR 1 202 664-6522 FAIR PARK 236 KINGS ROW 23 916268 HOLLOWAY MIKEL 2 202 224-1922 TERRY 2109 ROMINE RD 24 917091 HEAD MICHAEL 1 202 664-4077 BALE 64 GLENMERE 25 915785 LAMB THEODORE 1 202 225-3863 ROMINE 9006 CLOVERHILL 26 916054 TONEY TRESSA 2 204 375-2106 BRADY 1917 MAIN APT B 27 915531 ELGEN JOHNNY 1 204 562-7667 GEYER SPGS 4725 HOFFMAN APT 7 28 916635 GILES NATHAN 1 204 666-6753 HALL 7201 KENTUCKY APT 5 29 916379 HENDERSON ALAN 1 211 221-3267 JEFFERSotT 8308 LEATRICE DR 30 915348 GALLEGOS JEFFERY 1 211 22~-3263 MCDERMOTT 2607 GRIST MILL WILLIAMS 43 GRADE 00 SEQ= STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 31 915414 D'AUTEUIL MILDRED 1 211 227-7145 FULBRIGHT 11903 DESOTO FOREST DR 32 916098 BEZET ERIN 1 211 663-1969 BRADY 920 N BRYAN 33 915480 HALL WHITNEY 1 211 227-9683 FULBRIGHT 22 CIMARRON VALLEY CR 34 916258 TENNER DAVID 2 211 224-0945 ROMINE 2215 ROMINE RD 35 915411 JACKSON JENNIFER 1 211 663-6585 HALL 7424 ILLINOIS 36 916240 WILLIAMS DAVID 1 211 663-5394 FAIR PAR:\u0026lt;: 5901 WOODLAWN 37 916264 STONE STEPHANIE 1 211 225-4948 BALE 2522 QUEBEC DR 38 916256 PHILLIPS ANTONY 1 211 224-1924 FULBRIGH:' 10815 CRESTDALE LN 39 915315 DAHMS MATTHEW 1 211 224-8813 FULBRIG!--i:' 504 SPRINGWOOD 40 905423 PRICE MARIANNE 1 211 661-1243 FOREST P\n\u0026gt;..RK 516 N FILLMORE 41 915516 LOWITZ I.AURIE 1 211 224-0636 BOOKER 1613 SHUMATE 42 916367 STARNES KATIE 1 211 TERRY 1701 CENTERVIEW APT 200 43 916273 PRINCE DAVID 1 211 225-7475 HALL 8118 W ~..ARKHAM APT 118 44 916014 YOUNGBLOOD BYRON 1 211 666-7615 FRANKLI~ 5400 W 30TH ST 45 916248 MICHALES AARON 1 211 663-8777 FULBRIGE-:- 624 PINE VALLEY I WILLIAMS 43 GRADE 00 I SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHONE# SCHOOL 46 916052 ROBINSON LAURA 1 211 663-1038 PULASKI HGTS E 604 NORTH OAK 47 916087 SPENCER LAUREN 1 211 224-3277 TERRY 8 SWEETGUM CT 48 915534 PARKS ELIZABETH 1 211 225-3543 MCDERMOTT 10218 RONALD DR 49 915885 WILKERSON BROOKE 1 211 663-8223 JEFFERSON 2027 N GARFIELD 50 916042 GANTT ROSHANDTA 2 211 576-8419 JEFFERSON 2509 W 13TH II 51 916239 FASULES LINDSEY 1 211 224-9410 BRADY 13821 ST CHARLES BLVD I 52 915299 SQUIRE R 1 211 661-9506 HALL 6521 CANTRELL RD 53 915394 VADEN OLIVIA 1 211 224-7714 TERRY I 4 CONVERTRY LN 54 915554 BOYCE DEREK 1 211 664-4814 HALL II 3817 W 10TH 55 916221 BENSON JAY R 1 211 663-7294 FARI PARK 114 PEARL APT A I 56 908331 GRAY PRISCILLA 1 211 663-7448 PULASKI HGTS E 7305 KENTUCKY APT A I 57 915354 GRAY NATHAN 1 211 227-0633 HALL 3 LORINE CR I 58 915629 JAMERSON TYSON 2 211 661-9245 FAIR PARK 4307 1/2 MARYLAND 59 916219 JOHNSON CHENARA 2 211 568-6145 WATSON I 10424 REPUBLIC LN 60 916127 THOMAS BILLIE 2 211 221-3322 TERRY 11503 JAMESTOWN DR I I I WILLIAMS 43 GRADE 00 SEQ# STUDENT # NAME AND ADDRESS RC CODE PHO\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_399","title":"Discipline, quarterly district suspension summary report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1988-08/1989-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, quarterly district suspension summary report"],"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/399"],"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":["266 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\nI I I T TLE HOCK SCHOOL CT  J .  . 6 y / c $  V T988^9' D1 s tr'i c t JWTcIe Total Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment 25,625 16,093. 9,241 - 292 63% 36% 1% OUT 0 F S C H C 0. I. Li rL'ERO^SCHdOU~Dl^RfcT SUSPLNSIOH DATA 1989-90 DISTftICT -SUMMARY ----------QUART R'*\"ir'O (August 28,1989 - Janaury 25, 1990) LONG T E k n 1989-90 District-Wide Total Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment t X H U 1. S IONS 25,303 16,296 8,692 315 64% _ 35% 1% SCHOOL B/M B/F W/M U/F TOTAL S/H B/F U/M M/F- TOT AL B/M Bz^F w/n w/r TOTA GRAND TOTAL SENIOR HIGH TOTALS JUinOR HIEH^TTSLy ELEMENTARY TOTALS 1S1 TTTTT 57 'SOT 144 ' 21 59 24 23 ^7 e 90 I 97 0 0 'c: 0 0 T 0 1 4 3 12 TT 1 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 \u0026amp; 1 8 1 320 88E 01 GirAFn5~TOT7n::^ 78 6- 87 05 59.1 21.6 15.4 52 J . 9 1330 9 4.6 *31' 17.1  4 . 1 2.4 4 1 2.9 25 4 5 1 71.4 11.414.3 35 2.5 1 40o 5.6 BLACK KALE BLA'CK female 342 98 59 9 2\", .2 '.140 SI . 1 WHITE HALE WHITE PEMA.LE 1 54 IS. 1 3.8 ie.9 2.3 PERCENT OF DISTRICT .SiJSPENS ION-S u'ERE IN THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS. 62.9 PERCENT .OF DISTRICT SUSrENSICNS UERE IN THE JUNIOR KICtt SCHOOLS. 14.3 PERCENT OF DI-STRIC SUSPENSION WERE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1988-89 DISTRICT SUMMARY (August 29, 1988 - January 19. 1989) SENIOR HIGH TOTALS JUNIOR HIGH TOTALS TLTHENTARir TOTALS GRAND TOTALS PERCENT GAIN/LOSS 139 .71 439 181 TTT 29 184 18 13 695 270 56% 22% 91+ 17+ 226 18%. 21- 1 40 2 240 844 150 16 14 2 2 3. 0 3  1 0 0 0 21 18 2 13 13 0 0 A 0 1 J. 0 0 0. 0 14 16. 0 275 jaza. 152 21% 67% 12% 43 ' 1234 4% 9+ 95% 32 78% A 12%, 10% BLACK-KAUfr 754 BLACK FEMALE 275 1026 twite male WHITE FEMALE 43 96+ 1- 1988-89 1305 .1983-90 1406. 277 2+  2 0 0... AL 3% 25_ 87% XL 0 4 13% XL 0 JO. 2% 1305. 5.1% .58%- 21% m Isf 3% 7TT 1+ 0- 1- 4+ 1 + 1 + 5+ 101+5-r V' ' Ir C i\" ' c ' c  cl .Cfe hs Ct\nIts K- 1 LITT . ROCK SC}\nCOL DJiVRICI REASON COPE *J470 03/09 '90 PAGE 1 c OUT B/M 0 F B/F CATEGORY I OFFENSES f hI cl 5^ {z\u0026amp; 1010 1 030 1 040 1 050 1 062 1 070 1 090 1100 1110 1131 1132 1 133 1 245 18 1 8 273 1 1 15 1 14 69 u^. F - :SC| SUBTOTAL____ CATEGORY U OFFENSES \u0026gt;0 - Cf SI- tc 0 17 t8 S9 to 12 OE 95 16  CE c IS iO tto r NB ' c \u0026gt;2 SUBTOTAL CATEGORY III OFFENSES SUBTOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY_BY REASON CODES QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 SCHOOL L 0 N G T _E_R  EXPULSIONS ir s Hh IC 9 U/ U/F TOTAL B/M B/F W/tl U/F TOTAL B/ B/F U/M U/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL iic 12  13 - c 1B L-' 16 58 2 22 58 VO 7 12 2 428 21 61 412 1 1 5 a 74 18 3 6 1 1 41 8 5 8 17 2 4 4 2 6 6 3 2 1 13 17 138 31 9 12 0 1 0 0 _0 o' 0  a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 429 21 61 412 1 13 17 138 31 9 12 666 51 180 48 1 1 45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 46 -0 S zc Z' HH Z4 ZJ pc ze Zi PO S2 2010 2 02 o' 2030 2032 2050 2060 2070 080 2100 211 0 2120 2121 2123 25 1 6 15 6 5 2 4 4 2 1 5 1 9 1 1 4 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 26 19 0  \u0026amp; 1 1 0 3 5 31___ 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 5 0 1 'o* 0 1 3 94 24 19 2 139 3 10 20 s 1 6 0 0 0 3 15 1 0 0 26 1 3 7 0 1 1 0 3050 3071 3072 3080 3090 3100 3121 3123 3 12 3 3 2  25 1 6 2 3 1 12 5 1 1 2 1 4 22 3 8 4 0 2 44 2 3 a i a 1 1 1 9 1 2 1 0 a 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 13 14 1 1 g 3 1 4 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3. 0 0 0 8 2 1 2 4 8 0 2 4 23 35 34 19 1 6 1 1 1 4 9 49 2 1 1 173 3 7 27 7 2g 4 3 7 30 IO I BH. S9 I (( 4' if', M  tc |0  s -6 61 * 53 HH 10 M l~i 25 Z 2D Z 3! 0\nss 0 sc SC KH PO z: ' Z2  zi .3 0, ii 0l^s C. 1 tllTlE ROCK LSIIOOL DISTRICT e'~~ ff: c C\n'i| :*i5 Uz f/J 2 1 22 Q t/ T 0 F REASON CODE B/n B/F \u0026gt; zs. = ^'R C'O 33  0 31 1 s 6 C \" S9 C- !? 4?i HU 5' Illi 52\nC \" 54 5S 5 o oa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY BY REA-SON CODES QUARTER 1 1 TO QUARTER 1 2 SCHOOL LONG T - R. M. J24 n 0.\n/0\u0026lt;V90 f- X P U I. S I 0 N S PAGE MH W/M U/F TOTAL B/n B/F W/M U/F TOTAL B/M B/r M/ W/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL CATEGORY IV OFFENSES SUBTOTAL ^AND TOTALS 4000 1 1 s 1 1 4 4 7 0 1 0 Z 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 7 78C 20S 53.1 21.6 15.4 52 3.3 1330 94.6 .31 7 75.6 17.1 e 4.9 1 .4 41 _ e'. 9 5 4 5 71.4 11.4 14.3 1 2.9 35 2.S 1406 a El    EE ED EE EE EQ E EE EE EE EE S 3 S S c o c _8 5 PERCENT OF DISTRICT SUSPENSIONS MERE CATEGORY I OFFENSES. l.3 PERCENV OF DISTRICT SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY II OFF-ENSES. 5.7 PERCENT OF DISTRICT SUSPENSIQNS WERE CATEGORY III OFFENSES. _0 5 FERCEJ^T OF DISTRICT SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY IV OFFENSES. 3 I2: li 1 li 0 HH o  SE lE E sE ED Z EE  CD Z Z\nZ s z IS O 0 o HH O go 52 53 16 56  57 ic io 61 HH 63 54 55 M f . 67 V 66 5S Po  Z' p, NH cIf r (  c f C !'^l i' ci BfiG C-B o  -sol  ci BU\n3\u0026lt; j I gI loj Ga 0- IIB *5? C1 ib, . c  0^ i, \u0026gt;6 ^26  DB^ 0 LIFTlL s?OtK SCJOOl jISTF DISCIPLINE CODE CATEGORY 1 OFFENSES 1 01 0 1 030 1 040 1 050 1062 1 070 1 090 1100 1110 1131 1 132 1 133 CATEGORY  OFFENSES 2010 020 2030 2031 032 20S0 2060 2070 2080 2100 1 1 0 2120 2121 2122 2123 CATEGORY 3 OFFENSES 301 0 3020 3030 3040 3050 3060 3071 3072 aoeo CI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER:  SUSPENSION REASON CODES DISCIPLINE REASON  Academic Dishonesty Fighting Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Refused to Ob_e_y Rule/Direct ive Refused to Obey Bus RulesARegs Refused to Serve Detention Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Language First Offense pse/Poss Alcohol Use/Poss. Drugs \u0026lt;1 st)____________ Repeated School/Class Tardies Assault Bat t ery Theft _ Burgla.ry/Larceny_____*_____________ Robbery Gambling Faise Ala rm Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Malicious Mischief / Vandalism Indecent EKPOsure Disorderly Conduct Harassing Communi cat i ons Repeated Violation-Smoking Ban Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Second Offense, Alcohol Sale/Distribut ion of Drugs______ Second Offense, Drugs . Fail-Counsl/trtmnt-Alcohl/Drgs Arson______________________________________ Physical Assault on Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of FiTom______________ J2470 ABBREVIATION 03/05,'Sd D i shon. ______F i ght i ng _________ Harrass LeftSchl Ref Ruis .Bus Regs Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Buro/Lar Robbery Gambling False Al Loiter Mischief Ind Exp Die Cond Har Comm Smoke 2 Forgery Paging D Sale Ale Alcohol2 Sale Pro Drugs 2 F-Trtront Arson Ass Staf V As Sf PoS8 Gun PAGc 1 C'^ T\\  3 4  c HH 8  10 12 c 13 IS c IS i!C zc 'zi II h 10 2il ZS 27 zi ' z\u0026lt; PC 32  32 -C 33 5E  37 0 i C) 39 IC 4' 10 44 gO 43 9 ' so 50, 52 BB so 56  \u0026gt;7 10  10 M ' 53 66 z\n57'^ u  53 HH ^0 I?  73 IQ .S 0': ..-V r ( C m\n,1 I d Ci ' Cr 9 Cf? 421 ck T liB- CM t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 03/C9/90 PACE HH c .i l'^ I's '^1 2S \"C 2! i c 3. hS 40 0^ efc? 10 cfe \u0026gt;8  ci cl ( ps c DISCIPLINE CODE 3090 31 DO 311 0 3120 3121 3122 3123 CATEGORY 4 OFFENSES 4000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1984-90 DISTRICT S^nARY_ QUARTER: 1 TO qUARTER : 2 SUSPENSION REASON CODES DISCIPLINE REASON J k' s IC B 9 iic 12 13 KH sses51on_of Weapon_________ Poss Fireworks or Explosives Ext option. Blackmail, Inciting to Riot__ ___ Coercion Use of Weapon Unlawful Assembly MembershIp_in Prohibited Gangs_______ Offense not menjtioned Pos Ueap Poss Exp Extort In Riot Weapon Assembly G an g _ M e tn ^c 16  17 'ilc J ** 2- 24 ' 2! ,21  J  2S KK Other Of j1 V.i' u ' )3 n  27  V-* |O *! HH 16 |Z Si I 0 6 31 Z Z z c RH 0 u po s UH 0u r I uITlL? '.OCK oLUOOl Dj.rr :/cy, ?c A .f 1 ( c. 2 3 e 11 11^\n9 o I2 C 5 15 IE c \u0026lt;8 19 c ?? tie. rC o N 25' 27 :z 28 c IS\nI\nC 3?! C q *^1 C ^5 h\nP S c u. c s: S3| M? c GRADE LEVEL ENROLLMhT Grade Black T7T9O SU. TTT 39 11 1,053 57 756 42 12 876 51 829 47 White % Other % Toiil G/a E/F eranrTO lb 56.3 17.5 GRfIQZ n 22 50.5 23.7 C\"SDI 12 GF.'ND TOIftLS 23 11 IF. 2 i?.7 151 52 1 19.7 ?9 T ,971 . % 1.36 24 1 1,833 33 L 1 r T L E  R 6 C f S C H 0 0 L\" D I o T R I C T SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY aVARTER\n1 TO OU/iRT'ER 2 29 2 1,734 31 SENIOR HIGH ENROLLMENT Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment 5,537 3,119 57% 2,336 42% 82 1% OUT OF SCHOOL TOTfil BlftCK /F TOTftl uHni TCTSL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS LC K 6 TIRU EX RULSIOflS TOTALS D/f TOTfiL /fi u/r UMTL ICTUL 3/n E/r TOTfl ilf.CK K/B /r TOTfil Will Torsi TOTSL ELftCK TOlf.L UHITt SRftHO TOIF.l 74.1 69 74.2 39 30\" 208 71.7 z 3 ( 6 B 9 12 Ta - c IS X,. IE 17 E ( i ' _ tis X- \"79 21.5 17 18.3 n 6 4.4 35 25.9 ! 35 'C 2 Vo iO.C 20.G 1C0.G G 0.0 10 6.7 T 2 5 60.0 ^iC.u 100 C 0 0.0 3.3 115 76.7 35 22.3 150 7 7.5 24 25.8 93  4 S9.4 - 100.0 4 IGO.O 0 0.0 4 3.8 i 7 S5.7 K.3 10C.0 0 0.0 7 6.7 SO 75.9 24 23.1 104 31  3!  10 21.0 16 1 :rr 0 0 0 G 1 25.6 4 6.1 42 63.6 24 36.4 ( 59 20.3 7.9 62 .1 .12 11 35.7 14..J 100.G 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 e.o 14 4.4 12 : 75.c- i?.g 15 .4 1 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 15 5.0 23? 74.1 25.9 46.9 PERCHW.f'OF SKNIOR HIGH SUSPiiN 32.5 FIPCtfiT O\nT :\nefH V. :nicr HIGH .?IJSPEN SlNIOB high SUS Of-: WERE IN THE c R cl IN THc : IN THE 1 IC TH VRADK. GR\n-D\u0026lt; . . grade. 38\n. jX- it 5P S 3S 31 ZQ SI (. HH   . i9 sc se - ( il X_ 1 H'* 7( , T2 \" 22 i .IS 0y. c ci ( 6 :'klTTue KOCK SCHOOL OISTRICr LU.-IE ROCK SCHOOL D I P I C T SUSPENSION D.^TA i^8-?-90 DisrPicT \u0026amp;urtrz\\r,v '.-UARTEft  1 TO QUARThH a i9 03/09/v PAGE 1 o r\\ K-  Hh Ic C 8  10 II  13 14 -I 15 c I Igl igi 5, C  24 25 G  i5 * ::? o u (M -I 2? S . 29 3C 31 IIH C i sE E c c H! C c. ^'1 ' c \u0026gt; SEMIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 8 9 SCHCOL EZn B/F CENTRfiL HIGH SCHOOL H?.Ll KiOlTStHUOl 36 OUT or SCKOOL' total ~aACK ii/n ll/F ' TOTAL \" UHITE lOTfiL B/fl B/F K 58.1 22.6 50 80 6 10 16.5 2 ? 2 12 19.4 62 86 } 6 1 32' TT 64,0 22.0 43 86.0 5 10.0 4.0 -1- 14.0 5O' 94 3 L 0 K C T  R fl  K P II I S : 0 H S T 0 T fil S \u0026lt;c 11 12 13 nnffCPOLUftH OO-TECH EH c HflRuVISH ARTS RSeKET fflio hlGH SCHOOL flC CLZLLAN HIGH SCHOOL - OtlNO TOTOLS 2R 2 4 28.6 28.6 STn\" ' 3 ITT 3 7 fSO.O TOTAL . black  U/fl H/F TOTAL TOTAL BIT B/fl B/f TOTAL BLACK /n K/r TOTAL HHin TOTAL TOTAL BLACK TOTAL tfBITI\" GRANO \" c, 13 1 55.7 14.3 IK.O 100.0 100.0 0 o:o 0 0.0 7 9.7 2 66.7 66.7 1 33.3 1 33.3 3 4.2 59 81.9 13 18 1 12 IE IE E  L Hh C 5 0.0 2 3.8 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 46 86.8 7\" 13.2 TFT  S 2Z a- EE z c c 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.0 4 * 57.1 3 42,9 1 I 8 21.6 1 2.7 9 24.3 16 12 43.2 32.4 28 73.7 Z1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 24.3 28 1^.1 37 39 53.2 19.8 81 7Z.^ a 22.5 4.5 30 27.0 111 96.5 '0 0.0 0 9.9 0 0.0 3 1 75.0 25.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 4 3.5 83 73.9 30\"~' 26.1 TTY Z a z z SE SE S S Z o Hh o O o a z 14 1 21 60.9 30.4 91.3 2 9.7 2 9.1 23 63.9 4 1 a 80.0 28.0 100.0 0 TC 3 1379 6 2 73.0 25.0 8 lOO.fl 0 0.0 3 22.2 34 2 94.4 5.6' 36 o HH O a 191 37 32.1 19.7 208 71.7 99 20.3 23 7.9 82 28.3 290 90.6 12 2 H 83.7 1 4.3 1 00.0 nr 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 19 4.4 12 '3 73.0 18.8 13 93.8 1 6.3 0 0.0 1 6.3 16 3.0 237 74.1 83 25.9 3Hr 33 S! S Z T' o 6 G  eZ HH O F ti^ c ory c iiS 5 PERCEM Or 5EN\nO\\ HIGH SVSPEN^I'JWS ULbC M Ct.M-iZ't H.CH .'U\u0026lt; ? 16 6 PtRCENT OF SENICf HIGH SUSPENSIONS UEPE hall HIGH CH( 'jL ? PERCENT OF SENIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT HEI ROPOLI VAN vJ-Tf-tCH hIGh SCHCOl. C' C 2 UiTT-- ( 5 6 II ff-PPRCeNT-CF 'SENI OR HIG'H SUSPENSI ONS'WERE AT PARKV J I-U AE T S -Ai. 3? 9 PERCENT OF SENIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT J ' 1-T l-IGH SCHOO'.. MK H.''.H H 1 ^KRCENT OF SSMIOR HIGH J'USPENSI ONS UGRE Al HcCLi'.LAN 0 O' PERCENT OF SKNIOH HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT PARKCIEw '^ WOL V. .iaSNET HIGH SCHOOL. 4C s ^C c. B i a 9 10 CE 5C*^s- 12 la ! f  S4 ------------g (iti 15 16 hiWi^X' u*.'. f. I  I J O**?' h?\" 6 K : *3  \u0026gt; Vi f-,' C- lit! c c C le !a la IE c C: AiC- C-  sH'  3 3 3   c c 3  3 i 3      3 cs liiiE. \u0026gt; 11^ c  a a a IS t: t te K fi W C'  V'W iH SI I 52 C S! 6i c jiil S k^- V M: 3. J' r. M-: ^rr Uk *- J t.JBir ?\u0026lt; T V.T L W'a A \u0026gt;y \u0026gt; 1 I c 1 HH |c o o @c i HH 3/1 bo I go 6 52^ G U o io p  HN O n.L'.uuJi f' c C'l . 3 4?  C-i K 12 14 15 16 C'-i 18 19 Q- h\nC C o ** N s s 2 S S 271 ^4 C  0 . h\no| I UirrUE KOI K D1S-: luT LITTLE ROCK SCHCOJ. DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 OISTFICT SUMMARY BY REmSCN'CODES QUARTER. 1 't3 QUARTER:  SENIOR HIGH LEVEL ttie46? 03/09.''90 PAGE ^:K- 1 kl* Ic 0 L T 0 F SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPULSIONS '3 c REASON CODE Bn .?/f W/M W/F TOTAL B/M B/I- W/ U/F TOTAL B/M B/F W/N W/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 1 Hl' t 3 ' I 0 } a 9^  HH C CATEGORY 1 OFFENSES ia i'a] 13 13 ill o c SUBTOTAL CATEGORY II OFFENSES SUBTOTAL CATEGORY III OFFENSES SUBTOTAL CATEGORY IV OFFENSES SUBTOTAL To 3 0 1 040 1 050 1 OSg\" 1 070 i 090 TT0(r 1110 1 131 n ig\" 1 133 1 \n8\" 1 1 1 7 1 4 p\n---------11 7 4 8 '4 4 c c 1 2  1 2 25 63' 1 3 ' 10---------- 31 20 - 4-------- 2 G\" 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  'SI 25 63 1 8 10 31 0 4  2 Tg^ 4? 36 '22 SaV  O' \u0026amp; (T -Q ' - 0 0 0 0 249 Rhy st 2! zs L j: c c o 1]  hFz (3\u0026lt; 201 0 2020 2030 2032 2070 2080 l 0 0 21 I 0 2123 3072 3080 3090 3121 4000 T e 2 4 2 4 1 22 5 5 0 1 T 1 I 1 1 3 2 1 7 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 2 0'  4 0 3 S 1 28 13 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 T 1 f 0 4 0 \"1 1 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 J 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 i) 2 0 4 1 C\u0026gt; 2 5 I -4------ 1 1 1 fn 5 1 1 5 0 1 0 6 45 c (A \u0026gt; 1 ic I-- w H.H o 1 0 - O 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 15 3 2 2 ic \"S TT 3 0 0 7  2'2 |c 6( g: t 1 1 3 3  I HH 3 0 0 0 3 4 o 0 c.( 1 Ln.If- P.OCK SCHOOL DIS \u0026gt; I c r C J.' PACE HH C frc--, - r I LITTLE' ROCK SCHO-JH. DISTRICT susPEN.'^roN data 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY BY REASON CODES QUARTER\n1 TO QUARTER-- 2 SENIOR HIGH LEVEL 7? fz |l3 I'S c c lif 0 0 F SCHOOL LONG, TERM EXPULSIONS  9 'z\nc I' 16 I7j  c G ' sHH 24 2! 2E li5 28 0 \u0026gt;2 J is c (il!, 3\u0026lt; Gy G7 CG HH 0 cc REASON CODE S/M 3/F W/M U/F TOTAL B/ B/F U/M L/F TOTAL S HH B/K b/F M/M U/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL ac *3 112 GRAND TOTALS IS'f T?' 5 1 19.7 0.3 3 7.9 29'0 90.6 -1-^---------g----------- 0  85.7 14.3 0.0 0 0. a 14 4.4 \"12 75.0 18.8 1 \u0026gt; .3 0 0.0 1 e s.o 320 2C  21 ___ M 25 ic fii!Px-.rT 77.8 PERCENT OF SENIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS UERS CATEGORY TinFE7TCEfrrOF~SrR10R IfT^H\"SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY 6.9 PERCENT OF SENIOR HIGH SUSPENSION-S WERE CATEGORY 1.3 PERCENT OF SENIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY I OFFENSES. II OFFENSES. Ill OFFENSES. IV OFFENSES. C 27i 28  2J HH |g 32 n sO 37 HG c a hh |o \u0026lt;c w 5C I o z as O 3 V a I a: L HH U Iz z c tZ S' iZ tC z 0 o -SSI s HH O .-..19'J . V.! ' je\u0026lt;J9AlAlML\"UW Uia. JWJKXlKSr ( 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT #J2470 03/09/9^ AGE 1 f   3 GRADE LEVEL ENROLLMENT 5rade Black' White % Other % Total ( 6 8 9 . TTOTZ.Ky . .32_25_rT_ -?70^ 1,328 1,116 68 63 596 635 30 38 35 32 2 1,962 2 1,783 % 35_ . 34 31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 aUNIOR HIGH ENROLL. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS Total: Black: White: Other: 5,750 3,788 1,867 95 66% 32% 2% s! . 3/. . (. i -i' 9 10 OUT 0 r 3 C 8 0 0 L_ LONG T E R.B EXPULSIONS TOTALS f 12 13 Bnj B/r TOTAL B/R I .MX _____ B/r TOTAL UNITE TOTAL B/R IS 16 e t 2': I OMBI 7 GtaSE s ___Kan 3 165 42 64.0 16.3 207 80.2 46 5 17.8 1.9 51 19.8 258 96.6 181 97 98.6 31.4 278 90.0 21 6.8 10 3.2 31 10.0 309 93.6 10 144 64 B/F TOTAL BLACK U/fl U/F TOTAL HITE TOTAL B/R B/f TOTAL BLACK H/R fi/F TOTAL BUITE TOTAL TOTAL . BLACK TOTAL UNITE GRANB TOTAL r 2 2 66.7 66.7 1 33.3 1 33.3 3 1.1 5 83.3 5 83.3 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 2.2 214 80.1 53 19.9 267 3 71.4 21.4 13 92.9 1 7.1 1 7.1 14 4.2 3 1 71.4 14.3 6 83.7 1 1 14.3 14.3 7 2.1 297 90.0 33 10.0 330 27, C u N r 26 27 2S 30 GKAKD TOTALS 9: J3! c S c a s a I s \u0026gt;1 c*- a o S2.4 23.3 208 79.6 33 20.0 12 4.4 67 24.4 273 99.8 6 89.7 6 89.7 1 14.3 1 14.3 7 2.4 2 40.0 2 40.0 3 60.0 3 60.0 9 1.7 216 73.3 71 24.7 287 490 203 38.2 24.1 693 62.3 122 27 14.5 3.2 149 17.7 842 93.2 16 9 21 66.7 20.8 87.3 2 8.3 1 3 4.2 12.3 24 2.7 12 66.7 1 3.6 13 72.2 4 1 5 22.2 5.6 27.8 18 2.0 727 82.2 137 17.8 884 30.2 PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE SEVENTH GRADE. 37.3 PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE EIGHTH GRADE. 32.5 PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE NINTH GRADE. gt.' c pjS. _____ OiT'\" ' F 4 / c Ci1 Fh-  1 Ce9 c 10 12 13 Ce IC IS 1\u0026gt;99  C - 25 C. 552 !4 2S oC  ?f!il 27 ' 26 \"0 C )0 31 33 34 36 Q fiB 39 (2 Ch IS C5 14 16 19 \u0026amp;- 57 e^' 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT oCHOOL B/il flBKH ilftTB/SClEKCE AaWET 23 TOBffiTT'JlJRnimiCH' Ja47O 03/09/90 PAGE I 2^ OUT UI st tHTST B/F 12 TOTAL HJW K/n lOTftL TOTAL 3/fl 33 \u0026lt;17.9 25.0 72.9 48 25~ 80.0 31 3 91,3 FOREST HEIGHTS JUfOCR HK 127 37 16^ 117 1S\"5 7TT PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HI 52 28 57.1 28.8 78 85.7 SOUTNEST JUnOS HIGH 78 38 ^.7 20.0 112 7^.7 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH 93 29 70.N 21.5 124 91.9 aoVEROALE JUNIOR HIGH 38 29 09.3 39.7 85 39.0 MBaOALE JUNIOR HIGH 9 58.7 15.0 43 71.7 13 27 1 13 27.1 4? 92 .\u0026lt; 2 fii.l 8 33 H.O \u0026lt;(.4 8 1 8.8 7.7 31 20.7 7 4.7 11 8.1 7 9.8 1 1.4 19 23.3 3 \"Z\" 8.8 i.'J 93 0 100 3 42 2'.^ 1 HSi e LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 196^5'5 CISRI t r SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 lO QUARTER: E JUNlSir^HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS L 0 K C T  R n IXPULSIONS TOTALS B/r TOTAL TOT 2 e8.7 5 100.0 1 ITF 94 9 100.0 lOOTS\" 13 19.3 91 91.0 8 3 9 86.7 33.3 100.0 Ti/fl M/f TOTAL uH'nr TCTfll B/S 6/F TOTAL H/it fl/F TOTAL iBun - TOTfit TOIfiL TOTAL GRANS W IC s9 RC 12 13 h\u0026gt;i - C' 55 C.' 16 ' 17 - c IS 2C 38 25.3 130 98.8 0 0.0 n 8.1 135 99.3 0 0.0 8 11.0 73 94.8 2 2 4 50.0 50.0 100.0 17 3.0 28.3 hQ 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 33 3, T\" ^.9 0 0.0 0.0 1 1 2 50.0 50.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.8 5 5.8 1 0.5 9 9.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 9 5.2 0 0.0 1 1 1.O 100.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 38 73.1 H 28.9 32 23 24 '2 1 too.o 1 100.0 0 0.0 1.2 79 91.9 7 8.1  ^C 1 hh Rc \u0026gt;2 33 8 1 9 80.0 iO.O 90 1 10.0 1 10.0 10 4.8 179 89.2 43 19.8 217 0O| n 37 mo z Ooe *c \u0026gt; 33.3 1 SQ.O 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 B7 87.0 13 13.0 100 5^0 14   IS 1 33.3 1 1 2 33.3 33.3 88.7 3 1.9 113 72.9 92 27.1 tss U ' 19 lifi o ' -6 51 '-/ 0 0.0 1 100.Q 1 100.0 1 . 9.7 124 12 8.8 138 . *2 * E3 |0 S6  0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 89 89.8 8 10.9 77 1 50.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 3.2 4\u0026lt;t 71.0 1? 29.0 82 |C HH |C ' i Ic y |o Is c rw H- ( 1 LIT'.Lu nOCX SCHOOL DISTRICT # Jt'lTC Q3/09/S0 PAGE t, c '.v ci3 majV E s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 fc s hH Ic I Cl H. 9 JUNTOR HzGH SCHOOL TOTALS 9 IO '\\4i\nt .*5.- liil P'5' J5 'r . 1'  '  .f.( - C E 11 12 10r Ts^ fi L s 13 C. 11 12 13 IS cT\n13 19 C 12 lifi 21 22 C- J3 24 29 Cl! o IS tM 21 26 G !S 20 JI }4 Ci \u0026gt;e 0 i w 10 On 12 \u0026gt;3 \u0026gt;\nC : (: S  tc Oi? la *9 Q 15 SCHDGL B/ft 6/F SRflHB TOTALS q91 203 58.2 24.1 0 U I (Il 'S'CIOBT ------------------ TliTr?TOT Tk P'ii L (\u0026gt; i iT fi S 51 .. C 2 55 C i\nIj i^ c TTSSHX ii*... / \"* V' lOWL XIHX 694 '521' *e U/rt /F TOiftl -------- snrr roiftL fc/ E/F TOTAL -------------------Kircr U/d a/f roTat iQTrtL TOTl------------- fi/O Bzr rarsL Hfflar a/fl HZF rorfiL TOTu inni------ TOTRL locir TOTAL TOTT GRAKS nmr sc tfi - f IS 21 i HH g4l V. 122 27 H9 14 5 3.2 'm '.. tr  Cart! r.' 843 irr 5 21 ?r72O~573* I 1 3 24 TT 12 1 U 51 7272' 4 7272 1 yr 5 27,8 16 2.0 728 157 17.7 883 r Iz  2Z S Z Z Z 31 iS Z 21 2 IE  iE Z Z Z E Z Z z G o O' Hh: 6: o mb!\n:. a ^x z a i s i I O HH O o o 3 Z Z iE SI SE EE (2 ET o HH Q 9 C . 'JRl c s. ' PEncern of j-'iijo-. hjsh suspensjons were at makn math/sciencs macnft junior high school. 9.7 percent of J!)N1ORHIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. 24 PERCENT Of JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WEREZ^FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. Pii G E,\" Ji* PW-' c.' l\nr A Ca s 7 G - !2 V. * IS 16 G\nL !! i\n22 G\n!3 24 25 k .^. o II u 28 5Cs 30 1* - t.  fe 'C' J .' 34 G  26 17 G i?. \u0026lt;r^ -' f~ \\y.'\nk'. P 4- 29 to 4 L !2 3 'S 12 w K G^ (S - 0  18 ts Cr  Ills- C 2 I - 57 4t C'  TT  -ERCENr'OF Ji7R0R^HT6K suspensions WERE AT PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCH00l7 IV.fy PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH -SUSPENSIONS WERE AT SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. IS.l PERCENT OF .JUNIOR IIISH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. \u0026amp; V PERCENT OF'Junior high SUSPENS1ONSW^S\" AT~HANN''ATrT5'\u0026gt;lA^NFi' JUNloJTltlGH SCHOOL, 8.? PERCENT Of JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. 7 0 PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE AT MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCtlOOL. i., s^jw -.12- r LLflttV.JSkA ..UL-. .Ull!j!9il.JR! .V jA ic s' jC 8 9 12 13 hh - C\" J5 S?\" X- \"h.\u0026lt; tt l^aKfrlS 16 37 jic ZC ' z - c  J! 26 22  2\u0026lt; o He pc 22 'sa at ' 27 2 O 29 tc ' 41 x.  'i\nHH 0 Z ai EE ai a: aj s\n31 Z Z s 3 o O o en o R? 22^ o If eC a cE Z! (S o \u0026amp; HD TSnSMV CC f c LiTT-t .?och s\u0026lt;\niooi- DIS ,irr 0J247O 0 3/ 09/90 PAGE c 2 3 5 6 7 8 U T 0 F c c. c Ilf c to H 12 !J 14 IS \u0026gt;6 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 -c \u0026lt;9 N 24 2S 26 11 3   J .c? :1 J REA-ON CODE B/M B/F CATEGORY I OFFENSES ------ffOBrOTAt CATEGORY II OFFENSES JI C'2 fiH 33 J4 Ci 36 c 37 39 10 0^ t: i3 45 \u0026gt;6 c se (9 Ci?,.  t\" S2 C' \u0026gt;4 5S - c  SUBTOTAL CATEGORY UI OFFENSES SUBTOTAL CATEGORY IV OFFENSES L iTlT.e ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA l?89--90 OISTRlCr SUMMARY \u0026amp;Y REASON'COOtS SCHOOL u/r QUAR^EI^ : TOTAL 1 TO QUARTER: 2 JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL Bz'M LONG TERM EXPUJ. SIGNS B/F U/M U/F TOTAL B/M B/F W/M U/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Ic 5 Ph IC 8 9 12 13 - c J5 '\u0026gt; 16 fe 1 IS TTtr )30  i40 T TSO\" 1 62 1 190 = inr 1110  531 nF 1 133 1'4 1 5 173 4 SO 4 3 f 06 S 1 ~T 31 3 3 '7 12 1 a T?2 15^ ------ 4 294 17 37' 56 96 1 1 ) 1 0 741 1 1 0 0 0 2010 2020 2030 2060 070 2oe0 2100 211 0 120 .2121 IT 8 7 S 1 T 4  1 1 1 1 2 1 0 45 T 18 1 4 1 1 f 12 1 T? 13 1 0 6 1 1 2 2 20 1 1 76 1 2 7 3 1 1 0 4 Q 0 3050 3071 3072 3080 3090 3100 3121 3123 1 7 3 1 2 2 18 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 4 4 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 24 5 1 2 1 0 1 0 IT 0 0 0 0 T 0 1 0 0 0 0 y 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 1 0 t 14 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 4 TO 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .  295 17 15\" 56 5 1 98 1 I  1 0 2\u0026lt; 2' HH IC 2! PC 26 ' 2S IC 32 'S3 -b 0 TT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 6 0 1 4 1 6 742 19 1 4 10 6 1 1 2 4 31 2 1 91 3 3 12 4 15 4 1 7 49 3 Io IC  4'  I o II  I! IE o  31 Z a: 3 o HH o se I so o S3 o |0 2C o 73 iS 9 oSi % tJ- i* c C i c s 8 9 Hh 15 16 C ^7 IS 19 C-J 21 22 24 25 I'lc - ,i V 'SfiH 21 ze C  JO 33 J4 . )6 J7 C !2 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DAT.A !98S~90 DISTRICT SUMMARY BY'Ti'ETiSON' COOES QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: c JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL. QJ2-1T0 UJ/ Ov. 90 PACE Liv HH e IC $ iC 8^ 9 OUT 0 F SCHOOL 'LONG TERM C X P U'L S I 0 N S REASON CODE 4000 B/H B/F W/M U/F TOTAL B/M B/F W/M U/F TOTAL B/M B/F U/M U/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL KN 16 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 Ie ^BTUTATT Grand totals fj 0 IT '6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 Z' c 2! \u0026gt;- fiH )9 10 C !2 *2 13 45 6 O !2 58 c hh 51 52 'r O 52 5* $8 0^ * C' T?.STOSS.s 4. t TS?------sr--- K 5 3,2 5S. 3 TS\" 66.7 20.S 2~ 8.3 1 4 2 24 .7 1 66.7 1 5.6 2 4 I S ~r\" 5.6 Tg .0 S85 24  Z! K 2\n21 2(  ZS UH 83 8 PERCENT OF JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY I OFFENSES. \"IT\n-Tp-ER^znri- OF- juHroftKiefr^sFeNSiONS uere CATecoKY it offenses. r.5 PERCENT Or JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY III OFFENSES. C.i PERCENT 0=- JUNIOR HIGH SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY IV OFFENSES. pc 32  W |O| 3 n 37 Z  f'\"} W U  o. U  I! HH |o U ' IS SC JO Jij 52  53 |6 S4 SI HH u . u ' y Io * 55 Io W ID C1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT #J2471 03/09/9\\ PACE 1 r GRADE LEVEL ENROLLMENT Grade Black' ' i I 6 K 1 2 3 White % Other % ( T~-------4 1,465 1,311 1,404 55 624 53 22 1 Total % s 9 10 e I2 hl , r 16 CflUX 17 16 1 6SUS 1 ( a GRftDI I 12! ! ' tl oaiis 3 ( 32 OBK 4 \u0026lt; g cc txi~  caus 9 39 ' A 1-1\ncl 5! j?\" t* itt* 51 5: 55 '(j 56  XI 68 65 67 1,362 66 1,297 \" 1,278 GSm T0T6L8 67 69 667 688 661 678 607 564 31 34 32 33 32 20' 1 17 20 21  18 1 1 1 1 T\n^ 14 2,152 15 2,016 14 2,085 15 2,061  15  '''^2 14 1.922 13 B/n B/F TOTRL BLACK B/R B/F TOTRL RHTE TOTftL B/n 1 100.0 4 66.7 1^ 4 71.4 29.6 27 9 1 100.0 4 66.7 14 100.0 32 71.1 13.2 84.2 28 84.8 3 9.1 31 93.9 37 7 44 77.1 14.6 91.7 36 8 44 64.3 14.3 78.6 143 27 170 73.0 13.8 86.7 1 1 16.7 16.7 6 19.6 2 6.1 3 1 6.3 2.1 12 21.4 24 12.2 2 1.0 0 0.0 2 33.3 0 0.0 6 19.8 2 6.1 4 8.3 12 21.4 26 13.3 1 100.0 6 100.0 14 100.0 38 100.0 33 91.7 48 96.0 96 100.0 196 96.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 3 100.0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 ELEHENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS lOMG TERfl txputsions 8/r 0 ELEK ARY ENROLL. Total. 14,106 Bl ack: White: Other: ( 9,389 67% . 4,489 ' 138 32% I 1% 1 6 TOTALS f 12 13 TOTAL BLACK uzn a/F TOTAL KKITE TOTfll B/n B/r TOTAL BLACK B/n B/F TOTRL fiHZTE TOTRL TOTRL BLOCK TOTRL UKHE GSRKO TOTAL I 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0 0 0.0 1 ,zc 'a- 2\nI 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 66.7 2 33.3 6 , I2S 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 100.0 0 0.0 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 32 84.2 6 19.8 36 2 100.0 0 0.0 2 9.6 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 Z.9 34 94.4 2 9.6 36 . i 1 100.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 49 91.8 4 8.2 49  0 0.0 0 00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 78.6 12 21.4 96 . t. if |s\u0026lt; P'- 0 0.0 3 1.9 1 100.0 0 1 0.0 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 174 87.0 26 13.0 200 '6:i 0.5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN KINDERGARTEN. 3.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE FIRST GRADE. 7.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE SECOND GRADE. 19.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE THIRD GRADE. 18.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE FOURTH GRADE. 24.5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS HERE IN THE FIFTH GRADE. 28.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE IN THE SIXTH GRADE. 0 j' ?c Ei'ea \u0026gt;3 ( / \u0026lt; 2 6 e HI cfil 12 Ct c IS 16 18 hf \u0026amp; I' I 1 LIT7L.-. '?OCK SCHOOL OISTKICT \"BTFi 0 F s s H :\u0026gt; o l SthOOL B/B B/F TOIf, TCRr k/n\ni\u0026lt;F TOTftL ' wn TOTfll E/B aOOKFR ARTS fiftCHFT 22i ^mufiiHW '0 .= 0 Q N k 4 1 5 sa.o 20.0 100.C 4 57.1 T  T 4:9  J r- 4 . J 07/09/90 FACE J c 2 = 2:  B c g fil! I m! cij BRftB? Ei.ffltHTfiCT BADGETT UEntHTiIRV n| hCVF.RjOnritKlKTBRV 19 Ce C  l!P is is C  (8 i9 C iS c 3 3 3 3 55\nC- (ih0 c .wsua ? CfifOlER Bftn BflSELIW ElEflEHinSV FOREST PBRK ELEBENTBRV 0 0.0 fl 71.4 1 IM.O 3 y \u0026lt;i:.9 100,0 4 lIO\" 4 \"Wo 0 oTy I? 'TOO. O' 1 103.0 100.0 0 1 s.o 103.0 e 1 80.0 10.0 r 90.0 1 10.0 1 10 10.0 100.0 1 20.0 BO.O 3 MO 2 49.0 2 40.0 5 100.0 21 6 72.4 20.7 27 93.1 1 3.q 1 3.4 2 6.9 29 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION OAT.A 1989-90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER*. 2 elementary school totals L 0 K 6 T E R n EXFULSIUKS T aiB L S G/F TOTAL scsor li/n u/r TOTAL wr TOFftl B/il B/F TOTSL \"rar U/fl U/F lOTtiL UBITE TOTAL TOTAL BUCK TOTAL wan ORBKB TOItL 1 100.0 5 0.0 0 To 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 OT 0 0.0 0 0.0 ic s B 9 ijh i^c 12 Fa U' IS 16 2( 2 fiH 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 7 100.0 0 0.0 7 |C 2^ 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 57.1 3 42.9 1  ZJ c 28 Pc n ' 93 0 To\" 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 100 0 0 0.0 4  c JS }e 37 n IC 0.0 0 0.0 c 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 HC II *2 |c 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 r.! ALT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0,0 9 90.0 . 1 10.0 10 |Z is 1^ 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 60.0 2 40.0 3 c KH C ss \u0026gt;0 c 27 93.1 2 6.9 29 IC IS c 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 \u0026gt;3 ^2 ^3 o 7S 0 c'it' ?. c C 7 X3 r s s 7 C t 9 C. n 12 c 5 , '5 - , I 13 21 c 24 2S  C  -HH 27 C 28 30 Q-1 33 94 36 37 .  .'-3' 1 littl\n. rock SCHOOu distkici TTin or SCHOOL SCHOOL B/n B/r tOTAl uraar ti/n U/F TOTAL lOTAt c/n FRBtKLIM ELEBEfiTftRV 4 50.C 4 50.0 4 50. C 4 50.0 8 100.0 Jc471 03/09/90 PAGE ( TJioanrCTRrflRr TT 66.7 33.3 FOO.O \"IT 9.9 0 100.0 eiBCS RhSXU 0 TT 1 168 0 1 1 100.0 100-0 CHICOT ELEf!ETfl.RV 12 100.0 12 100.0 0 12 0.0 100.0 C !5 R8 \u0026gt;9 iG Q11 12 19 c Ifi C 12 9 C 2 n S2 usTEim HILLS nmERTimv JEFFERSOM ILMUFftJW CLOVimE ELERENTHRV 4 66 7 4 66.7 2 33.3 2 33 3 b 100.0 1 1 100.0 100.0 0 8.0 1 100.0 5 2 7 62.5 25.0 87.5 1 1 9 12,5 12.5 100.0 LITTLE ROCK' SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA r989~90 DISTRICT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER:  eLEMeHTARVSCHOOL TOTALS LONG 1 I R n EXPULSIQKS TOTALS B/F TOTAL \"KiiSr 0 0.0 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 H/n U/f TOTAL WT lOTSl fi/n B/f TOTAL KRCK u/B /r TOTAL HHITE TOffiL TOTttL BLAOI TOTAL HITE GTIAHO TOTAL 0 0.0 0 0,0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 50.0 4 50.0 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.8 D 0.0 12 100.0 0 0.0 u 0 0.0 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1C0.0 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  0 0.0 12 100.0 0 0.0 12 0 3.0 0 o.c 0 P.O 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 66.7 2 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.8 0 8.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 2 y 4  G 9   12 f2 12 14 15 IS ' *2 IG n e c c hH c 0 I 24 i! a zi c 2(  2! c HH PC 92 34 sE E EE Z Z a z E E o HH so !2) IE Z P IZ 3^ IE 2 C 31 z c HH C \\v\u0026lt;\ni C  14 C s KBS ILZKENTffRV 3 3 6 42.9 4?.9 85.7 1 14.3 14.3 7 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 85.7 1 14.3 7 c* z z z  31 EIS EZ 3! EE g c o s 0Ba i. 'fi l^. \u0026lt; I ? 5 6 c- ys- t. 12 13 /- - IS 16 16 19 21 C s 24 25 o (\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ZT 28 Cl^ 23 34 c G 36 37' 39 to A' 12 0'2 2 43 t llti ts 46 G  C le 4S \u0026gt;2 G 2 M 55 C 5 LlI' .: KOCK SCHOOL DIS'RICT TR . r r T( H iu\nC- SCHOOL E/n S/F TOTfil TOirK y/n m\u0026gt;F TOTAL snrr lOlfil B/n BnCEILL UEKHK/ IfOlRntLXlR RIRIKTART 1 I 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 JL4V1 0J/^9/9C\u0026gt; PAGE J c- CIYER 5PRIKC3 EICTEBIORV filCHTSELL ELEREHTfiSV ROBIK ELfnLTRRY STEPWKS ElEWHTftRV UASHINOTON ELZnEKTBRy BILSOH ELIBEKTBRy 4 51 (ifis 9 30.Z -^-~ 30.0 r 10,0 T IT 10.0 100.0 5 nio.c 5 TTOTO' 0 5 \"O WOT 100.0 100.0 0 2 0.0 100.0 1 r 1 33.3 66.7 100.0 0 3 0.0 100.0 t 1 2 ifi.a 50.9 100.0 0 2 0.0 100.0 3 1 4 75.0 25.0 100.0 3 75.0 3 75.0 1 25.0 Q 0.0 4 80.0 1 100.0 1 25.0 4 100.0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA r^8990 DISTRICT SUKMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 ELEMEWT AR V~SCHGT^r T^'R'LS LONG 1 E O\" EXPULSIONS T 0 T li I S B/F TOTftL oar u/n W/f TOIfil URnr FOlfll Bzn B/F TCIfll oar U/fl E/F TOTAL -------------------ssnr lOEBL TOTAL TOTfIL WTr CRflKD I !il( 6 9 - I, 12 13 0 0.0 D 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Q.O 1 1M.0 0 0.0 I B OS OS oo SE sC s c c HH G IS 111 III 0 *9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 W.O 1 10.0 to Is c SE ZE ZE c IS 0 OTO 8 TTO 0 O' 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 100,0 0 u.o 5 I 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 m.o 0 0.0 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 ? EE EE E :e EX S EE EC EE o HH d o aO 8 0.0 0 0.0  0.0 0 0.0 0 co 3 100.0 0 0.0 3 31 ZE 0 0.0 0 0.9 0 9.0 0 0.0 0 6.0 100.0 0 0.0 2 ZE z 31 6 HH O o 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 C.O 8 0.0 5 100.0 0 0.0 5 53 ss C Ic 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 e.f} 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 u HH  H  -G' 71 V* 73 74  .3 0 cBB r r i\nC I IITLE r?OCK /ChOOL 01' IHICr ^J471 03/09/90 FACE s 6 s 9 2 c 13 14 ' 0^- 'S Id 19 c,^ 21 12 Cn 24 26 27 28 90 Cii 53 34 96 37 0  SCHOOL B/fl 8/f HOODROrr LLinEftTflkV 1 WTOftlL TEfKV ELCflDfTflRF ISH tLEflEfiTfiRV OTTER CREEK ELEBtKTfiRV SO.Q 14 TiH 8 F SCHOOL TO'fit H/n H/F TOTAL BHTr FOWL B/fl fCO.O 100 9 12 80.0 ZQ.O 3 bb.l 14.3 1 100.0 1 100.0 17 81 0 4 19.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 3 20 0 4 19.0 0 1C9.0 15 100.0 21 100.0 1 0.9 100.0 0 1 0.0 100.0 filsffl E 99 a! * Oh 12 tMKtnELC ELESEKMSV (3 -A- 4i) e 3 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 3 100.0 13 96 C  la 19 0 i! 51 52 C i? 54 i5 57 c WftTSOH ELEBEHTftRV 1 1 100.0 100.0 0 0.0 7 87 5 1 100.0 ORflriO TOTALS 144 27 171 75T\"1iy U.i 24 2 26 TfJ to IJ.J 197 WTiT 3\njH3^U.*SE\u0026gt;eXUUUJUJWRiUI LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1 9\u0026amp;9~90' DISTprfCT SUMMARY QUARTER: 1 TO QUARTER: 2 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS LOKS T CK'fl IXPULSIOHS T 0 1 fl L S B/F 0 2 T  6 a  10 t2 13 C r e ill TOTAL \"iJM 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Q 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 3 TMjJ 0.0 100.0 H/n H/F TOTAL TOTAL UHITL 8/n B/F TOTAL BLACK itZil K/r IQTfiL IWITC lOTfiL TOTAL BLACK rOTflL WXTC GRAKO roTfit \u0026gt;6 Z( 21 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0  1 22 /  V' 24 2* - c Il '*- 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 80.0 3 20.0 IS u * 2S hl h 92 ' 5J 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 81.0 4 19.0 f ' 3S 3{ J7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 !2 ~ 4C  f - (' 4J 4 i H 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 |c 4E 5C / - c SI v-z . 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 3 2 - ( 99 V \u0026gt;C 0 0.0 0 1 12.3 3 TT 1 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 100.0 0 0,0 8 5: . y y I 52 - (- . [S 1 100.0 6:n66.o 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 I 175 87.1 26 12.0 201 25 76 is 11 c TJk'n.' uuvuli n.-1( MEADOWCLIFF  C *1 Total: Black: White: Other: 438 273 163 2 i 62.0S. 37. OS 1.051 C:\nCt N I 'l.enENIARV SUSPENSION!, lESE Al : S PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSION!. WERE Al  0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT \u0026gt;. S PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT ' 0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT t S PERCE.'iT OF ELEMENTARY SU-SPENSI ON? WERE AT F 1 PULASKI HEIGHTS  R PERCtNT OP l-LtrlKNl APY SUSPENSION' BOOKER IXt-Ml.N i AkY BALE ELrMtNIAHY. BRADY ELEMEHTARY. BADGETT ELEWENTARY. ncDERMOTT ELKnENTARi CARVER Ft ??\nEN1ARY FAIR PARK Total: Black: White: Other: 342 247 92 3 C iJhRE AT BASEL!N 72.0% 27.0% 1.0% A Ei r I't (' lit cl 13\nc ( , 23 25 u N 27 26 sc 5 JC 3 11 C. F C \" 3e 3 IC C ii c |!5 C\n. C I? s 52 C s 55 C !? q: Total: Black: White: Other: 308 213 92 3 69.or 30.051 1.051 0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS UE'RE AT C S PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT El.CHENTARY . fair park'elementary. FOREST park ELEMcNF.ARY . Il ie.K6'-MT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE *1 ' FRANK! IN ELFMENTARY . ! 0 FERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS MERE AT 5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY .SUSPENSIONS WERE AT GARLAND ELEMENTARY. GIBBS ELEMENTARY. : 0 FERCCNT of elementary suspensions UERE at CHICOT ELEMENTARY, : 0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTART SUSPENSIONS MERE AT 5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT ?4 . (T PERrCEHT Or-ELTMENTARY SUSPENSIONS 35 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 5 0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS MERE AT i S PERCENT OP I'LEMENTAR'rTuBpeRSTffRS WERE ST T O .'ERCINT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT E (I rE.RCC.NT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT T . 3-FETTCPNnir\"ELElie\nFTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 00 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE ST 1,0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT I 5' rElTC:NTrOrELEHERTSRY^OSPNS10NS WERE AT 1 0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT S S PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 0 ,Ti FnTTENT0nLEMEirrSRV~SVSPENS10NS VERE AT E,0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT O.S PERCENT OF El.CMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 7 ,S percent Or' tLEME'NTA'RY 'SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 10.4 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 0.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 0 5 percent CF E'LEMENIARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 0.5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT l.S PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT 4.0 PeSCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE AT WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTAL JEFFERSON ELEHENTART. CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY DODD ELEMENTARY. WEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY. hTTChell e l e m e nt a RY: KING ELEMENTARY. rockefeller elementary. ^EVER springs ELEMENTARY. PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY. RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY. R^MINt\" ELEMENTARY. STEPHENS ELEMENTARY. WASHINGTON ELE.MENTARY. Williams ELEMENTARY. WILSON ELEMENTARY. WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY. MABELVALE ELEMENTARY. TERRY ELEMENTARY. FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY, rSH ELEMENTARY. OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY. WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY. WATSON ELEMENTARY. FULBRIGHT Total: Black: White: Other: WILLIAMS Total: Black: White: Other: 11) f- Ml 562 312 241 9 502 261 235 6 55.0% 43.0% 2.0% 52.051 47.0% 1.0% 6 9 inC If r Ies i\u0026amp; EQ E S a   c kH (i. 2? EE 3 iS c c bi z OS Sf-'  3! s\n33 o HH 6 se - G S9 so *61 63 66 67 5( HH  ss n ID .is^-wwgrTry--trag\u0026gt;-TaHtaMMi ,.1 t' i\nI' if .. I K\u0026gt; i= t 'J r (' 2 3 C: C i 9 12 i3 Ce 1,'t f 15 IS 19 C 2 21 i2 24 25 D 27 30 31 13 t' 34 G' 36 37 hH .z 10 oe 42 C  16 C !2 s C i? His- 0 39 I ROCK SCHOOL DIS I  IC'.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1989*90 DISTRICT SUMMARY bY rfa:\non codes QUARTER: } TO QUARTER: 2 ELEMENTARY LEVEL 0  0 F SCHOOL LONG. TERM n\nc I.' 1 0 3/0 9. 9 r^.GL 1 K\ns IC T 9 eXPULSIOP4 nC il pp I REASON CODE B/M E'F U/M W/F TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M B/F U/M W/F TOTAL GRAND TOTAL CATEGORY I OFFENSES 1 040 1 0E2 -----------------mr SUBTOTAL TATEGORY-TT OFFENSES SUBTOTAL CATEGORY III OFFENSE^ SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL? ---------5L 72 11 3 ,0 1 0 2 22 8 1 1 0 1 sT a 93 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 93  18 2 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 IBS' I.---. 37 10 I 5!  5 1 IS Z( 21 s IO 24 25 n Z{  2S 2010 2030 2070 2080 21 OC 21 I 0 11 (\u0026gt; 3 3 3 3071 3090 2 2 4 144 1 1 2 27 1 g\" 1 12 1 T 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 4 7 5 1 1 7 5 0 35 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 37 1 1 0 24 73.1 13.7 12.2 2 1 . 0 HG 32 '33 10 36 Io c gO 3 4 7 197 98.0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 5? I eh ? go 1 ta ta 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9  3! i 3 1 OC . 0 0 0.0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 1 .5 1 100.0 0 0. 0 0 0.0 0 0 . 0 1 0.5 201 77.1 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE 18.4 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE 4.5 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE 0.0 PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SUSPENSIONS WERE CATEGORY I OFFENSES. CATEGORY II OFFENSES. CATEGORY III OFFENSES. CATEGORY IV OFFENSES. 2]      3! S Z z z s z z iE a E tE (C eg 6 i 6 fiK c o 0 3 3 0 hh O . . .ARil J\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\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_411","title":"Discipline, annual district suspension summary report, senior high level","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1988/1989"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual district suspension summary report, senior high level"],"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/411"],"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":["62 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/  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1988-89 ANNUAL DISTRICT SUSPENSION SUMMARY REPORT SENIOR HIGH LEVEL Pupil Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas1987-88 District-Wide Total Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment SCHOOL TOOT CODE 26.128 15.863 9.950 315 61% 38% 1% LITTLE ROCK 'OL DISTRICT SUSPEN. J DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 OUT-OF-school (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/M B/F H/H W/F TOTAL B/M njnETTOTi---------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F H/M W/F TOTAL 1988-89 District-Wide Total Enrollment 1 Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment RPOraTON 25.744 16.166 9.284 294 B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 63% 36% 1% TOOTT TOTAL X Senior High Totals Junior High Totals Elementary Totals GRAND TOTALS Percent Senior High Totals Junior High Totals Elementary Totals GRAND TOTALS Percents 283 147 62 21 513 26 5 6 0 37 27 0 2 0 29 579 18X 1,083 464 370 94 .011 45 17 7 1 70 32 2 13 0 47 .128 66X 386 83 50 5 524 6 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 532 16X .752 694 482 57% 23% 16% 120 4% 1.048 94% 77 68% 22 14 19% 12% Black Male Black Female White Male White Female 317 114 74 22 1.005 553 359 108 349 75 49 3 1.671 742 482 55% 25% 16% 133 4% Black Male 1 1% 114 4% 1.888 719 511 121 n? 1987-4 8 Annual District Summery August 527 2.025 476 3.028 945 31. 1987 - June 15. 1S88 24 56 2 82 67% 9 3 0 36 12 13 2 83 1 0 0 3  22 16 18% 13% Black Male Black Female White Male White Female 2 2% 122 4% 1.780 777 2.557 506 137 TO 1988-89 IISTRI\nTWIDE ENROLLMENT BY RAIE AND 8.200 Black Female 7.966 Torres' Black Male Overrepresen 59 77% 58% 22% 80% 16% 4% 20% 16 10 1 27 54% 56% 24% 80% 16% 4% 20% SEX 3 4% 15 19% 0 Suspension Rate 23% 9% 16% 11% 3% 7% 7 6 0 13 26% 1 7 0 8 16% 0 2 0 2 4% Suspension Rate ------------------------------ 10% 16% 10% 3% 6% 77 2% 24 25 1 50 2% 3.239 12.5X 587 2.133 480 3.200 18% 67% 15% 12.2% 32% 31% 63% nation White Male 4.645 White Female 4.639 26% 18% 18% 36% District iuspensi Other Male 148 Other Female 146 ?54 on Rate: 12.5% 0.5 0.5 1.0SCHOOL REASON CODE CATEGORY I OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY II OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY II OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY IVj GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK .dOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary by Reason Codes August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 out-of^cto: (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL ) 1010 1020 1030 1050 1061 1062 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1131 1132 TOT 2020 2030 2031 2040 2050 2070 2080 2100 2110 2120 TOT 3040 3071 3072 3080 3090 3100 3110 TOT B/M 11 16 569 47 221 372 4 10 58 4 157 31 15 5 B/F 1 1 236 18 98 134 4 3 24 1 59 15 3 1,520 605 TT 19 30 1 5 3 10 12 5 43 6 5 14 3 175 TO 4 18 1 16 3 4 TT ITT 1 32 1 62 1 5 2 8 1 1 T 1,752 694 W/M 10 3 163 39 34 72 1 2 18 35 41 3 10 11 TO TO 1 5 W/F B/M TONTOERR------------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F EXPULST'OTT 3 5 3 4 29 1 4 2 3 1 TT 482 TOTAL TOTAL w TOTAL B/M B/F W/H W/F 1 31 14 5 23 1 6 4 19 1 9 2 T[6 1 2 3 T I 120 28 21 118 358 601 10 15 106 44 276 50 37 18 TO 25 49 1 5 6 14 17 9 81 1 269 -------T 0 6 27 5 27 5 5 TT TOTT 3,048 1 1 1 3 T 13 1 (T 2 1 1 T T 1 2 1 0 4 3 22 52 2 9 3 7 1 77 1 9 2 13 7 0 2 1 5 2 3 1 T K T I 22 14 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 \"T? 14 4 1 4 0 3 0 1 33 0 72 0 0 2 13 4 16 0 1 TO TO 114 IT 2 6 1 2 11 3 4 17 23 TT T 59 1 T 0 2 7 3 0 1 2 12 15 0 0 IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 3 1 4 0 19 37 0 0 T 77 28 27 1,000 118 359 603 10 15 106 44 276 50 37 19 75 45 53 2 6 17 17 11 116 1 352 5 1 12 40 28 80 5 6 TO77 TK 3,239 83 11 13I LiniC R0S SCKOOl DIS Suspmton llcescn Codci (1) Vlolitloni ef Cttcgery I Offtnses) Clesiroon end fulldinoMei\n------------------------------------- IflO Icidealc dlihonosty (clMtlng on tests, copying, forging stgnetur* Of tucher or parent) (3) Vlobtlom of tjltyiry j Offeimt\n3010 Solo or distribution of olcohol 1070 Fitlur* to rtport to offico sAco dirtctod to do so 3i)\no lOM toto lOM lUl Fighting Kirestaent (oolMnca t1phont cell* to students or staff oaabersi esatlaotd cocsents or passing of note* to Motlar ladlelduil that he dots not nlih to beer or rocatn) leering seboot gronads rlthoot pcralssloo Teacher dlsobedltoc* 3030 3o:o 3050 3060 3071 ICfi lefustng to ob\u0026lt;} nil** tad regulettons 3077 / 1370 Pefuslng to foltoa to* rales end roguletlons less Pefoslng to do ssslgnod snri IC?O tefoslng to leno ditentloo 3030 3090 3100 Second offense, aIccMI Sale or distribution of drugs Second offense, drugs Failure to folio* through vlth drug or ticotel coia- soling or ircatcent Arson rbjrslul issoult on staff Verbal issauU on ttelf Possession of ftixens Possession of nepon not) ScDttng 1110 Dsing fou1 or abosln Itsguagi (cbsccnttles) lltO Verbal esiMit on anottar student or others (fighting oords) 1131 Fint offeos* a* taSJn possassloa of alcohol 1132 First Offens* ns* *ndZ*r possasiton of nonpre* scribed drags, hal1*etoegtns, esrijuana sr statlar sohstane** or Of any cnagthorUed drugs ' or tuhstaaeas 3110 3170 (I) lutsttons of tttwm t Offtsi TOM Ittwall (070 ton Isttiry theft 7031 turglir7 (on (MO too t(O lobiery Crlatnal Trespetslng tabling Ftht iltra (070 tea loitering Raltclous nlscbttf too I'nlnful lite*l/ I II ties todeceil cijotar* s . a tUO Otarderty ccr.duct 1110 tiniilog caatalcitlM Possession of flmorSs or eiploslrcs (itortlon, blecUett or coercion (netting to riot (I) Catc\u0026lt;|orr t offenses: 4030 (Offense not specifically oenttoned to student conduct codi but Nhlch ctlll for disciplinary ectlon If II Is dtsrsiptlrt, haras other*, or has a potentially dlsrupthe affect on IM school cnelronaent btcaost Of Its crlatnal nature)I Grade Level Enrollment Grade Black % White % Other % Total % TD 11 12 TTTTO^O78^19~27T 2,022 36 935 51 887 48 849 47 940 52 22 1 1,844 32 30 1 1,819 32 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 Senior High Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment 5,685 2,994 2,612 79 53% 46% 1% SCHOOL REASON CODE OUT-OF-SthOOL (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 days) B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL LONG-TERM (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/M W/F EXPIA.SION TOTAL TOTAL EOT TOTAL SENIOR HIGH TOT/ LS Grade 10 126 98 30 7 261 17 2 3 0 22 B/H B/F W/M W/F 14 0 2 0 16 299 X 52' Percent Black White Grade 11 Percent Black White Grade 12 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Black White 48% 95 60% 62 67% 283 55% 38% 224/86% 37/14% 11% 3% 87% 77% 9% 19/86% 3/14% 14% 0 7% 88% 0 14/88% 2/12% 12X 0 6% 257 42 86 14 35 19 10 159 5 2 1 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 177 30* 22% 130/82% 29/18% 12% 6% 90% 63% 25% 7/88% 1/12% 12% 0 5% 100% 0 14 13 4 93 4 1 2 0 7 3 15% 76/82% 17/18% 14% 1% 90% 57% 14% : 5/71% 2/29% 29% 0 7% 100% 147 62 21 513 26 5 6 0 37 27 29% 430/84% 83/16% 12% 4% 89% 70% 14% 31 /84% 6/16% 16% 0 6% 93% 0 I 10/100% 0 0 5% 147 30 83 17 0 0 0 0 I 3/100% 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3% 29 103 84 19 579 18 82 18 0 27/93% 2/7% 7% 0 5% 488 91 84 16naw LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 Senior High Enrollment 5,685 Black Enrollment 2,994 53% White Enrollment 2,612 46% Other Enrollment 79 1% SENIOR HIGH TOTALS SCHOOL REASON CODE O-Of-SCHOOL (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 days) B/M  B/F U/M M/F TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SC IQOL Grand Total Percent Black White 56 48% 42 36% 98/84% 19/16% 13 11% 6 5% 117 89% FAIR HIGH SCHOO, Grand Total Percent Black White 104 62% 40 24% 144/86% 23/14% 21 13% 2 1% 167 96% HALL HIGH SCHOO. Grand Total Percent Black White 51 59% 27 31% 78/90% 8/10% 5 6% 3 4% 86 88% McClellan high SCHOOL LONG-TERM (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/M B/F W/H M/F 5 50% 0 0 6 100% TOTAL nPDKlW B/H B/F W/M W/F TOTAL GRanTT TOTAL 2 20% 7/70% 3/30% 3 30% 0 0 10 8% 4 80% 0 0 : 4/80% 1/20% 1 20% 0 . 0 5 3% 132 109 23 23 83 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 100% 0 I 0 I 6/100% 0 0 0 0 0 6 4% 173 150 23 30 87 13 0 I 0 I 6/100% 0 0 0 0 0 6 6% 6 100% 0 I 0 I 6/100% 0 0 0 0 0 6 6% 98 90 8 17 92 E Grand Total Percent Black White 54 52% 29 28% 83/80% 20/20% 18 17% 2 3% 103 81% 11 2 74% 13% 13/87% 2/13% 2 13% 0 0 15 12% 8 89% 0 0 8/89% 1/11% 1 11% 0 0 9 7% 127 104 23 22 82 18 METROPOLITAN V(- tech school Grand Total Percent Black White 7 44% 6 38% 13/82% 3/18% 1 6% 2 12% 16 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3% BS H 13 3 82% latSENIOR HIGH TOTALS SCHOOL REASON CODE PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White ____ TOTAL SENIOR HlGH LEVEL Grand Total Percent Bl ack White LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OisIKlCi SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Sununary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 -------DOT-OF-SCHOOr (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 days) B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL LONG-TERM (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/M B/F W/M W/F EXPULSION f TOTAL B/M B/F W/H W/F TOTAL Er^ TOTAL X 11 45% 3 13% 14/58% 10/42% 4 17% 6 25% 24 73% 4 66% 1 17% 5/83% 1/17% 1 17% 0 0 6 18% 3 100% 0 0 0 I 0 I 3/100% 0 0 0 3 9% 33 22 11 5. 67 3: 283 55% 147 ( 29% 430/84% 83/16% 62 12% 21 4% 513 89% 26 70% 5 14% 31/84% 6/16% 6 16% 0 0 37 6% 27 93% 0 0 27/93% 2/7% 2 7% 0 0 29 579 488 91 84 16SCHOOL reason CODE CATEGORY 1 ub-Total CATEGORY 2 )Ub-Tota1 CATEGORY 3 Sub-Total CATEGORY 4 GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary by Reason Codes August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 Senior High Level -------OUT-OF-SCHOSC (SHORT-TERH, 3-10 days) B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL long-term (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/M M/F TOTAL EXPULSION TOTAL 5RW TOTAL B/H B/F W/M W/F X 1010 1020 1030 1050 1061 1062 1070 1090 1100 1110 1120 1131 1132 zoTfT 2020 2030 2040 2070 2080 2100 2110 3030 3040 3071 3072 3080 3090 3100 3110 4000 2 2 90 4 8 39 2 8 2 23 12 13 4 2 2 51 7 7 11 1 1 12 8 1 0 205 r09 IT 7 11 3 2 4 23 KT 8 1 2 1 12 1 283 7 2 18 27 3 1 1 1 6 5 147 3 1 24 2 11 1 5 1 4 5 37 2 1 3 1 1 2 62 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 T9 1 1 2 0 2T 7 5 170 11 18 66 4 17 2 41 22 21 10 W nr 1 18 3 5 4 0 43 93 0 0 1 12 1 2 2 20 6 \"517 0 7 6 0 1 1 2 2 2 5 1 1 3 3 0 5 2 1 1 1 6 T T 5 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T T 7 3 2 2 0 1 6 17 0 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 To \"T 31 7 T 6 TF 0 0 1 T 7 0 0 1 1 12 5 T9 T 27 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 T 1 1 0 12 6 0 0 21 T 29 7 5 170 11 18 66 4 17 2 41 22 21 10 394 \"TT 20 21 5 4 1 49 126 \"H\" 1 2 19 14 10 2 2 51 8 579 9\u0026gt; TT/jrade 81 act a 9 ' Grade Level Enrollment 1,333 67X 1,316 65X 1,088 60X X White 626 672 694 X other 31% 38 X 70^ X SCHOOL 33X 39X 32 20 1 ,997 3W 2X 2,020 35X IX 1,802 31% LITTLE ROCK \"CHOOL DISTRICT SUSPE, xON DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 REASON CODE ---------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M LONG-TERM------ (BEYOND 10 DAYS) Junior High Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment TOTAL Expulsion .,819 3,737 1,992 90 TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH T3TALS Grade 7 Percent Black White Grade 8 Percent Black White Grade 9 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Black White 427 57% 399 53% 257 50% 175 115 27 744 12 B/F W/M 3 1 W/F 0 16 B/M B/F W/M W/F 8 2 1 0 11 TOTAL 771 64% 34% 2:. 3. 24% 602/81% 142/19% 15% 4% 96% 75% 19% I 15/94% 1/ 6% 6% 3% 73% 18% 10/91% 1/ 9% 9% 1% 627 144 8' 1 186 133 34 752 22 7 4 0 33 17 0 7 0 24 809 3 25% 18% 585/78% 167/22% 103 122 20% : 360/70% 155/30% ,083 464 54% 23% 4% 33 24% 370 18% 1,547/77% 464/23% 6% 94 5% 93% 515 94% 2,011 95% 67% 11 52% 45 64% 21% 12% 29/88% 4/12% 4% 71% 29% 17/71% 7/29% 3% 631 178 2. 7 2 1 21 7 0 5 0 12 548 2, 33% 10% 18/85% 3/15% 5% 4% 58% 42% 7/58% 5/42% 2% 385 163 7' 3( 17 7 1 70 32 2 13 0 47 M2\u0026amp; 25% 10% 62/89% 8/11% 1% 3% 68% 4% : 34/72% 13/28% 28% 2% ,643 485 7z 2:SCHOOL CODE LITTLE ROCK SniOOL DISTRICT SUSPEK zN DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29. 1988 - June 8. 1989 Junior High Enrollment B19 Black Enrollment 3,737 White Enrollment 1,992 ----------OUT-OF-5'CTO (SHORT-TERM. 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M LONG-TERM (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F Other Enrollment TOTAL TOTAL 90 WTu TOTAL 64% 347 27 % B/M B/F W/M W/F CLOVERDALE JUNIOR 1 IGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Bl ack White DUNBAR OUNK'^ R HIGH 161 54% 62 i 21%\n223/75% 73/25% SCHOOL 58 20% 15 5% 296 95% 4 67% 0 0 4/67% 2/33% 2 33% 0 0 6 2% 5 62% 0 0 5/62% 3/38% 3 38% 0 0 8 3% 310 232 78 IE 7E 2E Grand Total Percent Bl ack White FOREST HEIGITS OUN Grand Total Percent Black White HENDERSON JUNIOR H Grand Total Percent Black White MABELVALE JUNIOR H Grand Total Percent Black White 52 47% 42 38% 94/85% 17/15% 11 10% 6 5% 111 79% 16 76% 5 24% 0 0 0 0 21 15% 7 88% OR HIGH SCHOOL 175 54% 81 25% 256/79% 69/21% GH SCHOOL 190 55% 47 14% 22 7% 325 97% 1 33% 21/100% 0 . 2 67% 0 0 0 0 3 1% 4 80% 3/100% 0 0 0 7/88% 1/12% 1 12% 0 0 8 6% 140 122 18 / 87 17 74 I 91 0/ 264/76% 83/24% GH SCHOOL 102 56% 63 18% 20 6% 347 96% 6 75% 2 25% O 0 0 0 8 2% 4 50% 8/100% 0 24 ! 13% 126/70% 55/30% 54 30% 1 1% 181 96% 2 40% 1 1 . 20% 20% 3/60% 2/40% 1 20% 5 3% 0 0 0 0 : 4/80% 1/20% 1 20% 0 0 5 2% 333 263 70 IE 75 21 0 0 4/50% 4/50% 4 50% 0 0 8 2% 363 276 87 17 7f 2- 1 50% ! 1 /50% 1 /50% 1 50% 0 0 2 188 130 58 ( 6 3.SCHOOL OT CODE MANN MAGNET OUNIOR Grand Total Percent Bl ack White LITTLE ROCK wnracT SUSPEr N DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29. 1988 - June 8, 1989 out-of-'scto: (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M LONG-TFRM (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M HIGH SCHOOL 71 19 63% 17% 90/80% 22/20% 18 16% 4 4% 112 98? 1 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% 1 100% PULASKI HEICHTS JUMOR HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Bl ack White SOUTHWEST 3L Grand Total Percent Bl ack White 141 96 46% 32% 237/78% 67/22% NIOR HIGH SCHOOL 191 66 TOTAL OUNIOf Grand Total Percent Black White rxruraw B/F W/H W/F TOTAL LWiu TOTAL % 50 16% 17 6% 304 93? 9 75% 1/100% 0 2 17% I 11 /92% 1/8% 1 8% 0 0 12 4% 8 57% 20% : 257/77% 78/23% HIGH lEVEL 1,083 464 69 21% 9 2% 335 95? 6 43% 5 3 36% 21% 11/79% 3/21% 0 0 14 4% 54% 23% 1 ,547/77% 464/23% 370 18% 94 5% 2,011 95? 45 64% 17 7 25% 10% 62/89% 8/11% 1 1% 70 3% 0 0 1/100% 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% 114 92 22 1 80% 10% 9/90% 1/10% 1 10% 0 0 10 3% 326 257 69 5 81 19 15 79 21 3 60% 32 68% 0 0 3/60% 2/40% 2 4% 34/72% 13/28% 2 40% 0 0 5 1 354 271 83 i\n7' 22 13 28% 0 0 47 2% 2,128 1,643 485 6f 7 2.SCHOOL CODE CATEGORY I OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY II OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY III OFFENSES Sub-Total CATEGORY IV GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK 'WOOL DISTRICT SUSPEhoION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary by Reason Codes August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 --------DUT-OF-SCRDDE (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL Junior High Level 1010 1020 1030 1050 1061 1062 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1131 1132 2010 2020 2030 2031 2040 2050 2070 2080 2100 2110 2120 3030 3071 3072 3080 3090 3100 3110 TOT B/M 8 11 362 43 148 232 1 8 50 2 122 12 2 B/F 5 5 154 11 84 99 3 3 17 1 44 6 2 W/M 7 2 116 2.1 29 54 W/F 1 26 13 2 17 B/M (BEYOND 10 DAY^l B/F U/M W/F TOTAL EXPULSW TOTAL GkANi) TOTAL 1,001 434 T4 6 12 2 3 8 1 3 14 63 1 1 3 3 1 3 12 ~1 3 3 3 1 1 11 1 23 2 4 1 7 1,083 464 2 17 35 36 2 6 6 349 2 5 4 18 6 1 93 1 3 4 3 2 1 15 I 2 2 1 1 6 0 370 94 20 19 658 104 263 402 4 13 89 42 220 20 16 7 1,877' r?' 9 16 0 2 6 9 5 7 28 1 ro2 1 1 7 2 8 3 3 ____ ______ 2,011 1 T 7 1 2 1 17 32 1 4 2 4 1 12 45 0 2 8 10 2 1 4 1 \\1 1 I 7 0 1 2 4 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 7 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 27 0 46 0 1 6 3 11 0 1 22 TT 70 B/M B/F V./M W/F 0 T 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 3 0 0 0 5 18 28 32 7. 2 2 2 11 13 13 0 0 IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 2 3 0 7 31 0 0 43 T 47 2ir 19 658 104 263 403 4 13 89 42 220 20 16 8 . ,879 27 16 17 1 4 6 10 5 8 57 1 152 3 5 13 12 50 3 4 90 -------7 \"271^ 8f / 4 TElementary Enrollment Total: 14,012 Black White Other 9.281 66.2% 4,605 32.9% 126 .9% LITTLE ROCK \"HOOL DISTRICT SUSPEU..0N DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 SCHOOL WOT CODE (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M MTTFRM---------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M Expulsion TOTAL G^ND TOTAL B/F W/M W/F ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS GRADE K Percent Black White GRADE 1 Percent Black White GRADE 2 Percent Black Whi te GRADE 3 Percent Black White GRADE 4 Percent Black White GRADE 5 Percent Black White 1 100 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 26 5 1/100% 0 1 0 1 0 81.3 15.6 3.1 31/96.9% ____________1/3^1% 38 8 5 74.5 15.7 9.8 46/90.2% ___________5/9^8% 63 11 5 79.7 13.9 6.3- 74/93.7% 5/6.3% 100 12 9 82.6 10.0 7.4  112/92.6% 9/L^ 83 18 12 72.8 15.8 10.5 101/88.6% ___________13/11.4% 32 97 1 100 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 6 0 0 0 0 1 .9 51 100 79 98.8 121 96.8 114 99.1 1 100 0 3 75 0 1 100 0 1/100% 0 0 0 51 0 0 1 1.2 0 80 9 3 9 9 9 1 1/100% 0 1 25 3/75% 1/25% 0 4 3.2 0 125 0 0 1 .9 0 115 9 6 2 9\n8 2 1/100% 0 8 1SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SrHOni TOTALS GRADE 6 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Slack White WOT CODE ----------OUT-QF-OTUE---------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) D/M B/F W/M W/F 75 29 59.5 23 18 14.3 104/82.5% 22/17.5% 4 3.2 386 83 50 73.1 15.8 9.5 469/89.5% 55/10.5% 5 1.0 LITTLE ROCK --HOOL DISTRICT . SUSPEh.TON DATA 1988-89 Annual District Sunmary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 TOTAL 126 99.2 524 98.5 B/M long-term (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M 0 0 nPuisioN TOTAL WiD TOTAL B/F 1 100 W/M U/F 0 0 6 85.7 0 1 14.3 1/14.3% 0 1 1.3 0 1/100% 0 1 100 0 0 1 .8 127 2 E 1 1/100% 0 1 .2 532 1 1LITTLE ROCK S( )L DISTRICT ELEMENTARY LEVEL , SUSPENSION DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary by Reason Codes August 29, 1988 - June 3, 1989 SCHOOL CATEGORY I OFFENSES Subtotal CATEGORY II OFFENSES Subtotal CATEGORY III OFFENSES Subtotal CATEGORY IV OFFENSES Subtotal GRAND TOTAL Percent Black ___White TITTOT CODE 1010 1020 1030 1050 1061 1062 1070 1080 1110 1120 1132 2010 2020 2021 2030 2080 2100 2110 3030 3071 3072 3080 3090 4000 DDT-ITP^THOOL-------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M WT^TTTU'i---------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F T TOTAL B/M \"EXPULSION B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TOTAL 1 3 117 0 65 101 1 2 12 7 1 TUT 22 6 1 7 7 2 6 5T 0 3 7 0 13 2 2 386 0 0 31 0 7 24 0 0 3 1 0 3 2 0 4 0 0 3 17 0 1 0 1 3 y 0 0 83 0 0 23 2 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 IF 4 1 0 4 1 0 1 IT 0 0 1 0 2 T 0 0 50 13.7 15.8 9.5 469/89.5% _____ 55/10.5% 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 P 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 1 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 5 1.0 1 3 171 3 77 133 2 2 15 8 1 29 9 1 15 8 2 10 7T 1 4 8 1 18 77 2 2 524 98.5 1 1 a 1 1 2 7 0 0 6 85.7 0 0 0 IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 0 IT 0 0 0 1 1 6/85.7% 1/14.3% 1 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 0 1 0 1 2 T 1 1 7 1.3 0 0 U 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 IT IT 0 0 1/100% 0 0 0 IT IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 1 3 172 3 78 134 2 2 15 8 1 49 7^ 29 9 1 15 8 2 10 7T 1 5 8 2 20 3 I 532 6.8 .5 16.4 89.5 10.5Elementary Enrollment Total: Black * White Other 14,012 9,281 66.2% LITTLE ROCK \"OL DISTRICT SUSPENSi.a DATA SCHOOL BADGETT Grand Total Percent Black White BASELINE Grand Total Percent Black White BOOKER Grand Total Percent Black Whi te BRADY Grand Total Percent Black White CARVER Grand Total Percent Black White CHICOT Grand Total Percent Black White TIETOT CODE 4 605 32 9^ .9% 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 ELEMENTARY LEVEL 126 DDT-OF-SCHOOL-------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M IJW=TERR-------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M Expulsion B/F W/M W/F TOTAL GW TOTAL 12 70.6 0 5 29.4 12/70.6% 5/29.4% 0 17 100 0 0 17 3.2 70. 29. 18 6 5 62.1 20.7 17.2 24/82.8% ___________5/17^ 47 2 92.2 3.9 2 3.9 49/96.1% 2/3.9% 28 6 0 80.0 17.1 34/97.1% ___________1/2.9% 8 80 0 2 20 8/80% 2/20% 0 0 1 2.9 0 7 50 4 2 28.6 14.3 11/78.6% 3/21.4% 1 7.1 29 100 51 98.1 35 100 10 100 14 100 0 0 29 5.E 82. 17. 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 1.9 0 9.8 96. 3.8 0 0 35 6.6 97. 2.9 0 0 10 l.S 80 20 0 0 14 2.( 78.. 21.^.SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK S''M00L DISTRICT SUSPEN. -N DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 CODE -------- DUT-DF-'SCHDOL---------- J----------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F - B/M TDNCTERR-------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/i- TOTAL B/M Expulsion B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TOTAL CLOVERDALE Grand Total Percent Black White 1 1 58.4 33.3 8.3 11/91.7% ____________ 1/8.3% 0 12 100 0 0 12 2. 91 8.\n- DODD Grand Total Percent Black White . 61 27 11 61.6 27.3 11.1 88/88.9% 11/11.1% 0 99 99 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 1 0 100 18. 89 11 FOREST PARK Grand Total Percent Bl ack White FRANKLIN Grand Total Percent Black White 3 100 0 0 0 8 80 0 3/100% 0 2 20 8/80% 2/20% 0 3 100 0 0 3 .6 100 0 10 90.9 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 9.1 0 11 2.1 81. 18. ^RLAND Grand Total Percent Black White GEYER SPRINGS Grand Total Percent Black White 18 1 0 94.7 5.3 19/100% 0 3 60 1 20 1 20 4/80% 1/20% 0 0 19 100 5 100 0 0 0 0 19 5 3.6 100 0 .8 80 20 BB Haa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL  \\- SUSPENS 3 DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 CODE --------OUT-OF-SCWOI-------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M rWTTW---------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/F TOTAL B/M IXFUBTW TOTAL OTiD TOTAL B/F W/M W/F GIBBS Grand Total Percent Black White 6 100 0 0 0 6 100 0 0 6 1.1 6/100% 0 IOC 0 ISH ^rand Total Percent Black White 6 1 0 85.7 14.3 7/100% 0 0 7 100 0 0 7 1.3 100 0 JEFFERSON Grand Total Percent Black White 7 2 0 77.8 22.2 9/100% 0 0 9 100 0 0 9 1.7 IOC 0 WiBELVALE . Grand Total Percent Black White McDermott Grand Total Percent Black White MEADOWCLIFF Grand Total Percent Black White B 31 8 2 70.5 18.2 4.5 39/88.6% 5/11.4% 3 6.8 44 100 0 0 44 8.3 88. 11. 9 90 1 10 0 0 10 100 0 0 10 1.9 5 3 10/100% 0 5 0 100 0 38.5 23.0 38.5 8/61.5% 5/38.5% 13 100 0 0 13 2.4 61.5 38.5 iiiiininnifhSCHOOL TOOT CODE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPEND i DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 --------OUT-OF-SCMOOE-------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M LONG-TERM---------- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M W/T nPUUSTUK TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL HOT TOTAL MITCHELL Grand Total Percent Black White otter creek Grand Total Percent Black White RIGHTSELL Grand Total Percent Black White ROCKEFELLER Grand Total Percent Black Whi te ROMINE Grand Total Percent Black White STEPHENS Grand Total Percent Black White 2 40 2 40 1 20 4/80% 1/20% 0 5 100 0 0 5 .8 80 20 4 100 0 0 0 4/100% 0 4 100 0 0 4 .8 lOG 0 5 100 0 0 0 19 95 1 5 1 33 1 33 8 100 0 5/100% 0 0 0 5 100 20 100 0 0 5 .8 IOC 0 0 0 20 3.8 20/100% 0 1 34 2/66% 1/34% 0 8/100% 0 0 0 100 0 3 100 8 100 0 0 0 0 3 8 .6 66 34 1.5 100 0LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPEN N DATA 1988-89 Annual District Summary August 29, 1988 - June 8, 1989 SCHOOL reason CODE --------OUT-OF-S'CHDOL-------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) TOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F B/M [URGTItrR----- (BEYOND 10 DAYS) B/F W/M\nTOTAL B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL ISRARD TOTAL TERRY Grand Total Percent Black White WAKEFIELD Grand Total Percent Black White WATSON Grand Total Percent Black White WESTERN HILLS Grand Total Percent Black White WILSON Grand Total Percent Black White WOODRUFF Grand Total Percent Black Whi te 25 35 71.4 14.3 14.3 30/85.7% 5/14.3% 1 100 21 84 5 83.3 10 94.6 50 1 50 1/50% 1/50% 2 5.4 37 7. 83 16 1 50 1 100 1 50 .4 1/100% 0 3 12 22/88% 3/12% 1 16.7 5/83.3% 1/16.7% 55.6 38.9 5.6 17/94.4% 1/5.6% 1 100 1/100% 0 25 96.2 100 1/100% 0 1 3.8 6 100 18 94.7 I 100 1 5.3 1/100% 1 100 1/100% 0 19 10( 0 4.' 88. 11 1. 83 16 3.t 94 5.: .2 lOG 0 ixPorarofT 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 I 0 0 0 0 2*^. 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 The following elementary schools reported no disciplinary sanctions for the 1988-89 school year: Bale, Fair Park, Fulbright Pulaski Heiahts and Williams Magnet.\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\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_424","title":"Enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School enrollment","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment"],"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/424"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSCHOOL B Franklin* Garland Ish Mitchell Riffhtsell Rockefeller Stephens Total 364 268 157 220 194 243 225 1,671 INCENTIVE SCHOOL THREE YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 O T % Blk B W O T Blk B W O T Q, O Blk 72 15 7 19 16 39 0 168 12 2 0 0 1 2 1 18 448 285 164 239 211 284 226 1,857 81% 94% 96% 92% 92% 86% 100% 90% 343 211 142 183 191 217 190 1,477 59 18 4 24 1 87 12 205 9 11 0 0 1 5 0 26 411 240 146 207 193 309 202 1,708 83% 88% 97% 88% 99% 70% 94% 86% 428 262 188 285 282 304 236 1,985 71 15 9 27 6 131 8 267 8 2 3 0 1 5 1 20 507 279 200 312 289 440 245 2,272 84% 94% 94% 91% 98% 69% 96% 87%I 1 FRANKLIN SCHOOL ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVEL 4 yr. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Self-C TOTAL PERCENT B 364 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL % BLACK M F M F M F 17 14 12 13 1 3 60 52% 25 23 3 3 1 1 56 86% 36 29 7 3 0 0 75 87% 36 27 2 1 0 0 66 95% 31 25 4 3 0 0 63 89% 25 29 35 7 241 48% 1989-90 W 0 T 17 26 24 2 187 37% % Blk B 4 3 0 0 49 86% 4 3 1 1 64 86% 4 1 0 0 64 92% 1 0 0 0 10 90% 41 30 3 5 507 84% 72 12 448 81% 343 8% 6% 1% 1% 1990-91 1991-92 W 0 T % Blk B W 0 T % Blk 59 9 411 83% 428 71 8 507 84%GRADE LEVEL 4-year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CBI TOTAL PERCENT B 268 BLACK M F 3 8 15 15 19 14 17 20 26 6 135 48% 1989-90 W 0 T 12 22 11 21 13 17 17 6 127 45% % Blk 15 2 285 94% GARLAND SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F B 211 OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 3 2 2 18 61% 1 1 1 28 39 3 2 10 4% 1 1 5 2 2% 1% 34 35 32 38 43 12 279 96% 95% 88% 100% 94% 97% 100% 100% 94% 1990-91 1991-92 W 0 T % Blk B W 0 T % Blk 18 11 240 88% 262 15 2 213 94%GRADE LEVEL 4 yrs K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CBI TOTAL PERCENT B 157 BLACK M F 8 6 24 15 9 8 11 11 3 95 48% 1989-90 W 0 T 7 164 4 7 16 11 10 17 20 6 2 93 47% % Blk 96% ISH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F B 142 OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 2 2 1 17 71% 1 1 15 40 2 1 29 19 25 87% 100% 90% 100% 100% 1 32 17 1 6 3 1 2 97% 100% 6 200 83% 94% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1990-91 1991-92 W 0 T % Blk B W 0 T % Blk 4 146 97% 188 9 3 200 94%GRADE LEVEL 4 yrs K 1 2 3 4 5 6 SC* TOTAL PERCENT B 220 BLACK M F 7 6 17 12 19 25 24 24 28 14 24 7 164 53% 1989-90 W 0 T 17 14 16 16 13 2 121 39% % Blk B 19 0 239 92% MITCHELL SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 3 3 3 1 1 1 12 4% 183 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 15 5% 1990-91 W O T % Blk B 24 0 207 88% 285 20 35 46 46 41 46 31 38 9 312 1991-92 W 0 T 27 0 65% 83% 96% 89% 93% 96% 97% 97% 100% 312 91% % Blk 91%GRADE LEVEL 4 yrs K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL PERCENT B 194 BLACK M F 4 1 16 14 27 21 17 19 27 15 23 21 19 154 53% 1989-90 W 0 T 14 22 16 128 44% % Blk B 16 1 211 92% RIGHTSELL SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1% 1990-91 W 0 T 191 1 1 193 OTHER M F 1 1 TOTAL 16 31 48 36 43 37 43 35 289 1991-92 % Blk 99% B W 0 T 282 6 1 % BLACK 69% 97% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 98% % Blk 289 98%GRADE LEVEL Infant 4 yr K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL PERCENT B 215 28 243 BLACK M F 10 12 16 15 14 18 25 21 15 16 17 18 22 24 14 157 36% 1989-90 W 0 T 18 11 18 147 33% % Blk 33 2 250 86% 6 34 82% 39 2 284 86% ROCKEFELLER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F B OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 1 8 37 59% 15 13 1 60 52% 9 12 53 60% 11 12 69 67% 5 2 4 3 4 60 14% 195 22 217 7 2 45 69% 1 2 5 5 71 16% 1990-91 W 0 T 1 1 2 3 1% 71 16 87 5 5 271 38 309 % Blk 72% 58% 70% B 282 22 304 45 46 44 41 440 1991-92 W 0 T 116 15 131 5 5 78% 87% 80% 78% 69% % Blk 403 70% 37 59% 440 69%GRADE BLACK LEVEL M F 4-year 6 2 K 5 19 1 18 21 2 21 14 3 13 12 4 16 7 5 18 23 6 21 14 CBI 5 1 TOTAL 123 113 PERCENT 50% 46% B 225 1989-90 W 0 T % Blk 0 1 226 100% STEPHENS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT WHITE M F B 191 OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK 3 1 1 5 2% 1 2 1 3 1 1% 1990-91 W 0 T % Blk B 5 7 203 94% 236 12 25 41 35 25 23 41 37 6 245 1991-92 W 0 T 67% 96% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 96% % Blk 8 1 245 96%LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified 1,972 2,048 2,043 2,056 Non-certified 1,359 1,465 1,651 1,859 TOTAL 3,331 3,513 3,694 3,915LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment Q. O BLK 1989-90 Enrollment Q. 'O BLK 1990-91 Enrollment 'O BLK 1991-92 Enrollment *6 BLK Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield 279 72% 237 76% 222 75% 220 73% 414 72% 385 76% 375 81% 360 82% 400 73% 389 72% 370 74% 337 77% 647 55% 610 53% 614 56% 634 55% 447 446 560 446 414 341 423 442 598 299 239 335 197 488 94 586 506 456 261 361 326 241 300 472 233 522 501 64% 442 66% 456 72% 420 68% 50% 65% 63% 66% 72% 59% 74% 55% 92% 66% 51% 90% 56% 94% 63% 59% 69% 84% 58% 70% 81% 85% 76% 97% 59% 63% 589 531 419 394 332 392 448 576 285 205 338 164 479 535 514 432 239 342 307 211 250 425 226 513 464 46% 64% 70% 64% 72% 57% 81% 56% 94% 66% 51% 96% 50% 58% 61% 62% 92% 50% 71% 92% 86% 80% 100% 61% 65% 603 544 389 331 345 387 411 559 240 201 333 146 469 559 524 444 207 359 325 193 271 392 202 522 502 54% 67% 74% 59% 81% 53% 83% 52% 88% 72% 56% 97% 51% 57% 62% 65% 88% 50% 65% 99% 72% 82% 94% 55% 65% 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 403 357 245 512 479 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 70% 84% 96% 47% 69%SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment a O BLK 1989-90 Enrollment O BLK 1990-91 Enrollment O BLK 1991-92 Enrollment *0 BLK Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff High Sch Kind SUB TOTAL Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pul. Heights Southwest SUB TOTAL Central High Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 519 98% 762 57% 841 57% 465 332 475 412 221 14,179 712 741 770 954 581 882 694 734 6,068 2,070 920 1,268 1,191 847 6,296 26,543 65% 64% 52% 70% 74% 66% 60% 81% 64% 64% 56% 59% 62% 70% 64% 57% 51% 50% 52% 58% 54% 63% 456 337 501 397 193 119 14,195 731 576 808 956 609 877 721 700 5,978 1,813 911 1,192 1,081 805 5,802 25,975 64% 59% 51% 66% 71% 76% 67% 64% 79% 67% 71% 61% 54% 63% 70% 66% 58% 56% 53% 59% 54% 56% 64% 518 339 505 418 186 113 14,336 764 663 772 902 620 886 722 655 5,984 1,580 866 1,212 1,003 804 5,465 25,785 67% 60% 56% 71% 65% 87% 66% 70% 64% 69% 75% 65% 58% 63% 75% 67% 59% 58% 57% 61% 54% 58% 65% 467 323 495 394 225 111 14,6W 745 691 765 859 665 872 761 704 6,062 1,721 882 1,082 980 844 5,509 26,254 72% 59% 55% 73% 64% 84% 71% 61% 71% 83% 65% 56% 62% 74% 68% 60% 61% 54% 65% 53% 59% 64%SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1988-89 Enrollment 279 414 400 647 447 446 560 446 414 341 423 442 598 299 239 335 197 488 94 Mabelvale Elem 586 McDermott 506 Meadowcliff 456 Mitchell 261 Otter Creek 361 Pul. Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield 326 241 300 472 233 522 501 Q. 'O BLK 72% 72% 73% 55% 64% 50% 65% 63% 66% 72% 59% 74% 55% 92% 66% 51% 90% 56% 94% 63% 59% 69% 84% 58% 70% 81% 85% 76% 97% 59% 63% 1989-90 Enrollment 237 385 389 610 .442 589 531 419 394 332 392 448 576 285 205 338 164 479 535 514 432 239 342 307 211 250 425 226 513 464 \"O BLK 76% 76% 72% 53% 66% 46% 64% 70% 64% 72% 57% 81% 56% 94% 66% 51% 96% 50% 58% 61% 62% 92% 50% 71% 92% 86% 80% 100% 61% 65% 1990-91 Enrollment 222 375 370 614 456 603 544 389 331 345 387 411 559 240 201 333 146 469 559 524 444 207 359 325 193 271 392 202 522 502 Q, BLK 75% 81% 74% 56% 72% 54% 67% 74% 59% 81% 53% 83% 52% 88% 72% 56% 97% 51% 57% 62% 65% 88% 50% 65% 99% 72% 82% 94% 55% 65% 1991-92 Enrollment 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 403 357 245 512 479 Q, 'O BLK 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 70% 84% 96% 47% 69%SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment *6 BLK 1989-90 Enrollment BLK 1990-91 Enrollment BLK 1991-92 Enrollment Q, *0 BLK I Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff High Sch Kind SUB TOTAL Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pul. Heights Southwest SUBTOTAL- Central High Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 519 98% 762 57% 841 57% 465 332 475 412 221 14,179 712 741 770 954 581 882 694 734 6,068 2,070 920 1,268 1,191 847 6,296 26,543 65% 64% 52% 70% 74% 66%? 60% 81% 64% 64% 56% 59% 62% 70% 64% 57% 51% 50% 52% 58% 54% 63% 456 337 501 397 193 119 14,195 731 576 808 956 609 877 721 700 5,978 1,813 911 1,192 1,081 805 5,802 25,975 64% 59% 51% 66% 71% 76% 67% 64% 79% 67% 71% 61% 54% 63% 70% 66% 58% 56% 53% 59% 54% 56% 64% 518 339 505 418 186 113 14,336 764 663 772 902 620 886 722 655 5,984 1,580 866 1,212 1,003 804 5,465 25,785 67% 467 72% 60% 56% 71% 65% 87% 66% 70% 64% 69% 75% 65% 58% 63% 75% 67% 59% 58% 57% 61% 54% 58% 65% 323 495 394 225 111 14,683 745 691 765 859 665 872 761 704 6,062 1,721 882 1,082 980 844 5,509 26,254 59% 55% 73% 64% 84% 65% 71% 61% 71% 83% 65% 56% 62% 74% 68% 60% 61% 54% 65% 53% 59% 64%EMKObU-IEHT SUMMARY Site: Fair\n/llall SUrCIER SCHOOL '88 School First term Second term BM BF WM WF ^BM BF WM WF Total both terms BM BF WM WF f 81 lit. 81  6 M. A 11 3 Ik H- 11 L LI Ik 'I i 3 z L L 12 /s 3 Ik ^2.-5 6 IC (g J 6 /b lb o JJL LI S 71 Ik 11 8 3. ^6 a L C\u0026gt; \u0026amp; SL 1 I I Lk 1 2 a Ll 1 1 i ! 1 a a L 11 LL 1 1 IL IL 11 5 S 5 3 1 1. 1 Ik L 1 5 6 13. /:k 1 L 3 1 S J 6 L d 1 6 0 o 3 3 A 3 1 1 L 8 1. 1 L3i, I5\u0026amp; /LL 131 UL 13 551 I 53 L If ? _b 6 c 5 a L ! I I a I : 't Ik HlakjJL pia.r\u0026gt;.--\u0026lt;k3k L O 0 I 0 JS. 0 d 11 a  0 U d 1 6 11 0 O li111 6 o 1 6 0 0 L31 \u0026lt;5 11^ I lt e b 3 Ik i. d 3 o 1 o 3 (o U . .. E\u0026lt; I ! LRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools [5] GrocJes 10-12 Cenligl E-.--..,! Hoa, J A. Fair Sem St-uMQri Hall Bill Barnhouse i 1500 Park^72202 376 4751 5201 Dovid O Dodd, 72210 - 2 6700 H \", 72205  661.9000' 6609 _ McClean Rudolph Hov\na\nd_'-'9-4 17 G'eyer Spr.n'gs, 722O9'~5'6T631^---------- Parxv.e.-.- r,ne Arts Magnet - Junious Bobbs - 2501'Sorrow. 722'077-2^5:^ Vocational-Technical Center [jj Grodes 10-12 Dr. Doyle D4fa2h'u7t'y-7^rScattH'a\nu^^ Metropolitan  I High Schools [8] Grades 7-9 ------Hinkson Rd..'7'2'20'9---^T4-2y -------Du.--,bo r A^on Lacey . IIQO Wright_Ave..'7'2206 - 375.557'i----- Dunbar ____ForesjJjeig^ - James Wi se - 5901 Evergreen, 72205  663-3391 Henderson . Brody Grodberry . 401 Barrow Rd Rd.. 72205  225-3358 PO 8ox 187, Mabelvale, 72103  455-2413 -------^^Mg3n^_. Dr, Victor Anderson - IQOQ . Roosevelt RH 7?^ -------Heights - D.-, Jim Haley - 401 N. Pine. 72205 . ____Sauthv.-est - Gail McLoughlin  372-3123 664-7073  3301 S. Bryor.t, 72204 - 565-4416 Elementory Schools [37] Grodes K-7 Badgett - Mgry Golstoi n - 6900 Pecan Read, 72206 - 490-1582 Bole - Levanno Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204 - 565-6671' ^aseline - Anna Totym - 3623 Baseline Rd., 72209 - 565-5536 .------looker Arts Magnet - Wiiligm Finn - 2016 Barber, 72206 Brady - Helen Thomps - 7915 W. Morkhom, 72205 t l- Carver C.'iicot - Ohs Preslar  11100 Chtcor Rd., PQ Sox 405. Mobelvole. 72103 - Clovergale - Jocqucl.ne Dedmci Dodd - Robert Nelson ' * 568-2554 n  376-3319 - 225.1815 - 6500 Hinkson Rd.. 72209 - 565-0986 112 ^'*73 Stogecoqch Rd., 72204 . 455.31,0 ^g^r Perk - Catherine Gill - 616 N. Harrison. 72205 - 0-------- uriii - QIC N. Harrison. 72205 - 666-0'59 - '^'^Stnig Ashley - 1600 N? Tyler, 72207  6AA.5415 nrgnklin - ,Coimie Aston - 1701 s. Horrison, 72204 . 666-0343 _lior^_,AA^, Huffn\nr\n300 Pleasant VnlleJn'?' 5j'-l=^l Cheryl A. Simmo 72212 - 224-2350 T ,.Cdp . E i j T I i I f ,___Eleanor Co. G'OOS Magnet - Donna Davis tx ns - 3615 W. 25th 72204  566-9436  5240 Mobelvole Pike. 72209 . 565-0184 15W. 16th, 72202 - 372-0251 2206 - 376-3629 r----l2_l^2L5rem^^ll^n - 2600 N. McKinley 72207 - --^'.'.?\n..S?1'/_Go^'11__480^. 26th, 7'220~r6'3:^397 Mabelvale_Dor_othy F_aulne^_ 940, -------- -  'Mobelvole, 72103 - 455-2227 663-9472 663-6397 9401 Mabelvale Cut-off I-------^iDermoh^ynn_^ore - 1200 Reservoir'Rd., 7r207' 2'25:^ r _Meadasvcyf_.2^M^m-^ j-^e^ Dr-772ToT'56-5-63^ I _M,ichell - Donito Hu_ds_pth - 2410 Sattery_72206'-3'75-693T  Otter Creek - Pgt Price  lb'OOO Ot-e.'c^eek ,'27-722y9 I Elementary Schools - (continutd on back) 455-3320 I 7 i T I I I j i T 278 ! 149 I 83 321 I 417 I_A_ I 420 261 jl33 2.44 !121 I 232 I 394 f .L f T I J. i ! T I ' 365  65  67 3'1 I 173 I 3ry ! 472 I 440 I 8 -563 ! 285 i 261 I I 448 2546 38 I ^2' ! 420 i 424 I 2l9 248 ' 170 ' 177 I 351 I /tr I 15, T 451 i (\u0026lt;17 1 550 ! 513 j 25 413 ' 59 i 3/7 I ^47. ' 3(3 ' 512, 6 I wid i $37.  538  95 I fi07 I 257 I nr i \u0026lt;^71, i ! 320 i 298 i $17. 5 ' 235 i in i /OV : 303 95' 1 4. X I I -^^0 I 211 ' 7 490 j 2^7 I 2il ' 218 1 ^7 1 I ! 541 I iro I 3 7)'^ I T  531 j 2Ll~^ 465 j 2/7 i 280 l?7q ! 383 I nn I t I I - ^37\n_223___97  _ s^'7.LRSD School Checklist Elementary School! [37] Grades K-6 {continued} Puloiln Heights - Eddie /\u0026lt;kCoy 19 N. Pine. 72205  663-9469 Rightseii  Kgy Loss  911 W. 19th. 72206  374-7448 ____________ Rockefeller - Anne Mangan - 700 E. 17th. 72206  374-1226 Romine - Lionel Word - 3400 Romine Rd., 72204  225-3833 Stephens  Stan Strauss  3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 72211  225-1215 Wakefield - Lloyd Slock - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W. 27th, 72206 - 375-8275 Wotsen - Dr. Diana Glaze  7000 Volley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Western Hills - Margie Puckett - 4901 W'estern Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jockson - 7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson - Reine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 Woodruff - Karen Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 320\n2fln\n?5n \n320  291  I 537 1 n -2- ' 9 Totals *260 spaces left open for white students. T i 472 nil  y 'il ! 6lQQ\n340 ' M2 i 2sa- 3* 2i2 5ty. sit _____ 195 14^7 -5 - 323 I /*V I ZVVT3drT~S 3 X 409 i W7 I 178 ! 275 245 I It* I /IV I I 12563 I I I T I I I T I T I I I I T ! + I T 7 I X u. -i. I I I I T I I I I i I t I 7LRSD enrollment school by school School Fair Hall McCiallan Cloverdale Juntor Forest Koighls Henderson.,,,, Mabsivaie Junior Man ri, Ptilasld Hefgbts ,$o utnwest.,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,,,,,, Badgett Bale Baseline .Booker... Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale .FairPaiK,.,,.,,:,,.,,,,,,,..,,,^ Forest Park .Franklin tuiOMIIilll Garland................. Geyer Springs ,Gk5b5, Ish Jetterson,,, Mabelvale ,, McDermott Meadowcttff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski,Heights,Sf. RIgWsei  , Rockateller Ronsne Stephens Terry , .Wakefield......... Washington Watson.................. Western Hills ..Williams...........,..,,,,..,,,,,.,..,., Wilson Woodruff White 720 400 567 442 359 251 ...120.. 254 256 235 381 2sa ....198 . ..... 80.. Illft 280 11^21 308 188 122 111381 92 iBal ....,,.70..., 242 .,..,._15.,, 11691 ,,.,,,.159.., 7 190 :ia2 .,.,.19.. 1172 27 116 ,33\n7a . 0 1197 160 Oil \u0026gt;.i\u0026lt;160., S40 -241 134 52 Black Other %Black Total 1,110 loll 632 647 448 470 454 11^:1 ... 680.. 372 ....476... Il\u0026amp;i 493 160 ....292. 282 325 292 ....272... 339 ... 294 . 253 240 llOa 262 93^ ......268.,. 136 ,,,,,,172,. 157 ,,,,,..,23.9. 311 314 - 220 170 33 III . 13. 3 ..1.8.. 10 2 s 20 2 .20. 11 9 0 5 ii 56 . 84 3 Mi 4 12 9 2 0 7, 0 ... 60 ilii 52 59 54  64 ..... 79 S? ..... 71. 61 54 63 70 73 76 Ji. / 10 '^2 72 53 66 ...46..... MOI 70 64 72 57 82 56 94 65 ...51............ 96 50 58- I , 61 62- 0 . ,, 32.. 0 J 2ia ,  2 t94 . 215 -  2, t , 50 71 62 86 342 ,  235 3t2 ' 4. 301 , 3 , 510 294 ,... tea 255 263 137 , ,1 2 1. 5 04 1.86.^ 92^ 1,212.... 1.097 825 lOlil 576 838 ...956.... 609 ...877... 72\\ ...700... 237 ...38.5.... 389 .:...61Q.... 442 ...58.9.... SJ1 419 394 332 392 , 445.,.....,, 576 285 205 33a 454^.5 479 ,\n53511 514.,,- 432 239 ,207 ao E-lOQ 61 65, 253163'1 464 36 , St9, 64 53 51 as 71 456 337|\u0026lt; ,501.,,. 397 193 { I Estimated Number of Transported Students in Proposed Plan (Does not include students in Magnet Schools, Metropolitan and Special Education) LRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools [5] Grades 10-12_______________________________ Central - Everett Hawks - 1500 Park, 72202 - 376-4751 J.A. Fair - Som Stueort - 5201 Dovid O. Dodd, 72210 - 224-6609__________ Hall - Bill Barnhouse - 6700 \"H, 72205 - 661-9000 McClellan - Rudolph Howard - 9417 Geyer Springs, 72209 - 565-0314 Parkview Fine Arts Magnet - Junious Babbs - 2501 Barrow, 72204 - 225-6440 Vocotional-Technical Center [1] Grodes 10-12 _____________________ Metropolitan - Dr. Doyle Dillahunty - 7701 Scott Hamilton, 72209 - 565-8465 Junior High Schools [8] Grades 7-9 Cloverdale - Dexter Booth - 6300 Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-8426 Dunbar - Marion Lacey - 1100 Wright Ave., 72206 - 375-5574 Forest Heights - James Wise - 5901 Evergreen, 72205 - 663-3391 Henderson - Brody Gradberry - 401 Barrow Rd., 72205 - 225-3358 Mabelvale - Clell Watts - 10811 Mabelvale W., PO Box 187, Mobelvole, 72103 - 455-2413 ~ Mann Magnet - Dr. Victor Anderson - 1000 E. Roosevelt Rd., 72206 -_372-3123 Pulaski Heights - Dr. Jim Haley - 401 N. Pine, 72205 - 664-7073 Southwest - Gail McLaughlin - 3301 S. Bryant, 72204 - 565-4416 Elementary Schools [37] Grades K-6 Badgett - Mary Golston - 6900 Pecan Road, 72206 - 490-1582 Bale - Levanna Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204 - 565-6621 Baseline - Anna Tatum - 3623 Baseline Rd., 72209 - 565-5589 Booker Arts Magnet - William Finn - 2016 Barber, 72206 - 376-3319 Brady - Helen Thomas - 7915 W. Markham, 72205 - 225-1815 Carver Magnet School - Mary Guinn - 800 Apperson, 72202 - 374-3783 Chicot - Otis Preslar - 11100 Chicot Rd., PO Box 405, Mabelvale, 72103 - 568-2554 Cloverdale - Jacqualine Dedman - 6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-0986 Dodd - Robert Nelson - 6423 Stagecoach Rd., 72204 - 455-3110 Fair Park - Catherine Gill - 616 N. Harrison, 72205 - 666-0359 Forest Park - Virginia Ashley - 1600 N. Tyler, 72207 - 666-5415 Franklin - Connie Aston - 1701 S. Harrison, 72204 - 666-0348 Fulbright - Mac Huffman - 300 Pleasant Valley Dr., 72212 - 224-2350 Garland - Dr. Cheryl A. Simmons - 3615 W. 25th, 72204 - 666-9436 Geyer Springs - Eleanor Cox - 5240 Mabelvale Pike, 72209 - 565-0184 Gibbs Magnet - Donna Davis - 1115 W. 16th, 72202 - 372-0251 Ish - Michael Oliver - 3001 S. Pulaski, 72206 - 376-3629 Jefferson - Margaret Gremillion - 2600 N. McKinley, 72207 - 663-9472 King - Bobbie Goodwin - 4800 W. 26th, 72204 - 663-6397 Mabelvale - Dorothy Faulkner - 9401 Mabelvale Cut-off PO Box 207, Mabelvale, 72103 - 455-2227 ~ McDermott - Lynn Moore - 1200 Reservoir Rd., 72207 - 225-6568 Meadowcliff - Jerry Worm - 25 Sheraton Dr., 72209 - 565-0324 Mitchell - Donita Hudspeth - 2410 Battery, 72206 - 375-6931 Otter Creek - Pat Price - 16000 Otter Creek Pkwy., 72209 - 455-3320 Elementary Schools - (continued on bock) B 506 444 508 300 1758 221 224 273 365 335 267 106 1791 0 0 0 91 44 0 79 130 35 0 233 0 64 0 225 130 200 205 0 168 1 NB , 70 r 372 182, 158 1413 : 45 195 189 172 149 94 149 993 0 0 0 16 16 0 45 12 45 0 53 0 11 0 22 13 7 25 0 2 T 1207 816 . 690 458 TO 266 419 462 537 484 361 255 2784 0 0 0 107 60 0 124 142 80 0 286 0 75 0 247 143 207 230 0 170 0/p /oD 42% 54% 74% 66% 83% 53 0/  59% 68% 69% 74% 42% 0 0 0 85% 73% 0 64% 92% 44% 0 81% 0 85% 0 91% 91% 97% 89% 0 99% RTS, 24 16 14 9 5 10 9 10 9 7 5 55 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 3 2 0 6 0 o 0 5 3 4 4 0 3LRSD School Checklist Elementary Schools [37] Grades K-6 (continued) Pulaski Heights - Eddie McCoy - 319 N. Pine, 72205 - 663-9469 Rightsell - Koy Loss  911 W. 19th, 72206 - 374-7448 Rockefeller - Anne Mangan - 700 E. 17th, 72206 - 374-1226 Romine - Lionel Ward - 3400 Romine Rd., 72204 - 225-8833 Stephens - Stan Strauss - 3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 72211 - 225-1215 Wakefield - Lloyd Black - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Dean - 115 W. 27th, 72206 - 375-8275 Watson - Dr. Diana Glaze - 7000 Valley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Western Hills - Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Magnet  Dr. Ed Jackson - 7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson - Reine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 Woodruff - Karen Buchanan - 3010 W, 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 B 0 0 0 0 0 131 0 534 0 133 28 2430 NB 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 13 0 34 104 450 T 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 547 0 167 132 2000 %B 0 0 0 y 0 80% 0 98% 0 80% 21% 84% RTS 0 0 0 O 0 4 0 10 0 3 57 3 Senior High _____Enrollment (%B1ack) = 52% Transported (% Black) = 55% Junior High______________________ _____Enrollment (% Black) = 65% Transported (%Black) = 64% Elementary Enrollment (% Black) = 69% Transported (% Black) = 84% Note: Elem. % Black Enrollnient + 25% = 69  25% = 52%-^ 85%TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Attendance Zone Report Introduction The following report is submitted in compliance with the March 5 court order to review all attendance zones and make projections for the 1995-96 school year. Three sets of data are examined in this report: (1) School enrollment figures (2) Census tract data (3) Zone block (geocode) counts These sources of data should not be viewed in isolation of each other. Popula- tion trends are confirmed when different sources of data, over a period of years, suggest or establish the same pattern of growth or decline. Enrollment Comparisons and Census Projections The simplest way to project for the future is to examine any trends that have occurred in the past. In using past trends to project for the future, allowances must be made for any anticipation of deviations from the trends. In regard to projecting school enrollment, the method of studying past trends to project for the future is quite reliable. The Little Rock School District has used past school enrollments to project school enrollments for the future.Although school enrollments have been used in the past for projection purposes the task of projecting the numbers of students in each attendance zone for tie 1995-96 school year cannot be done by using past school enrollments. The Little Rock School District has used four different assignments plans over the past four years. The 1986-87 school year was the last year for an elementary $ pairing plan. Primary schools on the west side of the District were paired with intermediate schools on the east side of the District. In 1987-88, the year of annexation, the Little Rock School District used a new attendance zone plan and converted all primary or intermediate schools to K-6. Students were manditorily assigned to schools, based on the new attendance zones, and then a1lowed to transfer if desegregation requirements could be upheld. The dis- trict referred to this plan as \"controlled choice. II zones and \"controlled choice zones 11 In 1988-89, the attendance (zones A \u0026amp; B) were abolished and all stu- dents could select any school in the district. The present school year, 1989-90, marks the return to the use of an elementary attendance zone plan. The plan applies only to kindergarten, rising, and new students and grandfathers all remaining students. The 1989-90 attendance zone plan is extremely different from the 1987-88 attendanze zone plan. As a result of all of these factors, the analysis of school enrollment trends prior to the 1989-90 school year cannot be used to project attendance zone trends in the future. The 1989-90 school year will serve as the baseline year for the study of school enrollment trends. Attendance zone projections can also be determined by analyzing census tract information. Although the boundaries of the census tracts are different from the boundaries of the school attendance zones, census tract projections are still useful in identifying trends in various geographic areas. In 1988, the Little Rock School District employed The Grier Partnership (in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates) to conduct a demographic study. The demographers reviewed census tract projections from Metroplan and UALR. The next section of this report will examine the results of the demographic study. An attempt will also be made to compare 1988-89 and 1989-90 attendance zone counts. Each student in the Little Rock School District is assigned a geocode or zone block number based on his/her home address. Attendance zones consist of several contiguous zone blocks or geocodes. zone includes one or more satellite areas. In some cases, an attendance A satellite is an attendance area that is detached from the immediate school vicinity and is usually a consider- able distance from the school site. The 1988-89 school year was the first year for the District to load and maintain a computerized file of all zone block counts. As a result, this comparison will be based on one year of experience. Demographic Study As stated earlier, the demographers reviewed census tract projections from UALR and Metroplan. It should be noted that census tracts do not match the attend- ance zones used by the Little Rock School District. School data are recorded for geocodes, or zone blocks, and not for census tracts. According to the demographer, \"about 83 percent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. II Although the geocodes are not fully compatible with the census tracts, an examination of census data should yield valuable information concerning long-term trends.The Grier report notes that \"change in the schools appears to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a whole -- population losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. In terms of specific areas, between 1980 and 1986, Metroplan estimated that there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the city, in the tracts close to downtown, and in those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. These areas are represented by tracts 1-20 (with the exception of Tract 16) on Attachment A (\"Changes in Total Population By Census Tract, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1980 to 2010\"). zones: These tracts cover the following school attendance -- Rightsell -- Rockefeller -- Mitchell -- Badgett -- Washington -- Stephens -- Garland -- Ish -- Franklin -- Forest Park satellite -- Terry satellite -- McDermott satellite -- Oefferson satellite -- Brady satel1ite -- Otter Creek satellite -- Meadowcliff satellite The census tract table indicates that almost half of the tracts in this area will experience growth during the period of 1980-2010. However, it is impossible to determine how much of the projected growth will occur in a specific census tract by 1995-96. ience a decline during the 30-year period. The remainder of the tracts in this area will exper- The same problem related to determining when and what degree of growth will occur also applies to projecting losses. The overall effect of gains and losses in this area will result in a net increase of 846 persons over a 30-year period. A net increase in total population of 846 persons over a 30-year period will probably have no effect on the boundaries of the attendance zones in 1995-96. Most of the growth during the 30-year period is expected to occur in tracts 41.04, 42.03, and 42.04. These tracts are located on the western boundary of the Little Rock School District. Tract 41.04 covers the Mabelvale and Otter Creek areas. Tracts 42.03 and 42.04 cover portions of the Fulbright, Terry, Wilson, and Dodd attendance zones. The growth in tract 42.03 should also affect the Forest Park satellite zone located on the northwest tip of the di strict. Again, there is not enough data to predict how the projected growth will affect these attendance zones in 1995-96.Although the census data provides useful information for identifying population trends, it will be necessary to wait for the 1990 census results in order to make specific projections. Linder normal circumstances, long-term projections are based on data collected over a 3-5 year period. It is difficult to recognize an ongoing pattern or trend by merely comparing two separate years. Since census information is collected every 10 years, it will be necessary to rely on a comparison of 1980 and 1990 census results. The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts This will enhance the District's ability to correlate long-term census projections with student information gathered annually. Geocode Comparisons The comparison of zone block (geocode) student counts is another method that can be used to identify student population trends. Attachment B compares 1988-89 and 1989-90 zone block and attendance zone counts. These counts only reflect students enrolled in the Little Rock School District. It was noted earlier that the census data indicates a population decline in the area east of University. the same trend. The comparison of zone block information indicates 1988-89 to 1989-90. mately 30 students. Most of the incentive schools experiences small gains from However, the Garland attendance zone declined by approxi- The area east of University Avenue experienced a net gain of 149 students. As noted earlier with the census data, the gain of 149 students in the area east of University Avenue is the net result of gains and losses in this area. Although the comparison of geocode counts is a viable method for identifying enrollment trends and making projections, at least three years of geocode data should be used to ensure reliability. The Little Rock School District did not have the capability to maintain accurate geocode information prior to the 1988-89 school year. Therefore, it is recommended that the District be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information before preparing the 1995-96 attendance zone projections. Attendance Zones and Building Capacity The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity (See Attachment C). The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Also, programs such as PAL (Program for Accelerated Learning) and Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity.Attachment C shows the number of students who reside in each attendance zone. All of these students are currently enrolled in a non-magnet (area) school even though the school may not be their attendance zone school. (NOTE: Attachment C DOES NOT show the number of students currently enrolled in each attendance zone school. It shows the number of students who live in the attendance zone even though they may attend a non-attendance zone school. The District fully understands the reason for the court's concern about attendance zone projections and adjustments for the 1995-96 school year. However, the elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. Otherwise, any adjustments will simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school. In regard to the incentive schools, the District has proposed to expand Rightsell and Mitchell (if a new school site in the vicinity cannot be located) close Ish, Stephens, and Garland, and build a new school at the Old King School site. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before any attendance zones are adjusted. Recommendations As already stated in this report, several factors preclude the District from being able to make reliable attendance zone projections at this time. In light of these factors, the District respectfully recommends the following: 1. The District will prepare attendance zone projections after the release of the 1990 census results. 2. 3. 4. 5. The District will begin immediately to develop a plan for recording student address information by census tracts. Attendance zone projections will also be based on any trends identified by comparing 1990-91 kindergarten and first grade enrollment figures. Both of these grade level assignments are based on the new attendance zones. The District will be allowed to collect the 1990-91 geocode information in order to be able to compare 1988-89 and 1990-91 geocode counts. The plan to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted.pi ATTACHMENT A e TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 Census Tract 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.01 20.02 21.01 21.02 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 23 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.03 41.04 41.05 41.06 41.07 41.08 42.03 42.04 860 4,491 2,726 1,508 4,904 3,956 2,969 773 806 4,391 4,831 2,675 5,262 3,417 8,175 5,258 867 6,406 5,029 5,748 5,568 8,468 4,095 5,196 4,935 7,938 6,940 920 11,100 7,378 5,539 3,813 1,354 6,211 6,660 4,058 6,361 8,260 6,614 1,600 4,000 3,200 1,000 5,200 4,000 3,200 800 800 4,600 4,600 2,200 4,800 3,800 10,000 5,100 850 5,900 4,500 5,700 5,600 8,000 6,000 5,600 5,300 8,800 9,500 950 16,800 13,800 4,500 5,500 6,800 12,200 8,400 4,900 7,200 38,900 22,000 740 (491) 474 (508) 296 44 231 27 (6) 209 (231) (475) (462) 383 1,825 (158) (17) (506) (529) (48) 32 (468) 1,905 404 365 862 2,560 30 5,700 6,422 (1,039) 1,687 5,446 5,989 1,740 842 839 30,640 15,386 86.0% -10.9% 17.4% -33.7% 6.0% 1.1% 7.8% 3.5% -0.7% 4.8% -4.8% -17.8% -8.8% 11.2% 22.3% -3.0% -2.0% -7.9% -10.5% -0.8% 0.6% -5.5% 46.5% 7.8% 7.4% 10.9% 36.9% 3.3% 51.4% 87.0% -18.8% 44.2% 402.2% 96.4% 26.1% 20.7% 13.2% 370.9% 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases. the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, Pulaski Area Transportation Study, May 1987.ran ATTACHMENT B LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE BLOCK COMPARISON ZONE BLOCKS FOR BADGETT PAGE 1 1988-89 1989-90 3201 19 10 -9 3250 57 68 + 11 3251 23 -1 3253 26 20 -6 3255 4 3 -1 3640 19 + 15 TOTAL 133 142 +9 4 ZONE BLOCKS FOR BALE 1988-89 1989-90 0521 56 42 -14 0531 33 40 +7 0532 58 55 -3 0534 29 -4 1921 11 +9 1922 28 31 +3 1923 icr 27 +2 1924 57 64 +7 1925 10 8 TOTAL 307 322 + 15ZONE BLOCKS FOR BASELINE PAGE 2 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 3652 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 32 39 +7 107 28 33 21 24 16 OCT 23 11 320 89 33 31 19 17 14 34 19 6 301 -18 -7 +9 -4 -19ZONE BLOCKS FOR BRADY RASE 3 0540 0591 0592 0593 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 6 11 +5 86 67 -19 17 13 -4 0 7 9 17 14 -3 32 38 +6 21 20 0 25 51 10 42 21 357 0 36 6 35 48 15 31 19 344 -21 + 16 +6 + 10 -3 +5 -11 -3 -13ZONE BLOCKS FOR CHICOT PAGE 4 3435 3440 3445 3464 5408 7401 7405 7410 7415 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7476 7479 7480 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 10 13 +3 6 0 50 29 79 21 55 R7 32 9 24 7 18 17 30 32 495 13 +7 0 0 34 36 79 27 54 30 16 27 21 9 I CT 14 15 0 23 488 -16 +7 0 +6 -3 +7 +5 -3 +7 -3 -15 -9 -7ZONE BLOCKS FOR CLOVERDALE ELEM RABE 5 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 26 + 1 19 12 -1 18 14 -4 4 0 -4 12 21 +9 10 19 26 31 44 15 30 38 316 13 +3 0 31 33 60 28 21 11 87 357 -19 + 16 +3 +6 -19 +49 +41ZONE BLOCKS FOR DODD PAGE 6 1722 1728 4001 4010 4017 4020 4025 4046 4049 4052 4053 5467 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 61 51 -10 39 55 + 16 17 16 -1 79 73 -6 4 3 -1 20 20 0 54 46 -8 23 35 18 0 3 353 18 37 +4 0 0 0 -3 341 -12ZONE BLOCKS FOR FAIR PARK PAGE 7 1988-89 1989-90 0511 13 +4 9 0512 8 7 -1 0513 68 60 -8 0554 54 51 -3 0920 63 crcr -8 1110 33 31 nil 32 48 + 16 1120 8 6 1121 6 0 -6 TOTAL 281 271 -10 ZONE BLOCKS FOR FOREST PARK 1988-89 1989-90 0411 4 0 -4 0412 12 -12 0 0413 KT 3 0420 14 15 0553 92 76 -16 0556 65 57 -8 0811 10 -1 0821 39 41 0910 54 47 -7 6110 ETC 27 -28 + 1 9 6125 0 0 0 TOTAL 350 275 -75ZONE BLOCKS FOR FRANKLIN PAGE 8 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0529 0530 0538 0539 0571 0575 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 57 60 65 87 35 30 35 30 71 36 54 51 631 63 50 70 84 33 21 32 26 59 47 24 53 48 610 +6 -10 -3 -9 -3 -4 -12 + 11 +4 -1 -3 -21I ZONE BLOCKS FOR FULBRIGHT PAGE 9 1210 1405 1410 1440 1714 1810 1811 1812 6115 6120 6122 6171 6188 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 28 23 5 0 21 97 89 -8 19 21 104 108 +4 58 32 65 24 25 12 31 497 66 39 66 IS 0 13 30 519 +8 +7 + 1 6 + 1 -1ZONE BLOCKS FOR GARLAND PAGE 10 1988-89 1989-90 0581 42 44 0582 no 57 -53 0584 95 80 -15 0585 50 73 +23 0586 10 21 + 11 0587 42 44 TOTAL 349 319 -30 ZONE BLOCKS FOR GEYER SPRINGS 1988-89 1989-90 3405 71 74 +3 4401 4405 15 20 +5 4410 38 32 -6 4415 17 17 4420 21 26 +5 4429 29 17 -12 4430 10 18 +8 0 TOTAL -5ZONE BLOCKS FOR ISH PAGE 11 1988-89 1989-90 0473 44 49 +5 0476 42 45 +3 0477 23 30 +7 0479 35 30 -5 0480 43 41 0485 TOTAL 57 + 10 ZONE BLOCKS FOR JEFFERSON 1988-89 1989-90 1220 6 6 0 1230 12 -6 6 1231 7 11 +4 1240 157 165 +8 0431 38 37 -1 0432 53 72 + 19 0433 38 30 -8 0434 26 28 0435 19 18 -1 0438 45 49 +4 TOTAL 401 422ZONE BLOCKS FOR MABELVALE ELEM PAGE 12 3635 3654 3655 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5415 5452 5455 5462 5465 7325 7383 7388 7390 7420 7475 TOTAL 19S8-S9 1989-90 34 64 30 16 14 28 7 13 18 19 15 1 13 31 0 57 28 27 437 48 67 31 12 23 30 6 14 15 18 21 0 12 35 67 34 40 516 + 14 +3 + 1 -4 +9 +2 -1 + 1 -3 -1 +6 -1 -1 +4 +21 0 + 10 +6 + 13 +79ZONE BLOCKS FOR MCDERMOTT PAGE 13 0552 0561 0562 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 1542 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 64 62 63 78 + 15 88 24 0 33 39 107 29 10 21 0 478 ZONE BLOCKS FOR MEADOWCLIFF 1988-89 84 -4 19 0 0 40 20 19 19 0 488 1989-90 -8 + 1 + 15 -9 +9 -3 0 + 10 0533 72 65 -7 0535 64 75 + 11 0536 14 11 -3 0537 62 70 +8 2110 94 76 -18 62 76 + 14 4015 16 11 -5 4048 29 40 + 11 TOTAL 413 424 + 11ZONE BLOCKS FOR MITCHELL PAGE 14 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0451 0452 0453 0457 0458 0459 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 28 44 + 16 30 18 25 42 26 46 42 36 340 ZONE BLOCKS FOR OTTER CREEK 1988-89 28 23 12 31 36 49 48 36 350 1989-90 -8 -4 +6 +5 -13 -11 + 10 +3 +6 0 + 10 0471 44 47 +3 0472 49 69 0475 68 \"7^ +7 5460 29 19 -10 5470 1 3 5472 0 0 0 5475 40 46 +6 5476 43 45 5477 26 46 +20 5478 cr 9 +4PAGE 145 5492 7 15 +8 TOTAL 312 374 ^62ZONE BLOCKS FOR PULASKI HGHTS ELEM PAGE 15 1988-89 1989-90 0610 19 21 +3 0620 24 16 -8 0630 3 0640 7 14 +7 0641 5 14 +9 0651 7 12 J 0660 77 96 + 19 0710 30 31 + 1 TOTAL 174 207 +33 ZONE BLOCKS FOR RIGHTSELL 1988-89 1989-90 0439 0 73 +73 0448 0 70 +70 0449 crer 61 +6 0450 59 58 -1 0454 0 0464 31 44 + 13 TOTAL 165 306 + 141 AZONE BLOCKS FOR ROCKEFELLER PAGE 16 1988-89 1989-90 0232 7 7 0 0440 59 50 -9 0456 44 48 +4 0460 54 41 -13 0461 63 67 +4 0462 53 54 + 1 0463 19 31 + 12 TOTAL 299 298 -1 ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROMINE 1988-89 1989-90 1715 67 77 + 10 1717 102 80 1721 93 81 -12 1723 30 32 1724 46 53 +7 1727 98 98 0 TOTAL 436 421 -15ZONE BLOCKS FOR STEPHENS PAGE 17 0441 0572 0573 0574 0583 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 34 38 +4 97 82 -15 37 58 81 307 ZONE BLOCKS FOR TERRY 1988-89 45 67 81 313 1989-90 +9 0 +6 0436 70 54 -16 0437 64 56 -8 0563 78 68 -10 1510 21 23 1511 75 68 -7 1512 27 33 +6 1515 39 -17 1530 8 13 1532 21 34 + 13 1550 53 42 -11 1610 7 8 + 1 1620 11 12 + 1 3330 4 0 -4 TOTAL 478 433 -45ZONE BLOCKS FOR WAKEFIELD PAGE iS 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 73 71 9 18 +9 10 10 0 35 37 39 97 +58 21 27 +6 34 37 11 26 25 10 14 344 31 30 24 31 11 9 418 -3 -7 + 13 -4 +6 + 1 -5 +74ZONE BLOCKS FOR WASHINGTON PAGE 19 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0240 0301 0455 0474 0478 0481 0482 0483 0484 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 14 16 16 18 0 29 +7 39 33 -6 79 55 -24 17 62 14 99 0 12 71 27 39 61 78 58 35 790 0 48 93 120 24 0 51 27 43 74 103 73 38 867 -17 -14 +8 -6 + 120 -1 -12 0 +4 + 13 I er +3 +77ZONE BLOCKS FOR WATSON PAGE 20 19SS-S9 1989-90 7301 48 59 + 11 7305 28 31 +3 7315 76 61 -15 7330 18 11 -7 7377 38 62 +24 7378 19 19 0 7381 0 7382 44 55 + 11 7384 26 + 1 7385 24 +4 7490 9 6 -3 7495 18 13 343 389 +46 V^ONE BLOCKS FOR WESTERN HILLS 1988-89 1989-90 1725 34 29 -5 1726 33 41 +8 1822 94 95 + 1 2010 46 41 -5 51 68 + 17 2020 37 42 TOTAL 295 316ZONE BLOCKS FOR WILSON PAGE 21 1988-89 1989-90 1711 23 19 -4 1813 53 53 0 1821 72 79 +7 1823 89 109 1824 46 54 +8 3301 28 38 + 10 3312 51 36 -15 3316 18 19 +1 TOTAL 380 407 +27 ^X^QNe blocks for woodruff 1988-89 1989-90 0650 13 10 -3 0670 68 101 +33 0662 23 26 +3 TOTAL 104 137 +33SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS ISH JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ATTACHMENT C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL 142 322 301 344 488 357 341 271 275 610 519 319 226 252 422 516 488 424 350 374 207 306 K-6 CAPACITY 241 399 384 491 483 424 353 351 431 556 607 300 236 200 491 533 562 454 280 378 328 260 CAPACITY % 59% 81% 78% 70% 101% 84% 97% 77% 64% 109% 86% 106% 96% 126% 86% 97% 87% 93% 135% 99% 63% 118%PAGE 2 SCHOOL TOTAL CAPACITY CAPACITY % ROCKEFELLER 298 420 71% ROMINE 421 492 86% STEPHENS 313 260 120% TERRY 433 537 81% WAKEFIELD 418 469 89% WASHINGTON 867 820 106% WATSON 389 469 83% WESTERN HILLS 316 325 97% WILSON 407 398 102% WOODRUFF 137 209 66% TOTAL 11,851 13,141 90% (NOTE: These capacity figures do not reflect the proposed capacity changes in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year.)Optional Enrollment Request Form Elementary (Kindergarten-6th) School Year 1990-91 Application Period 3/5/90 -3/30/90 Little Rock School District Notification Period Letters of notification will be mailed on April 13,1990 Student's Last Name Street Address city First Name KT Race Sex Zip Information tor Parents/Guardlan * Please complete the right side of this form. Name of Parent/Guardian Date of Birth Montri DaylYear * This Is an application only. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all optional enrollment request assignments. * All assignments are subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacancies. * Students who are not selected will have their names placed on a prioritized waiting list. The waiting lists will carry over each school year until the student Is selected or until the student moves to the next organizational level * Letters of notification will be mailed on April 13, 1990 * For more Information please call the Student Assignment Office at 370-1609. TO BE COMPLETED BY SCHOOL SITE STAFF _____________FORM SUBMITTED Month Day Year Time Home Phone Number Work Phone Number Current School Assignment Grade 1990/91 Parents may make up to four (4) choices from the options listed below.Rank your choices In numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). INCENTIVE SCHOOLS ____Garland (PreK-6) ____ Ish (PreK-6) ____ Mitchell (K-6) ____ Rightsell (K-6) ___ Stephens (PreK-6) HIGH SCHOOL KINDERGARTENS ____ Central High ____Hall High ____ Fair High ____ McClellan High ____ Parkview High Form Submitted By: School: TO BE COMPLETED BY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS ___ Booker Arts Magnet (K-6) ____ Carver-Basic Skills/Math Science (K-6) ____ Gibbs International Studies (K-6) ____Rockefeller Coop Early Childhood Education Demonstration (PreK-6) ____Washington Basic Skills/Math Science (PreK-6) ____Williams Basic Skills (K-6) Student ID Number: Request Approved Date: SPECIALTY SCHOOL _Badgett Aerospace (K-6) Request Denied Date: MAJORITY-TO-MINORITY TRANSFERS (K-12) ____ Parents Interested in Majorlty-to-Minority Transfers to PCSSD or NLRSD should contact the Student Assignment Office. SAO LitHe Rock School District, 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201, (501) 374-3361 OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT September 28, 1990 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Miller P-K 20 9 11 0 55% Cenire P-K 21 9 12 0 57% Robinson K 20 8 12 0 60% Sellers K 18 7 11 0 61% Thomas K 18 10 8 0 44% Boyce K 18 8 9 1 50% Steinkamp K 17 6 9 2 53% Moran 1 21 6 15 0 71% Perez 1 23 6 16 1 70% Keith 1 19 6 13 0 68% Ford 1 21 5 15 1 71% Brown 1 17 4 13 0 76% Comer 1 22 7 15 0 68% Boyd 1 20 5 15 0 75% Thompson 1 21 6 15 0 71% Jackson 2 23 7 16 0 70% Chandler 2 23 11 12 0 52% Jenning 2 23 10 13 0 57% Williams 2 22 7 14 1 64% Shackleford 2 22 9 12 1 55% I WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT- page 2 TEACHER GRADE TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER % BLACK Scrubbs 3 23 11 12 0 52% Schoessel 3 23 12 11 0 48% Rhea 3 23 11 12 0 52% Wood 3 22 11 11 0 50% Clark 3 24 12 12 0 50% Kelly 4 24 8 16 0 67% Johnson 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morris 4 24 10 13 1 54% Callaway 4 23 9 14 0 61% Morgan 5 23 7 16 0 70% Moore 5 24 12 12 0 50% Taber 5 24 12 12 0 50% Guin 5 24 13 11 0 46% Raper 6 25 12 13 0 52% McCleein 6 28 14 12 2 43% Hunsoker 6 28 16 11 1 39% Resource 9 2 7 0 78% TOTAL 803 327 465 11 5W:LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 29, 1990 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM: THROUGH: Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation'^-^ Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBDECT: First Quarter Enrollment - 1990-91 School Year Please find attached the enrollment report for the first quarter of the 1990-91 school year. cc: Senior Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR FIRST QUARTER OF 1990-91 AND 1989-90 1990-91 Actual enrollment as of October 31, 1990, first Quarter of the 1990-91 School Year. WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten) Junior High Schools 48 4041 1861 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2159 26 8209 4004 3077 0 144 87 87 74 12,394 5,952 5,323 35% 66% 67% 58% SUB TOTAL 8109 15,316 318 23,743 65% Kindergarten 681 1,206 21 1,908 63% GRAND TOTAL 8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% 1989-90 Actual enrollment as of November 1, 1989, First Quarter of 1989-90 School Year. WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten Junior High Schools 47 3905 1917 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2408 28 8212 3883 3186 1 76 119 12,236 97 83 5,897 5,677 37% 67% 66% 56% SUB TOTAL 8277 15,309 300 23,886 64% Kindergarten 628 1,269 20 1,917 66% GRAND TOTAL 8905 16,578 320 25,803 64%GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNGR TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UNGR TOT. OR HIGH 10 11 12 UNGR TOT. SR HIGH TOTAL: SPEC SCHOOLS DI ST TOTALS SUMMARY OF FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT October 31, 1990 WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 681 727 659 670 684 666 595 40 4722 589 638 601 33 1861 703 718 709 29 2159 8742 48 8790 1206 1450 1271 1279 1408 1380 1309 112 9415 1366 1391 1182 65 4004 1082 980 967 48 3077 16,496 26 16,522 SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 21 30 21 24 29 14 26 0 165 21 26 40 0 87 32 30 24 1 87 339 0 339 CATEGORY: - 93 - 218 - 24 - 4 1908 2207 1951 1973 2121 2060 1930 152 14,302 1976 2055 1823 98 5952 1817 1728 1700 78 5323 25,577 74 25,651 63% 66% 65% 65% 66% 67% 68% 74% 66% 69% 68% 65% 66% 67% 60% 57% 57% 62% 58% 65% 35% 64%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT OCT. 31, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 203 174 227 604 0 604 5 308 278 307 898 49 947 0 12 9 13 34 0 34 5 523 46r 547 1536 49 1585 100.00% 58.89% 60.30% 56.12% 58.46% 100.00% 59.75% FAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 14 107 126 107 354 3 357 12 184 160 132 488 10 498 0 3 4 1 8 0 8 26 294 290 240 850 13 863 46.15% 62.59% 55.17% 55.00% 57.41% 76.92% 57.71% HALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 12 147 180 156 495 10 505 12 223 202 236 673 8 681 0 7 5 3 15 0 15 24 377 387 395 1183 18 1201 50.00% 59.15% 52.20% 59.75% 56.89% 44.44% 56.70% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 127 121 113 364 2 366 19 209 200 158 586 17 603 1 6 2 2 11 0 11 23 342 323 273 961 19 980 82.61% 61.11% 61.92% 57.88% 60.98% 89.47% 61.53% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 119 117 106 342 0 342 0 158 140 134 432 11 443 0 4 10 5 19 0 19 0 281 267 245 793 11 804 0.00% 56.23% 52.43% 54.69% 54.48% 100.00% 55.10% Page - 1SCHOOL/GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL 2 61 75 80 218 1 190 180 155 526 0 1 2 2 5 3 252 257 237 749 33.33% 75.40% 70.04% 65.40% 70.23% 120 55 56 231 158 143 111 412 3 0 3 6 281 198 170 649 56,23% 72.22% 65.29% 63.48% 7 62 70 83 222 5 44 74 88 211 9 64 76 67 216 104 134 113 351 4 76 100 78 258 9 156 186 174 525 16 214 250 209 689 16 142 147 92 397 196 166 152 514 8 153 138 148 447 Page - 2 0 7 3 8 18 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 15 0 1 2 4 7 16 225 259 265 765 21 263 332 306 922 25 206 224 160 615 304 305 271 880 12 230 240 230 712 56.25% 69.33% 71.81% 65.66% 68.63% 0.00% 81.37% 75.30% 68.30% 74.73% 64.00% 68.93% 65.63% 57.50% 64.55% 64.47% 54.43% 56.09% 58.41% 0.00% 66.52% 57.50% 64.35% 62.78%SCHOOL/GRADE SOUTHWEST UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 58 54 36 154 15 157 181 141 494 0 5 7 12 21 215 240 184 660 0.00% 73.02% 75.42% 76.63% 74.85% 2 6 4 8 10 11 5 46 11 57 3 10 10 8 11 14 4 60 7 67 13 14 11 6 14 13 71 19 90 3 16 25 35 39 17 21 156 9 165 4 50 38 47 46 41 44 270 32 302 49 42 38 37 30 30 226 37 263 Page - 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 6 1 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 22 29 43 49 28 26 202 20 222 7 60 48 56 61 55 49 336 40 376 63 57 51 43 44 43 301 57 358 60,00% 72.73% 86.21% 81.40% 79.59% 60.71% 80.77% 77.23% 45.00% 74.32% 57.14% 83.33% 79.17% 83.93% 75.41% 74.55% 89.80% 80.36% 80.00% 80.32% 77.78% 73.68% 74.51% 86.05% 68.18% 69.77% 75.08% 64.91% 73.46%SCHOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BRADY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CARVER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CHICOT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 36 34 40 46 34 233 30 263 44 50 51 52 53 56 306 44 350 1 4 0 3 0 0 8 1 9 88 90 85 95 99 90 547 75 622 50.00% 55.56% 60.00% 54.74% 53.54% 62.22% 55.94% 58.67% 56.27% 2 20 17 17 16 19 5 96 21 117 31 40 43 45 38 44 241 23 264 10 31 25 20 21 22 20 149 27 176 3 52 41 47 56 51 45 295 37 332 38 44 49 54 54 53 292 34 326 8 66 46 43 46 42 48 299 50 349 Page - 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 73 59 65 73 70 51 396 58 454 70 86 92 100 93 99 540 58 598 18 98 71 63 67 65 68 450 77 527 60.00% 71.23 o, *6 69.49% 72.31% 76.71% 72.86% 88.24% 74.49% 63.79% 73.13% 54.29% 51.16% 53.26 *0 54.00% 58.06% 53.54% 54.07% 58.62% 54.52% 44.44 *0 67.35% 64.79% 68.25 Q, 68.66% 64.62% 70.59% 66.44% 64.94% 66.22%SCHOOL/GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL DODD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. FAIR PARK UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 13 13 26 19 12 14 97 10 107 35 45 34 46 52 41 253 29 282 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 48 58 60 65 65 55 351 40 391 72.92% 77.59% 56.67% 70.77% 80.00% 74.55% 72.08% 72.50% 72.12% 3 22 17 16 11 28 18 115 19 134 4 20 28 28 28 25 40 173 19 192 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 7 43 45 44 39 54 59 291 38 329 57.14% 46.51% 62.22% 63.64% 71.79% 46.30% 67.80% 59.45% 50.00% 58.36% 14 9 8 8 6 6 51 10 61 56 41 40 37 42 32 248 29 277 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 71 50 48 45 48 38 300 39 339 78.87% 82.00% 83.33% 82.22% 87.50% 84.21% 82.67% 74.36% 81.71% 29 23 31 20 19 22 144 33 177 19 26 39 35 33 30 182 26 208 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 5 49 49 71 55 52 54 330 60 390 38.78% 53.06% 54.93% 63.64% 63.46% 55.56% 55.15% 43.33% 53.33% Page - 5SCHOOL/GRADE FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL FULBRIGHT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL GARLAND UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 5 5 7 11 6 11 46 11 57 5 33 43 34 38 41 35 229 32 261 0 5 2 2 1 0 3 13 3 16 7 7 8 14 4 7 47 13 60 7 65 54 33 46 53 42 300 49 349 4 47 30 54 41 42 47 265 27 292 14 18 23 26 37 39 35 192 16 208 16 16 14 22 36 16 120 27 147 Page - 6 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 9 0 9 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 71 59 43 60 60 54 355 60 415 9 83 73 88 82 84 82 501 59 560 14 24 27 30 39 40 40 214 19 233 23 23 22 36 40 23 167 40 207 87.50% 91.55% 91.53% 76.74% 76.67 88.33% 77.78% 84.51% 81.67% 84.10% 44.44% 56.63% 41.10% 61.36% 50.00% 50.00% 57.32% 52.89% 45.76% 52.14% 100.00% 75.00% 85.19% 86.67% 94.87% 97.50% 87.50% 89.72% 84.21% 89.27% 69.57% 69.57% 63.64% 61.11% 90.00% 69.57% 71.86% 67.50% 71.01%SCHOOL/GRADE GIBBS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 17 16 29 24 20 126 15 141 26 26 25 34 27 23 161 25 186 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 0 6 47 44 44 64 51 43 293 40 333 55.32% 59.09% 56.82% 53.13% 52.94% 53.49% 54.95 *6 62.50% 55.86% 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 6 33 17 16 26 11 15 124 16 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 17 16 27 11 15 127 16 143 100.00% 94.29% 100.00% 100.00% 96.30% 100.00% 100.00% 97.64% 100.00% 97.90% 3 30 33 34 38 31 26 195 32 227 2 38 34 45 33 25 32 209 28 237 6 36 32 32 35 36 33 210 27 237 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 7 9 69 65 67 74 67 60 411 60 471 66.67% 52.17% 49.23% 47.76% 47.30% 53.73% 55.00% 51.09% 45.00% 50.32% 4 60 39 29 44 57 51 284 31 315 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 98 74 74 77 83 83 495 60 555 66.67% 61.22% 52.70% 39.19% 57.14% 68.67% 61.45% 57.37% 51.67% 56.76% Page - 7SCHOOL/GRADE MCDERMOTT UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 23 33 22 35 22 27 162 29 191 2 46 38 59 47 54 47 293 26 319 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 71 72 82 82 76 74 459 59 518 100.00% 64.79% 52.78% 71.95% 57.32% 71.05% 63.51% 63.83% 44.07% 61.58% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 23 17 24 25 17 18 124 28 152 49 47 39 49 39 34 257 31 288 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 72 64 64 75 56 53 384 59 443 68.06% 73.44% 60.94% 65.33% 69.64% 64.15 6 66.93% 52.54% 65.01% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 10 2 3 2 2 2 21 5 26 7 30 26 24 19 29 18 153 31 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 28 27 21 31 20 174 36 210 100.00% 75.00% 92.86% 88.89 Q. 90.48% 93.55% 90.00% 87.93% 86.11% 87.62% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 26 26 26 20 26 28 152 24 176 22 23 24 31 26 24 150 32 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 49 50 51 52 52 302 56 358 45.83% 46.94% 48.00% 60.78% 50.00% 46.15% 49.67% 57.14% 50.84% Page - 8SCHOOL/GRADE PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 22 17 16 7 12 7 81 23 104 26 30 29 33 31 33 182 31 213 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 49 47 46 41 43 41 267 56 323 53.06% 63.83% 63.04% 80.49% 72.09% 80.49% 68.16% 55.36% 65.94% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 6 4 7 8 2 50 26 76 3 9 8 11 8 7 6 52 8 60 33 33 27 27 21 17 158 32 190 34 24 27 25 26 23 159 33 192 10 58 41 40 39 37 52 277 43 320 Page - 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 33 34 27 27 21 17 159 33 192 60 31 31 33 34 25 214 59 273 13 67 49 51 47 46 59 332 51 383 100.00% 97.06% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.37% 96.97% 98.96% 56.67% 77.42 Q. *6 87.10% 75.76% 76.47% 92.00% 74.30% 55.93% 70.33 76.92% 86.57% 83.67% 78.43% 82.98% 80.43% 88.14% 83.43 84.31% 83.55%SCHOOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL TERRY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL WAKEFIELD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 WASHINGTON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 5 33 32 30 39 37 28 199 32 231 0 29 27 22 24 23 21 146 21 167 2 47 45 58 38 44 43 277 39 316 7 35 23 19 32 30 17 163 28 191 40 37 41 44 46 52 260 26 286 0 45 40 41 54 54 57 291 39 330 7 115 65 57 52 51 34 381 51 432 Page - 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 2 7 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 0 7 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 3 11 7 35 24 21 33 32 19 171 32 203 75 70 72 84 83 80 464 60 524 0 75 68 65 79 79 78 444 60 504 9 164 112 115 91 95 80 666 93 759 100.00% 100.00% 95.83% 90.48% 96.97% 93.75% 89.47 95.32 87.50 % g. 'o Q. *6 94.09% 53.33% 52.86% 56.94% 52.38% 55.42% 65.00% 56.03% 43.33% 54.58% 0.00% 60.00% 58.82% 63.08% 68.35% 68.35% 73.08% 65.54% 65.00% 65.48% 77.78% 70.12% 58.04% 49.57% 57.14% 53.68% 42.50% 57.21% 54.84% 56.92%SCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BIACK SUBTOAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 30 22 28 25 27 152 19 171 55 43 51 55 58 55 317 41 358 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 75 74 73 84 84 82 472 60 532 73.33% 58.11% 69.86% 65.48% 69.05% 67.07% 67.16% 68.33% 67.29% WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 14 19 22 14 105 17 122 29 32 31 31 31 38 192 19 211 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 48 49 46 50 53 53 299 37 336 60.42% 65.31% 67.39% 62.00% 58.49% 71.70% 64.21% 51.35% 62.80 o WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 32 31 41 30 26 190 26 216 38 37 38 49 45 39 246 33 279 2 0 1 2 0 2 7 0 7 10 69 70 92 15 61 443 59 502 54.29% 53.62% 54.29% 53.26% 60.00% 58.21% 55.53% 55.93% 55.58 o. WILSON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 32 13 13 12 14 18 106 12 118 16 39 52 37 42 41 36 263 43 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 20 71 65 50 54 55 56 371 55 426 80.00% 54.93% 80.00% 74.00% 77.78% 74.55% 64.29% 70.89% 78.18% 71.83% Page - 11SCHOOL/GRADE WOODRUFF UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 5 5 7 16 9 51 9 60 10 17 15 18 20 31 111 8 119 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 19 22 21 26 36 42 166 17 183 52.63% 77.27% 71.43% 69.23% 55.56% 73.81% 66.87% 47.06% 65.03% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL 15 15 5 5 0 0 20 20 25.00% 25.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED TOTAL 26 26 13 13 0 0 39 39 33.33% 33.33% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 7 7 8 8 0 0 15 15 53.33% 53.33 Page - 12OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY 1st GRADE RACIAL BALANCE January 22, 1991 Teacher's Name Total Black White Other % Non White Brown 21 14 7 0 67% Pilgrim 20 14 6 0 70% Keith 20 13 7 0 65% Thompson 20 14 6 0 70% Moix 23 17 5 1 78% Comer 20 14 6 0 70% Ford 21 14 6 1 71% Moran 21 14 7 0 67% TOTAli III i io IGracie ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY RACIAL BALANCE BY GRADE January 22, 191 Total Black White Other % Non White Infants-2 yr olds 27 16 11 0 59% 3 yr olds 17 10 7 0 59% 4 yr olds 58 34 23 1 60% Kindergarten 59 33 26 0 56% 1st 60 32 25 3 58% 2nd 32 25 6 1 81% 3rd 33 27 6 0 82% 4th 34 25 8 1 76% 5th 36 27 9 0 75% 6th 26 23 3 0 88% SUB TOTAL Infants-lst gr 221 125 92 4 58% 2 nd-6 th 161 127 32 2 80% TOTAL ill Bi i wFOREST HEIGHTS JR. AND HENDERSON JR. CAPACITY \u0026amp; ENROLLMENT FIGURES January 23, 1991 Forest Heights Capacity 780 Enrollment 1-23-91 748 96% filled to capacity Henderson Capacity 960 Enrollment 1-23-91 893 93% filled to capacityCENTRAL HIGH INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAM # OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING AND RACIAL BALANCE # OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING ON A M-TO-M TRANSFER January 22, 1991 Called Jane O'Neal, information. Registrar at Central. She did not have the Would be able to provide the number of students in the interdistrict classes but was not sure that would be the total number of students in the magnet program. She was not sure exactly who was in the magnet program and was not sure if anybody at Central could provide that information. Called Gladys Adair, Attendance Secretary at Central. She was not sure if she could get the information. Did not think that information was available from Central. Sue Pederson from Student Assignment had sent her a list of all students at Central on M-to-M transfers, but did not know which of those students participated in the magnet program. Called Sue Pederson, District. Student Assignment Office, Little Rock School Sue was to call back with the information. With the return call on January 23, Sue reported Student Assignment Office did not have the information available and she would have to call Mr. Hickman. Sue was told of the deadline this office was under and that the information was needed. On the morning of January 24, Mr. Hickman's office was called to see if the information was ready. Patty Teach, Mr. Hickman's secretary, said Mr. Hickman was out of the office and had not returned Sue Pederson's call. Ms. Teach did not have the requested information. Sue Pederson called to report in order to provide the requested information the international class rosters would have to be gone through by hand to mark out students that took more than one magnet class. After that was completed, she would be able to identify the M- to-M students and have a count of participants, but it would take a few days . Sue was told a few days would probably be too late for our deadline, but I would call her back after talking with Ann Brown. James Jennings then called to say he understood this office had requested some information and to make sure we understood what would have to be done. I told him that I had talked with Sue and was to call her that afternoon after discussing the situation with Ann Brown. not know he was under a court deadline. Mr. Jennings said he did I told him he was not. This office was the one under a deadline to the court. I told Mr. Jennings I would contact Sue that afternoon after talking with Ann regarding the timeline for the requested information. After talking with Ann, I called Sue Pederson on the afternoon of January 24 to tell her a few days would be too late for us to meet the deadline, but the information was valuable and needed to be provided to our office. Sue was not available and was to return my call. On the morning of January 25th I again called the Student Assignment Office and could not get through, therefore, I told Linda Bryant to continue trying to get Sue Pederson and give her the message that a few days was too late for the information to be provided to meet our deadline, but since the requested information was valuable. available. to please provide it to our office when Sue Pederson was contacted with that message. She replied the information was in the process of being collected and would be forwarded to this office.OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY 1st GRADE RACIAL BALANCE January 22, 1991 Teacher's Name Total Black White Other % Non White Brown 21 14 7 0 67% Pilgrim 20 14 6 0 70% Keith 20 13 7 0 65% Thompson 20 14 6 0 70% Moix 23 17 5 1 78% Comer 20 14 6 0 70% Ford 21 14 6 1 71% Moran 21 14 7 0 67% TOTAL  is 2Grade ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY RACIAL BALANCE BY GRADE January 22, 191 Total Black White Other % Non White Infants-2 yr olds 27 16 11 0 59% 3 yr olds 17 10 7 0 59% 4 yr olds 58 34 23 1 60% Kindergarten 59 33 26 0 56% 1st 60 32 25 3 58% 2nd 32 25 6 1 81% 3rd 33 27 6 0 82% 4th 34 25 8 1 76% 5th 36 27 9 0 75% 6 th 26 23 3 0 88% SUB TOTAL Infants-lst gr 221 125 92 4 58% 2nd-6th 161 127 32 2 80% TOTAL Bi IFOREST HEIGHTS JR. AND HENDERSON JR. CAPACITY \u0026amp; ENROLLMENT FIGURES January 23, 1991 Forest Heights Capacity 780 Enrollment 1-23-91 748 96% filled to capacity Henderson Capacity 960 Enrollment 1-23-91 893 93% filled to capacityCENTRAL HIGH INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAM # OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING AND RACIAL BALANCE # OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING ON A M-TO-M TRANSFER January 22, 1991 Called Jane O'Neal, information. Registrar at Central. She did not have the Would be able to provide the number of students in the interdistrict classes but was not sure that would be the total number of students in the magnet program. She was not sure exactly who was in the magnet program and was not sure if anybody at Central could provide that infoirmation. Called Gladys Adair, Attendance Secretary at Central. if she could get the information. She was not sure available from Central. Did not think that information was Sue Pederson from Student Assignment had sent her a list of all students at Central on M-to-M transfers, but did not know which of those students participated in the magnet program. Called Sue Pederson, District. Student Assignment Office, Sue was to call back with the information. Little Rock School With the return call on January 23, Sue reported Student Assignment Office did not have the information available and she would have to call Mr. Hickman. Sue was told of the deadline this office was under and that the information was needed. On the morning of January 24, Mr. Hickman's office was called to see if the information was ready. Patty Teach, Mr. Hickman's secretary, said Mr. Hickman was out of the office and had not returned Sue Pederson's call. Sue Pederson called to report information the international i Ms. Teach did not have the requested information. in order to provide the requested class rosters would have to be gone through by hand to mark out students that took more than one magnet class. After that was completed, she would be able to identify the M- to-M students and have a count of participants, but it would take a few days. Sue was told a few days would probably be too late for our deadline, but I would call her back after talking with Ann Brown. James Jennings then called to say he understood this office had requested some information and to make sure we understood what would have to be done. I told him that I had talked with Sue and was to call her that afternoon after discussing the situation with Ann Brown. not know he was under a court deadline. Mr. Jennings said he did office was the one under a deadline to the court. I told him he was not. This I told Mr. Jennings I would contact Sue that afternoon after talking with Ann regarding the timeline for the requested information. After talking with Ann, I called Sue Pederson on the afternoon of January 24 to tell her a few days would be too late for us to meet the deadline, but the information was valuable and needed to be provided to our office. available and was to return my call. Sue was not On the morning of January 25th I again called the Student Assignment Office and could not get through, therefore, I told Linda Bryant to continue trying to get Sue Pederson and give her the message that a few days was too late for the information to be provided to meet our deadline, but since the requested information was valuable. available. to please provide it to our office when Sue Pederson was contacted with that message. the information was in the process of being collected and would be forwarded to this office. She repliedArkansas Democrat Thursday...August 30^ 1990 Little Rock School District enrollment Elementary Schools Badgett Bala Baseline Booker Brady .\nCarver Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs . ^ , , , Gibbs Ish Jeflerson Mabelvale McDermott ,MeadowcliH _____ Mitchell  Otter Creek Pulaski Heights . Rightsail Rockatelier , Romina - , Stephens Terry  Wakefield Washington 'iigK\n:: Watson Western Hills Williams ( Wilson ' - Woodruff Elementary total Junior High Schools Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar\n? Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr.\n- . Mann ' Pulaski Heights Southwest White 57 65 Percent Total Black Other black enrollment 166 287 5 98 244 262 115 256 176 96 333 \u0026gt;305 303 347 275 8 134 187 69 264 179^^ 58 260 12 309 277 209 49,,'.:::j33 141 Ai, 226 228 196 185 ,135 196 '299 320 ' 74% 223 80 357 71 342 55 A : : 72 7 54 2 66 3 2 7 1 6 10 6 6 ,,,3, 10 149 260 3 28 194 178 /\n:156 113 5 66 45, 10 218 164 :1,:308:. 163 121 220 A21, 59 199 : 195 193 300 184 284 330 416 312 207 280 :i308 115 5 1 4 3 3 ,. .5\n6 2 2 5 2 4 4,646\ni8,907 i|T37 203- 235 ^211' 199 495 398 Wis 637 :\u0026lt;10 3 :::,16 15 74 603 424 ' 566\n525 374 58 323 79 52:S 83 51 90 73 56 99 46 56 61 63 87 47 63 87 , 73 86 93 56 66\n60-.s':y 65 63 55 :71\nS 65 65 333 386 374 543 231 182 332 'te\n136 428 530 526 412 222 334 317 201 263 348 197 507.,: 500 *:73O:\n:'i 477 330 505 j-::,431,to: 178 13,690 I I 206 .\n\u0026lt;:375 348 512 266,412 145 449 16 8 10 70 63 69 75 65 58 60 74 Junior high total 1,813 : 3,772 High Schools 708 636 721 851 581 876 - 686 604\n:5,663\n5 .Central , Fair Hall McClellan j-Parkview High school total 568:\n860\n366 508 ,32 9 59 58 . 1,460 883 495, 606 17: , ,1,118 368 570 5 339 448 '12 2,136 2,992 75 60 56 56 943 799 5,203ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 6,1990  LRSD 7th day enrollment 1989 1990 Sr. high White Black %Black White Black %Black Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. hiah 743 379 538 459 357 2,476 1,101 507 610 634 450 3,302 58 57 53 57 55 56 574 380 479 378 349 862 493 642 642 439 2,160 3,078 59 56 57 62 55 58 Cloverdale Junior 225 Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementarv.... Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady I Carver i Chicot I Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin i Fulbright Garland 111 244 254 221 395 257 177 1,884 451 409 482 641 353 462 418 492 3,702 65 78 66 70 61 53 61 73 65 223 229 216 219 219 351 264 152 493 402 526 642 395 514 444 497 1,873 3,913 68 63 69 73 64 58 62 75 67 Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 57 88 97 244 147 306 168 128 132 95 159 70 244 16 68 153 10 239 225 188 153 17 173 Pulaski Heights Sr. 92 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Grand total 17 28 78 0 200 164 12 152 139 223 128 51 4,461 8,321 185 296 279 320 273 259 319 282 254 244 221 340 . i 275 256 129 168 133 233 303 314 257 201 167 213 190 198 335 213 299 262 437 288 193 238 246 134 8,976 15,980 76 75 73 56 64 45 65 68 66 72 58 81 54 93 65 55 93 49 57 61 62 92 49 69 91 87 80 100 59 61 97 65 58 51 66 71 66 64 57 65 93 268 117 262 182 98 131 64 175 56 260 14 57 141 4 227 266 197 155 28 178 109 4 72 47 10 222 165 317 166 124 220 117 60 4,726 168 292 275 336 328 307 364 281 191 272 202 322 293 214 141 186 140 216 282 326 275 192 166 201 197 196 314 188 289 321 443 333 209 276 301 120 9,157 8.759 16.148 75 80 75 55 73 . 53 66 74 * 59 81. 53 83 52 90 71 56 97 -48 51 61 64 87 48 64 98 73 86 94 56 65 58 66 62 55 72 65 58 64LRSD enrollment - Oct. 1990 10-12-90 I Sr. high Non-black 1990 Black %Black 1989 % Black Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. hiah 652 364 528 393 369 2,306 977 515 703 630 447 3,272 60 59 . 57 62 55 58 60 , 56 52 59 54 57 ! Cloverdale Junior Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementarv \n229 240 ^\u0026lt;242 230 216 371 268 163 1,959 535 423 530 672 404 515 454 492 4,025 70 64 69 75 65 58 63 75 67 64 79 67 71 61 .J 54 63 70 66 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland ... Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams I Wilson Woodruff Total Grand total 56 73 98 268 126 276 182 100 137 66 182 68 266 29 56 146 4 232 238 201 157 24 179 114 2 76 69 12 233 176 324 171 135 224 120 66 4,886 166 302 272 346 330 327 362 289 194 279 205 343 293 211 145 187 142 237 321 323 287 183 180 211 191 195 323 190 289 326 438 347 204 281 298 120 9,337 75 81 74 56 72 54 67 74 59 81 53 83 52 88 72 56 97 51 57 61 65 88 50 65 99 72 82  94 55 65 57 67 60 56 71 65 66 __64 76 76 72 53 66 46 64 70 64 72 57 M 82 56 \"\" 94 66 51 96 50 58 -\"ifc 61 62 92 50 71 92 86 80  100 61 65 98 64 59 51 66 w '5^ 71 67 64 CORRECT FIGURES - A number of figures in the October 1990 Little Rock School District enrollment chart in Thursdays newspaper wrere incorrect The chart today has correct figures. Also, because of a reporting error, a story that accompanied the chart contained some erroneous information when comparing last years official enrollment with this years to calculate the difference. The Little Rock district actually has 190 fewer students than in October 1989.LRSD loses 264 students, still 64% black LRSD enrollment - Oct. 1990 10-12-90 Sr. high f Non-black 1990 Black % Black 1989 %Black BY BRENDA CREDIT Democrat Staff Writer Enrollment in the Little Rock School District fell this year, while the percentage of black students remained the same at 64 percent, according to figures released by the district Wednesday. The districts overall enrollment was down 264 students to 25.785, compared to 26,049 last year. The number of white students increased by 123, from 9,028 in 1989 to 9,151 this year. The districts black enrollment dropped from 16,726 last year to 16,634 this year, a difference of 92 pupils. The high schools level of black high school students numbered 3,354 in 1989 and 3,174 in 1990, a loss of 180. Enrollment was down in senior highs because of the M- to-M (majority-to-minority) transfers, said James Jennings, associate district superintendent. The majority-to-minority program allows black students to transfer to the North Little Rock or Pulaski County Special school districts. White students in those districts may transfer to the Little Rock School District. Enrollment in district elementary schools is 66 percent black, the same as last year. The total number of students, however, is up from 14,083 in 1989 to 14,336 in 1990. Three district elementary schools have a black enrollment greater than 90 percent: Ish, 97 percent\nRightsell, 99\nand Stephens, 94. The schools with 80 percent or more black enrollment include: Bale, 81 percent\nFair Park, 81\nFranklin, 83\nGarland, 88\nMitchell, 88\nand Romine, 82. At the junior high level, the number of black students increased from 3,937 in 1989 to 4,025 in 1990, an additional 88 students. The number of white students also increased, from 1,951 last year to 1,959. Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high ..... Cloverdale Junior Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementarv..... Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Grand total 652 364 528 393 369 2,306 977 515 703 630 447 3,272 60 59 57 62 55 58 60 56 52 59 54 57 229 240 242 230 216 371 263 163 1,959 535 423 530 672 404 515 454 492 4,025 70 64 69 75 65 58 63 75 67 64 79 67 71 61 54 63 70 66 56 73 98 268 126 276 182 100 137 66 182 68 266 29 56 146 4 232 238 201 157 24 179 114 2 76 69 12 233 176 324 171 135 224 120 66 4,886 166 302 272 346 330 327 362 289 194 279 205 343 293 211 145 187 142 237 321 323 287 183 180 211 191 195 323 190 289 326 438 347 204 281 298 120 9,337 16.634 75 81 74 56 72 54 67 74 59 81 53 83 52 88 72 56 97 51 57 61 65 88 50 65 99 72 82  94 55 65 57 67 60 56 71 65 66 64 76 76 72 53 66 46 64 70 64 72 57 82 56 94 66 51 96 50 58 61 62 92 50 71 92 86 80 100 61 65 98 64 59 51 66 71 67 64 i CORRECT FIGURES - A number of figures in the October 1990 Little Rock School District enrollment chart in Thursday's newspaper were incorrect. The chart today has correct figures. Also, because of a reporting error, a story that accompanied the chart contained some erroneous information when comparing last year's official enrollment with this year's to calculate the difference. The Little Rock district actually has 190 fewer students thar in October 1989.LR grade schools add 220 whites in reversal August 30, 1990...Thursday ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THU LRSD third day enrollment BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democfal SlaU Writer White enrollment in the Little Rock School Districts elementary schools was up 220 pupils Wednesday, an apparent reversal of the districts history of losing while children in early grades. However, the gain was not enough to offset the loss of white students in junior and senior high schools. Between this year and last year, the district lost 299 white high school students - 164 of them at Central High - or 12 percent of the while enroll- ncnl in the senior highs. The listricl also lost 46 white junior high students. Wednesday, the third day of school, was the first day district officials compiled enrollment figures for 1990-91. The numbers, when compared with 1989, showed:  The overall enrollment for the day was 24,556, an in- crease of I4I students over last years 24,415.  or that total, 8,595 students were white, 15,671 were black, and 290 students were of other races. The number of black students increased 252 over last year.  The enrollment Wednesday was 63.8 percent black and 36.2 percent white. Last year, the racial composition of the district was 63.2 percent black and 36.8 percent white. \"Im very encouraged by the: elementary school numbers,: Dr. Ruth Steele, di.slrict superintendent. said Wednesday evening. She said about half of the district's regular, non-magnet, non-incentive schools had increases in the number of white pupils. Fulbright Elementary, for example, had 20 new while pupils and Pulaski Heights Elementary had an Increase of 19. In all, 16 of 25 reg-: See STUDENTS, Page 9B  Sr. hlqh While 1989 1990 Students  Continued from Arkansas Page utar elementary schools showed increases in while enrollment. ' Steele credited the increase of whites lo stability provided by the district's student assignment policies. Beginning last year, all kindergarten and other new students were assigned to schools based on the attendance zones in which they live. A.s a result, most parents are able to know where their children will attend school all 13 years. The district has lost while elementary pupils each year since 1987, when the district annexed some Pulaski County students and schools. In 1987, the district had 4,864 white elementary pupils. The district lost while elementary pupils in most of the years preceding the annexation. Steele said Wednesday she didn't know the reason for the loss of while students in the upper grades. All but two secondary schools, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights junior highs, showed decreases in white enrollment. Little Rock School Board President Skip Rutherford called the loss a remnant of the districts old controlled- choice student assignment plan. is one kindergarten class at a time. The district has 4,646 while elementary pupils, compared with 4,426 last year\n8,907 black elementary pupils compared with 8,762 in 1989\nand 137 children of other racc.s compared with 113 la.stycar. According to district statistics, there are non-magnet. non-Incentive elementary .schools that fall outside the districts court-ordered r.ncial- ratio requirements to be 51 percent to 76 percent black. Bale. Franklin, Fair Park, and Romine clementaries exceed the 76 percent cap. Steele said her staff will examine the attendance zones for the schools and consider programs to attract whites to those buildings. A comprehensive gifted education program is proposed for Romine. Cloverdale and Geyer Springs elementaries, which have high black enrollments, also will be monitored. Otter Creek and Jefferson elementaries have black enrollments below 50 percent. Steele said black enrollments at those schools should increase this week as more pupils enroll in the district. The district has six incentive schools that originally had black enrollments in excess of 80 percent. Incentive schools arc eligible for special programs and extra funding. Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high .......... Cloverdale Junior Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementary..... Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights nighlsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hilts Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Grand total Black %B1ack While Slack %Black 732 389 524 442 348 2.435 1,014 426 567 603 446 3.056 56.7 51.6 51.5 57,4 55.3 55,9 568 366 495 368 339 2,136 860 508 606 570 448 2,992 58.9 57.5 54.2 60.4 56.1 57.5 225 103 248 250 231 394 250 153 1,859 420 393 476 632 341 457 400 482 3.601 64.0 78.9 64.9 70.1 59.4 52.5 60.4 74.3 65.0 203 235 211 199 206 348 266 145 1,813 495 398 494 637 375 512 412 449 3,772 69.9 62.6 68.5 74.9 64.5 58.4 60,1 74.3 66.6 Tm very encouraged by the etemenfary school numbers.  That plan abolished attendance zones and permitted students lo choose their schools. The plan drove away hundreds of white students who were unable to get their school choices because they would put the schools out of compliance with court-ordered racial-ratio requirements. The plan left the district with smaller classes that are now moving through the secondary schools, Rutherford said. \"Were coming back little by little, he said of elementary school numbers. \"Ive said that the way to rebuild this district Rockefeller Elementary, which was 84 percent black last year, was 73 percent black ns of Wednesday, The school has an early-education magnet program. Washington Elementary, which svas 97 percent black last year, was converted to a magnet school and is 57 percent black this year. As a magnet. some of the white pupils enrolled at Washington come from the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts. The same Is true at Dunbar Junior High, which was 79 percent black last year and is 63 percent black this year as a result of a new magnet program on international studies. Rutherford called Dunbar, Washington and Rockefeller success stories. 56 84 93 244 144 305 161 142 131 93 160 69 240 16 70 153 10 237 213 184 147 20 172 94 17 40 79 0 199 153 11 145 143 221 129 51 4.426 180 294 279 319 268 261 314 253 247 239 214 331 267 250 126 168 125 225 206 303 247 205 163 212 166 225 323 196 290 261 421 275 187 243 245 132 8.762 8,720 15.419 76.3 77.8 73.6 56.3 64.1 45.7 65.7 63.7 64.8 72.0 56.8 80.3 51.8 93.6 64.3 51.2 92.6 48.4 57.3 61.1 62.4 91.1 48,7 68-6 91.2 84.0 79.6 99.5 58.8 62.9 97.2 65.2 56.5 51.7 65.5 70.6 65.9 63.2 57 65 98 262 115 256 176 96 134 69 179 58 260 12 49 141 1 226 228 196 149 28 178 113 5 66 45 10 218 164 308 163 121 220 121 59 4.648 166 287 244 333 305 303 347 275 187 264 200 309 277 209 133 185 135 196 299 320 260 194 156 199 195 193 300 184 284 330 416 312 207 280 308 115 8.907 8,595 15,671 74.4 80.4 71.3 55.2 71.9 53.5 66.1 73.5 57.9 79.3 51.8 82.6 51.0 90.5 73.1 55.7 99.3 45.8 56.4 60.8 63.1 87.4 46.7 62.8 97.0 73.4 86.2 93.4 56.0 66.0 57.0 65.4 62.7 55.4 71.5 64.6 65.1 63.8LRSD loses 264 students Still 64% black BY BRENDA CREDIT Democrat Staff Writer Enrollment in the Little Rock School District fell this year, while the percentage of black students remained the same at 64 percent, according to figures released by the district Wednesday. The districts overall enrollment was down 264 students to 25.785, compared to 26,049 last year. The number of white students increased by 123, from 9,028 in 1989 to 9,151 this year. The districts black enrollment dropped from 16,726 last year to 16,634 this year, a difference of 92 pupils. The high schools level of black high school students numbered 3.354 in 1989 and 3,174 in 1990, a loss of 180. Enrollment was down in senior highs because of the M- to-M (majority-to-minority) transfers, said James Jennings, associate district superintendent. The majority-to-minority program allows black students to transfer to the North Little Rock or Pulaski County Special school districts. White students in those districts may transfer to the Little Rock School District. Enrollment in district elementary schools is 66 percent black, the same as last year. The total number of students, however, is up from 14,083 in 1989 to 14,336 in 1990. Three district elementary schools have a black enrollment greater than 90 percent: Ish, 97 percent\nRightsell, 99\nand Stephens, 94. The schools with 80 percent or more black enrollment include: Bale, 81 percent\nFair Park, 81\nFranklin. 83: Garland, 88\nMitchell, 88\nand Romine, 82. At the junior high level, the number of black students increased from 3,937 in 1989 to 4,025 in 1990, an additional 88 students. The number of white students also increased, from 1,951 last year to 1,959. LRSD enrollment - Oct. 1990 10-12-90 Sr. high f Non-black 1990 Black %Black 1989 %Black Central Fair ' .''  Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. hiah ........... Cloverdale Junior Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Junior Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total . , Elementarv........ Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady ... Carver Chicot .zirw'wjiisSbOS. Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright\"'?^: Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff ?- SI Mitchell Otter Creek S.... Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson . Western Hills Williams ,.  Wilson ' .1 I Woodruff I Total L Grand total 652 364 528 393 369 2,306 977 515 703 630 447 3,272 60 59 57 62 ? 55 58 60 56 52 59 54 57 \u0026gt;. 'W- 229 , 240 .. 242 230 216 371 268 163 1,959 535 423 530 672 404 515 454 492 4,025 70 ..s 64 69  75 65 : 58 63 75 . 67 is: 64 79 67 71 61 54 63 70 66 I 56 73 98 - 268 126 276 182 100 137 66 182 68 266 29 56 146 4 \u0026lt;3\n232 238 ' 201 157 24 179 114 2 76 69 12 233 176 324 171 135 224 120 66 4,886 166 302 272 346 330 327 362 289 194 279 205 343 293 211 145 . 187 142 237 . 321 323 287 183 180 211 191 195 323 190 289 326 438 347 204 281 298 120 9,337 75 81 74 56 , 72 54 67 ..74\n59 81. . . 53 83 52 -i 88 . 72 56 97 51 , 57  61.. 65 88 - 50 65 99 72 82  94 55  65 57 67 60 56 71 65 66 64 76 76 72 53 66 46 64 70 64 72 57 82 56 w - .. , 94  66 ' ,51 .. 96 50 58 61 62 92 50 71 92 86 80 100 61 65 98 64 59 51 66 71 67 64 CORRECT FIGURES - A number of figures in the October 1990 Little Rock School District enrollment chart in Thursday's newspaper were incorrect. The chart today has correct figures. Also, because of a reporting error, a story that accompanied the chart contained some erroneous information when comparing last years official enrollment with this year's to calculate the difference. The Little Rock district actually has 190 fewer students thar in October 1989. I\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":45,"next_page":46,"prev_page":44,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":528,"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}}]}}