{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"ndd_esgms_06008","title":"Box EO-2, Folder 8: Council for Women of Durham County, 1982-1983","collection_id":"ndd_esgms","collection_title":"Asa and Elna Spaulding papers, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1935-1983","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)"],"dc_date":["1982/1983"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Organizations Series,1968-1983"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American women--Political activity","Durham (N.C.)--History","Women--Political activity"],"dcterms_title":["Box EO-2, Folder 8: Council for Women of Durham County, 1982-1983"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/spauldingasaelna/#esgms06008"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: [Identification of item], Asa and Elna Spaulding Papers, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1935-1983, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","bylaws (administrative records)","reports","rosters","pamphlets"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_esgms_30005","title":"Box ES-2, Folder 5: Campaign for County Commissioner, 1982","collection_id":"ndd_esgms","collection_title":"Asa and Elna Spaulding papers, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1935-1983","dcterms_contributor":["Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Spaulding, Asa T. (Asa Timothy), 1902-1990"],"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Subject Files Series, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1974-1982"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Social conditions","African American women--Political activity","Durham (N.C.)--History","Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)--Correspondence","Women county council members--North Carolina--Durham","Durham County (N.C.). Board of Commissioners","Durham County (N.C.)--Politics and government"],"dcterms_title":["Box ES-2, Folder 5: Campaign for County Commissioner, 1982"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/spauldingasaelna/#esgms30005"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: [Identification of item], Asa and Elna Spaulding Papers, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1935-1983, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)","fliers (printed matter)","pamphlets","memorandums","clippings (information artifacts)","notes","business cards","forms (documents)","reports","financial statements","rosters"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_207","title":"Brown Matt L.: 1982","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["In charge of developing minority franchises, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.","Business -- African Americans -- Executives -- Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Press, February 21,1982.","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Brown Matt L.: 1982"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/207"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["5 x 7.25 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Brown, Matt L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_286","title":"Building capacities","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":["1982/2007"],"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 facilities","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Building capacities"],"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/286"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nK / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. v. PULASKI COUNTY cite M 964 F.Supp. 326 (1964) 353 oard of i982), ry of de udgments is District ' Arkansas, /icts in the uty to elimi- ate-mandated snn V. Char- of Bdueaiion, 28 L.Ed.2d S54 if Missouri, 781 1984), at n, 10. istrict transfers, i. pattern of an- mce of all parts le county u.s the Unit, the history in'i'ica, and the Il's supervisory listricts demon- icts historically und were not tonomous, Ev- pp. 428 (D.Del, 7, The governmental actions affecting housing patterns in Pulaski County have had a significant interdistrict effect on the schools In Pulaski County, which has resulted in the great dispurity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendants districts. Swann v. Charlotte Mecklen- I J School District suit in further- to eliminate all \u0026gt;c and brunch, orders of thiis aied education r, Charlotie 'afioH, ctu^jro,' \u0026gt;\u0026gt;i, niipra. In iichievc inter- J I I fregated resi- iiur^ Soard of Edu,ealion, eupra. fi. The segregative actions taken by the two defendant districts and their failure to take desegregative actions have had a significant interdistrict effect on the achnols in Pulaski County, which has also contributed to the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendant districw. Swann v. Charlotte Mechlou burg Soard of Education, supra. [2] 9, The Pulaski County Special School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative intcrdistrict effoew: (a) failed to adhere to the requirements of the /!i)h namon decree\n(b) constructed schools in locutions which ensured that they would be racially identifiable schools\n(c) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students\n(d) refused to hire und promote bluck faculty and stuff\n(e) refused to allow deanne.xa- tion to or consolidation with the other two districts\n(f) failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximise desegregation\n(g) assigned students to special education classifications and gifted progrums on u discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals to schools with high black enrollments\n(i) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools\nand (j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. 10. The North Little Rock School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative interdistrict effects\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and couching pcBitions\n(b) concentrated whiles in schools north of Intersute 40 and blacks in schools south of It\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion Uie burdens of transportulion equally on black and white students. 11. When Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District took the purposeful acts set forth in Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10 above, they knew or should have known that they would have iiiterdistrict segregative effects, 12. The unconstitutional and racially discriminatory acta of the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts have resulted in significant und substuntiul inter- district segregation. Milliken r. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069. 13. Since there are constitutional violations with interdislrict effects, an interdis- tricl remedy is appropriuie. Milliken c. Bradley, aupra\nLiddell v. State of Missouri, supra. The remedial hearing will begin April 30, 1984. 14. The Pulaski County Board of Education and Arkansas Stute Board of Education are necessary parties who must be mado subject to the Court's remedial order. 1 I li I  J ( County have degree by the 11 bodies, act- ler, with the exKtsn I Tb\n i. ELSMrS'TAAV BCHOOLS: FACIUTIEB, SNROLLMeNTlANO I iitcrssis, and a series of ing choices. 2S4, 96 a.Ct. : Sii'onn u (I of Educa' NAME LiUk RatM 1) Rrtd)' 8) FiA Firli I) Frn?ir 0 PulltiH|ht Bl 11 MeOsritou 7) MiidftwiliK 11 Tvry LT.' H a 11 'Sll 17 'SA '4 l^il eo.s- Dl. TIOX OSAOSI CAPACITY* mt KNtl.MT * utilization BLACK exsi.MT. 4 BL IIU TCHBI,  IL, TCHBt. ADWM  I ASKsa I s 3 I 3 3 9 3 i I K-3 K-A X B X 3 K-1 ..HI 121 ITS sss ,7W Ml) 30 B40 904 94B 430 W7 430 113 ,791 94 73 77 7} 71 M 97 xi w7l -* 2M 1H0 310 309 113 UO 301 340 n 79 b: 77 44 71 73 U 71 WI ii.i a 294 144 U! 01 ^114 i.i III 11 11 i.i i.t 1.1 1.1 . u I 9 I 1 0 0 9 U 4 ^5^  .. I t *I I 354 NAME YKAU Bl.T. CfW. IN TIUN 1 t I r t i I LiUlv Hin'k 19} lil 111 Ckrvir If) Iih 19) irittMll 14) Dm IS] II) lUmiii *99 *34 *04 'W 17 11 17) VMtmKk *M UI ViHUffli III WllMl Totti: U I I 9 I I 8 I . \u0026gt;9 I I 5 f ) I 584 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT ('A MA rn\"  ITHi KNIlluMT. I^ATHJN HLtCK KNKLMT. HL r*! Tt'HIlM.  HL TrHiW.   a AD.MRX A41.MAM li 1 * a*f af t44mi ti, *1^ pi.i X 4 X-l X-0 X 0 KU X 0 XU 1-0 XU KU 800 410 400 174 \u0026gt;00 400 MO __BU ftW BOO UO 414 Ml NO 177 MB Ut 111 4M 470 . f I.7B4 7.691 S' tuhowfii________ IJBft 91 104 It lU IN IT 101 149 91 M m 9 411 117 810 m 993 4M 10 100 too lOO 71 M IS 111 17,7 M.I , 11.1 tl.l 18.4 71 11.9 94 II 1.0 10.9 171 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 9 ft 1 9 ft ( { I '* Frublel*Mrm nvi IntlurtMi In upliity teuol. NAMS YBAR BU. CON. Dl\u0026gt; flON aHAOKH CAFA. CITY ll RNRLHT. %UTIL\u0026gt; IRATION Lluh tok lau?tdliu BIwmUry ikhwli 10! BmUp 91) rhUla M) Oirlud M) aibha M) PulukiMU. U) RBibhllf 90) SUpUn* ri VMhiifwi Ttti\nMAMI WrU\u0026lt; Lhtf Hart M] AinMy III A\u0026gt;tnu W) BaivoM ni lnh. It) CmtvnO U) QhpHtv Ml lill\u0026amp;aKli. Ml UlMvaM Ml Ur/ 17) LyiHDp. Ill HmOP)l Ml H. Malibu 40) FnrhHlI] 411 41) Flit U) 1U49M 441 BMC\u0026gt;1r 44) MnatlMU TaUl? lie ri ft,741 4T 01 70% Ml M0.9 11-9 1.0 lets 1 1 It I 9  BUCK BNRLMT- HL. IIW TCIiBI.  BL TCRRi ADUM. I AOXR\u0026amp; J 'M * U *t 19 'tb 80 9 8 3 9 ft I 5 I 4U 4^0 4 4 4U 4 0 4U 4*0 Ml S49 340 173 WO UO 42fi | 471 4 M4 411 \u0026lt;91 Ml W7 M Oft 191 III M  iff n Ml M7 III 404 MB M 117 ftilM M7I 63 71 19 17 01 71  71 to 104 93.4 HO n.0 91.4 HI 114 17.4 lUO 19.1 7.0 111 191 1.0 14 94 1.1 71.0 YEAR BLT. CON. 01. TION Okadrs CAFA* CITY' UM BxnLMr. 1 UTIL. SATN- BLaCX\" EMRI.MT HL TCiiar  IL TCXM 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I adkri. I 9 I 1 ft 0 9 0  I AOM, XU x-o X I K-0 X-O KU KU KI KU KU KU KU XU KU KU X I x-o KU 170 409 9W 4M 300 300 470 100 100 400 IM  300 440 BU 4M 940 UO 4M 7.904 M EM IM MO 911 IM 494 HI Ml 349 IM 4M Ml 104 8M Mt SO 375 SAM 71 M 01 100 Tft tt 19 M U M n It M to M 41 M 13 17 71 11  07 N It 197 H IM lot 101 N 10 111 111 70 104 \u0026lt;7t IJQ7 * htimiind fnn UM llUmM4/ lANlIrniBU. U\nft| hi|hMt rw. r9UK\u0026lt;M. H 98 10 H 41 11 II 40 U 39 41 13 97 M Bl II II M 311 M.\u0026gt; 11.4 134 44.1 114 11.4 tf.t 4 114 tie n.ft ai H.e M.ft 11.4 114 HO 944 nui 40 LO 1.0 9 M U u 1.0 90 U 4.0 70 IJ U 41 1.3 44 4.4 ILO I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 0 ft ft ft 0 9 0 I ft 0 0 0 0 9 0 I 9 0 ' I . 1 I II I I 9\u0026lt;u nM Olnailjr anitabia an alMtrtartea itulMtt Alts, dlauifi d nst i1lilln|vil\u0026amp; Slaak fiwi otha? mlaaHi/ ituOlfttS la rwarti. SHlisKn aM by littr\u0026gt;eUtli| ft(n Iwa rapeni. HAMS Canity 411 ApbiM 47) Ambld Ml BMittt 41) labar 40) BOMJIfia III la/MMai* 49} Cau HI ChlMC ^1 Cttwlak-.. 43) CII.9U YEAR BLT. C05. 01. TIO.Y flRADU CSfA- CITY IMS RNRLMT.  UTIL. HATION BUCK e.sxlmT. 1 IL TCXU.  IL TCM1   I DXM. ADMU 'M NA 'll 'H H 17 74 71 I HA I I I I X I x-o X I K-\u0026lt; K-4 K.4 K.4 X I WO IM MO ftoo 400 WO OM M7 4tl 341 2M M3 OlS 000 004 111 to lot M tl7 IM lOl in III to 1U 4 03 10 14 ns H 11 u 1 41 9 9 31 14.0 lie 10.0 11.0 97.6 MO HO M.O 90 40 4.9 le 1.9 3.0 1.0 to 0 0 0 0 I 9 0 0 i It I K ri u* II 1.4 i-O 1 I CfC) 2 v .\u0026lt;v' I/ / i 1 s ! i little rock school DIST. r * R AhMRt 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 it 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 I 0 6 ADM8I. I aDmri. 'A 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 ft 0 1 9 0 ft 9 1 rnunlv \u0026gt;,) Cm ) DM, 61) Dwprn U) 61) RiFmJ II) ^MlUKVlt. 66) (an^mvk 64) Lawhr M) Mlbilviit 69) OtkftrMai 67} Ou Cnv U) OtMrCnik 61) Pin* Pork 7ft) 71) RoOIrua 7|) Smh n} IbUWMd 74) Sylvia HJi. 71) Tsyltr 76) ToltIMA 77) WiUhtld 71) Wiuea Tftuii YK.\\H Ill.T. VIIN-HI-THIS (UiAbh\n* AOMRS. s ADM. .SAM Lil\u0026lt; Baek 7ft) Dunbir ChOA\u0026lt; 584F.aupp..U8 (1964) V. PULASKI COUNTY 355 CITY KSIll MT ' UTtl. fZATins IIIaAI'K \u0026gt;:.V1(J,.MT.  HI.. IS'HRm.   H AliftlllS. AHUKS 1 16 0 0 0 9 0 ft ft 1 0 9 ft 0 ft 0 ft 1 9 0 2 1 ^ns. ina4 h/  B ADMAI 0 0 9 9 0 ft 0 0 01 *64 ll 'll ftl '56 *8t V 6ft '10 71 71 10 74 74 '30 '69 6ft '10 NA ft! '67 YEAR ALT, '20 - ftBftkKU....- 8S) IlMdmOT - ID m PyiuMHu. 64) bulhwMi Ttm\nNwh LttU Rwk W) Cintritl U) UktWMrI 17) RIdrtreU SI) iUMCty TeUl. Pu:*ikl C.-uftty M) Mil/ tl) Jkinvlt/NQ tD Jbn^iH/la Ift) MlMiViia 14) .Srt)iw\u0026gt;M4 66) RftbinkM  *6) Sylvin K!|. Tsiil! * Ml04l*Hhai I 2 I 8 I I I ft a I s 1 1I I 1 I 2 1 .SA 1 } COS. Dt-t: on 2 '64 66 11 'M NA NA NA ma -w *94 'ftft 'M M '76 '14 69 X K'6 X-6 K-6 x-i K 6 x-a X.6 K-0 K-6 X-6 X\u0026gt;6 K.| xa XI X-6 X-6 X-6 K-ft K-6 K-l Sftft na 4ft0 40ft isa KO 464 4H I.IU 77ft 490 960 .IM 609 7tft 9M 609 IM .MO ftsa lift 7IQ 600 7ftft 67ft 600 H.m SOO . .\u0026lt;^SQ 14 11 101 121 Iftft 11 91 11? U Ifta iw ifto Sift 4.6 SO 4.0 1.9 1 I 1 1 fl 0 600 754 617 UI Ml 411 au 444 la 647 477 Si4 174 7Sft 4M aw its aw 16.021 as Oft lift lift iftt ftS 71 It IM in tft 41 lift IM M U St 111 t4 lU 4 141 II II TO 91 181 *4 II 16ft 111 110 61 170 534 IJ4I 14 I M It 10 16 18 83 M 49 0 16 84 16 13 42 ft4\u0026lt; lO.Q 21.0 III SiO 8t0 no 10.9 U.9 n.9 100 11.6 ro UJ 20.0 SII lO.ft VA nt.i to 33^ exNIUT! Tih ,. JUNIOR IIION ROHOOUI Rri^iutiu, rnrollmknts, and sTArr CRaDU CAPA. CHY lira ENdLMT. I L'Tfb UTS, BUCK ENALMT. lu. 1114 XKU 7-0 8 woL,7t 2 3 2 I ,Sa Na MA NA 2 3 S 2 I ft 1 t 7-ft 7 I 7 7 I 7-1 b.ft 7.1 7-6 7 1 7 t 7-9 ft 6 7^9 7-^ F5 7Sft taa 661 TOO TOO 4J76 l.QOO U6 1J)OQ 400 1.200 747 7'fi 616 IM U7 1.000 77S 07j 1401 992 M] 6ft4 600 710 4Jr ftift ait3 4 2,411 *640 4W Ml 970 611 076 4n ft4S 9,902 U.9 w 16 W tm SI u 6ft IM la* 4ft4 ftftl ftftO 417 2.0W 71 M W tn 1 117 209 164 7.14  30 12 u Oil 67 M 64 72 M 02 99 *6 Ift? Ill 1.44 W It 14 106 1.M2 W 2ft 27 ft  U 1)W SA 4.6 IQ 6.0 6.0 4.9 40 6.0 6.0 4.0 1,0 Al 4.9 1.0 1.0 6.0 14M  IL TCKIi. 14,4 . 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1w ft 0 0 ft 0 0 9 0 1 ft 0 0 9 0 1 1 0 6 I 1I I AOMRI.  D AD.SKI. \u0026gt; S .6 14.0 wo Sift 54.0 W.ft 37.6 lU 112.0 61.6 ftSJI 92.1 ftl.O 4?.ft K.6 47ft lOt.B IH 1.0 1.B Ml tJ 4.6 6.0 7.0 27.0 SAtta-. lift l.ft 7,0 6A 7,0 6.6 6 ft U.S ft I 3 II 2 SII 7 I 1 1 I 0 9 16 1 2 28 a6 I It I t 9 I 1 6  I II , 7 - J 1  xj i /hHi .' 1 E i 356 584 FEDEKAL SUPPLEMENT I I CXKI8IT\u0026gt; I . - I Hi Tibk IQ. BRNlOilKiaHKCHUtiUi rAUUTiCS.INX0LLMSNT8,ANDSTArr XANI IT) Cittftl M) Klt 99) Fvkviiv TUl: YCAB LT. COX* Db fiox cxAnr.8 CArA\u0026gt; CITY IHQ KNRLMt *UTfT^ 8ATH. AUfX ENRbMT. 8U itu TCHM.  lU TCHM.  I AOMM. ARMU. f ll *M I I t IQ 18 ICkll 10-14 1,909 I.IRQ 1.698 4,187 1,918 l,QB4 1,8 4Jtl 101 91 110 104* I.IQQ H4 788 1.4 M SB  an I4 \u0026lt;1.4 \u0026lt;7.9 tt.O 11.6 .O 17.9 M.e I 4 4 14 8 I Worth Utti IUe9 190) HtrMiiHl Ml) Ok Hiin Tout! 198) nir 161) JukiRvla. 104) HfOtUM IQI) Ml 164) Oik Orav* 197) N. Hillki IM) KoktAMn 109) Srl\u0026gt;ia Hb. TM): TO t4 *1 'M '84 99 *93 71 '84 'M 1 I I 8 9 I 8  8 10-18 IQ-IS T-12 l^M M 18 11^11 r.it ICkM IM 10 18 1,400 1,006 3,466 un 1^ 1.494 949 971 13 ni H9 *1.911 1,OM 1,Q3 8.133 m 1,181 1.478 1,090 824 734 411 884 7379 7B H 91* tt4 199 977 r 39 33* M.B MB 134.0 194 lU tio 8 t 9 1 I 68 97 168 IM in 49 H 94 m n ai IM ,0. lU 41 u U9 1,497 It a ]\u0026gt; 4Q 14 11 14 lQ 48.4 44.4 7U6 10.6 436 94.0 91.0 436 8W.0 16.4 86 11-0 11.6 3.6 4.6 76 79 Mi 6 3 1 6 I I 8 I I 21 6 I1 11 ( I Rollin FROST. Plaintiff, V, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 83-1169. f i United States District Court, D. Hawaii. I April IS, 1984. I ( I I I I Secliun 1983 action was brought against city and county and others to recover damages arising out of alleged boating of plaintiff by police officers. On defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state claim and un ground that complaint was vague and conelusory, the District Court, Fong, J., hold that\n(1) fact that recourse tu state tort remedies was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation sufficiently serious to shock the conscience and officers willful and deliberate abuse of state authority, in manner which could not be characterised as random, and (2) construing complaint liberally, it was not so vague and conelusory as to warrant dismissal, particularly at early stage of proceedings and In view of fact that some defendants were os yet unidentified. Motion denied. I I. Consiitutiunal Law \u0026lt;*252.5 Ideiitifkatiun of specific requiremenU c\u0026gt;f due process requires consideration of, among other factors, nature of the affected interest, and implicit In that principle is recoKniiiun that some Interests, by their very nature, require more procedural pro-tGctioriR than others. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. Const. I 2. Civil Rights *^13.9 Fact that recourse to state tort reme-dins was available to person who was allegedly bcaton by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation suffi-i i .Ji V    ' lJ? 1 I SCHOOL 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Central Fair Hall MoClellan Parkview 2112 995 1397 1259 1150 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2050 936 1220 1200 991/846 Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest 657 792 843 990 669 975 774 807 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 812 780 960 600 935 700 754 Badgett Bale Ba.seline 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 King 303 397 492 720 440 475 634 394 422 346 440 467 535 397 235 348 256 488 558 483 465 326 374 378 328 414 510 306 515 472 305 492 328 530 418 268 374 278 394 417 660 420 472 563 420 424 351 461 447 607 320 235 351 220 490 541 531 465 280 383 328 280 320 467 260 537 472 Closed 472 328 515 409 245 Closed 258 397 417 656 480 613 543 422 403 359 436 463 612 320/316 237 351 180 473 564 559 454 280/273 383 328 234/240 484 260 537 472 840 472 328 515 504 209\n0/297 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 351/332 200 513 562 562 481 280/273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209 SUPPORT SERVICSS The function of the Division of Support Services shall be to 1 a\n5'$- rovice all of positive arrangements and services necessary to the promotion school climate, an environment of learning, quate supplies and equipment in each build ilities A District is committed to and making al magnets, this e.n and adeing and classroom. providing clean, safe facilities repairs fundamental to academies, ma itain incentive schools. and secondary schools in good condition. , roofing repairs, painting, plastering. other needed repairs will be made. drives will be in good repair. New public address systems buildings where such items correctly. To recarpeting, and Concrete walks and macadam and bell systems will be placed in are not adequate or not functioning Any school which . has portable .these portables replaced buildings will have with new units or repaired such that they will be in a .condition suitable to housing a class and pro- vide a positive environment for The capacities light of needed as necessary. learning. of Junior high schools will be reviewed in programs. Such capacities will then be If upon review. Junior high capacity exists in the Distr needs of the District revised it is determined that inadequate or to meet programmatic and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate will begin for the Appropriate site will be located and planning construction of parties. including a new Junior high school. curriculum specialists and 174 01689associate superintendents, will be involved in the planning process. Construction of this junior high school will be completed on timeline comparable to that followed for other newly a constructed Dlstrict/magnet schools and in a manner commensurate with building needs. The Purchasing Department will work with staff and principals in all schools to provide all necessary materials and equipment basis to school goal achievement. Dara Processing The Data Processing Department will provide the necessary support for all school and central office-based functions. Programs will be developed and implemented relative to the following areas: Dropout Statistics (to include the ability to generate data I** by race, gender, grade and on -districtwide basis). a school by school as well as Scores (to include the CRTM and MAT-6 with capacity to score the tests and to generate data by school, subject area, and districtwide). race, gender, grade, Attendance (shall be kept in such a way as to allow data to be gathered for any period of time. for withdrawals and reenrollment , for students by grade. school. race. gender. and districtwide) . Disciplinary Data (by offense, ject, race, gender, districtwide and school, teacher, class, sub- over any period of time). 175 01690TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBDECT: cc: October 15, 1987 Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation Dr. George Cannon, Interim Superintenden Enrollment Report - October 1, 1987 Executive StaffTOTAL ENROLLMENT Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Metropolitan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT REPORT October 1, 1987 enrollment 26,853 2108 882 1448 1278 833 15 6566 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 X BLACK 61 57 48 50 38 55 80 51 63 68 62 60 50 53 63 66 61Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jef ferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadoucliff Mi tchel1 Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total 230 337 448 423 642 408 338 315 426 403 503 323 235 214 462 263 546 471 443 256 325 340 246 283 484 218 481 467 214 431 314 407 223 12,383 72 70 71 65 57 64 61 63 53 72 57 85 66 81 56 81 53 56 65 86 60 75 77 87 71 30 57 62 33 63 61 71 76 67 Elementary Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Will lams Total 638 362 265 436 1 .753 51 43 43 50 50 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,148 85 Special Schools I 0Mc! uml cwnuuLntii i ot B = Black W .= White 0 - Others October 1, 1935 1.  School Year\n1986-87 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL Unaraded B j 0 T . .W GRADE 7 I I. B 0 ^DJ__8 W B 0 il GRADE ' 9 W B 0 Sub-Total W B 0 I Sub j, iTot.., iSI BI.- Kindergarten ___ W  B  O'  W GRAND 8 TOTAL 0 Total JBl. ! Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson 2 5 0 47 36 87 121 187 135 1 1 3 53 38 94 125 198 157 1 0 4 68 53 100 119 175 177 1 3 4 168 127 283 365 560 474 3 4 11 536 691 768 68 81 62 168 127 283 365 560 474 3 4 11 536 691 768 Mann  66 279 6 62 253 6 59 232 2 187 764 14 965 79 187 764 14 965 Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL 2 5 0 89 54 379 136 181 1039 0 3 14 77 65 389 168 159 1060 3 5 19 106 140 3 272 .444 6 722 61 272 444 6 722 55 144 2 174 484 10 668 174 I 484 10 668 441 987 15 1211 3091 48 4350 71 1211 3091 48 4350 2. 1 62 79 61 72 I 71 I 1 t T ! i I I \u0026gt; I I + i I I i i I I ,1OCTOBER 1, 1986 B = Black  H = White ' 0 - Others School Year: 1986-fi7 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE SPECIAl SCHOOLS* SCHOOL Easter Seal Francis Allen Fullerton uacKson county Learning Center Pathfinder LniiQ^stuoy tenter 3rd Tlocr Dav Treattont Proo Frankie Dennie - United C. Palsv TOTAL *Handicapped Schoo 5. Ungraded I GR.ADE 8__ 'J I g i 0 GRADE 9 . I B 0 GRADE n w B 0 OK 1 1 I  Sub-iotal W B 0 Sub IXBl. wb K Kindergarten W B ' \u0026amp; w GRAND TOTAl B U lOtai  Bl.'i -/ith Kl 1 2 1 2 I I I 1 2 1 2 5 0 I 1 5 0 2 1 2  66 122 jna M 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1  0 I i i 6. 66 I 100 J i 100\ni I I T i i I T I I I iB = Black W .= White 0 - Others School Year: 1986-87 SCHOOL Unqraded W B 0 ? I GRADE to' W B 0 Central Hall Parkview Metropolitan 3 12 5 297 209 51 530 211 13 2. i TOTAL 3. 15 5 522 I111Z2 12 GRADE 11 W 277 195 99 521 S~1 0 325 231 12 1 4 19 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE OCTOBER 1, .1996. HIGH SCHOOLS ti GRADE 12 T Sub-Total W B 0 W B 0 Sub Tot.. IB1 Kindergarten w   B'  0 U B 0 Total %B1. 248 IlL 101 500 326 130 244 700 3. 82? 555 291 3 118.1 595 JSl 16 34 3. 5. 0 2037 1159 1050 19 15 1121 2543 51 4265 jsa 51 72 84 60 7 30 2 14 (,7  0 0  822 578 298 3 IZfil 1232 521 755 16 2fi,ia 34 9 8 0 51 I i T ! t 2088 1184 1071 19 4362 59 21 84 60 I I I I J I I i I I I I I I 1 I IACTUAL EHROLLMEHT BY RACE OCTOBER 1, 1986 ' , B = Black W = White .0 - Others School Year: 1986-87 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS SCHOOL ~l Upgraded GRADE A 3. 0 Ji R 0 GRADE Ji L. 5 0 I GRADE Ji 5. 6 0 Booker 4 28 2 -n 21 2 52 202 2 7? 22 2- Franklin Garland 2 11 1 26 12 Gibbs 2 Sub-Total A 0 Sub Tot.. erqarten  0 GRAND TOTAL R 21 Total 5B1. Pulaski Heights Rockefeller Stephens Washington Total 12 39 -.1 31 2 17 29 207 TOTAL 55 25 86 90 22 71 56 644 I I T 2 2 5 1 1 0 0 8 22 12 0 34 7 30 12 201 21 81 95 21 61 54 667 6 2 0 1 1 0 2 15 32 15 2 27 2 20 13 184 T 215 292 2 512 52 215 297 2 SIQ 57 22 81 82 97 52 58 60 605 4 0 1 1 1 0 11 102 58 4 92 12 67 54 604 255 242 255 282 252 190 170 1955 12 2 0 3 2 1 2 35 369 212 259 377 222 258 226 2594 52 79 98 75 22 74 75 75 2 5 0 3 2 0 0 8 e,7 60 49 10 125 48 45 399 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 105 58 4 95 317 308 304 292 14 383 67 54 612 238 215 2354 22 2 2 2 2 1 2 35 i T 434 374 308 390 400 306 271 1 82 99 75 96 78 79 i J 2002 I J i I I ! i iOCTOBER 1, 1986 UI KHLt ELEMENTARY I I W - White B = Black 0 = Other Ungraded W School Year: 1986-87 Grade 1 W Grade 2 W SCHOOL B 0 B 0 B O-'- Bale 2 12 17 60 1 Carver 0 1 45 67 1 1 Ish 0 8 0 0 0 80 0 69 1 Ki ng 6 0 37 80 2 5 0 63 1 Mi tchel1 1 73 0 Rightsei 1 1 JI 60 79 0 JI Romine 12 61 69 13 Western Hills  83 26 32 Wi11i ams 33 0. 24 39 36 . Wilson 32 0 39 47 2 2 22 54 1 0  .T0TAL-4.x 20 0 136 609 5. 117 . '546 3 Grade 3 W B 0 6 1 0 37 0 66 50 2 49 0 44 0 48 11 52 0. 0 2 1 21 34 2. 29 1 35 16  44 3 0 91 454 9 Grade 4 W B 0 14 41 0 0 2 1 59 0 57 0 59 2 0 49 0 51 9 65 20 25 (1. 31 36 13 41 89 483 2 0 5 Grade 5 W B 0 11 46 0 0 52 0 0 2 1 1 13 21 28 9 86 51 0 44 4 49 39 61 20 40  41 443 JI J2_  1 1 1 7 Grade 6 W B 0 14 34- 1 0 0 \"S' SUB-TOT. W B 0 Sub \u0026gt;Total %BL. 71 275 Kindergar. W B 0 12 w GRAND TOTAL  B 0 Total- 0'0] Ll 57 0 45 0 43 0 3 3 349 79 62 83 1 0 41 0 9 24 38 17 JI 2 38 1 56 1 27 37 47 108 425 2 152 0. 2 1 5 00 109 381 _____0 317 0 338 11 316 316 386 151 JI 2. 3. 2. 226  g-  274 4 529 2980 34 0 5 337 384- 318 371 jiia. 320 456 202 \"435 387 , :3643. 99 71 3 8 428 79 1 0 452 100 QQ 25 20. 52 ' 71 82 43 2 0 455 99 0 0 16 20 10 0 360 37 3 375 46 n. 2 362 50 80 21 40 63 450 2 0 14 362 415 361 99 90 JI 1 a 0. 9 366 83 2. 22a QQ 172 200 119 692 466 4 2S2 21 172 2. 316. 50 226 a 432 22. 314 4 437 I 7? 3430 . 43 4165 82ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE  . B Black W = White 0 - Others OCTOBER 1, 198 6 School Year: 1986-87 PRIMARY SCHOOLS SCHOOL __Ungraded T GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 Sub-Total Brady Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson McDermott Meadowcliff Terry Woodruff Total w 0 2 4 1 0 w B 0 W B 0 w 1 0 0 Sub Tot,. i%i\nbi.- Kindergarten O' GRAND B TOTAL 0 Total SBK J2. 2 21 19 a. 2 2 o-. ?3 18 35 12 21 31 38 55 24 316 3\u0026amp;. 8? 78 212 21 114 94 127 71 854 T I 2 2 1 j2 1 0 3 1 0 2 25. IB .34 19 55 27 29 36 13 143 -8S. BO 67 85 21 87 83 79 56 2 2 2 0 2 3. 2. 0. 3 I  640 Ho 22 2 7B 11 42 25 21 32. 14 1212 M 54. 22 56 22 22. 22 53 626 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 0 4 SA \u0026gt;,Z 94 51 175 83 Ifll 133 51 784 254 195 221 297 179 296 249 295 180 2139 i 2 2 0 Z. 6 2 1 2 21 309 7X1 290 348 .3B6 222 356 429 7.34 2944 8? 21 21 2 280 1 78 22 67 22 50. 22 70. 69 22. 22 12 53 22 71 45 22 61 12. 357 47 18 55. 4 26 77 31 21 244 1 2 0 0 1 1 JQ. 2 2 54 212. 87 222 128 139 194 68 I 1141 242 212 222 183 322 271 326 214 2383 1 4 2 2 7 1 1 2 22 232. 36.3 420 . 431 457- T 417 521 ! .3.667 58 79 42 7n 22 22 25. !67 I T i I I I i I -II I /o/^/Yo K LRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools [5] Grades 10-12 M-cl E........ Ha J A Fair Scm Stu..ar. SiH Barnho'jse s 1500 Park. 72202 376 475! 5201 Oov.d O Dodd. 72210 - 2 'I*:* '^:/^^05_661.9000 6609 . __ McCIe,^r, Rudoloh Ho.j\nd\n~^l7 G\nyer Spcr?^. 7fM9~y^rO3T7 PorK-r.e.v r.ne Arts Mcgr.ef  Jgn.oos Bobbs  2501 iarrow. 722'0^721 72204 . 225-6440 2 Vocational-Technical Center [1] Grades 10-12 Me'ropoliton - Dr. Doyle DiHohu7ty.' 7701ScottHc cmil  565-3465 Junloj^ High Schools [8] Grades 7-9 Clov^^ - Dexier Boorh - 6300 Hink Our,bar - Menon L :son Rd., 72209 - 565-3426 ecey - 1100 Wnght Ave.?~72206 - 375-5574 IP- /2:^J^_2=-2L:^s^:^^verjreen2^T5'^'^^^ Henderson - Brody Grodberry - 401 Barro ^c^^v al^Clein^ctts - 'TosTT'MJb^ Ivale W,. l^d.. 72205 - 225-3358 _____ _ PO Box 187. Mohelvole. 72103 - 455-2413 k^22jl^53-et_-_0_y\nctor Anderson I_____ Pulaski Heights - 0.-. J im  1000 . Roosevelt Rd., 72206 - 372-3123 Holey - 401 N. Pine, 72205 - 664.7073--------------------------- So_utl^Gaj Metoughlin - 330 1 j^nh 72204 . 565-4417 Elementory Schools [37] Grodes K-6 Badgett - Mary Golston Sale  Levonni - 6900 Peecn Rood. 72206 - 490-1582 _____ . Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd. 72204 - 565-6621 Bosetine - Anno Tatu .____ Booker Arts Mpgnet - William Fin - 3623 Baseline Rd.. 72209 - 565-5589 n f  2016 Borber. 72206 - 376-3319 Brody - Helen Thomos - 7915 W. Morkhom, 72205 - 225-1817 Corver - Otis Preslor - 1 11 QQ Chir.-^t Rd., __ Box 405. Mcbelvole. 72103 - 568-2554 Cloverdale - Joequgline Dedm7 Pocid  Robert Nelson n - 6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-0986 -- ----------' 4423 Stogeeoqch Rd., 72204 - 45573110 __c2r_Pork - Catherine Gill - 616 N. Horrison, 72205 - 666-0359~ Forest Pork  Virginio Ashley - 1600 N. Tyler, 722^ I Fronklin - .Connie Aston -\n^'bright - Mcz Hufrmiicn  666-5415 1701 s. Horrison, 72204 - 666-0343 - 300 Pleoscnt Volley Dr., 72212 - 224-2350 i ! T I I I I T I I IT I 'I I I TX i T 278 221 ! 417 J_A_ j 420 r472 I I I  4. T T49 1 83 261 1133 -244 421 2ii ( nz 440 i 8 I i I 4 I TI I i I T T I I 1 232 i 64 I 394 I 6c.  365 ' n p85 I 261 ' i Bry I ! 448 I 98 . 46 ? ! 420 i pgfl I 424 j 351 2i 1 aza I (97 413  /tl- I 151 Kin. Je'ferson _377._^Fieryl A Simmons - 3615 W. 25th 72204 - Springs - Eleanor Co Gibbs Magnet - Doi j 451 I in I (5 7 1 550 ! 513 ! 25 ' 3(3 I 59?. ' 512^ I ^10 i 537,  538  OS IX Oevis  5240 Mobelvole Pike, 666-9436 72209 - 565-0184  1115 W. 16th. 72202 - 372-0251 Ish - Michoel Oli^77]ooTT^^k~2?76 - 376-362'7 _Morgarel Gremillion 2600 N. MeKin!ey.~72207 - 663-9472 Bo^b^e Goodwin__4800 W _ 26^ ^0^7^6'^6397 ! J.9 5~ i S7Z_ i ! 320 I 298 I 5 235 i in i /eV 303  ___ _517. 98' X 220 I I 211 I 1 ' 218 '  Mabelv_ale_. Oorothy__Fau_ikne^_ ^9 B07, Mobelvole. 72103 -'455-2227 490 \"^*^7\nA I T I SfZ I 541 I ISO I 3 37 I_____ l^cJOermof^^nn^^ore - 1200 Re\" r _Meodowc^ff _._Jer^7^ Dr'~'-.La7.6, I _'^\"chell - Donita_ Hy^s^eth^- 24 l_0 Satte'ry, '722O6'~375-6977 Otter Creek - Pot Price - Id'oOO 6tet~c7 servoir Rd.. 72207 - 225-6568 72209 . 565-0324 t aI Elementary Schools - {continud reek on back) y. 72209 . 55-3320 I T 4 531 I 2L2. ' 3-2\u0026lt;j 465 i m ' lie l?76 i ! 383 II 5^ I I 5. I I 221 7 I LRSD School Checklist jElemenfary Schooll [37] Grades K-6 (continued) Pulai!\u0026lt;i Heights  Eddie McCoy  19 N. Pme. 72205  663-9469 Rightseii  Kay Loss  911 W. 19th, 72206  374-7448 Rockefeller - Anne Mangon - 700 E. 17th. 72206  374-1226 Romine  Lionel Word  340b~Romine Rd., 72204 - 22S-8833 Stephens  Ston Strauss  3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mora Lynn Dr., 72211  225-1215 Wakefield - Lloyd Slock - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W. 27th, 72206 - 375-8275 Watson - Dr. Diana doze - 7000 Volley 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 3^ ._L55 j. 230-^25a\n320  291  I Uio._Q5O_i I s: o -7 I 2?4 I Ig.tai s *260 spaces left open for white students. I -, il._. 1 n 9 7472 pll ' a.7 (^lt\n6lQ0\n340  I M2 ! 2\u0026amp;a- 3* 2^3 'c _5Ks 323 ! , /W I I S3 / I _______________ 409 i W7 I 178 J3S 245 I (It I /IV I\n13 563. my i I I t I I j. I I T I T ! I I i T -x I i T T I T I i I i T I I I I T T I 1 I 9 + I I I TSCHOOL ^3//~ BLACK WHITE OTHER (/37 -y/3 /779 \u0026lt;90? CAP /3)^G ?// MIN Z BIX -77=7~ ^30 .373^ /979-70 CURR  BIX MAX Z Bm ' O/D 77\u0026lt;9 /C35 \\oo ee\u0026gt; 70C .^Ooo 3Z). co 333/(5 -^:,3/\u0026gt;t33- /^/)pe737:\u0026gt; 5/0/ /()7~ 3 ^777'.' -/(^y 933 ^67 ^/9 3-73 /?3 3i3O //3^ tiliC) 9\u0026lt;^O y// 7^C\u0026gt; y^c\u0026gt; /oO 3^0 /ovc 77.^^ 7^o^7 /T^tc /7(i(. ez\u0026gt;r /33i^l\u0026gt;Z\u0026gt; 3//^ 72\u0026gt;f/3^ (9/3CO-Z //t/Zi ^99 6-5C\u0026gt; 37^ 3^3 /\u0026lt;^S\" ^^3 33^ 3\u0026gt;/^ /T'C 33 7 /9O K /V9 3/3 /oc 97 /75 /3 /67 /3C\u0026gt; 377 ~73\u0026lt;7\u0026gt; 397 (^/3 393 3~i7C\u0026gt; ^90 3^0 -7/7 33C 4- 39. ^C.cC -39.30 37^ ,^o7 33\u0026lt;9 3/C3 3/\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; 3\u0026gt;l 3-V3 33^ ^9^7) ^'GCO 3/(95 70/2 9\u0026gt;599 ^9.7? ^^.ct\u0026gt; 3^. OO y/cC '7/00 y/oo 7/cC) 'f^/CC ^7.7/ 333(9 7^./-:3 '/iS.\u0026lt;i\u0026gt;'/ \u0026lt;^/. /=2\u0026gt; 73-^^ //.73 70.^9 9-S-co ^70/ (9^.37, y/.co '//OC .oc\u0026gt; -36.^6 7i^.s6 3^^.oo y37) 7C. II I Senior n LRSD School Checklist High Schools [S] Gracies 10-12 Central E.i-ri-n Hqa. J Pair Sem Sip..art Holl Bill Barnhouse ( IS 1500 Park_^72202 376 4751 t 5201 Oovid O^Dodd, 72210 - 2 ' P2205 - 661-9000 E 6609 McClellan^ Ruciolph Ho/a\ndJ94 I 7_ Geyer Spr,n~gs. 72209~56T03U Porxv.e.v F.ne Aris Magnet  J^njops Bobbs  250 f Sorrow, 7?20?~22 I T . 72204 . 225-6440 -r I T i I T Vocotioncl-Technicol Center [1] Grades 10-12 Metropoliton - Dr. Doyle DdlohLnty - /J^fScott'HomiltbATiib^Tf^^ I I r _ *^'9^ Schools [8] Grades T-3 -------Dexter Booth - 6~300'Hjnfeson Rd..\"7'2~2b9 -365-54^26 Dunbar  Monon Lccey -1100 Wright A* ve., 72206  375-5574\n-------/ores^e2gl^s_.2ome^S. ^_|vergreen, 722T5~W3:339T --------Hend.erson - ^rody Grodberry - 401 Borrow Rd., 72205 - Watts . 10811 'Mob^I? w7 PO Box 187, Mobelvole, 72103 - 455-2413 225-3358 J_____I A j i I T I J___ I T t --------2n Magn2_- jf- V'Ctor Anderson - 1000~T Roosevelt Rd TwiZ Heights - On Jim Holey - 401 N, Pine, Southwest - Goll McLaughlin 72205 - 664-7073 - 372-3123  3301  Bryonh 72204 - 565-4416 I t T Elementory Sthoois [37] Grodes K-6 Badgett - Mary Golsto. Bole - Levonno Wilson n - 6900 Pecon Rood, 72206 - 490-1582 Boseline - Anno Totum . 3623 Baseline - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204 - 565-6621 278 ._____8col\u0026lt;er Arts Mcgnet - Wiiliom - 2016 B^ Rd., 72209 - 565-5589 h I Brody . Helen Th Carver er, 72206 - 376-3319 lomos - 7915 Morkhom. 722ns . 225-1815 Chicot - Otis Preslor  IHOQ Chicot Rd. PQ Box 405, Mobelvole, 72103 - 568-2554 ^erdo2_Jocquol2e_Dedm\n?77500 Hinkson Rd.. 72209 - SAS-nOR/ Do^_-_R obert Nelson - 6423 Soge:G^Ta7 72704-------- Poir Pork - Colherine Gill - 616 N. H Forest Pork - Virgmio franklin - Connie Aston - - 455-3110 arrison, 72205 - 666-0359 Ashley - 1600 (M. Tyler, 72207 - 666-5475 1701 S, Horrison, 72204 . 666-0343 ------------------------ 300 Pleosont Volley Dr., 72212 - 224-'73?n G3r^d_D^her2A^2tnmons - 3615 W. 25th 72204 . .n6A.9a\u0026lt;r~ Puibright - Mac Huhmcn Geyer Springs - Eleanor Cox Gibbs Mognet - Donng Dcyis IX - 5240 Mobelvole Pike, 72209 - 565-0184 Ish - Michoel Oliver ____j^g'^grson - Morgoret Gremillion  1115 W. 16th, 72202 - 372-0251 2 3001 5. Pulaski 2206 - 376-3629 I 417 __X 149 83 261 jl33' 244 ,421 I I 394 i 65- I ' 365 ' 67 '~420 j 2ti r 113 ! 472 I 440 I 8\n563 I 285 i 261 ! I i 1.420 i 248 t 424 i51 461 2l 1 ItT. ! m i I5( 413 i (8 7 550 ! 513 ! 25 T I i 777 I sj-7. T 448 I 98 2-5-46 5?- 413 _59 I 3/? I 5\u0026lt;72. ' 3(3 ' SlZ I hlc : S37. 607 I 75 7 i n:,\" j ! 320 ! 298  5 ' 235 i /i7 I MV I A I I  538 : Q5' 303 ' 9B s^l AJA I -220 I 211 ! 490  i in 7 218  97 - 2600 N, McKinley, 72207 - 663-9472 ( ..5'.'^.5\n,So_b2ge_Go^wm_^_4800_W. 26th, 72204~ j Mobelvale_Dorothy_F_au2kne^_ 940 l~7\nb\nf\nj7^Q^----------------- I. _207, Mobelvole. 72103  455-2227 \" 1--^'5Dermot^_^yn\n^^e-2^0 TeT^rU^\nRd~ 72207 2757^ I _Me_adowc^ff_._j^\\y^ns_2_5 Sherron 5r.. 7270?-565-0371 I _Mitchell - Donito Hu_dspefh_. 2410 Botte'ry. 72206~375.693 1------  Otter Creek - Pot Price - 16000 dtiel'cTelk Bobbie Goodwin 663-6397 A I T I S-fZ orrn lools - (confinutd on back) y. 72209 - 455.3320 541 I 35'0 I I SiZ 531 j _______I 465 j 2/7\n/5 4 -----------LJAV275 ! ! 383 j Isy TiT: -^'3 ^37\nI I I  231 IkI LRSD School Checklist JEIementory SchooU [37] Grodet K-6 (continued) [ Fuloiiki Hfighrs - Eddie Z^AcCoy  319 N. Pme, 77705 - 665-9469 Ri9huerr~l\u0026lt;^^  W. 19th. 72206  374^7448___ J Rockefeller - Anne Mongan - 700 E. 17th, 72206 - 374-1226 [ Romme  Lionel Word - 3400 Romine Rd., 72204  225-8833 Stephens - Stan Strauss - 3700 W. 18th, 72204  663-8374 J Terry - Nancy Volsen  10800 Mora Lynn Dr., 7221 1 - 225-1215 [ W^efield - Lloyd Block - 75 Westminster, 72209  568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W. 27th, 72206  375-8275 Worsen - Dr. Diana Gloze - 7000 Volley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 I Western Hills  Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 J Wilson - Reine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 I Woodruff - Karen Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 S' tJ. 323 .47  ZaQ,^25Q__ 21. ' 320...U51.J__:7 4qn i I 5 J 'c* Totals *260 spaces left open for white students. T -ShO-U-SO-L 537 'ar4 iU 2- ' r472T'^^\\ ! 6l00\n340  3* M2 i 2\u0026amp;\u0026amp;. 195 1 328 1 /4V sir. Vi/ sijy. 343 ____ 54^ 409 1 I 178 ! 275 245 I Mt I Ziv I I 13563 ! no^ i I T I T I I T t I I I T I u i I t 4 I I T _l I T I I I T + I T I i _l_ I + X. + I T I iTO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: cc: October 20, 1988 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation Dr. George Cannon, Superintendent of Schools Enrollment Report - October 3, 1988 Executive StaffTOTAL ENROLLMENT Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Frankl in Ful bright Garland Geyer Springs Ish Jefferson Ki ng ENROLLMENT REPORT 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 16,753 1,185 466 635 615 493 3,394 424 600 492 614 325 516 429 512 3,912 202 297 292 278 363 281 270 247 251 414 327 276 157 178 272 88 NONBLACK 9,790 885 454 633 576 354 2,902 288 141 278 340 256 366 265 222 2,156 77 117 108 169 197 165 144 94 172 28 271 23 82 19 216 6 % BLACK 63 57 51 50 52 58 54 60 81 64 64 56 59 62 70 64 72 72 73 64 65 63 66 72 59 74 55 92 66 90 56 94ENROLLMENT BLACK NONBLACK V /o BLACK Elementary Schools (Cont.) Mabelvale McDermott MeadowcTfff Mi tchel1 Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff 586 506 456 261 361 326 241 300 472 233 522 501 465 332 412 221 373 298 312 220 207 226 196 255 360 227 307 316 297 213 289 163 213 208 144 41 154 100 45 45 112 6 215 185 168 119 123 58 63 59 69 84 58 70 81 85 76 97 59 63 65 64 70 74 TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 12,276 8,452 3,824 68 Elementary Magnet Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams 647 446 335 475 355 222 172 246 292 224 163 229 55 50 51 52 TOTAL ELEMENTARY MAGNETS 1 ,903 995 908 52 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,179 9,447 4,732 66SCHOOL \u0026lt;7^(70 e/c( 5/ ^^^53 7/i/c/^f// - /^(/'^.^ BLACK ^93 /\u0026gt;^////A'n3 7^a0fiOf~7 7^(i3fl)./ ^b/9 b^(f/f9o ^fi7s\u0026lt;s0) ^/7 733 7/7 797 33^ 7C3 -77(^ 73^9 303 I 1 4- I  t WHITE /.^3 /^/ /\u0026lt;i/ 7^ /(7\u0026gt; z^y ^g7 /'/7 ?\u0026gt;/a9 I I + OTHER -\u0026gt;/36 ^oS ^// -7/\u0026amp; -79^ /Z=2\u0026gt; 7333 -3'/C\u0026gt; 373 /(fi / -75Q ^,3'// '! I 1 MAX CAP 3^^ ^73 ^97 .3^7 3^3^ ~73V jV^\u0026gt; ^/3 ^o9 ^37 -333 -773^ 773\u0026gt;- c79^,7^^ I I 1 MIN Z BIX 39.3b 39.3b 39.3b 37.3b 39. 39.3b CURB Z BIX ^^./^\u0026gt; 7^-73 /^3. 75 ^7^0 39.3b 39.30 3730 3930 37.30 (T^.S'Y 77. 77 (/.^ 9\u0026lt;(. .-/?( ^7.77 77^/^ 37 39.0/ 357/ 97.^^ 73./9 73.33 1 i I... MAX Z BIX 7(7.37) 77.33) 77^3 77.^3 77.33 77.^3 7733 77.30 77.3(0 77.30 77.3b .^. oo 77.3(0 77.3b 77.3b 77. ^b 77. Sb 77.30 77.3b 7750 77.3(0 I IGRADE WHITE K 629 1 653 2 697 3 675 4 691 5 612 6 579 Ungr. 43 Total Elem: 4579 7 641 8 617 9 680 Ungr. 13 Total Jr: 1951 10 777 11 810 12 854 Ungr. 20 Total Sr: 2461 Total: 8991 Spec. Sch: 39 Grand Total: 9030 SUMMARY OF OCTOBEI^ 2, 1989 ENROLLMENT BLACK OIHER\u0026gt;\u0026gt; TOTAL XBLACK 1264 1450 1334 1407 1356 1302 1286 90 9489 1325 1422 1159 31 3937 1229 1104 916 15 3264 16,690 27 16,717 16 19 18 21 18 17 18 0 127 25 35 30 0 90 27 23 27 0 77 294 1 295 -'SUIMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"CTHER CATEGORY: 1909 2122 2049 2103 2065 1931 1883 133 14,195 1991 2074 1869 44 5978 2033 1937 1797 35 5802 25,975 67 26,042 Spanish Asian/Pac. Is. 66 68 65 67 66 67 68 68 67 67 69 62 70 66 60 57 51 43 56 64 40 64 76 186 Eskimo/Amer. Indian 32 Other 11 ( LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'lKICf October 2, 1989 I 1 i 1 .1 I 4 I  '4 J 1 3 ( I I I J  \u0026lt; ! J J I 1 1 I niack - B Miilc \" W Other - 0 SaiCOL/CRADE CENTRAL Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FAIR Ungraded 10 .11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total HALL Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MCCELLAN Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Mini-\nDUCK on II31 lOl'Al. DL\u0026gt;\\CK 200 270 250 720 0 720 13 145 119 120 397 3 400 1 169 154 221 551 16 567 141 145 153 439 3 442 396 343 321 1060 50 1110 7 211  156 133 507 10 517 8 213 245 163 629 3 632 271 207 156 634 13 647 8 12 13 33 0 33 0 3 1 3 7 0 7 0 4 2 6 12 1 13 2 2 4 8 , 0 8 604 66% 625 55% 584 55% 1813 50 1863 20 359 276 256 911 13 924 15 386 401 390 1192 20 1212 414 354 313 1081 16 1097 58% 100% 60% 35% 59% 57% 52% 56% 77% 56% 53% 55%  ' 61% 53% 15% 52% 65% 58% 507. 59% 81% 59%V I I ' J V', LITTLE ROCK SO IDOL DISTKICT I J I \u0026gt; s I . i ! j I 3 1'1 J .1 .1 d 1 I October 2, 1989 Black - n Miitc  W Ollier 0 i-MKoi.iMia'fr- SaiOOL/CRADE PARKVIEW Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Uiigradcil 10 .11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 10 11 12 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MUTE BLACK tniiEii lOIAL i: DLACK 122 122 110 354 5 359 138 153 143 434 14 448 10 270 51% 6 1 17 1 18 281 54% 254 805 20 825 56% 54% 70% 54% 1 II I I i I 1 I I ! 1  ( -I ( 1 J I ( 4 t a 1 hlnck - n Mil ic Other W 0 SaiOOL/CR/VDE (/^CLOVERDALE Ungraded 1 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total DUNBAR Ungraded 1 8 3 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FOREST HEIGHTS Ungraded 7' 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total HENDERSON Ungraded 7 . 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WllTE 58 93 100 251 251 49 35 36 120 120 3 78. 83 84 254 254 73 91 92 256 256 l.nTLE ROCK SaiCOL DISnUICT October 2, 1989 BLACK fZIllEU lOI'Al. 1. BLACK 126 218 126 470 128 ,154 172 454 454 12 175 197 154 538 538 247 240 193 680 680 5 3 2 10 10 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 8 5 16 16 6 7 1 20 20 . 189 314 228 731 731 177 191 208 576 576 15 256 294 243 808 808 326 338 292 956 956 69X 55% 64% 64X in. 81% 83% 137. 137. 80% 68% 67% 63% 67% 67% 76% 71% 66% 71% 71%' I .'.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'llUCT October 2, 1989 . ! Ill nek - 11 Wiite W .1 Other = 0 I-MI(Ol.llll-T\u0026lt;r SaiOOL/CnADE MI m\nCLACK (ziiip:u lUI'AL CLACK I mabelvale Ungraded 9 12 0 21 57% I I I\nI t 1 .1 I t ! 7 75 158 1 234 687.  3 67 114 1 182 63% 9 84 88 0 172 51% I I 1 . I 1 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MANN Ungraded 7 8 9. Sub-Total Kindergarten Totol PULASKI HEIGHTS Ungraded 7 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total SOUTHWEST Ungraded 7 8 9 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 235 yii 2 609 61% 235 372 2 609 61% 140 125 116 381 381 1 91 74 90 256 256 77 43 78 198 198 158 . 158 160 lili, 476 7 158 170 119 454 454 175 171 147 493 493 4 9 7 20 20 0 2 3 6 11 11 4 2 3 9 9 302 292 283 Z22 Z22 8 251 247 215 721 721 256 216 228 700 700 52% W/. 527. 54% 54% 88% 637. 69% 55% 63% 63% 68% 79% 64% 70% 70%V I i I ) I 1 I ! 'I -1 I I J 3 I I i Clack - 11 M111 e  17 Other  0 SaiOOL/CRADE BADGETT Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BALE Ungradcil 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BASEL IUE Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total BOOKER Ungraded 1 2 3 t, 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total wiriT. . 1 6 9 6 10 7 13 52 5 57 4 8 17 15 15 7 11 77 11 88 19 15 14 15 14 9 86 14 100 33 45 40 42 41 42 243 32 280 UTILE ROCK SaiOOI. DIS\"nilCr AllUUAL. REPORT OCTOBER-2,.1989* CLACK 3 29 30 30 18 21 34 165 15 180 5 50 49 42 41 36 40 263 29 292 47 41 45 39 35 30 237 45 282 47 45 45 48 57 47 289 36 325 t]ll(OI.I.UIKr uiiir\nR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 5 0 5 1 2 0 0 1 2 6 1 7 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 5' TOl'Al. 4 35 39 36 28 23 47 217 20 221 9 58 67 60 56 44 51 345 40 385 67 58 59 54 50 41 329 60 389 38 91 86 90 98 89 542  68 610 7. CLACK 75% 83% 77% 33% 64% 75% 72% 76% 75% !(\u0026gt;% 56% 86% 73% 70% 73% 82% 78% 76% 73% 76% 70% 71% 76% 72% 70% 73% 72% 75% 72% 53% 49% 52% 53% 58% 53% 53% 53% 53%/ I I i. j 1 . i I I I  I . I I I I .. J : . I Black  B Uillc  W Other  0 SaiCOL/CRADE BRADY Uiigrodcd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total CARVER Uiigradcil 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Klndergorten Total CHICOT Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten To t n 1 CLOVERDALE Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgartcii Total niitolj.MiJrr- wim\nBLACK criiirai lUl'AI, 7\nDLACK 2 h 25 23 27 7 10 6 52 48 38 37 40 39 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 3 74 75 63 64 49 50 75% 70% 64% 6a 58% 82% 78% 115 27 260 32 8 0 383 59 68% 54% 142 292 8 442 66% 33 45 48 49 51 52 33 39 43 40 45 45 1 0 1 5 0 0 67 84 92 94 96 97 49% 46% 47% 43% 47% 46% 278 30 308 12 32 27 29 23 21 13 157 31 188 15 24 24 19' 14 12 108 14 122 2U5 28 273 9 46 40 46 49 57 44 291 48 339 53 44 40 59 33 39 268 26 294 7 1 8 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 530 59 589 21 78 68 76 73 78 58 452 79 531 69 68 64 79 48 51 379  40 419. 46% 47% 46% 43% 59% 59% 61% 67% 73% 76% 64% 61% 64% 77% 65% 63% 75% 69% 76% 71% 65X 70XI- I 1 I I \u0026lt;) I. I i I .! 'J Black \" H Mille - 17 Other - 0 SaiCOL/CRADE OOOD Ungraded 1 2 3 I, 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FAIR PARK Ungraded 1 2 3 l\u0026gt; 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total FOREST PARK Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total franklin Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total_ Kindergarten Total wirn-: 16 20 11 29 26 16 113 20 138 18 18 9 11 12 12 80 12- 92 19 29 27 21 26 19 141 24 165 3 16 11 10 11 10 61 11 72 LITILE KOCK SQIOOI. DISTK [CT- ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 2, 1939 BLACK 30 30 38 38 50 47 233 20 253 50 32 35 37 24 35 213 27 240 28 41 42 38 28 30 207 16 223 64 43 50 54 48 43 302 62 364 laiiioi.i.Mi-j'rr- oiiir-B 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 1 3 2 10 2 12 lOl'AI, 48 50 49 67 77 63 354 40 394 63 50 44 48 36 47 293 39 332 48 70 70 60 55 49 352 40 392 67 61 63 65 62 55 373 75 448 . 7.' DLACK 63% 60% 78% 57% 65% 75% 66% 50% . 64% 74% 64% 80% 77% 67% 74% 73% 69% 72% 58% 59% 60% 63% 51% 61% 59% 40% 57% 96% 70% 79%  83% 77% 78% 31% 83% 81%  I II ) DInck  11 Wilte - U Other  0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT OCTOBER 2, 1989 i  SdlOOL/CRADE 1711 m\nBUCK 1 1 I FULBRIGHT Ungraded 1 2 3 h 5 6 5 39 35 32 35 30 30 4 50 55 43 30 44 47 J I i 1 1 1 '4 I i I .1 i I rmioiji-ii-j-rr UllIER 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 lUfAI. 9 97 91 03 75 82 79 Z' BLACK 44% 60% 61% 58% 51% 54% 59% Sub-Total Kindorgorten Total GARLAND Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total GEYER SPRINGS Ungraded 1 2 3 t, 5 G Sub-Total Kindergarten Total GIBBS Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 G Sub-Total Kindcrgarfcii Total 214 28 242 1 1 2 2 2 5 0 13 2 15 9 10 13 11 7 12 62 7 69 21 16 30 28 23 22 140 19 159 294 31 325 11 26 37 47 48 47 35 251 17 268 15 14 20 32 17 27 125 11 136 23 20 35 17 24 25 152 20 172 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 6 1 7 516 60 57% 52% 576 12 27 39 49 51 52 35 265 20 205 24 24 33 43 24 39 107 10 205 46 46 66 45 47 48 56 92% 96% 95% 96% 94% 90% 100% 95% D5X * \" 3ao 94% 63% 57% 61% 74%  71% 69% 67% 61% 66% 50% 61% 53% 38% 51% 52% 298 . 40 51% 50% 338 51% I!  I Clack - n Milte - U Other  0 l-l-IHOlJ.MIiWV- SaiOOL/CrtADE ISH Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total JEFTERSeW Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Ml LIT. CLACK OIIIEU lOIAL 7. CLACK I I ! 'I .1 J I 1 I Total MABELVALE Ungraded 1 2 3 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total MCDERMOTT Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total_ Kindergarten Total ,0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 27 18 28 14 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 19 30 15 16 13 100% 96% 95% 93% 93% 88% 100% T 0 7 4 37 37 40 35 32 23 208 29 237 1 35 37 34 28 32 . 33 200 22 222 28 27 33 29 28 22 167 23 190 121 36 157 9 37 26 35 34 36 32 209 30 239 3 55 36 49 46 43 41 273 38 311 45 60 56 44 46 30 281 33 314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 7 3 10 128 36 164 13 74 63 75 70 68 56 419 60 479 4 91 73 83 75 75 74 475 60 535 75 89 89 73 75 54 455  59 514 95% 100% V 1^0 96% 69% 50% 41% 47% 49% 5S% 57% 50% 50% 50% 75% 60% 49% 59% 61% 57% 55% 57% 63% 58% 60% 67% 63% 60% 61% 56% 62% 56% 61% IG1 Black - B Wilte - W Ollicc  0 SCIICOL/CRADE WHITE LITTLE ROCK RQIOOL DISTRICT ENItOUJ-irJ-fC- DUCK OIIICB roi'AL DLACK ,.1 .,.1 I . i EASTER SEALS Ungraded 1 2 3 It 5 6  11 4 0 15 27% 1 j 1 \u0026lt;1 .1 i ! 4 I ] 1 J  I , I Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 11 4 0 15 27X ELIZA8ETH MITCHELL Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Klndergorten TotoL Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 G Sub-Total Kindergarten Total Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total 28 23 1 52 44S 28 23 1 52 44S I.\nI I  .1 J- ,1 i t i 1 J I .1 Clack - C Wille - U Ollier - 0 niiioij.MiJfr- SClICOL/CnADE ^,x1^STERN HILLS Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindecgoctcn Total WILLIAMS Uiigradcil 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WILSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total . Kindergarten Total Mim: CLACK 01 lira lOlAL 7.' CLACK 15 22 22 24 19 22 33 28 25 27 33 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 50 47 51 52 52 69% 55% 53% 53% 63% 58% 124 16 176 20 0 1 300  37 59% 54% 140 196 1 337 59Z 32 33 45 34 35 33 37 36 39 43 36 34 0 0 1 0 1 2 69 69 85 77 72 69 54% 52% 46% 56% 50% 49% 215 29 225 30 4 1 441 60 51% 50% 241 255 5 501 51Z 9 22 17 12 17 17 11 7 44 33 38 41 38 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 66 50 50 58 55 45 44% 67% 66% 76% 71% -  69% 76% 105 29 134 7 5 6 13 6 6 43 9 52 235 28 263 16 17 24 22. 29 19 127 10 137 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 4 340 57 397 23 23 31 35 37 25 174 . 19 193 69% 49% 66Z 70% 74% 77% 63% 78% 76% 73% 53% 71%I I I / i Ci I i  ( I  I . . I i . I I .'j . 1 .Lj I i I ,1 i I i Black  II Wille - W Otlrcr - 0 BIIIOIJMI-J'fr- SaiOOL/CBADE wii'it\nBLACK OIIILU roi'AL BLACK TERRY Ungraded 1 2 3 5 6 26 28 30 31 27 26 45 46 44 48 52 46 0 1 0 0 1 2 71 75 74 79 80 74 637. 61% 59% 617. 65% 627. Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total WAKEFIELD Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WASHINGTON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindcrgarlcn Total WATSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total 168 29 197 0 26 24 22 22 26 22 142 18 160 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 8 26 26 18 34 19 27 150 10 160 281 31 312 4 44 41 44 49 46 51 279 22 301 2 77 62 61 57 42 51 352 158 510 35 47 47 47 42 46 264 30 294 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 453 60 62% 527. 513 617, 4 70 65 67 72 73 73 424 40 464 4 77 62 61 57 43 51 355 164 100% 63% 63% 66% 68% 637. 70% 667. 55% (\u0026gt;57. 50% 100% 100% 1007. 100% . 98% 100% 99% 96% 519 987. 62 73 66 81 61 73 56% 64% 717. 58% 69% 63% 416 40 75% 456 64% iI I i I i i 1 I I  --I J J I  ! . I i I 'I .1 I I Black 11 Wiite - W Other - 0 SaiOOL/CRAOE TERRY Ungroded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WAKEFIELD Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total WASHINGTON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total. Kindergarten Total WATSON Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total, Kindergarten Total Wil LIT. 26 28 30 31 27 26 168 29 197 0 26 24 22 22 26 22 142 18 160 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 8 26 26 18 34 19 27 150 10 160 HUCK 45 46 44 48 52 46 281 31 312 4 44 41 44 49 46 51 279 22 301 2 77 62 61 57 42 51 352 158 510 35 47 47 47. 42 46 264 30 DlltOIJ MliKr- 01 lira 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 TOl'AL 71 75 74 79 80 74 453 60 513 4 70 65 67 72 73 73 424 40 464 4 77 62 61 57 43 51 355 164 519 62 73 66 81 61 73 ZTT 40 456 i: BLACK 63% 61% 59% 61% 65% 62% 62% 52% 61% 100% 63% 63% 66% 68% 63% 70% 66% 55% 65X 50% 100% 100% 100% 100%  98% 100% 99% 96% ^7^ 987. 56% 64% 71% 58% 69% 63% 63% 75% 64%I I j i I  I j ,1 J J ( 1 :] j I Black  11 MU to - W Olhr.c - 0 i-jiuoiJMiJ-f r SaiCOL/CHADE HEADOWCLIFF Ungroded 1 2 3 5 6 Sub-Total Kindorgorten Total MITCHELL Ungraded 1 2 3 A 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergarten Total OTTER CREEK Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub-Total Kindergactcii Total PULASKI HEIGHTS Ungraded 1 2 3 6 5 6 Sub-Total - Kindergarten Total Mirn-\nDLACK omni WrAL Z DLACK 24 30 20 22 14 22 50 36 46 45 32 30 0 1 0 0 0 1 74 67 66 67 46 53 68% 54% 70% 67% 70% 57% 132 30 162 0 3 4 4 4 1 0 16 3 19 27 27 24 22 22 25 147 25 172 20 13 8 9 10 9 69 18 37 239 29 263 8 37 35 24 29 19 35 187 33 220 23 32 25 24 25 26 155 15 170 28 30 34 32 35 38 197 21 218 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 373 59 432 8 40 39 28 33 20 35 203 36 64% 49% 62 100% 93% 90% 86% 88 I A\u0026gt; 95% 100% 92% 92% 239 92% 50 59 49 46 47 51 46 54% 51% .52% 53 512 302 40 342 48 44 43 41 45 47 268 39 307 51% 38% 502 58S 68% 79% 78% 78% 81% 74% 54% 712Woodruff Elementary Western Hills Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Junior High Forest Heights Junior High 186 339 201 389 764 772 183 336 207 391 749 765 209 355 255 464 750 780 193 337 205 419 731 808 209 328 237 422 750 780 104 295 221 316 137 316 226 357 209 325 236 424 221 332 239 446 712 770 245 328 235 420 750 780 252 308 221 418 245 328 235 420 229 268 287 258 325 305 218 354 328 235 420 314 235 408 678 862 328 235 394 657 843 346 691 315 222 572 840 769 225 200 500 747 725 SCHOOL Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Badgett Bale Easeline Bocker 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 BUILDING CAPACITIES CAPACITY 2050 936 1220 1200 846 750 812 780 960 600 700 754 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 332 200 513 562 562 481 273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209 /fINCENTIVE SCHOOL CAPACITIES (Question 14.) What is the present capacity of each incentive school? According to the LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol II, Pp. 26 and 28 (attached.) the total capacity of the incentive schools is 3800 seats, figuring eight incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens and Washington) and using the capacity figures of those schools as of January 31, 1589, the date the plan was written. However, according to the changes recently approved by the court which allowed Washington to remain the magnet school it. had become under the Tri-Di strict Plan, there will only be seven incentive schools next year: Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens. Franklin, Garland, Ish, LRSD capacity figures for 1990-91 indicate that the total capacity of these seven ince.ntive schools is 2084. We don't knov/ how LRSD arrived at these capacity figures (i.e., number of classrooms and number of children per classroom.) School 1990/91 Capacity Frankli n Garland Ish Mi tchel1 Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens 484 300 200 280 (273) 240 320 260 Toral 2084I School Capacity Black Otter Creek Nor-3lack Total 33 3 % Black 133 Pulaski Heights 162 345 5 3% 323 159 Terry 119 273 57% 537 260 Wakefield 224 484 54% 472 215 Watson 184 399 54% 472 227 Western Hill 157 384 59% 328 165 Wilson 140 305 54% 409 223 170 Totals 393 57% 9,501 Incentive Schools There will be with the number eight incentive Schools which are listed below of classrooms in each as well each at twenty-five students as the capacity of School Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Washington Totals per classroom:  Classes\nCapacity at 25 28 16 11 14 12 16 13 42 136 700 400 275 350  300 400 325 1050 3800 /iWviid y is te V / -S4a) K/.fkssii i?2 a - I 26 I Grace Maximum Numbe el 1 number of Students Per Class Kindergarten LAveragej Maximum Number- of Students Firs 20 Any Class in 'Third Fourth-Sixth 23 20 Tte total 25 25 9z501. Tte capacity of t),, a twenty-two 28 ilementary Academies is Incentive School of 20 to 1 X . There -s will have however, 'ay be more than a maximum pupil/teach ar ratio there will be a certified 20 students per classroom. Poss.bry a second teacher in those aide in each class Incenti ve School classes. and The total exceeds the The and the is 3,800 The ar 25 students capacity of the nonmagnet- el par class. projected overall -ementary capacity of enrollment racial composition of space available for upon the number of LRSD (12,350) by 1,256 seats. (13,61S) the ^^ruitment at Elementary Academies Interdistrict students who Incen expected Schools. The initial ive Schools is expected to be that at least 400 Interdistri hlack Incer ~O- Schools. ive and Interdis Acade.miss: those schools depend enroll racial in Incentive composition predominantly black. LRSD The chart below shows th- students will and of the It is attend tict School a impact of black enrollment upon the ElementaryTO: 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. Population 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 enrol Imepts 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. pairing plan. The 1986-87 school year was the last year for an elementary 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 allowed to transfer if desegregation requirements could be upheld. trict referred to this plan as \"controlled choice. The disIt In 1988-89, the attendance zones and \"controlled choice zones\" (zones A \u0026amp; B) were abolished and all students 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 Although the boundaries of the census tracts are different from information. 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 bn 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. of several contiguous zone blocks or geocodes. Attendance zones consist 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 considerable The 1988-89 school year was the first year able distance from the school site. 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 attendance zones used by the Little Rock School District. for geocodes, or zone blocks, and not for census tracts. School data are recorded 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. II 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 satellite -- 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 1osses. 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. the Little Rock School District. These tracts are located on the western boundary of Creek areas. Tract 41.04 covers the Mabelvale and Otter 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. Under 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.ATTACHMENT A TABLE 5 Census Tract 123 4 5 678 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 I blw CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 1980 Total Tract 2010 Total Tract Change 1980-2010 No. Pct 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, ATTACHMENT B LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE BLOCK COMPARISON ZONE BLOCKS FOR BADGETT PAGE 1 1988-89 1989-90 3201 19 10 -9 3250 68 + 11 3251 23 -1 3253 26 6 3255 4 3 -1 3640 19 + 15 TOTAL 133 142 +9 4 ZONE BLOCKS FOR BALE 1988-89 1989-90 o: 21 56 42 -14 0531 33 40 0532 58 -3 0534 29 -4 1921 11 20 +9 1922 28 31 +3 1923 27 +2 1924 57 64 +7 1925 10 8 TOTAL 307 322ZONE BLOCKS FOR BASELINE PAGE 2 3401 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3620 3625 cr 365 TOTAL 19SS-S9 1989-90 32 39 +7 107 89 -18 28 33 33 31 21 19 24 17 -7 16 14 34 +9 23 19 -4 11 6 5^ 320 301 -19ZONE BLOCKS FOR BRADY PAGE 3 0540 0591 0592 0593 1010 1020 1311 1321 1331 1332 1630 1712 1713 1716 1910 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 6 11 86 67 -19 17 13 -4 0 7 9 17 14 -3 32 38 +6 21 20 0 51 10 42 21 357 0 36 6 35 48 15 31 19 344 -21 + 16 +6 + 10 -3 -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 C\" 32 9 24 7 18 17 30 32 495 13 +7 0 0 34 36 79 27 54 30 16 27 21 9 14 15 0 23 488 -16 +7 0 +6 -3 +7 -3 +7 -3 -15 -9 -7ZONE BLOCKS FOR CLOVERDALE ELEM PAGE 5 3601 3605 3615 3630 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 7310 7375 7387 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 19 IS 4 12 10 19 26 31  44 15 30 38 316 26 12 14 0 21 13 0 31 33 60 28 21 11 87 357 + 1 -7 -4 -4 +9 +3 -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 er er + 16 17 16 -1 79 73 -6 4 3 -1 20 54 23  35 18 0 3 353 20 46 18 37 0 0 341 0 -8 +4 0 -3 -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 271 -10 281 . ZONE BLOCKS FOR FOREST PARK 1988-89 1989-90 0411 4 0 -4 0412 12 -12 0 0413 3 0420 14 15 0553 92 76 -16 0556 65 57 -8 0811 10 -1 0821 39 41 0910 54 47 -7 6110 27 -28 K 9 + 1 6125 0 0 0 TOTAL 350 275 -75ZONE BLOCKS FOR FRANKLIN PAGE S 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0529 0530 0538 0539 0571 0575 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 57 63 +6 60 50 -10 65 70 87 84 -3 35 33 30 35 30 . 71 36 20 54 51 631 21 -9 32 -3 26 -4 59 47 24 53 48 610 -12 + 11 +4 -1 -3 -21ZONE 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 12 31 497 66 39 66 18 0 13 30 519 +8 + 1 -6 0 + 1 -1ZONE BLOCKS FOR GARLAND PAGE 10 1988-89 1989-90 0581 42 44 0582 110 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 4410 38 32 -6 4415 17 17 0 4420 21 26 4429 29 17 -12 4430 10 18 +8 TOTAL 226ZONE BLOCKS FOR ISH PAGE 11 0473 0476 0477 0479 0480 0485 TOTAL 19SS-89 1989-90 44 42 23 35 43 CT IT 242 ZONE BLOCKS FOR JEFFERSON 1988-89 49 45 30 30 41 57 rCT' 1989-90 c? +3 +7 + 10 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 545S 5462 5465 7325 7383 7338 7390 7420 7475 TOTAL 1938-89 1939-90 34 64 30 16 14 28 7 13 . 18 19 15 1 13 31 0 28 27 437 48 67 31 12 23 30 6 14 15 18 21 0 12 35 21 67 34 40 516 + 14 +3 + 1 -4 +9 -1 + 1 -1 +6 -1 -1 +4 0 + 10 +6 + 13 +79ZONE BLOCKS FOR MCDERMOTT PAGE 13 0552 0561 0562 1310 1312 1420 1421 1430 1520 1531 1541 1542 TOTAL 1988-39 1989-90 64 62 63 78 + 15 88 84 -4 24 19 0 0 0 33 39 107 29 10 - 21 0 478 ZONE BLOCKS FOR MEADOWCLIFF 1988-89 -8 40 20 19 19 0 488 1989-90 + 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 2120 62 76 + 14 4015 16 11 __CT 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 30 itr 18 42 26 46 42 36 340 ZONE BLOCKS FOR OTTER CREEK 1988-89 44 21 28 23 12 31 36 49 48 36 350 1989-90 + 16 -8 -4 +6 -13 -11 + 10 +3 +6 0 + 10 0471 44 47 +3 0472 49 69 0475 68 75 +7 5460 29 19 -10 5470 1 3 5472 0 0 0 5475 40 46 +6 5476 43 45 5477 26 46 5478 5 9 +45492 7 15 TOTAL 312 374 PAGE 14B +S +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 0641 cr 14 +9 0651 7 12 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 55 61 +6 0450 59 58 -1 0454 0 0464 31 44 + 13 TOTAL 165 306 + 141ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROCKEFELLER PAGE 16 198S-89 1989-90 0232 1 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 TOTAL 299 . 298 -1 ZONE BLOCKS FOR ROMINE 1988-89 1989-90 1715 67 77 + 10 1717 102 SO 1721 93 81 -12 1723 30 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 97 37 58 81 307 ZONE BLOCKS FOR TERRY 1988-89 38 82 45 67 81 313 1989-90 +4 -15 +8 +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 1550 53 42 -11 1610 7 8 + 1 1620 11 12 + 1 3330 4 0 -4 TOTAL 478 433 -45ZONE BLOCKS FOR WAKEFIELD PAGE 18 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 TOTAL 1988-89 1989-90 73 71 9 10 35 39 21 .. 34 37 11 26 10 14 344 18 10 37 97 27 31 30 24 31 11 9 418 +9 0 +58 +6 -3 -7 + 13 -4 +6 + 1 +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 198S-S9 1989-90 14 16 16 IB 0 29 +7 39 33 -6 79 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 -24 -17 -14 +8 -6 + 120 -1 -12 -20 0 +4 + 13 + 15 +3 +77ZONE BLOCKS FOR WATSON PAGE 20 1988-89 1989-90 7301 48 59 + 11 7305 28 31 +3 7315 76 61 -15 7330 18 11 -7 7377 38 62 7378 19 19 0 7381 0 7382 44 + 11 7384 I er 26 + 1 7385 20 24 +4 7490 9 6 -3 7495 IS 13 343 389 +46 V^ONE BLOCKS FOR WESTERN HILLS 1988-89 1989-90 1725 34 29 er 1726 33 41 +8 1822 94 95 + 1 2010 46 41 5 2015 51 68 + 17 2020 37 42 TOTAL 295 316 +21ZONE 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 ^ZONE 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 OEFFERSON 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\nThese capacity figures do not reflect the proposed capacity changes in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year.)SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS ISH OEFFERSON 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.)LRSD enrollment - Oct. 1990 10-12-90 Sr. high [ 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 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 j Washington i Watson 652 364 528 393 369 2,306 229 240 242 230 216 371 268 163 1,959 977 515 703 630 447 3,272 535 423 530 . 672 404 515 454 492 4,025 1 Western Hills ! Williams ' Wilson I Woodruff ' Total I 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 2^ 60 59 57 62 55 58 60 56 52 59 - 54 57 70 64 69 75 65 58 63 75 67 64 79 67 71 61 54 63 70 66 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 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 storv 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 than in October 1989.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS  S November 29, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: V ,v Oames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \u0026gt; -\u0026gt; Monitoring and Program Development \u0026lt;3t Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBOECT: 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 TeamLITTLE 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 Y ear. 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% Ki ndergarten 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 Y e a r  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 IJNGR TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UNGR 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 TOT. JR HIGH 1861 10 703 11 718 12 709 1206 1450 1271 1279 1408 1380 1309 112 9415 1366 1391 1182 65 4004 1082 980 967 21 30 21 24 29 14 26 0 165 21 26 40 0 87 32 30 24 1908 2207 1951 1973 2121 2060 1930 152 14,302 1976 2055 1823 98 5952 1817 1728 1700 63% 66% 65% 65% 66% 67% 68% 74% 66% 69% 68% 65% 66% 67% 60% 57% 57% UNGR 29 48 1 78 62% TOT. SR HIGH 2159 3077 87 5323 58% TOTAL: 8742 16,496 339 25,577 65% SPEC SCHOOLS 48 26 0 74 35% DIST TOTALS 8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH 93 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 218 ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 24 4LITTLE 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 12 6 107 354 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 t^LOVERDALE 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 9 156 186 174 525 0 7 3 8 18 16 225 259 265 765 56.25% 69.33% 71.81% 65.66% 68.63% 5 44 74 88 211 9 64 76 67 216 104 134 113 351 4 76 100 78 258 16 214 250 209 689 16 142 147 92 397 196 166 152 514 8 153 138 148 447 Page - 2 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 15 0 1 2 4 7 21 263 332 306 922 25 206 224 160 615 304 305 271 880 12 230 240 230 712 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 2 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 o. o 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 3 52 41 47 56 51 45 295 37 332 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 5 73 59 65 73 70 51 396 58 454 60.00% 71.23% 69.49% 72.31% 76.71% 72.86% 88.24% 74.49% 63.79% 73.13% 31 40 43 45 38 44 241 23 264 38 44 49 54 54 53 292 34 326 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 8 70 86 92 100 93 99 540 58 598 54.29% 51.16% 53.26% 54.00% 58.06% 53.54% 54.07% 58.62% 54.52% 10 31 25 20 21 22 20 149 27 176 8 66 46 43 46 42 48 299 50 349 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 18 98 71 63 67 65 68 450 77 527 44.44% 67.35% 64.79% 68.25% 68.66% 64.62% 70.59% 66.44% 64.94% 66.22% Page - 4SCHOOL/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 t/GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 5 5 7 11 6 11 46 11 57 7 65 54 33 46 53 42 300 49 349 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 9 0 9 8 71 59 43 60 60 54 355 60 415 87.50% 91.55% 91.53% 76.74% 76.67% 88.33% 77,78 a. *6 84.51% 81.67% 84.10% 5 33 43 34 38 41 35 229 32 261 4 47 30 54 41 42 47 265 27 292 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 9 83 73 88 82 84 82 501 59 560 44.44% 56.63% 41.10% 61.36% 50.00% 50.00% 57.32% 52.89% 45.76% 52.14% 0 5 2 2 1 0 3 13 3 16 14 18 23 26 37 39 35 192 16 208 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 0 9 14 24 27 30 39 40 40 214 19 233 100.00% 75.00% 85.19% 86.67% 94.87% 97.50% 87.50 89.72 Q, o Q. *0 84.21% 89.27% 7 7 8 14 4 7 47 13 60 16 16 14 22 36 16 120 27 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 22 36 40 23 167 40 207 69.57% 69.57% 63.64% 61.11% 90.00% 69.57% 71.86% 67.50% 71.01% Page - 6SCHOOL/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 o. 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 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% 2 38 34 45 33 25 32 209 28 237 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% 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% 90.48% 93.55 90.00% 87.93 Q. 'O 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% 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 5, 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 7 35 23 19 32 30 17 163 28 191 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 7 7 35 24 21 33 32 19 171 32 203 100.00% 100.00% 95.83% 90.48% 96.97% 93.75% 89.47% 95.32% 87.50% 94.09% 33 32 30 39 37 28 199 32 231 40 37 41 44 46 52 260 26 286 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 2 7 75 70 72 84 83 80 464 60 524 53.33% 52.86% 56.94% 52.38% 55.42% 65.00% 56.03% 43.33% 54.58% 0 29 27 22 24 23 21 146 21 167 0 45 40 41 54 54 57 291 39 330 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 0 7 0 75 68 65 79 79 78 444 60 504 0.00% 60.00% 58.82% 63.08% 68.35% 68.35% 73.08% 65.54% 65.00% 65,48 5, 2 45 58 38 44 43 277 39 316 7 115 65 57 52 51 34 381 51 432 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 3 11 9 164 112 115 91 95 80 666 93 759 77.78% 70.12% 58.04% 49.57% 57.14% 53.68% 42.50% 57.21% 54.84 Q, 'O 56.92% Page - 10SCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOAL KIND. TOTAL WESTERN : UNGRADED 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% HILLS 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% 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 1 70 69 70 92 75 67 443 59 502 54.29% 53.62% 54.29% 53.26% 60.00% 58.21% 55.53% 55.93% 55.58% WILSON UNGRADED 1 2 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 *0 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 - 12)K )K X X X X * DATE START FEB-22 15:09 G3S P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT FEB-22-91 ERI 15:16 SENDER RX TINE PAGES 6' 55\" TYPE NOTE 5 RECEIVE OK X )K )K )K )K * X )|(La % 4 \\ TO\n'T   FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: time\n?'O y I-i g'7/ -z^'Z/T! PAT NUMBER 5^. FROM: CLERK, U. S. DISTRICT COURT U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 402 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 178-S35J^TS 740-6351 j\nI THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF THIS COVER PAGE. PAGE(S) INCLUDING I MESSAGE SENT BY: ii 1 A \u0026lt; ... , r- a,  Jafte V, Board of (Sth Cir,!9R2). -il histc . t)l de with Judgments i States District j .riot of Arkansas, I Districts in the I ve duty to elimi state-mandated /(cnwri V. Char- ' 0/ Education, L.Ed.2d fi54 I KO V.lLO.gO I if Missouri, 781 I.. 1H!S4), at n, 10.  latrict transfers, I pattern of an- ynce of all parts a e county us the  \"lit, the history H 'tricts, and the supervisory flisti'icLs demon- I icis historically I unci were not E not s tonomoiis, Ev I PP. 428 {D.Del, I I School District \u0026gt;uit in further- ato eliminate all 't and branch, orders of this ..led education r, C/iarlotte UioH, supra\na, supra. In achieve inter! ti-egaed resi- I County have I 'ei^re by the I' bodr. act-  witn the g ptoresis, and  a series ol mg choices. 464, 90 S.Ct.\nSwann w 'd of Educa- Esssr T 'I*' ,'yyy ''fs? .4** SI(~ I I I ..--Al ' *1? b ..Hl-\nIf i'H c*' ... a. LITTIsE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. v. PULASKI COUNTY cite M 964 F.Supp. 326 (1964) 7. The governmental actions affecting housing patterns in Pulaski County have hud a significant interdistrict effect on the schools in Pulaski County, which has resulted in the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendants districts. i'wnnn w Charlotte Mecklen- burp Board of Education, supra, R. The segregative actions taken by the two defendant districts and their failure to take desegregative actions have had a significant interdistrict effect on the schools in Pulaski County, which has also contributed to the great disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the Little Rock district and the two defendant districts. Swann v, Charlotte tfecklen- burg Board of Education, supra. [2] 9, The Pulaski County Special School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative intcrdistrict effects\n(a) failed to adhere to the requirements of the Zin- namon decree\n(b) constructed schools in locations which ensured that they would be racially identifiable schools\n(c) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students\n(ri) refused to hire and promote black faculty and staff 'efused to allow deanne.va- tion to or co:.. oxidation with the other two districts\n(D failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize desegregation\nig) assigned students to special education rlasaificationa and gifted programs on a discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals . schools with high black enrollments\n(I) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its NAMI Little Rwk 1} Rrtdy 8) rw Fire 8) hn 0 FuCbHr-i 8) Jt/Jtnei 1 I) Terry 353 schools\nand (j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. 10, The North Little Rock School District has committed the following purposeful acts with continuing racially segregative interdistrict effects\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and couching positions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of Interstate 40 and blacks in schools south of it\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion the burdens Of transportation equally on black and white students. 11. When Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District took the purposeful acts set forth in Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10 above, they knew Or should have known that they would have iiiterdistrict segregative effects. 12. The unconstitutional and racially discriminatory acts of the Pulaski County and North Little Kock School Districts have resulted in significant and substantial interdistrict segregation. Milliken r. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127. 41 L.Eri.2d 1069. 13. Since there are constitutional violations with interdisirict effects, an interdis- trict remedy is appropriate. Milliken e. Bradley, eupra\nLiddell v. State of Missouri, supra. The remedial hearing w begin April SO. 1884. 14. The Pulaski County Board of Education and Arkansas State Board of Education are necessary parties who must be made subject to the Cxjurt's remedial order. CXKIBtT I Tab.* I. kEMn\\?ARV (CHOOwS\nFAGIbITiU INROLlMeXTe.AhS ITAFF 1 I 1 1 I I I }  I 4 I riAS SLT.' a ll Tl I? U M /^It Oi\u0026gt; TIOX GKA5E8 CAPA C17Y* im ESSl.MT IIATION siaCk EXStMT 8U im tCHM,  IL. TCSSI AOMRI APKU ,! 1 i 9 1 4 8 9 4 I I K ) XJ X I X-J X 1 K-l X I 5A \u0026lt;75 ,W WQ W Ml IM Ud 304 749 4M 447 499 (13 Ml 41 84 73 77 TJ rt w 7 M9 S-.fl IW Iffl ue .ni lU TA 71 4\nTT 44 ?4 73 44 73 Wl in 111 nt at 3ti MI ) .114 ^-5 \u0026lt;-1 tn 49 49 49 14 4.4 40 44 (P- I 1 1 I I I I I I 0 I I q 0 0 9 4 I I i I jIB'? li' a * HL. TCHIW little rock school DIST, v. PULASKI COUNTY CllOR0S6AF.$upp,.U8 (1994) 365   b AhMiw. AbMrit\u0026lt; TJ 104 84 I.II 1.0 10.6 lU 80 11.0 1.0 1 I I 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 0 I 0 NAMK biMiJZauiii U) CMb B7I DMI Ui Dupri* IB) Ftiiltr YKAJ* IlkT. C1N hi- This (ihAhi\n** '.li.\\. nv KMlIMT ' VTIh IR \\Tins KUl'K KMd.MT, hk Tf'HHJ,  Hl. TI'HIW.   H AhAlDS. AiiAlRX U \u0026gt; i 0 19 I  BL 'CliKS ADMRt.  K admm I M 11 19 Al  i 1 X K-l K-4 K-B SM R7S 4M 400 IM B40 4M 4ia M 11 101 IZl 111 11 Q9 !7 u  10 '.'M 111 110 110 110 4.1 10 4.0 8.0 1 I I 16.8 7.0 140 81.1 8.0 9.0 89 1.0 71.9 i I ' IL AOMRS 80 e.o 16 90 10 04 e 4 0 .0 .0 8 J 10 1 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 9  S APM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 1 0 t Rifi/htUi m h/ ADUrs. * B 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I j I tl 11) JMkiftVil. M) LinOmvk M) Lavur  Mibiivkit Ml OakMM 17) OUCrsM U] CHMrCnib 11) Rina hm( ffi) RimwoM 71) BsblRMH 7|J Shu 78) Ihtfwood 74) IjMAKli. 70) Tayler 71) Tellmn t7) T^aiuktid 70] Wiuofl Tauli NAME U(t Raeii ?9j Sunbif 81) IltRdtnon ID MnR U] RuiMkl Hu. M} tauihwHi Tatli\nNnvh LiU) Rnk 10/ Rtntml M) LokawMtl 17) RidrrfiM 11) RHtOt^ foul. fw^ki Cfun'.j 101 hhw 111 /kinv|/No ) JbntlR/SA 11] Ml .SarthiMaoQ M) fUtinaM' Ml R/ivinhti. Ttttak * Mld^KMhMl M 09 17 U 10 ll 71 10 71 74 W M U 10 NA 69 17 I 9 A t I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 NA B 9 X-l K 0 X-B X-0 K-0 K-1 K-\u0026lt; xe K-O X-1 XI K-0 X-4 K-0 K-\u0026lt; XI X-1 I.IM 77S 4M MO ,7 OK 710 9M 060 8N .IM 080 019 700 aw 7 178 OM HIM on 04 8)7 BIO 601 491 860 444 096 04? 477 1)4 074 790 4M au iia iOO )1.0SI U M 118 no 109 M TB n IM in 41 no 164 M U IB 4 968 119 IM 4 141 99 II 70 19 IB 94 M IIO 111 110 01 170 B4 9449 M \" B 14 I n 19 10 11 II  SO 48 e lO 84 lO II 41 Ml FA 900 11.0 Ho ND n.o o 166 U.0 M.0 NO 11.6 FO UI 900 198 Ifl.O 97.0 782.8 74 1.0 0.6 4.0 10 8.0 0.0 10 40 8.9 1.0 4.0 8.0 18 4.0 80 1.0 0.0 me 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I J I I 1 98 1 0 0 0 r** 0 0 9 0 fl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 fl J I 0 8 I SXHiiiTfl TihU . JVNIOR lUOH (TNOOLS. FACtUTlU, ENROLLMKNTS. ANO STAFr vear ALT. M OS 11 M NA NA Na NA H 'U 'M U *79 84 00 CQS Dl- t:on gradss CaFa\u0026gt; crrr 1IR3 ENfiLMT. * l.TfIz tATS SLACK enrlmt *1 bl. :u TCKM. * IL TCHM, AnMfti  fi A\u0026amp;MHS. I 9 8 1 9 NA NA HA NA 9 I 8 I I I I 7f 7.1 1-1 7 I 7 7 1 7-1 IU1 \u0026lt;AA. 7-9 7-0 7 9 7-0 0 1 7-1 FO 992 W 175 M U.tf 19.1 1 2 na Ml MO Ttt KI OM MO 716 90 W M M 4.F9 lono MO IJlOC 400 -------- Tii 010 IM lOW o?i 1W\u0026gt; 4jr m 414 Mil MO 417 2.0W or  M 14 ui 19a 140 MO Ml a III 1.0 lO.B Ml 8' A I $ u I 1 1 Ml an Ma 4 Bi U M IM UII lat Ml 117 SM IM T.tf tt so  u 111 u.e SS.0 37.0 9U 1W.0 u AO 10 74 S7.0 I I J I 7 9 0 I 0 I I aiMi 440 OM 970 911 171 477 MB wM T fi 04 7S M U W **4 107 HI 1.84 09 99 94 106 1.009 29 IT  A  11 IIK O!.O MB O\u0026amp;O Ito 47.i M.O 470 il01.9 m=23BK\n. lio 8.6 TO 1.4 70 0.0 IB .l 8 I I I a 9 0-^ I 1 1 fl I I f.d -i!- Vz \u0026lt;  1 . i  \u0026lt; I: I'i 356 584 FEDEKAL SUPPLEMENT JV ' Hi i\ni IXXlBlTl Table IQ. SRKIOR HIUK KCHUUL*. YACJLITItB, BNKOLLMBNTB, ANO BTAfr .l I I NAMI UlwB-b ri Ctatffel Ml Hail M) Rkskviav TiUl YlAH BLT. 11 CON. 91. ttON CMADM 1 I I 10 la llUtl lO-lt CAfA* CITY IH) KXBLMT. \u0026lt;UTf^ ZATH BE.ACK ENRLMT. t BL. IMI TCHM. 4 BL. TGHBB. ADMU.  B AOMU. i.m 1,110 1.0*8 4,111 I.H 1,0*4 liM* \u0026lt;i*l IM If 110 } l.iu BI4 79S 1,413 ** M 3 M 4S 01.0 *T,Q lao 11.8 889 n.8 M.8 I H Ninh LiiM lUei 180} NanhiHi IQiJ Ola Main Tfttti\nfiJiiMl C\u0026gt;jiny ini rir Itt) Jaakansla. 1*41 MfClaUw 1*B) xnii 18*1 Oak Onr I8T) N Piilaikl IM) BntHMwn IWl Sybaa Hli. TiMl' TO **4 11  I* -If 78 '*4 M 1 I 1 B 3 t a l\u0026gt;lt IB-ll 71I 18-11 18  !A-lt Ml ICKIS 1.12 18 11 1,400 e.ooo 1,400 un 1,228 1.414 B4 lit 1.111 lit i.m l,0M 1,0*3 a.i m 1,181 1.478 1,040 81* 73* 4*1 7*71  54 *10 M4 W5 877 rr an MB MB 104 II* tto t I 1 s 08 I? in itf IM u it H IT 331 i** 401 ni 41 u HI 1.U? It n I* \u0026lt;0 u u H IO 4a.B U.B TUO BO.Q 43-C f* Bi.e 438 ITT.O 10* 8.8 110 11.0 B.I 4.0 14 10 UJ s 1 0 I B 8 I I 81 Q I 1 1 I I ( f .-/w\\ Rollin FROST, Plaintiff, t V. i I CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, hIm OefenduntH. Civ. No. 83-1169. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. I April 13, 1984. I 1 I Section 1983 action was brought against city and county and others to recover damages arising out of aiieged beating of plaintiff by police officers. On defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to State claim and on ground that complaint was vague and conelusory, the District Court. Fong, J., held that\n(1) fact that recourse tu state tort remedies was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court for deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation suffioientl.y serious to shock the conscience and officers' willful and deliberate abuse of state authority, in manner which could not be characterised as random, and (2) construing complaint liber. ally, it was not so vague and conelusory as to warrant dismissal, particularly at early stage of proceedings and tn view of fact that some defendants wore as yet unidentified. Motion denied. i 1 I 1. Constitutional Law e2o2.5 Identificatiun of specific requirements of due process requires consideration of, among other factors, nature of the affected interest, and implicit in that principle is recognition that some interests, by their very nature, require more procedural protoctions than others. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. Const. I 2. Civil Rights 413.9 Fact that recourse to state tort reme- din.s was available to person who was allegedly beaten by police who responded to domestic disturbance call did not preclude section 1983 action in federal court fur deprivation of substantive due process, given the alleged liberty deprivation siiffi- VI Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO: FROM: THROUGH: March 5, 1991 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools p,' Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Request for Information - Building Capacities Please find attached the information you requested on building capacities for 1987-88 through 1990-91. Duiiding Although the 1990-91 building capacity information was submitted to your office on an earlier date, I have taken the liberty to include it here for the sake of addressing a concern that needs further explanation. In addition to responding to your request. I would like to use this opportunity to explain why have changed during certain years. At first glance,\"it probably appears that building capacities are subject to change at any time without reason. Each change in school capacity, however, was caused by an attempt to correct a problem that started in the 198788 school year, provide some building capacities it space for a new program \u0026lt;1. e. particular grade level. ALP) , year. or address overloads at a As you can see on the attachment, most of the capacity changes occurred on the elementary level. I am working on a report that will explain the reason for each change that occurred at a particular school during the period of 1987-88 through 1990-91. In the interim, it is important that you understand why most of the schools experienced capacity changes between 1987-88 and 1988-89. 1987-88 The 1987-88 school year was the first year of the Districts \"controlled choice student assignment plan. conrroiied Although the developers of this plan probably had good intentions, ___ Little Rock School District is still suffering from some of the mistakes that were made In the design of the student assignment plan. You might remember that I assumed my current position two weeks before the assignment letters for the new plan were mailed to parents. I was not Involved In theBuilding Capacities page two the development of the plan. The assignment plan developers are no longer employed by the Little Rock School District, It became apparent shortly after the parents received their assignment letters that the developers of the plan failed to consider the grade levels of students in making assignments. As a result, several schools had more students at a particular grade level than the building could actually accommodate. In addition to the disregard for the grade level of students. I also discovered that some principals were not aware of the capacity figures that were loaded in the computer for their buildings. _ A second set of capacity figures was collected and loaded into the computer shortly before my promotion. The building principals could not warn the developers of the problems that would be encountered with the new set of capacity figures because they were unaware that these figures were being used. The District decided to correct these problems by adding portable buildings. to the extent possible, split classes were used. Also, As you review the capacity figures for 1987-88, please keep in mind that these figures include numerous cases of additional portables and/or split classes. These corrective measures were used with the clear understanding that the District would implement a long-term plan to eliminate split classes and, where possible. portable classrooms. This mission could not be carried out over the ensuing years without reflecting some degree of change in building capacities. The 1987-88 school year also marked the beginning of program that affected capacity in all buildings. Accelerated Learning Program \u0026lt;ALP), a new The for Accelerated Learning \u0026lt;PAL), later renamed Program involved the use of classroom space for a computer lab and/or small group instruction. '  In summary, the disregard for grade levels in assigning students, the use of new capacity figures, * use of classroom space for special programs had a devastating effect on the next item for discussion  grade structure. and the Grade Structure Grade structure refers to the number of classes at each grade level. The number of classes at each grade level is very Important because there must be enough seats at the succeeding grade level to accommodate students who have been promoted. The ideal grade structure is to have the number of classes at each grade level. same It is acceptable,Building Capacities page three however, to have more classes at the succeeding grade level than the previous grade level. For Instance, it is acceptable to have two fifth grade classes feeding into three sixth grade classes. acceptable, Although the latter is it does not represent the best use of resources since the succeeding grade level \u0026lt;l.e. have a surplus of seats that sixth grade) will course of the school year. may not be filled during the Only six of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have an ideal grade structure. These schools are Booker. (4), Mitchell \u0026lt;2\u0026gt;, Romine (3), Terry (3), Watson (3), and Western Hills \u0026lt;2).  The number in parentheses represents the number of classes at each grade level. Only six of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have an leve1. These schools are Carver, Wakefield, and Woodruff. acceptable grade structure. Dodd, Garland, Jefferson, schools. In the remaining 24 elementary the grade structure is unacceptabl grade structure, the term \"unacceptable means cases where the preceding grade level has more classes than the the next succeeding grade level. For Instance, it is unacceptable to have three third grade level classes feeding into two fourth grade level classes. unacceptable e. In regard to In most cases. the unacceptable grade structures were caused by the circumstances described earlier. The correction of this problem can also affect the capacity of the building.* If three third grade classes (capacity of 69 students) feed into two fourth grade classes (capacity of 50 students), total capacity for the two grades Is 119. If third grade classrooms is used the following yc fourth grade classroom, in order to correct the If one of the year as a the unacceptable the new third grade capacity is 46, new fourth grade capacity is 75. the two grades is 121. grade structure. and the The new total capacity for Another example Involves three kindergarten classes (60 students) feeding Into two first grade classes \u0026lt;46 students). The total for these two grades is 106. If of the kindergarten classrooms is moved to first grade t I f one o resolve the shortage of seats, the kindergarten capacity changes to 40 students, the first grade capacity changes to 69 students, and the new total for these two sradeq 1 no grades is 109. At least two schools currently have this problem, assume that building capacities must always remain static. Building capacities have to change if unacceptable grade structures are going to be corrected. incorrect to It isBuilding Capacities page four A schools capacity can is acceptable. also change when the grade structure If two kindergarten classes \u0026lt;40 students) feed into three first grade classes (69 students) and a first grade classroom is changed to kindergarten (60 kindergarten students and 46 first grade students), the capacity for these grades changes from 109 to 106. Involvement of Building Principals I have worked closely with building principals and assistant superintendents since the second semester of the 1987-88 school year to complete the Districts long-term mission to correct grade structures. ideal, It is absolutely Imperative that or at least acceptable, grade structures are functioning in all buildings, is evident In my February 15, An example of my Involvement 1988 memo to all non-magnet elementary principals (see attachment). This memo Is a good example of the complexities involved in correcting the capacity problems caused by controlled choice. Even though the 1988-89 building capacities were entered in the Districts computer on March 22, 1988 (see attachment), changes had to be made during the summer of 1988 to respond to retentions, new students, attrition, the elimination of additional split classes, etc. Capacities have also been changed since 1987-88 to allow a 1:20 teacher/pupll ratio at the racially identifiable schools. to open early childhood classes. to relieve overcrowding in some open space schools (Dodd and Baseline), to reduce class size in substandard size classrooms (i.e. Geyer Springs and Woodruff), to accommodate changes in the elementary gifted and talented program (1989-90). and to open additional self-contained and kindergarten classes. The District has experienced a steady growth in kindergarten enrollment over the past two years. The extent to which capacity changes in the future depends on the extent to which similar needs occur in the future. I will continue to work on the report I referred to earlier. I hope to get it to you in the near future. free to call memo. Please feel me if you have any questions concerning thisBuilding Capacities page five *(NOTE: Building capacity is based on the average class sizes specified by the standards. for grades 1-3 is 23 students. The average class size grades 4-6 is 25 students. The average class size for for kindergarten. There is no average class size Kindergarten may not exceed 20 students.) cc: Aruia Hart ''' Chip Jones Sterling Ingram Brady Gadberry Chris HellerSCHOOL 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2112 995 1397 1259 1150 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2150 936 1220 1200 991 2050 936 1220 1200 991/846 Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest 657 792 843 990 669 975 774 807 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 1000 780 960 600 935 700 754 750 812 780 960 600 935 700 754 Badgett Bale. Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Spri.ngs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff King 303 397 492 720 440 475 634 394 422 346 440 467 535 397 235 348 256 488 558 483 465 326 374 378 328 414 510 306 515 472 305 492 328 530 418 268 374 278 394 417 660 420 472 563 420 424 351 461 447 607 320 235 351 220 490 541 531 465 280 383 328 280 320 467 260 537 472 Closed 472 328 515 409 245 Closed 258 397 417 656 480 613 543 422 403 359 436 463 612 320/316 237 351 180 473 564 559 454 280/273 383 328 234/240 320/297 484 260 537 472 840 472 328 515 504 209 257 415 390 656 491 613 558 464 386 383 403 484 587 300 255 351/332 200 513 562 562 481 280/273 378 378 240 320 537 260 537 517 866 537 355 517 428 209TO: FROM: THROUGH February 15, 1988 All Non-Magnet Elementary Principals James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation y.. I^Angel a Sewall, Associate Superintendent - School Improvement SUBJECT: 1988-89 Building Capacity Projections Please find attached the building capacity projections for 1988-89. These ^.projections should reflect the information you recently gave to Mary Jane Cheatham. It is my understanding that these figures will address the following concerns for the 1988-89 school year: (1) the elimination of portable buildings wherever possible\n(2) the elimination of split classes wherever possible\n(3) enough capacity at next year's grade level to accomodate students presently assigned to your building\n(4) enough additional classrooms available to accomodate special programs such as space for an ALP lab, self-contained classes etc. Please sign by the name of your school and return to my office if these projections are accurate. If corrections are needed, please make the corrections sign by the name of your school and return to my office, should be returned by Friday, February 19. All projections Capacities at the racially identifiable schools will be changed at a later date to reflect the 20:1 pupi1-teacher ratio ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of AppealsK /7 Bale Brady Fair =ark oUlLDir'Jc CAr.-.2.TI53 40-/ 40/ i,' 1 o 5S GS 5\"' G = 13SS-3S 4 c 5 Total AV Forest Park 40/ GSJ P~ J2\u0026lt;5^' Frankl in 60^ GS Fulbright 60'\"' cr b = V .J Garland 3S 30 X e:~3or\\ c z s:- 3 S K i r.g G McCernot t 40 0/ 3^ Pulaski Heights\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_270","title":"Building capacities","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":["1982/2007"],"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 facilities","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Building capacities"],"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/270"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDemocrat WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2,1994 2,456 seats empty, but LRSD must build I Desegregation plan mandates new $6 million school BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts elementary schools contain more vacant seats than many Arkansas school districts have students, yet the district is obligated to build another grade school within 116 years. The districts desegregation plan sets an August 1995 deadline for the construction project  at an estimated cost of at least $6 million. district Judge Susan Webber Wright, presiding in the 11-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation case, suggested last week that Little Rock officials may want to rethink their plans for building a new Stephens School. She was reacting to a capacity re- port^repared by the federal Office of Desegregation Moni-  toring.\nThe study found 2,456 vacant seats in the Little Rock districts 36 elementary schools  15 percent of the 16,322 avail- r v vuv clVdli able elementary seats in the city. The number of vacancies exceeds the total of seats in the districts three largest ele- See SCHOOLS, Paae 10A ---------------------------- Available seats \u0026amp; excess capacity Schools Little Rock School District Total Capacity 93-94 % black 93-94 Available seats % capacity Schools with acceptable racial balance Otter Creek Jefferson  Terry . Forest Park Fulbright . Pulaski Heights McDermott 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 TOTAL 3,188 L Schools out of racial balance 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3,291 41.35 42.26 43.32 43.67 44.81 47.74 51.47 45.03 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97 102 109 115 96 106 98 103 Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot . Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield ' Bale Fair Park Baseline  Watson ' Cloverdale - TOTAL Incentive schools Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller TOTAL 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6,582 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 5,703 62.29 63.73 64.73 64.76 66.25 70.51 69.94 69.84 72.22 74.29 75.39 74.26 76.05 77.26 79.86 78.76 71.44 88 27 36 4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73 95 89 101 85 93 91 74 88 90 91 76 75 88 90 78 87 interdistrict schools - Washington 544 346 346 298 346 425 2,305 345 205 230 145 189 340 1,454 86.96 88.29 93.48 97.24 97.35 70.59 86.73 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63 59 66 49 55 80 63\nKing Romine TOTAL Magnet schools\nBooker Williams Carver Gibbs TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 939 692 487 2,118 721 553 334 1,608 62.55 64.56 73.95 65.61 218 139 153 510 77 80 69 76 656 517 613 353 2,139 16,332 595 472 595 299 1,961 14,017 Source: Office of Desegregation Monitoring 53.95 54.45 54.62 56.86 54.72 63.82 61 45 18 54 178 2,456 91 91 97 85 92 86 STEVE SCALUON / Ark. Democrat-Giisns  Continued from Page 1A mentary schools. Statewide, student enrollments total less than 2,400 at about 270 of the 315 school districts. Ann Brown, desegregation monitor, said the study raises questions about enrollment trends and why students are assigned to the schools they attend. The study can be a basis for further examination by the district, she said. Browns staff conducted the study when Little Rock district officials must decide what to do about construction of an inter- district school to replace Stephens, 3700 W, 18th St, The new school is supposed to be built along the Interstate 630 corridor, east of University Avenue and west of Interstate 30, As an interdistrict school, it would be open to pupils from the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. County officials would be obligated to recruit county students to the Little Rock school. Wright requested the study after rejecting the Little Rock districts plan last year to rebuild Stephens at the 18th Street site. Her order, though, was based not on vacancies but on the proposed location, which she said did not meet the 1-630 corridor requirement. The district and black intervenors in the desegregation case are appealing Wrights order to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals al St. Louis. \"The study reveals some startling facts and might reflect such changed circumstances that you will want to rethink Stephens, Wright told officials last week after reviewing the study. Im not sure you need the extra seats. Vacancies could increase next year, as up to 200 Little Rock pupils are recruited for the new William J. Clinton In- terdistrict Elementary School in Sherwood. Wright has said at different times that parts of the desegregation plans in all three Pulaski County school districts can be changed if parties in the lawsuit justify proposed changes to her. The parties wrote their own desegregation plans in 1989. Those plans were approved and are now being enforced by federal courts. Little Rock administrators and school board members have been questioning the need for a new interdistrict school. While on one front the district is appealing Wrights order regarding Stephens, district officials are talking to the county and North Little Rock districts and the black Joshua intervenors about having Washington Magnet Elementary School designated as one of two elementary interdistrict schools required by the desegregation plan. Washington, at 115 W. 27th St., already has an academic theme and attracts students from neighboring districts. Substituting Washington for Stephens in the desegregation plan copld free the district to do something else with Stephens. Dorsey Jackson, president of the school board, said Tuesday there is some talk about building a new incentive school in Central Little Rock that could replace one or a combination of existing incentive school buildings. Nothing has been decided, he said. Five of the six incen- live schools, including Stephens, are older, small buildings. The concept is there on the table, but we cant make any decisions until we get all the demographic data we need, Jack- son said. He expects questions about the need to build a school if there are vacancies in existing buildings. But a new building could be more attractive to students not now at incentive schools, he said. The desegregation plan obligates the district to desegregate incentive schools. All but Rockefeller  where enrollment is 70.6 percent black  are at least 86.9 percent black. The 13 schools in downtown Little Rock, including Stephens, generally have the highest va- cancy rates. Stephens has the lowest enrollment in the district at 145 pupils and the highest vacancy rate, 51 percent. Even if all the. pupils who live in the Stephens zone went to the school  they dont  enrollment would be only about 200. The building has a capacity of 298. The study defined downtown as east of University Avenue, west of Little Rock Regional Airport, Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek and south of Markham Street. The 13 schools are at 76 percent capacity, with 1,429 seats vacant. Si.x of the 13 are incentive el- ementaries, which receive ex-, tra money and special programs' to improve student achievement and attract white families. Incentive schools, on average, are at 63 percent capacity, with 851 seats vacant, according to the study. Other schools in the downtown area\n Booker, Carver and Gibbs magnet el- ementaries are at 92 percent capacity. .  King and Washington interdistrict schools are at 78 percent capacity.  Woodruff and the Central High School kindergarten are at 76 percent capacity. 1I ATTACHMENT 1 n u December 21. 1994 Little Rock Scnool Distnct Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 D^ember 1S. 1995 Difference Page 1 A 5 i V central HS FairHS Hall HS McClellan HS 1 Parkview HS I Sub-Totai| wlo Magnets Czoireroa/e jh Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabeivaie JH MannJH' Pulaski Heights JH P 1020 O o m 535i 51 620, 2661 6i 1606 63.51% 892 69.51% u IS \u0026amp; i 5 a o u m 1021 i 530- 47, 639i 2221 Southwest JH Baagett Bale Baseline BooKer' Brady Carver cnicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin\" FulDngnt Cartaner Geyer Springs Clbos Sub-Total w/o Magnets Jefferson King- Mabeivaie McDermott Meadowcliff Mitcneir otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rlgntseih Rockefeller Romine-___________ Stephens' Terry Wakefield Washington- Watson western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Special schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 6461 3101 381 671' 1971 131 422i 3411 371 994 64.99% 881 76.16% 800 52.75% 6131 260- 44! 7411 159, 444 3379 1649' 14SI 5173 65.32% | 3458 2957 13081 108 . 4373 67.62% 5301 110! 4641 2041 7, 111 573' 1861 221 654 , 2101 27' 647 81.92% 679 68.34% 781 73.37% 891 73.40% 3014 15i 364\n401 1598. 63.89% 8701 73.45% 9171 66.85% 915, 80.98% 8481 52.36% li -5 e  A o m 41b 452 152! 7' 3561 211 426 317! 1131 61 19. 570 72.11% 829 54.52% 749 56.88% 630 79.05% 4008 1648 1 20 . 5776 69.39%l 3556 1292 : 99l 4947 71.88%ji 136 222, 2361 303 48l 781 741 235 254 119' 313 344. JiT 189 195 205 394 244 24TT 215. 153' 215 287 356\n247 294 256\n161 198. 224, 260 226, 268' 122! 72: 961 103! 227: 36: 290\n9 69 129' 280! 224! 1331 0, 8i 41 20' 14 141 8. 7! 7: 6, 6 121 2b 27! 71 13! 6. 21\n9' 2261 17: 1151 61 1911 198! 4: 1231 69: 1 4! ~8~ 151 3! 14. 16'\niosed 184 73.91% 308 72.08% 314 75.16% 558 54.30% 387 65.63% 595 52.61% 474 72.57% 391 79.80% 292 64.73% 304 64.14% 438 46.80% 442 89.14% 555 43.96% 277 87.00% 291 73.88% 300 52.67% 501 42.91% 532 53.95% 498 71.49% 490 50.41% 410 71.71% 266 96.24% 360 44.72% 411 48.18% 231 96.97% 397 65.49% 311 72.67% 191 -44) 3 -331 -501 6 701 -381 2 221 231 3 -8i 0.38% -22\n3.94% -77) 1.86% 341 4.82% 481 -039% 1535 155 ' 5148 ' 67.17%| 791-1141 101 -25l 1,85% I 1171 1151 43001 70.09% 5421 437 593! 6301 3771 77' 181 I 281i 221 1641 161 143. 21! 129' 51 450 ! 3771 221 4421 3251 101 493! 80' 171 637 85.09% 7401 59.05% 7731 76.71% 794. 79.35% 5111 73.78% 849 ! 53.00% Tn. 56.89% 5901 83.56% 3964.1576 131 5671 69.90% 3514. 1199 109 . 4822 72.87%i 1761 240' 2481 42. 2. 791 22i 691 6. 321! 253 ! 3b 246. 118' 324, 287' 3461 387' 188i 211' 203: 4151 254' 238 243' 165, 219! 571-1371 71 -731 2,47% 121 -331 11| -lOl 3.17% -271 77! 11 201 -221 -6 -24! -67) -6 -341 -231 -2 -2| 21) 1 611 -9,28% 161 81 4 -51 -33! -2 -81 335% -97! 5.94% -591 1.67% 201 -132% 28i 0.01% -401 4.51% -441 -72: 111-105. 0,51% -421 -931 101-1251 0.99% 251 19' 92! 12 57, 86! 54' 2221 16. 256, b 68! 130, 280: 289' 2521 312: 262! 306: 250: 137' 123\n10: 7' 8: 81 14: 101 18 7! 15' 7' 16: 11' 197! 251 91! 51 1681 2!^) 2S7'. 2131 41 61 21 81 161 6, 254. 126. 221 2111 83' 181 Closed 220 - 80.00% 3411 70.38% 3231 76.78% 605 53.06% 389 63.24% 630 51.43% 4501 76.89% 454 . 85.24% 281 66.90% 273: 77.29% 433 46.88% 445 93.26% 520' 48.85% 257 92.61% 318 76,42% 310 53.23% 506 43.28% 557 51.89% 446 69.96% 484 . 54.13% 403: 75.93% 257 97.28% 3331 41.14% 432 ! 48.38% 223 ! 95.52% 402! 63.18% 312 67.63% 401 161 121 -61__2 11 14 -5! 2 181 181 11 -81 HI -11 11 191 5 21 -301 u o. I\u0026amp; u u ' Hl i 18911 9541 -293 -84 12911 -374 11991 -284 o3ao(\u0026gt; 13^'^ ^\u0026lt;i5 7 10001 -152 63351 -1187 5335\n-1035 868: 8121 658! -231 -72 -85 9071 -113 6141 -103 231 329 431' 325 205, 307 . 30. 701 151 2081 27\n961 10, 971 249' 216\n269 140' 15! 80! 841 21! 81 10' 9! 8' Oi 568 40.67% 414 79.47% 666 64.71% 431 75.41% 310 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 , 265 . 251 370, 4191 372! 2111 351 231 199' 381 731 104! 81 3! 2641 2301 191 306! 1591 17! 631 131 721 291 81 01 534\n45.69% 428 86.45% 656 63.87% 4531 82.12% 318. 66.35% 5131 51.46% 382 80.10% 239 66.53% 46\n36.96% 8879\n4723 ' 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 1 670 24956 65.18% 9229.4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404\n12069 67.43% 16651\n7567 774\n24992 . 66.63% 14354 6454 1 555 21363 6-.19' 14666.5S97 626.21191 : 69.21 Office of Student Assignment 4 A 36| 6.09% 33! -1.70% 91 1.62% 47' -1274% 21 -2.39% 351 -1.18% 41 -241 432% 751 -151 3! 631 5.45% -1! -101 01 -111 2.18% 161 -491 21 -311 13.14% -2l -51 21 211 -201 21 -51 0.08% 3! 4.12% 101 -341-11! -351 4.88% -3! 281 71 4! -81 -9' -201 5.60% -1| 01 27! 2.53% 1! 2I lOI 0.56% 01 iT 51 0.37% 21 281 -51 251 -2.06% -441 -101 21 -521 -133% 15l -291 81 -61 3.72% 121 -241 51 -71 4,22% -61 11! -Ill -61 -151 -1| -2 -31 0 91 1 01 3 31__8 141 2 Closed -9! 1.04% -27\n-3.58% 211 0.20% -81 -1.45% 51 -2.31% II -5.04% 131 -421 -51 -34 , 5.02% 41! -351 81 141 6.98% -121 -91 11 47! -231 61 15! -2 71 -5 141 9 371 -171 4 19| -121 0 21 8i~0 -10! -0.84% 221 6.71% 8\n022% 381 -0.96% 241 4.97% 71 6.18% 101 -4.71% 35O!-267I 831 1661 -1.73% 297i-327i S6| 261 2-32% 385!-453|104| 36. 1.45' 31^-5571 731-172. 2.02% 850! 745\n7371 6391' 5541 i 257' 401! 3901 656' 467, 6131 -I 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 looo IS.C'i laai 'Til f'ti 13^ 753 AiO .A33 56 4/3 5581 -108 492! 3281 351, 3991 4341 540: 2981 328! 3531 492' 7281 5151 5171 465! 298' 351' 374. 2581 4691 487' -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -yyrf TJS 350 .y.59 07 3say I /I 3% I 3  3 33 y st \u0026lt;il83 -  75 2^4 235 \u0026lt;^4-/ -67 -175 \u0026lt;- ^3 515! 4921 19 -64 8361 -180 492\n328\n5171 3941 3241 -39 -10 I -12 -85 46 3^5 53? 3^'6 JO 41 33 13 7 15717' -1544 13578, -1509 28043 \\ -3451 24454 , -3263Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa MEMORANDUM To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume I. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.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 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug:  I recently received the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice 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 Februaiy 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug\n1 understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which 1 understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the three-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, Februaiy 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell MayoOffice 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 February 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: 1 understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which 1 understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the three-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, Februaiy 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell Mayo9 Cf'l ./\u0026lt; Little Rock School District 4 Feb 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Bast Markham St. Heritage West Building Oiiice Little Rock, AR 72201 fEB 1 1 1994 of Desssrscaticfi Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington The Incentive school capacities are calculated on a maximum class size of 20 students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The special programs at Rockefeller Elementary are calculated using 10 students/class in Infant programs, old programs and 18 students/class 17 students/class in 2 yr. in 3 yr. old programs. The capacity of Washington Elementary is calculated using 20 students in K, 23 students in grades 1 thru 3, 25 students in grades 4 thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The capacities listed are based on the number of class presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. sections School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely. I DovglfiA Eaton 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Lkiib PLAWr 13:58 No .003 P.02 I ^5 I Little Rock School District 4 Ffth 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Bast Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, contained herein are the I have included Washington capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. school capacities are calculated on thru 6 anri8 s?Sd:an ?msa xiimnuXm ec-lars's I^studenVs/eYa7^^^^ Elementary are calculated using Old prlXl and Js sVuTe^ntr/:?\" 13 'J' is SlculSed using 2o\" student: \"and i UXVs \"-derrS\" 25 students in grades 4 thru The capacities listed are based on the number of cl presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 Sincerely, Dotigl Eaton 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 *^PLRNT SERVICES TEL :501-570-402? Feb 04,94 13:58 No . 003 P.02  **  4 Fflh 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Little Rock School District Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994 capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington Old programs and 18 students/class in 6 and 18 students in pre-K in grades 4 thru old in Pre-K. p?esStl^^in^f cl presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections -School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely, DPvgl Eaton flin ECCHB Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building R M4r? 2 Little Rock, AxR 72201 Of'fes Cl Dese. 3'sgaiicn Mo, !or:ng Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes and realized I made an error in letter I sent you on Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 29S not 253. count one class section. In my haste I failed to Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, ! 'Ugmas Eaton Dire or Plant Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361(*C\ncr fPFFFBBCiail kkULLBHjS9!l Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building f^AR 2 4 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaiicn Monitoring Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes and realized I made an error in letter I sent you on Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 298 not 258. count one class section. In my haste I failed to Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, i 'Ugffias Eaton Dire or Plant Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361^PLANT SERVICES TEL : 501-570-4027 Feb 04,94 13:58 No .003 P.02 5^ s3 iX Little Rock School District 4 Ffth 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Heritage West Building Little Rock, AARR 72201 Dear Ann\nPursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994 capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. contained herein are the I have included Washington The Incentive school capacitie size of jL -----s -a1r.e= -caaxlvc-uulxaatueeda on a maximum ccllaasss students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K IT programs at Rockefeller Elementarv om .t-oa  10 students/class in Infant er Elementary are calculated using programs, 17 students/class in 2 yr. 6 and 13 students in Pre-K. based on the number of cl presently m effect during the 93-94 school year. ass sections -School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 S ^ncerely, Eaton JT mW 4 1. . I \u0026lt; 55 Little Rock School District 22 March 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham st. Ke: age West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Dese\nsgaiicn Dear Ann: I was the looking through my notes letter I sent you on and realized I made an error in Capacities. 4 Feb. 1994 regarding Incentive School The capacity of Garland is 293 not 253. count one class section. In my haste I failed co Please correct my letter accordingly. ^incerely, i Z 'Ugffias Eaton Dire or Plant Services 1 ! I I 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District JUN 1 1994 June 2, 1994 Oliice of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Melissa: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 1994, regarding Little Rock School District Facility Studies. The Junior High Capacity Study has essentially been completed and lacks submission only the final to the Court. review by the Superintendent prior to As soon as that review has been completed, and we are prepared to send it to Federal Court, I will most certainly forward a copy to your office. With regard to Baseline Elementary School, a separate Facility Study was not done relating to the closing of that school. The considerations in examining Baseline consisted of financial issues. facility issues, and student enrollment issues. As of this date. we have presented the attached Business Case to the Superintendent and Board for their review. A final determination by the Board of Education has not been made as of this date regarding the closing of Baseline. Sincerely, D iug s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 0 1994 Office of Oesegregcucr G 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 NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice on behalf of itself, the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District of the filing of a \"Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections\" which was compiled by a joint committee of representatives from the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. 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 By: ___ _ CfirTstopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 17th day of June, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller 2 I. II. SPECIAL REPORT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION JUNE 1994 This Special Report amends the Special Study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District\nPlant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District\nand. Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. The purpose of this Committee was to: 1) review the Special Study done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study\n2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof\nand. 3) correlate the needs of the three Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee desegregation discussed efforts, philosophy programmatic with needs regard and (3) to M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two (2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three (3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. no specific reason why different percentages are used. There is It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent (100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure, i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent (80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There IS , of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ - because of the eighty-five percent (85%) capacity and the size of the schools. desired This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. provided. The following analysis of various subject areas is A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-District Transfers Upon Enrollment: Intra-district appear to be transfers within the Districts assigned Schools). by relatively stable. attendance zone Students (except are Magnet Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones\nhowever, this need must be taken into consideration with projected M- to-M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2B) delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in line with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are assignment policy- of attendance zones. Immediate and students changes dealing with or a realignment the of Long-Term Effects of Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District: M-to-M The Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program voluntary for all participating students. Ma jority-is Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will students rolled over from the include elementary schools. This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at any of the elementary, senior high schools. Essentially, junior or academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. are no specific programs called for in There the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students at junior high level. A chart the indicating M-to-M enclosure. transfers is attached as an A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level, between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little School District to Pulaski County, Rock North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, North Little Rock, Little to the Rock School District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under district, or magnet school, concept. the inter- If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3C) D) Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity: The state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, Sth, and 9th grades, similar. in all three (3) Districts, is quite There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any district's emphasis will be capacity. Major instructional on delivery of instruction. improving the quality and The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. significantly These are not important to justify major construction efforts, but rather the addition, or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' School Students: .Obligation. to Recruit White Private With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District increase, junior highs and for a similar although in smaller numbers Pulaski County and North Little Rock. in both The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. goals There are no projected quotas, nor students. students established ' for recruiting junior high The ongoing effort will continue and the will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4E) Lack of Non-Maqnet Junior High in East Little Rock: Between the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase in population of approximately 2.6%. This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County Little primarily in Rock appeared area. to the sections of the city. east, have central, lost population and southwest At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of 1-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. is Mann Magnet Junior High School. Also in this area the last two (2) For at least students desiring school years. to attend all junior high Dunbar have been permitted to do so. With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does not populations. seem justified. Schools follow area. School They rarely lead populations into an As the population shifts Districts accommodating in the three (3) these 'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of construction of new junior highs\ncourse. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis\nzones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs without close construction\nattendance to existing realigning grades between school Little Rock School District has and, levels. made four. The major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and IS desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabeivaie Junior High. These are needed because of: (1) the shifting population\n(2) the age of the buildings\nand, (3) changes in the academic program over the years which have classrooms. necessitated more specialized Preliminary figures indicate that in the area of eastern Little Rock (east of 1-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances situation. purposes, and district-wide, given that the present is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least Consideration for the next seven (7) years. a new junior high school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. F) Equitable Distribution of Bussing: The question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall junior high level. racial composition at the In School Year ' 93-' 94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the schools junior high the junior For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-four percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bused outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-'93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools attendance for children being bussed within their zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-'93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. out of the attendance In the case of children being bussed zones, we have an eight percent (8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race. as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6G) IV. This is due (1) to shifting populations zone. within School District\nand, (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attending junior highs within the (2) Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the This percentage was fifty-five percent (55%). indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. this is only a snaoshot in time. Periodically, snapshot However, growth trends must be examined, __ _______ cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the and population population is moving toward or away from existing Within Pulaski County, this problem is far greater. junior high schools. Seven (7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input\nThe Committee generally felt that at this planning stage, required. Intervenors community However, input was not was input requested. from As necessarily the the Joshua Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of. in new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Study of the Capacities / Analyzation\n____________________ The study of the capacities and the analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. plan is a which is a voluntary plan. The desegregation The M-to-M Program, principal component of this plan. allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantaae of any excess in capacity. advantage When one studies the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7B) C) students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary to the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer districts and have, subsequently, students between trend in your capacities and projections. included that There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced transfer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, recommendations made in the attached annexes the are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. Little Rock School District: conclusions as identified in Annex The analysis and (I A\" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. Junior High The localized problems at Mabelvale School and School, however, will persist. Southwest Junior High to Mabelvale Junior High and Adding classrooms to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. Pulaski County Special School analysis on Page Four (4) of Annex District: The 11 need in Pulaski County for construction B\" supports the northwest quadrant of the county to in the support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. be tempered by the success This, of course, will of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive trans- portation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8D) North Little Rock School District: and conclusions on Page Four (4) The analysis indicate a relatively stable of Annex It c II Little Rock. situation in North in School Year From an anticipated peak enrollment '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1.2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacity essentially Desegregation identical. The Plan, the M-to-M support of Program, were the the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict schools are supported methodology by of the all fully understood and Districts. The parallel each other capacity calculations and the need to general closely look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition. it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes Successful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students. but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason. desegregation efforts. such as support of our DCE/rlh/specrep 9M TO H TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) YEAR TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD TO NLR FROM NLR 87/88 76 98 88/89 145 31 69 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 7 5 6 M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) SY TO PCSSD NLR FROM PCSSD NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/rangeLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL PISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 6145 6062 98.6 SiZSi 63 13 6 166 97.7 aizsA 6391 6109 95.6 94/95 6391 6135 95.9 a57j6 6391 5962 93.3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 24 19 2262 93.5 24 19 2225 91.9 24 19 2245 92.8 24 19 2155 89.0 2419 2 154 89.0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTF SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 95/-9g, CAPACITY 5044 ENROLLMENT ' 5075 PERCENTAGE 100.6 5044 4942 97.9 5044 5002 99.2 5044 5220 103.5 5044 5281 104.7I, SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH, 1994) INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain the considerations in determining capacity, seating capacity as of school year '92 criteria established today does not change, It assessed the - '93 given the and it further establishes that criteria and defines it. II. B) It records projected enrollments to the year 2000 and their impact on the District. CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may  be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. been defined. in Once this capacity has reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity, the case of the junior and senior high schools, In the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used, in the junior high is defined as a ' tt Therefore, capacity snapshot\", at a given 1B) in the junior high is defined as a point in time, housed at criteria. a II snapshot\", at a given of the number of students that can be given facility based on The criteria is explained below. an established Capacity Considerations\nbe The following nine (9) areas must be considered when calculating capacity secondary facility. of a (1) Size of School: The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as solely in the classroom. education IS not conducted Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms: number of general The number of rooms refers to the purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom: The type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements\nSpecial class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\ncapacity. even though that is the room Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits: Class size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. classes with maximum Examples are remedial reading capacity of 15, courses with maximum capacity of 10, resource and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers\nThe number directly affects classroom utilization. of teachers Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2(7) Number of Periods\nThe number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. (8) Scheduling Efficiency\nthe ability of the Scheduling Efficiency is school to C. (9) students' desires. desirable. accommodate the needs in taking the classes he or she A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows assigned. a maximum of 3 0 persons to be Calculation The following methodology used to calculate capacity\nMethodology\nis the Step One\nIdentify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two\ntotal is referred to as Add the capacities of each room. The sum If Total Physical Capacity\". step Three\nAdjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Capacity. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Step Four\nMultiply the difference by 17%, if a six- Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as \"Prep Time\". Identify Step Five\nnumber Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that from the Total Physical Capacity. referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". This is Step Six\nCalculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3D. E. step Seven: 80%. errors Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analys is: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights. the capacity should be re-calculated. are so large. Since the figures and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at-maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed Cloverdale to the completion Junior High School of and the the expansion addition of of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabeivaie Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabeivaie Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations replaced with permanent structures. are in fact III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of .45% differential. extremely accurate. This should be considered Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieyed. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure through '99-2000. as my projections from '93-'94 Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis\nIn 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years. and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. There is a projected slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline oyer the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary leyel. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-'00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. Of classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and Adding possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adequate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, portable buildings. and the subsequent replacement will add to capacity\nof however. Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. curriculums, Unless there are significant changes to core through M-to-M added subjects, transfers or increased enrollment recruitment, or private school student capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should po-int out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 90's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of whatever reason. students, for and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition buildings as a temporary measure. of portable Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/cappro1 6LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 (1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 (1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,l,2 5881 NOTES: (1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the Enrollment column. (Up dated 16 Mar 1994)I. II. SPECIAL S' iiURJ I JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; INTRODUCTION: JULY, 1993 PROJECTIONS orders issued 30, 1992. It explains how canflri+- -----1 on . ---- It explains how capacities are calculated within the Pulaski . ---Cxstirxct cind how tho^A support immediate and long-term for junior high school County Special School s needs. capacities CAPACITY: A) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. are^^hflc^ ^aP^city of elementary schools, are basicallv ..mu When one B) --- basically sedentary classrooms to meet ----- and do not where students move between room^'\"\"^ tlkingThT s?aTe\"7S^^^^^ h(a extending it by the number of rooms. This raav \nndn?.ckindergarten ti^oS^K 5\"^^ special classes contai now _ or special education been defined, classrooms, LL___ into classrooms within the size requirements would i-- In the case of the j \" programs. such as self-contained  ---- Once this capacity has in reality only the addition _ . - -J uviixxuxuii of new the conversion of other than classroom - ., . --------space facility or changing class J impact or change the capacity.  junior and senior high schools, the - capacity is not c_ -  While this definition i calculation of be placed in as clearly defined. can space in the building schools where s\"tu^d\\^^^^ appropriate for elementary does not work infrequently change classes, entirelv schools, therefore entirely different definition in  +\u0026lt;  -xvjii must be used, in a the junior high is defined as it Capacity an .lyn IS defined as a \"snanshot \" a-i-  be hous^^at^a the number of students that oe noused at a specific fsriiii-u _ criteria. -a specific facility based on established  The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations\nmust be considered secondary facility. The following nine (9) when calculating capacity areas of a (1) I ^^vpraV?''*\"? The size of the school refers to ^inro i V all aspects of the facility, riaco ^^^truction is not conducted solely in the classroom, one must consider administrative\nspecial-2- (2) (3) use, and classroom space when determining capacity. Administrative :---- -- counselors' purposes. areas space such as Media Centers and can be used for instructional Number of Rooms: ,_______ The number of rooms refers to the n^er of general purpose and special purpose purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility purpose of teaching an academic for the intended subj ect. Type of classroom: the capacity due to The type of classroom impacts - - size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Sand, may only seat 25 or\u0026gt; up to 150 depending on the function. However, ' (4) With special class a Special Class Requirements: With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\neven though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input ,such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class  SizeLimits: Class size limits are established not only by the State of Arkansas, but also by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15, resource courses with maximum capacity of 10, and self-contained classrooms with maximxun capacity (6) Number of Teachers: Tl_____J__ affects classroom utilization. The number of teachers directly ilizrticn. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the' number of periods allowable in the day in order to  achieve maximum overall capacity. (7) Number of Periods: _____. The number of periods (7) corresponds to the accreditation requirements and IS a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level.-3- (3) Efficiency: Scheduling Efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires, target of 85% scheduling efficiency is desirable. A (9) Room Usage: Each secondary school has a variety of Classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for inschool r**-----'   suspension, another may use a renovated workroom or one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which _ _ ------7.1 or 3 0 persons to be assigned. disallows a maximum determining c. galdulatjog__Methodology: The following methodology used\u0026lt;to calculate capacity: The is the Step Oge: room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. (Refer to PCSSD Capacity Worksheet.) Identify each in the facility D. Step Two: . the capacities of each room.' total IS referred to as \"Total Physical Capacity.\" The sum Step Three: pullout _ . _ students, individualized programs. Adjust for special classes, other rooms used programs, for highly- step Four: Capacity. Subtract this total from the Total Physical scheduling efficiency. Multiply the Total Physical Capacity by 85%. constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity desired level of efficiency. ' Desired Capacity.) Calculate 85%. This (Referred to by PCSSD or as  The calculation of capacity is only as good as . figures used_ in determining the nine (9) Each time any criterion changes, by all rignts, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the - - ----- re-calculated. Since the large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there significant changes to criteria, classrooms at figures are are Additions of one or two maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall school by 15. capacity of the  , , , -, should be noted that capacity is calculated assuming all students are  times. - 1 in place at all-4- III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS\nA. Projections\n_____ Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the Pulaski County Special School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92 school year. It The projections 93 a. ^^Igdlations Methodolocry\nEach subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level who will be junior high students in a given school year, constitute a projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 0 in School Year '92 - '93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. C. Analysis\n---- In '90 - '91 through '92 - '93 school years, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) experienced a decline at the junior high level. This decline parallels the number of students participating in the magnet and M to M programs in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). However, in '92 - '93, the Junior High 'population began to increase because of a steady growth which is projected to continue through the '98 school year. Since all schools are operating near or at Desired Capacity, PCSSD will have to consider Junior High capacity in the near future. As an example, calculations from the North West quadrant of PCSSD (which is the Oak Grove High School attendance area covering more geographic area than either Little Rock or North Little school districts) will reflect that the enrollment of Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School in the '92 - '93 school year was close to desired Capacity possible for This '99 the complex (948). The projection for '93 - '94 is 933 of 948 seats filled. By taking present student enrollment from the feeder elementary schools through the calculations methodology, 1369 students will be enrolled in grades 7-12 at Oak Grove Jr-Sr High, in six years, not allowing for further growth (29% will be black). Over four hundred additional seats will have to be provided to accommodate students in the Northwest attendance zone. The typical plant site for a Jr-Sr complex recommended by State Department Standards of '93 is 50 acres. Oak Grove sits on 14 J 3 acres. Therefore portable buildings at Oak Grove High School scheduled for replacement should instead be included in a new Junior High complex to be located in the Northwest quadrant. filled. The projection for '93 OverJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL culler Jax North Jax South Northwood Robinson Scott Alt. Sylvan Hills Oak Grove Jr. TOT.AL PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITY JUNE 16, 1993 DESIRED CAPACITY 1055 625 618 885 437 125 825 474 5044 TOTAL PHYS I CAI, CAPACITY CURRENT ENROLLMENT 92/93 PROJECTED ENROT.T,MHNT 93/94 1241 944 1009 737 727 1042 514 125 971 532 5889 628 596 945 455 125 890 479 5062 635 622 942 455 125 928 401 5117 I IPCSSO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT DATA School fear Total Enrollment Calculated Grade Levels Adj usted Enrollment Non-Slack Slack % Elac. 1990-91 5,050 7. 8, 9 5,075 3,667 1,383 27 1991-92 4,917 7, 8, 9 4,942 3,526 1,391 28 1992-93 4,977 7. 3, 9 5,002 3,491 1,436 30 1993-94 5,194 6, 7, 8 5,220 3,653 1,541 30 1994-95 5,255 5, 6, 7 5.281 3,736 1,519 29 L995-96 5,243 4, 5, 5,269 3,778 1996-97 1,465 28 -997-98 .993-99 .999-2000 lOTES: 5,291 5,286 5,314 5,194 3, 4. 5 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3 K, 1. 2 (1) Grade Level Calculated\n5,317 5,312 5,342 5,220 3,826 3,348 3,858 3, 752 1,465 , 1,440 1,456 1,442 This column signifies the elementary- grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollwent\nIt is . -----This is the final projected enrollment. .5% above the Enrollment column. 23 27 27 28} I. II. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL STUDY GRADES 7-9 BUILDING CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS JULY 1993 INTRODUCTION This study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on May 1 1992 and December 30, 1992 to the Little Rock School District.  ' -  North Little Rock School District became involved in this special study in May 1993 and furnishe the following information to outline the buildina 3 capacities in grades 7-9 with the current curriculum and the enrollment projections to the year 2000 based on the current students. CAPACITY (See attached) A) Definition: capacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course reouirements, capacity may be calculated by takingthe State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. Once this capacity has been defined, ' the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. In the case of the junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. While this definition Capacity is a multi-defined term. in reality only In the case of the junior space in the building. IS more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, well in the secondary schools, definition must be used. it does not work An entirely different Therefore, capacity in the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot\", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at criteria. a given facility based on an established The criteria is explained below.f B) Capacity Conaiderationa: ------------------------ The following nine (9) must be considered when calculating capacity of secondary facility. areaa a (1) Size of Schoo1: ------_____ The size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the _. One must consider administrative, special use and claaaroom apace as education is not conducted solely in the classroom. facility. (2) Number of Rooms: The number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Claaaroom: The type of classroom impacts , -- size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat a set number of individuals. While a special purpose classroom depends on the function. the capacity due to (4) Special Claaa Requirernenta: ____, ______ __________ Special class requirements are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 25\neven though that is the room capacity. (5) Claaa Size Limita: ___________________ Claaa aize limits are not only eatabliahed by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. Examples are remedial reading classes with maximum capacity of 15 and Contained classrooms with maximum capacity of (6) Number of Teachera: The number of teachera directly affects classroom utilization. Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. (7) Number of Perioda: _____________ The number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of offered and the number of times those courses are couraea offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level.I (8) Scheduling Efficiency: ______,_________Scheduling efficiency is the ability of the school to accommodate the students' needs in taking the classes he or she desires. desirable. A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is (9) Room Usage: ___________ Each secondary school has a variety of classroom spaces  one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, w another may use a renovated workroom or where school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. F_______ determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows a maximum of 30 where one Room usage assists in persons to be assigned. C) Calculation Methodology:  11 _ 1 methodology used to calculate capacity: The following is the Steo One: ____ Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Steo Two: _______ Add the capacities of each room, total is referred to as The sum \"Total Physical Capacity\". S-tep Three: ___________Adjust for special classes, prcgrc: pull-out students, other rooms used for highly- individualized programs. __ Total Physical Capacity. programs. Subtract this total from your Step Four: Sum your total adjustment, and subtract that number from the Total Physical Capacity. 7:.1_ referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". Sum your total adjustment This is Step Five:  __ Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. constitutes your Capacity. This D) Analysis: __________ The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine Each time any criteria changed, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. (9) criteria. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. time junior nign schools is relatively stable. However, anyone familiar with education will realize that program changes will occur which will affect the capacity, possibly on an annual basis.I III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. P^i ections: _____ Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current enrollments of the North Little of both. Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '92-'93 school year. Projectio Projections are based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. This should be considered extremely accurate, on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the North Little Rock School District Based that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved, compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers B. C. D. area, To at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the North Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure as my projections from '93-' 94 through '99-2000. Actual M-to-M transfer numbers are included. Calculations Methodology: In calculating projections each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year are included. ' In calculating projections projection. Analysis: This figure constituted the The North Little Rock School District projections show little variation in enrollments until the 1999-2000 school year. The building capacity is Between 1992-93 and 1999- currently at 92% of usage. 2000 this will mean a building capacity between 89 and 97%. Conclusions: The North Little Rock School District is near capacity in grades 7-9 and will remain that way for the immediate future.iCHOOL YEAR .990-91 .991-92 .992-93 .993-94 .994-95 .995-96 .996-97 .997-98 998-99 .999-2000\nOTES: (1) (2) NLRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS TOTAL ENROLLMENT CALCULATED 2,229 2,251 2,214 2,234 2,144 2,143 2,171 2,248 2,210 2,204 OCTOBER 1 GRADE LEVELS 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9 6, 7, 8 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 K, 1, 2 Grade Level Calculated: ENROLLMENT DATA ADJUSTED ENROLLMENT 2,2 40 2,262 2,225 2,245 2,155 2,154 2,182 2,259 2,221 2,215 NONBLACK/BLACK % BLACK M-TO-M 1,214 1,015 1,214 1,037 1,165 1,060 1,192 1,042 1,102 1,042 1,094 1,049 1,056 1,115' 1,089 1,159 1,075 1,135 1,097 1,107 45.5% 46.0% 47.5% 46.6% 48.6% 49,0% 51.4% 51.6% 51.4% 50.2% 79 81 85 84 81 56 68 72 78 73  ----------- This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final It is .5% above the EnrolIment column. projected enrollment.I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Grades 7-9 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE NLRHS East 692 664 96% Alternative School 15 15 100% Lakewood Middle 594 549 92% Ridgeroad Middle 594 577 97% Rose City Middle 515 408 7 9% Baring Cross Special School 9 1 11% TOTAL 2,419 2,214 92%RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 0 1994 Office of Desegregaiicn Monitoring 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 NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL REPORT - JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice on behalf of itself, the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District of the filing of a \"Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections\" which was compiled by a joint committee of representatives from the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District. 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 By: CfirTstopher Heller Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing of Special Report - Junior High Capacities and Projections has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 17th day of June, 1994 . Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller ku ihy klcacg- p I. not 2I, II. SPECIAL REPORT JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES AND PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION JUNE 1994 This Special Report amends the Special Study of the Little Rock School District Junior High Capacities and Projections dated January 1993. The report is a compilation by a committee composed of members from the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, and North Little Rock School District. Attached to this Special Report are annexes comprising an updated Little Rock School District Junior High Study, Pulaski County Special School District Junior High Study, and North Little Rock School District Junior High Study. The Committee consisted of members from the offices of Support Services and Desegregation Office, Pulaski County Special School District\nPlant Services, and Student Assignments, Little Rock School District\nand. Plant Services, Office of Desegregation, North Little Rock School District. of this Committee was to: The purpose 1) review the Special Study done by the Little Rock School District in January of 1993, and to provide input regarding the review of that Study\n2) examine the methods of calculation of capacities in their respective School Districts, along with conclusions and recommendations thereof\nand. 3) correlate the needs of the three (3) Districts with regard to capacity and student projections. The Committee discussed desegregation efforts, philosophy programmatic with needs regard and to M-to-M transfers, the intent and meaning of the May '92 Court Order, with respect to analysis of the Little Rock School District. Special reports were created by both Pulaski County and North Little Rock to outline the method used in calculating capacity and correlating capacity with projections, and their subsequent conclusions and recommendations as they pertain to their independent School Districts. Once these two (2) studies were completed, the Committee was able to tie together all of the projections and submit this Report. CAPACITY CALCULATION ANALYSIS An analysis was made of the capacity calculation methodology of all three (3) Districts. It was determined that the considerations in capacity and the general methodologies used were identical. There is, however, a slight difference in the calculation steps between Little Rock School District and Pulaski County, North Little Rock School District. The Little 1Rock School District uses eighty percent (80%) of its adjusted capacity as its desired capacity, whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts use eight-five percent (85%) of the adjusted capacity as desired capacity. no specific reason why different percentages are used. There is It is simply a matter of the School District's method in calculating its capacity. In comparing these two (2) methods, Little Rock School District's school capacity would approach one hundred percent (100%) faster than either Pulaski County or North Little Rock because they correlate to a lower capacity figure. i.e., eighty percent (80%). Whereas Pulaski County and North Little Rock, targeting eighty-five percent (85%), indicate that as they approach one hundred percent (100%) capacity, they are, in fact, much more crowded than Little Rock School District Schools. The eighty percent (80%) figure used by Little Rock leaves more room for incoming students under the M-to-M Transfer Program, or private school transfers. There IS , of course, capacity in Pulaski County and North Little Rock for the same programs, however, the numbers of seats may differ -because of the eighty-five percent (85%) capacity and the size of the schools. desired This difference in desired capacity must be taken into consideration when one views the projection trends of the three (3) Districts against their existing capacities. III. SPECIAL STUDY ANALYSIS The Committee analyzed many areas of the Little Rock School District Capacity Study, Pulaski County and North Little Rock Capacity Studies, and their subsequent impacts on each other, and relationship to M-to-M transfers and the desegregation plan. provided. The following analysis of various subject areas is A) Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Intra-Dlstrict Transfers Upon Enrollment\nIntra-district transfers within the Districts appear to be relatively stable. Students are assigned Schools). by attendance zone (except Magnet Students desiring transfers to junior highs out of their attendance zone are handled on a case-by-case basis through the various offices of Student Assignments. In the past, junior highs have had sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the respective attendance zones\nhowever, this need must be taken into consideration with projected M- to-M transfer needs of all Districts in calculating new construction efforts. Since the projections of the junior highs include all LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD students, capacity exists overall. However, local problems persist as will be explained later. The 2B) delineation of attendance zones to support the junior high schools appears to be in line with the capacity of the junior high schools, and except for minor localized problems caused by small shifts in population and the addition of academic requirements necessitating additional classrooms, the alignment of zones appears to compliment the location of the schools and subsequent capacities. There is no reason to believe that this general trend will change in the foreseeable future unless there are assignment policy of attendance zones. Immediate and students changes dealing with or a realignment the of Long-Term Effects of Transfers, Both Out of and Into the District\nM-to-M The Majority-to-Minority Transfer voluntary for all participating students. Program is Because of this, it is extremely difficult to project how many students will participate in this program. The Districts agree that junior high projections will include elementary schools. students rolled over from the This has been calculated into the projection figures through the year 2000. The attractor for the M-to-M Program is the educational curriculum at senior high any of the elementary, schools. Essentially, junior or academic programs at the junior high schools throughout the three (3) Districts are basically identical and in conformance with State Academic Standards. are no specific programs called for in There the Desegregation Plan aimed specifically at attracting students the junior high level. A chart at indicating M-to-M enclosure. transfers is attached as an A survey of this chart indicates that the M-to-M Program is increasing at all levels of the School District. At the junior high level. between 1991 and 1994, we have seen an increase of 190 students transferring from the Little Rock School District to Pulaski County, North Little Rock, and an increase of 36 students transferring from Pulaski County, Little Rock School North Little Rock, to the District. Although these numbers appear small, it is felt by all three (3) districts that the success of the M-to-M Program at the junior high level rests largely, in part, with the District's ability to retain M-to-M elementary children who are recruited under district, or magnet school, concept. the inter- If the trend continues, with the success of King Interdistrict and Crystal Hill Interdistrict and with the new 3C) D) Clinton Elementary School, we could expect a rise in the M-to-M Program at the junior high level. The Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Programmatic Changes on Capacity\nThe state-derived academic curriculum offered the children of Pulaski County at the 7th, Sth, and 9th grades, similar. in all three (3) Districts, is quite There may be new programmatic needs on the horizon, as we move toward equipping students to be successful in the 21st century. Such initiatives should not have a monumental effect on any emphasis district's capacity. will be on delivery of instruction. Major instructional improving the quality and The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93-'94 was compensated by the addition of portables to meet their academic needs. The reduction in class sizes for resource or specialpurpose classes will, of course, have an effect on the capacities in all the Districts. significantly These are not Important to justify construction efforts, but rather the addition. major or additions, of permanent structures and/or portables in localized situations to meet these needs. Districts' School Students\nObligation to Recruit White Private With regard to the Little Rock School District, a continued effort is being made to recruit Little Rock area private school students to the public school system. The methodology of utilizing eighty percent (80%) of adjusted capacity as your desired capacity allows for any increase in the Little Rock School District junior highs and for increase. although in smaller numbers a similar Pulaski County and North Little Rock. in both The concept that private schools provide an educational need to the community which will remain constant in the future indicates that success in recruiting private school students is not a predictable matter. Small successes have been achieved, and these students have been adequately incorporated into the public school system. goals There are no projected quotas, nor students. students established 'for recruiting junior high The ongoing effort will continue and the will be incorporated into the public school system in space that is currently available. 4E) Lack of Non-Maqnet Junior High in East Little Rock\nBetween the 1980 and 1990 census in Pulaski County, there was a slight increase approximately 2.6%. in population of This population increase was predominantly in west Little Rock, western North Little Rock and the adjacent Pulaski County area. Little primarily in Rock appeared the sections of the city. to east, have central, lost population and southwest At present, within Little Rock, there is sufficient capacity in the eight (8) junior high schools to house all of their students at least through the year 2001. The area east of 1-30 is the attendance zones of Dunbar Junior High School, Pulaski Heights Junior High School, and Cloverdale Junior High School. is Mann Magnet Junior High School. Also in this area the last two (2) students desiring school years. all to attend Dunbar For at least junior high have permitted to do so. been With the general trend of a decrease in population in eastern Little Rock, the construction or addition to junior highs in this area does populations. not seem justified. Schools follow area. School They rarely lead populations into an As the population shifts in the three (3) Districts accommodating these 'shifts in population may be accomplished by a number of different methods: One, of construction of new junior highs\ncourse. is secondly. the the addition to existing junior highs on a localized basis\nzones or three. the realignment of capacity to keep junior highs close without construction\nattendance to existing realigning grades between school Little Rock School District has and, levels. made four. The major additions to both Forest Heights Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High, and is desirous of additions to Southwest and Mabelvale Junior High. These are needed because of: (1) the shifting population\n(2) the age of the buildings\nand, (3) changes which in the academic program over the years have necessitated classrooms. more specialized the area Preliminary figures indicate that in of eastern Little Rock (east of 1-30) there are only between 350 and 400 junior high students in this area. This, in and of itself, is not a sufficient number to warrant the construction of a junior high school. In addition, rezoning in this area for a new junior high school would most assuredly impact the racial balances of Dunbar, Pulaski Heights and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Given that students from this area not assigned to 5the Dunbar attendance zone are assigned for racial balances situation, purposes, district-wide, and given that the present is that we are only at 95% of capacity, and will remain at or below that figure for at least the next seven Consideration for a new junior high (7 ) years. school in eastern Little Rock is not warranted at this time. F) Equitable Distribution of Bussing\nThe question of bussing was examined in light of the percentages of children being bused by race against the overall junior high level. racial composition at the In School Year '93-'94, the Little Rock School District was essentially thirty percent (30%) white and sixty-nine percent (69%) black at the junior high level. When one examines a random sample of a hundred students being bused within the Little Rock School District, it is found that the racial balance very closely approximates the general racial balance of the schools. junior high the junior For instance, in School Year '93-'94, of high students bused within their attendance zones, seventy-four percent (74%) were black and twenty-six percent (26%) were white. Of the numbers of junior high students bused outside of their attendance zones, seventy-seven percent (77%) of the students were black and twenty-three percent (23%) of the students were white. This marks a noted increase over School Year '92-'93. The figures indicate that the burden of bussing appears to approximate the racial balance of the schools attendance for children being bussed within their zones. For children being bussed outside their attendance zones, the percentage of children has increased over School Year '92-'93 figures. This disparity is most likely attributed to the decrease in the number of white students from School Year '92-'93 to '93-'94. The definition of disparity in bussing is not clearly defined. However, one should be able to approximate that the number of children being bussed, both within and outside their attendance zones, should approximate the overall percentage of children of that race in the School District. This is based on the premises that the designation of attendance zones was primarily to racially balance the schools. out of the attendance In the case of children being bussed zones, we have an eight percent (8%) difference of the number of black children attending by race. as compared to the number of black children being bussed out of their 6G) IV. zone. within This the is due (1) to shifting populations School District\nand, (2) a disproportionate decrease in the number of junior high school students. In 1992-1993, approximately fifty percent (50%) of the Little Rock junior high school students attendina lunior hlahs within attending junior highs Little Rock were bused. In 1993 - 1994, the This percentage was fifty-five percent (55%). indicates that transportation to the schools, other than bussing, is within the reach of the students and could lead you to believe that the location of the junior highs is adequate to meet the current population and expected growth trends. this is only a snapshot in time. However, Periodically, growth trends must be examined, \u0026lt; ' cluster transfers must be looked at to see if the and population population is moving toward or away from existing Within Pulaski County, this junior high schools. problem is far greater. Seven (7) junior high schools servicing over 740 square miles mean a far greater transportation problem and a closer scrutiny of new construction to meet the needs of the moving population. The Need for Community Input: The Committee generally felt that at this planning stage. required. Intervenors community However, input was not was input requested. from As necessarily the the Joshua Districts identify problems and formulate solutions which could result changes in transportation methodology or the addition to, or construction of. in new junior high schools, community input will be aggressively sought. The philosophy of securing the community support for a school is evident in the thinking of all three (3) Districts. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A) Study of the Capacities / Analyzation: of the capacities and the The study analyzation of projections must be done independently in each of the three (3) school districts. plan is a voluntary plan. The desegregation which is a principal component The M-to-M Program, of this plan. allows the inter-district transfer of students at all grade levels and is the only method by which children from one district could go to another district and take advantage of any excess in capacity. When one studies the capacities of the school districts by incorporating existing M-to-M 7B) C) students by projecting a roll-over from the elementary to the junior high schools, you can be relatively accurate that you have incorporated the general trend of transfer districts and have, subsequently, students between trend in your capacities and projections. included that There is no method by which excess capacity in the school district can be advantageous to surrounding school districts unless a forced transfer situation was allowed to prevail. Subsequently, recommendations made in the attached annexes the are made on a district-by-district basis to solve their localized problems. Little Rock School District\nconclusions as identified in Annex The analysis and It A\" Pages Five (5) and Six (6) remain constant for the Little Rock School District. It is expected that the junior high capacity will peak in School Year '94-'95, and then begin a steady decline over the next six (6) school years. Junior High School The localized problems at Mabelvale and School, however, will persist. Southwest Junior High to Mabelvale Junior High and Adding classrooms to Southwest to replace portable classrooms, and support academic programs, will provide adequate space in Southwest Little Rock. The addition of the 7th period at Mabelvale Junior High School in School Year '93- '94, and the changes in academic programs for both these two (2) schools necessitates the additions of classrooms in the near future. Pulaski County Special School District\nanalysis on Page Four (4) of Annex The B II need northwest in Pulaski County for construction supports the quadrant of the county to in the support population growth and anticipated attendance due to the success of the Crystal Hill Elementary School. The long-range forecast of Pulaski County Special School District indicates a projected rise in student attendance from School Year '93-'94 to a high in School Year '98-'99. This, of course, will be tempered by the success of the new Clinton Elementary School. As is the case with Little Rock, Pulaski County has a localized problem in the northwest quadrant. To offset excessive trans- portation and to facilitate expanding growth in this section of Pulaski County, additions to, or a new junior high, will need to be constructed. 8D) North Little Rock School District: and conclusions on Page Four (4) The analysis indicate a relatively stable of Annex situation \"C II in North Little Rock. in School Year From an anticipated peak enrollment '93-'94, it is projected that enrollment will decrease slightly and then level off in a total difference between '93-'94 and the year 2000 of only 1.2%. As such, North Little Rock's position is that its capacity is adequate for the foreseeable future. The District's philosophies in reviewing the Little Rock School District essentially Desegregation identical. Junior High Capacity were The Plan, the M-to-M support of Program, the the recruiting efforts for private schools and interdistrict supported schools are all methodology by of the Districts. fully understood and The parallel each other capacity calculations and the need to general closely look at isolated problems within Pulaski County and the Little Rock School District with regard to capacity as a subset of an analysis of the overall capacity must be made. In addition. it was felt that capacity is a moving target. As academic programs change, as the M-to-M Program becomes Successful, and as populations move within the county, we must continuously analyze our capacities at all grade levels. This continuing analysis will focus not only on the question of whether there exists sufficient capacity for the education of our students, but also whether new construction is warranted for some other good reason. such as desegregation efforts. support of our DCE/rlh/specrep 9M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (ALL SCHOOLS) YEAR TO PCSSD FROM PCSSD TO NLR FROM NLR 87/88 76 98 88/89 145 31 69 89/90 264 68 131 81 90/91 406 85 222 37 91/92 406 255 256 118 92/93 804 296 314 120 93/94 992 488 328 101 7 5 6 M TO M TRANSFERS (W/0 MAGNET) (JUNIOR HIGH) SY TO PCSSD NLR FROM PCSSD NLR 91/92 192 53 92/93 231 69 93/94 299 86 DCE/rlh/rangeLITTLF ROCK CHOOL riSTRin JI.'HIOR HIGH SCHOOL ~APA J?: SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 6145 6062 98.6 92/93. 63 13 6166 97.7 93/94 6391 6109 95.6 54/9 5 639 1 6135 95.9 96/J6 6391 5962 93.3 96/97 639 1 5714 6 9.4 9 7/9 8 639 1 5733 89.7 98/99 6391 5758 90.2 99/00 639 1 5394 92.2 00/0 1 639 1 5881 92.0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 91/92 92/93 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 aazsa 99/00 CAPACITY ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE 2419 2262 93.5 2419 2225 91.9 24 19 2245 92.8 24 19 2155 89.0 2419 2154 89.0 2419 2182 90.0 24 1 9 2259 93.3 24 19 2221 91.8 24 19 2215 91.6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY ?CHO,OL YEAR_912.9.2 9?S3 94/95 95Za 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 CAPACITY 5044 ENROLLMENT ' 5075 PERCENTAGE 100.6 5044 4942 97.9 5044 5002 99.2 5044 5220 103.5 5044 5281 104.7 5044 5269 104.5 5044 53 12 105.3 5044 5341 105.9 5044 5220 103.5 \"LI. SPECIAL STUDY JUNIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JANUARY, 1993 (UPDATED MARCH. 1994) INTRODUCTION\nThis study was conducted in reply to Court Orders issued on 1 May 1992 and 30 December 1992. It explains how capacities for junior high schools are calculated within the Little Rock School District and how those capacities support immediate and long-term needs. This study serves to outline the following areas: A) The study serves to define capacity and explain the considerations in determining capacity, seating capacity as of school year '92 criteria established today does not change, It assessed the  '93 given the further establishes that criteria and defines it. and it II. B) It records projected enrollments to the year 2000 and their impact on the District. CAPACITY: A) Definition\nCapacity is a multi-defined term. When one considers capacity of elementary schools, where students are basically sedentary and do not move between classrooms to meet course requirements, capacity may be calculated by taking the State standard per grade, per room, and extending it by the number of rooms. This may be done for ordinary classes, i.e., kindergarten through sixth grade, and special classes such as self-contained or special education programs. been defined. in Once this capacity has reality only the addition of new classrooms, the conversion of other than classroom space into classrooms within the facility or changing class size requirements would impact or change capacity. the case of the In junior and senior high schools, the calculation of capacity is not as clear cut. Capacity can mean the maximum number of students that can be placed in every classroom space in the building. this While definition is more appropriate for elementary schools where students infrequently change classes, it does not work well in the secondary schools. An entirely different definition must be used, in the junior high is defined as a ' It Therefore, capacity snapshot\", at a given 1B) in the junior high is defined as a \"snapshot\", at a given point in time, of the number of students that can be housed at criteria. a given facility based on an established The criteria is explained below. Capacity Considerations\nmust be considered when The following nine (9) areas secondary facility. calculating capacity of a (1) Size of School\nThe size of the school refers to the overall make-up of all aspects of the facility. One must consider administrative, special use and classroom space as solely in the classroom. education is not conducted Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Number of Rooms\nnumber of general The number of rooms refers to the purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. (3) Type of Classroom\nThe type of classroom impacts the capacity due to size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. (4) Special Class Requirements\nSpecial class require- ments are consideration given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\ncapacity. even though that is the room Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class Size Limits\nClass size limits are not only established by the State of Arkansas, but by the Federal Government. classes courses with maximum Examples are remedial reading capacity of with maximum capacity of 15, 10, resource and selfcontained classrooms with maximum capacity of 8. (6) Number of Teachers\nThe number directly affects classroom utilization. of teachers Sufficient teachers must be on hand to fully utilize classes to the number of periods allowable in the day in order to achieve maximum overall capacity. 2C. (7) (8) (9) Number of Periods\nThe number of periods corresponds to the accreditation requirements and is a factor in determining the number of courses offered and the number of times those courses are offered. This affects scheduling that subsequently affects capacity as all students do not take all courses in the secondary level. Scheduling Efficiency: the ability of students' desires. desirable. the Scheduling Efficiency is school to accommodate the needs in taking the classes he or she A target of 85% scheduling efficiency is Room Usage: classroom spaces Each secondary school has a variety of one school may use a regular classroom for in-school suspension, where another may use a renovated workroom or where one school may have 25 computers in a classroom, another may have only 18. Room usage assists in determining capacity especially if a room is used for a purpose which disallows assigned. Calculation a maximum of 30 persons to be Methodology: The methodology used to calculate capacity: following is the Step One: Identify each room in the facility, by purpose, and its related capacity by either size or law. Step Two: total is referred to as Add the capacities of each room. It The sum Total Physical Capacity\". Step Three: Adjust for special classes, programs, pullout students, other rooms used for highly-individualized programs. Capacity. Subtract this total from your Total Physical Step Four: Multiply the difference by 17%, if a six- Period day, or by 14%, if a seven-period day. this number as \"Prep Time\". Identify Step Five: number Sum your total adjustments, and subtract that from the Total Physical Capacity. referred to as the \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\". This is Step Six: Calculate for scheduling efficiency. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by 85%. This constitutes your Scheduling Efficiency Capacity, or desired level of efficiency. 3D. E. step Seven: 80%. Multiply your Adjusted Physical Capacity by This 5% differential accounts for unanticipated errors in enrollment projections, area students desiring to enroll in local high schools, and M-to-M transfers. This figure becomes your Target Enrollment and Capacity. The rationale for arriving at 80% of your adjusted physical capacity allows for scheduling leeways by the school staff and the over-assignment of children against the capacity figure with the relative certainty of knowing that the school can physically handle this number of students. Analysis: The calculation of capacity is only as good as the figures you are using in determining the nine (9) criteria. Each time any criteria changes, by all rights, the capacity should be re-calculated. Since the figures are so large, and the adjustments so small, capacity calculations need only be done if there are significant changes to criteria. Additions of one or two classrooms at-maximum capacity of 60 after adjustments are made may only change the overall capacity of the school by 15. I should point out that capacity is calculated assuming all students are in place at all times. No credit nor consideration is given the absentee rate which can in effect change your capacity upward. Conclusion: At the present time, the capacity of our junior high schools is relatively stable. An increase between school year '91-'92, and school year '92-'93, is attributed Cloverdale to the completion Junior High School of and the the expansion addition of of trailers to Southwest, Pulaski Heights, and Mabeivaie Junior Highs. The change in capacity between school year '92-'93 and '93-'94 is based upon the completion of the major expansion at Forest Heights Junior High. At the present time, expansions have been planned for Mabeivaie Junior High School and Southwest Junior High School. This was done in concert with the millages passed two (2) years ago. These projects have not yet begun, and when completed, may not have a serious impact on capacity if temporary buildings at these locations replaced with permanent structures. are in fact III. PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: A. Projections: Enrollment projections are calculated estimates of future attendance based on either historical data, demographic analysis or a combination of both. It takes into consideration known or planned losses or gains to the student enrollment figures. The projections portrayed in the accompanying chart are based on current 4B. C. enrollments of the Little Rock School District elementary and junior high schools for the '93-'94 school year. I consider projections based on these enrollment figures to be accurate. An analysis of projected enrollments versus actual enrollments over a three (3) school year period indicated that by using actual enrollments as a basis for projections, the School District has maintained an error rate of .45% differential. This should be considered extremely accurate. Based on this low error rate and the general demographic trends within the Little Rock School District area, that do not indicate either large increases or decreases in enrollments, I consider this to be as accurate a projection as can be possibly achieved. To compensate for the unknown factors of M-to-M transfers at the elementary and secondary school levels and private school transfers from within the Little Rock School District, I have added an additional .5% and have used that adjusted figure through '99-2000. as my projections from '93-'94 Calculations Methodology\nIn calculating projections, I have taken each subsequent three (3)-year period of students presently enrolled in the elementary school level which would be junior high students in a given school year, and added .5%. This figure constituted the projection. Students considered incorporate all students presently enrolled in grades K through 8 in School Year '92-'93 and ungraded children in both the elementary and secondary level. Analysis: In 1991, the Little Rock School District forecasted a peak of junior high enrollment in '90-'91 that was followed by a decrease for a couple of years. and then an increase slightly in '93-'94. The projections I have made beginning with actual figures of '91-'92 through the year '99-2000 indicate that we were accurate in our summation in 1991. slight increase in enrollments from 95.6% to There is a projected 95.9% in '94-'95, and then a gradual decline over the next six (6) school years to an increase in the year '99-2000. The increase in the year '99-2000 is because that year will incorporate into the junior high level students who have been recruited for the King and Stephens Interdistrict Elementary Schools. It is extremely difficult to predict what children will enroll in those schools during the period of '94-'95 to '99-2000. So, the assumption was made that a compensation would take place prior to the school year '99-2000 to accommodate these children at the secondary level. Secondary capacity between '94-'95 and '99-'00 appear sufficient to accommodate any children transferring to the new interdistrict schools that will reach the junior high level during that period. 5D. Conclusions: Although the overall capacity of the Little Rock School District will range from a low of 89% in '96- '97 to 92% in '99-2000, certain junior high schools will be riding above their desired capacity at all times. Of utmost concern is Mabelvale Junior High School. classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High, and Adding possibly replacing some of the portable classrooms, will provide adeguate space for Mabelvale in Southwest Little Rock. Projected plans to increase Southwest Junior High by four (4) classrooms, and portable buildings. the will subsequent replacement of add to capacity\nhowever. Southwest calculations of capacity range from 93% to 104% over this seven (7)- school year period. Junior high schools through the year 2000 will be operating below capacity. curriculums, Unless there are significant changes to core through M-to-M added subjects. transfers or or increased enrollment recruitment. private school student capacities should be sufficient in those junior highs for the immediate future. However, I should point out that all of the junior high schools are in the high 9O's in as far as capacity is concerned. Even the slightest increase in the number of whatever reason. students, for and the inability of the school to accommodate the scheduling changes could cause the school to exceed the 100% capacity level very quickly. This would be compensated by the addition buildings as a temporary measure. of portable Preliminary review of 1990 census data indicates in some respect that trends which were evident in 1980 continued into the 90's. In particular, the population in central and eastern Little Rock continued decreasing whereas northwest Little Rock continued to increase. Southwest Little Rock also decreased, but at a much lower rate. The School District's program of the completion of the expansion of Cloverdale Junior High School and Forest Heights Junior High School, and the anticipated additions to Mabelvale and Southwest Junior High School are in line with the general demographic trends of the City of Little Rock. It appears at this time that, the long-range capacity needs of the District are met. DCE/rlh/capprol 6LRSD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT PROJECTIONS SCHOOL YEAR ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVELS ADJUSTED CALCULATED ENROLLMENT 91/92 6082 (1) 6062 92/93 6201 (1) 6166 93/94 6079 (1) 6109 94/95 6105 6,7,8 6135 95/96 5932 5,6,7 5962 96/97 5686 4,5,6 5714 97/98 5705 3,4,5 5733 98/99 5739 2,3,4 5768 99/00 5865 1,2,3 5894 00/01 5852 K,l,2 5881 NOTES: (1) Grade Level Calculated: This column signifies the elementary grade levels used in the enrollment calculation. (2) Adjusted Enrollment: This is the final projected enrollment. It is . 05% above the Enrollment column. (Up dated 16 Mar 1994)I. II. SPECIAL STUDY JPHIOR HIGH CAPACITIES \u0026amp; PROJECTIONS JULY, 1993 INTRODUCTION! and issued V.and December 30, 1992. it explains how cann-ii- -----1 on It explains how capacities calculated within the Pulaski support immediate and'loSgrtejr for junior high school County Special School s needs. capacities CAPACITY\nA) Definition: Capacity is a multi-defined term. When one s==ss~a~2-:gw^^ hA extending it by the number of rooms This mav Classes, i.e., kindergarten th?o^X sixth grade, and special cla^sses ' special education programs. been defined, ' - classrooms, the---- \u0026lt; into classrooms within the size requirements would in B) This may , kindergarten through such as self-contained - . - Once this capacity has reality only the addition cZ other than classroom cpccc _ facility or changing class impact or change the capacity. of new space In thp enco rt-F iu vt cnange rne capa calculation of high schools capacity is not as clearly def .*a*a the clearly defined. While this definition i can space in the building entirelv di fschools, therefore entirely different definition in  i-K'  --.-.e-j-Kui must be used, in a the junior high is defined as criteria. it Capacity an :Sv .asr^-  The crTti^^'^ facility based on established^\" The criteria are explained below. Capacity Considerations\nho ^-^PS^q^rationn\nThe following nine (9) Srtondarv cap\":citV secondary facility. areas of a (1) ^ize 'of School! The size of the school refers I as^pe^cts o?the Scn!ty Since instruction is not conducted coioi-., classroom, ---- is not conducted solely in the one must consider administrative, special t-2- use, and classroom space when determining capacity Administrative space such as Media Centers and counselors' areas can be used for instructional purposes. (2) Nmnoer of Rooms\nThe number of rooms refers to the number of general purpose and special purpose classrooms constructed or renovated in the facility for the intended purpose of teaching an academic subject. purpose (3) Type of Classroom\nthe capacity due to The type of classroom impacts - - size or uniqueness of subject. State standards allow academic classrooms to seat up to 30 individuals. However, a special purpose classroom, such as Home Economics or Band, may only seat 25 or up to 150 depending on the function. ' (4) gpggiQl Class Requirements\nrequirements __________ With special class requirements, consideration is given the subject, which may mandate that the class be taught to a group smaller than 30\neven though that is the room capacity. Examples of this type subject may be courses requiring much vocal student input \u0026gt;such as debate or journalism or highly technical classes such as AP courses. (5) Class SizeLimi\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":"csu_afro_328","title":"Burten, Lonnie L.: 1982","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":["Noble, Bernie"],"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["Member, Cleveland City Council (Ward 12).","Government -- African Americans -- Councilmen -- Cleveland City Council"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Burten, Lonnie L.: 1982"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/328"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["7 x 10 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Burten, Lonnie L., Jr., 1944-1984"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_326","title":"Burten, Lonnie L., Jr.: 1982","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":["Ho, Daniel"],"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["Member, Cleveland City Council (Ward 12).","Government -- African Americans -- Councilmen -- Cleveland City Council"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Burten, Lonnie L., Jr.: 1982"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/326"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["12 x 8 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Burten, Lonnie L., Jr., 1944-1984"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_49999","title":"Coalition of Labor Union Women: Officers Council, 1982-1983 (1 of 2)","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982/1983"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Departmental and Administrative Files, 1952-1984\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Women labor union members","Labor"],"dcterms_title":["Coalition of Labor Union Women: Officers Council, 1982-1983 (1 of 2)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/49999"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_50000","title":"Coalition of Labor Union Women: Officers Council, 1982-1983 (2 of 2)","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982/1983"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Departmental and Administrative Files, 1952-1984\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Women labor union members","Labor"],"dcterms_title":["Coalition of Labor Union Women: Officers Council, 1982-1983 (2 of 2)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50000"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69254229","title":"Confronting racial isolation in Miami : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Miami-Dade County, Miami, 25.77427, -80.19366"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Race discrimination--Florida--Miami","Minorities--Florida--Miami--Social status","Miami (Fla.)--Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Confronting racial isolation in Miami : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12r112z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69254229"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["viii, 353 p. ; 26 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_503","title":"Cooks, Charlyn: 1982","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["Supervisor of Sales, Channel 3, WKYC-TV. Manager of Budgets, Channel 3, WKYC-TV.","Journalism -- Business -- African Americans -- Managers -- WKYC (Channel 3) -- Sales personnel -- Television industry"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Cooks, Charlyn: 1982"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/503"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["8 x 10 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Cooks, Charlyn"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"csu_afro_606","title":"Crosby, Fred M.: 1982","collection_id":"csu_afro","collection_title":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","dcterms_contributor":["Cole, Joseph E."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, 41.4995, -81.69541"],"dcterms_creator":["Noble, Bernie"],"dc_date":["1982"],"dcterms_description":["President, Crosby Furniture Member, Board of Trustees, Greater Cleveland Growth Association Member, Board of Trustees, Forest City Hospital Member, Board of Trustees, Urban League of Greater Cleveland Secretary, Goodwill Industries.","Business -- Community -- African Americans -- Business people -- Greater Cleveland Growth Assn. -- Forest City Hospital -- Urban League of Greater Cleveland -- Goodwill Industries -- Crosby Furniture"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Press, September 5, 1973.","Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","Cleveland State University. Michael Schwartz Library. Special Collections.","Cleveland Press"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans","Political activists","Civil rights","Cleveland (Ohio)"],"dcterms_title":["Crosby, Fred M.: 1982"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Michael Schwartz Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://clevelandmemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/afro/id/606"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1990"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["http://www.clevelandmemory.org/copyright/"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["7.25 x 10 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Crosby, Fred M."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":1064,"next_page":1065,"prev_page":1063,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":12756,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}