{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47995","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks sitting in a rocking chair next to children at the Verity Records tribute, Los Angeles, Calif.","Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47995"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48000","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":["Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956--Anniversaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48000"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47990","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Elaine Steele (left), Rosa Parks, Gregory Reed, and an unidentified woman.","Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47990"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Steele, Elaine Eason"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47991","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks and Mark Kerrin with children and event staff.","Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47991"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47999","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries"],"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47999"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47989","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks seated at piano, Mark Kerrin, Elaine Steele, Verladia Reed and others.","Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47989"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Steele, Elaine Eason"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47993","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks speaking at the podium during Verity Records event. Gregory Reed and others are seen standing beside Parks.","Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47993"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47997","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries"],"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47997"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47998","title":"[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, California, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 34.05223, -118.24368"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries"],"dcterms_title":["[Event celebrating Verity Records album commemorating Rosa Parks and the 40th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, Los Angeles, California, 1995] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47998"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_430","title":"Exit Report (student)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Exit Report (student)"],"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/430"],"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\n(^rr-e.ci-e J 10/19/1995 14:24 5013242231 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 /08/93 11:31:46 PAGE 1  Entry * Withdrawal Coda Entry/Withdrawal Description E AR CS DZ DO HS IE LR NO NP PO RE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS CHANGE TO ENTRY RECORD FROM DETENTION FACILITY IN ARKANSAS FROM DETENTION FACILITY OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM HOME SCHOOL INITIAL ENROLLMENT THIS YEAR FROM ANOTHER LRSD SCHOOL FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS RE-ENROLL APTER EXIT SAME SCHOOL W AO ex DC DF ED EM EP EX EY FL GR ID LT ML MM MO MR NA NE NZ OT PC PG PS SC SI TI UN VD XH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST CHANGE TO EXIT RECORD DECEASED assigned to a detention FACILITY EXEMPTED BY THE DISTRICT WITHDREW/EMPLOYMENT WZTHDREW/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS EXPELLED BY THE DISTRICT END OF YEAR WITHDREW/FAILING GRADES STUDENT GRADUATED DUPLICATE ID LONG TERM SUSPENSION WITHDREW/ENLISTED IN MILITARY M TO M TRANSFER moved TO ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHDREW/MARRIAGE WITHDREW DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE ON RECORD BUT NOT ENROLLED WITHDREW/LACK OF INTEREST OFFICIAL TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT PEER CONFLICT WITHDREW/PREGNANCY ENROLLED IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLED/POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHDREW/SERIOUS PERSONAL ILLNESS TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT/MOVED WITHDREW/UNIDENTIFIABLE REASON WITHDREW VOLUNTARILY/DISCIPLINE EXIT TO HOME SCHOOL Ji END O F REPORT10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 CORRECTED COPY Little Rock School District Exit Totals 1994-95 August 22, 1994-June 30, 1995 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS central jA fair'.............. hall MCCLELLAN PARKVIEW subtotal  JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MA8ELVALE\"2 \"\" MANN magnet\"' PULASKI HEIGHTS SOLITHWeST ~ SUBTOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BADGETT BALE RELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRACY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT ____________ CLOVERDALE____________ DODO____________________ FAJR PARK FOREST PARK I aiL, i Ji T J\n' 21 1 1 ! 2. r FRANKLIN FVLflRIQHT GARLAND GEYgR SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET jEFFSRSQN mabelvale MCOERMOTT meaooacliff MITCHeiX OTTER CRSgK PVIASKIH6IGWT5 RpHTSELt \" RQCKEFELLCT ROM! Ng STEPHENS  TERRY_________ ^*M(EFfELD WASHINGTON WATSON i^STERN HILLS ^iams'magnet i^ON WOORUFP SUB total .. ,......... TT 2! 1\n+ I 4- J- T I t I ^1- 10\nMU MM MO MR I NA NE Nl OT PC PG! PS 3C sr Tl I UN VP XHI TOT~| ..I JJZ___i 11 t29l 2 I 6l ... J..-. 7: 13\n2i 1: 1 '3' li 1 8 7 T I 73 66 I 3! 43\u0026lt; 7t| 37 TT^ 2** I SI If  st a isi I 4- I 1 I I t X + i X X T I i X 4___L 11 I 1  I i T X I t\" mi T 4I 11 I ORA ND TOTAL I 27 16 26i I' /WM ?___ t _1 I I 06 : ! 106' 24 i f f I ' I 'v.....f~- ?\n j-'T' I I I 106 1- 17 1 2 I 2i 379 54* Lil.. 1 103! 4 I 2 408' 88 I -n 1 J- 70 J 17\n\"si\" 17' I 9i 33' ? 8' 32 84. 18 dOl I I 1: 356 21'2  j I 276 l! 47 2 1188 , 1 ii e\nT X ad 74 sa 74' 1i 1 108\n3i 1,\n11 I __[ 5i iTTj' T . 20 3l T + 11 2 4* i X I i I I ! I T I L I t T t -X 11 I J 1 4. I X ! X T II I i II X 1 I X X I t X I I J. 1! 1 if 71 4' 81 41 I I T T t X 1* M 1 m-4 -U. z I 2l 2 2I I t X T I 144 SO 64 57 69 610 23 32 21 n\" 61 28 78 57 38 TT 25 20 30 23 44 50 43\n79 79: 10! 2^ 54 12 1$: 69! 60' 46 i -?5L 15\" 32f' IS** 1' 1240 1\n2229 I I X i + X 1 2 4 li I 1i 26. 2j It I I .21 J 1l 6 T + I I I \"if -'21- - f-. n 11 64* 901 94\" 55 961' $48 5 18* 35! 35i 2: 23i s: 31 i3i 7\n11! 591 13! 22, T Jasti 4\n___ *9i 11! Tl 4 . - -14 I T t 1 I X X T I X 'U 4i 7l I i2 , 24I 8j nl 32( T 36! 23f 17t 56$. t I\n1101 1521 58 4-Ji-, 'i I 34\n1! 1| I 1 T 4 T 1) i I ^f II .ji II i I- 11  199 140 n} p- ! It 210 11 42\n\"47 11 ( 119 139 176 I 133\n7\n1' 4l 11 7| 1360 St I 61 1 T I ' HI\nI ' I Ilf 4j TT JX T 11 sT 1! T nr I i! I 4f 11 10! L-Ll 1 I 1, X I I I 11 T + if 121 it 1J 6' 12 T~ I 3 2j 3? 1QI 3 2 1 '1 1 i 1201 2: t 21 1 I i 1| I I I 1 I rrr I 1 1 T H I 1\nilWl'iili' fl! 26$i 611 2! 21 I n li 1 f 1 T 1 TT 3 38 ~~46 38 ts 1?1 34 110 71  68 31 39 34 116 22 _5e 2S 72 103 ~i7 103 18 37 69 9 27 44 J. I I 1 88 81 72 60 56 41 I ! I 38 221 12i 2032 !___' 1181 1! 2l 4580 Rrp4r6 by AMLw10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01 OfRCE of SwdENT AssiqNMENT SO! Sh^XMAN UnU Rock, AR 72202 Tlpltox SO I-724-2272 Fax SO I-724-2231 FAX COVER SHEET DATE TO -0 C) fyy Fax NiMbat, 3\u0026gt;'7l'-C) / 0 o FROM. SPECIAL INSJRUCTIONS // NUMBER OF PACES, INCLUDING COVER Arkansas Democrat W(5azcttc  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1995 Extra 689 pupils straggle in at LR schools BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazetto Education Writer The Little Rock School District period last year, the district pulled 689 students out of a hat in gained 309 students. the last month, raising enrollment figures that initially showed dramatic losses. On Sept 1, the district recorded 24,233 pupils. On Oct. 2, the count was 24,922. Officials shrug, unable to explain the surge. The only thing I can think of is the districts official total that is, we feel that some parents dont will be filed with the state for persend their kids back to school un- manent records and for comput- til afl\ner Labor Day, said Snellen ing state education funds the dis- Vann, district spokesman. Were always up by the October count But not that much. In the same And some confusion remains over whether this years 24,233 September head count was taken before or after Labor Day. The forms used in the count are dated Sept. 5, the day after Labor Day. The October enrollment figure trict will receive. Compared with last years October enrollment, the district is down 309 students. Little Rock will not lose state funding this year because of the loss of students, but the numbers will count for next years state funding. In the coming budget process, the school district can expect to lose about $3,800 for every lost pupil  a total of nearly $1.2 million. But state officials have pointed out that the district is still among the richest in the state. It actually grows richer with the loss of students because the citys education tax levy remains the same regardless of enrollment figures, officials say. Schools that appear to have the largest enrollment declines since last October are Hall High School, which lost 103 students, or 10 percent of its population\nand Henderson Junior High, which lost 125, or nearly 14 percent. Both schools had a startling growth in violent incidents in 1993 and 1994. Little Rock continued its long- See SCHOOLS, Page 10A Schools  Continued from Page 1A time racial trend this year, growing steadily blacker. Last year, 64.9 percent of the districts students were black, compared with 66.5 percent now. The October figures showed 381 fewer white students and 112 fewer other students than a year ago. The number of black pupils rose by 184. Schools that had significant increases in the percentage of black population include McClellan Community High School, up by 43 to 80.4 percent black\nCloverdale Junior High, up by 6 to 86.5\nand Henderson, which lost 38 black students and 77 white students to increase to 78.6 percent black. Among elementary schools, Chicot Cloverdale, Fair Park, Fulbright, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, Wilson and Woodruff all increased their black populations more than 5 percent A report on students who left the district during the last school year shows that 2,^ moved to other districts, while 285 withdrew to private schools. The district had another 1,494 pupils on record but not enrolled A total of 4,580 students left for a variety of reasons during the course of the year, according to the report Little Rock Sehool EnroIJment J 64.9% 32.5% ^vhite Uack 1994 Total studoatK 25,231 if 2.6% other Figures taHen Oct 3,1394 31.3% white 66.5% black ^2^% other 1995 Total atudenti: 24,922 Figures taken Oo. 2,1995 Difference fran last yes' 200 o-J -200 Black +184 Down 309 students overall from 1994 White -aai other -112 -400 NOTE: ThosnamttloflnaKIgiirottbn school dbtilet sahmlts to the slots for ponnanent records and funding puposet. SOURCE LRSD Arkansas OemocratXiazette/UZ ROBERTSI Leave a system with so much? They wouldnt BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazette Stall Wrttefs One Saturday in the middle of her sixth-grade year, Melissa Rudder marched up to the principal at a Pulaski Heights Elementary School open house and asked to observe a class. She never went back to her private school. Penny and Patt Rudder moved their family into the Hillcrest neighborhood from a Houston See LRSD. Pane 8A I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright 6 UWe Rodt Newspapers, Inc. I LRSD  Continued from Page 1A suburb the week before school started eight years ago. They didnt know a soul here. high school. It took her three weeks to catch up academically, Penny Rudder said. The deciding factor was academics a few years later when Christian chose a high school. riculum at private school. Melissa, now 17, is a senior at Central considering a myriad of i districts 12-year-old school de- it is those schools that have lost mentary, where her daughter is buc uiuoL as in sixth grade, and at Pulaski Little Rocks enrollment contin- Heights Junior High, where her son is an eighth-grader. At my first parent conference last year, sitting before us the most students this year as So many segregation case. times the administrations hands are tied by a court order. She said teachers and parents worked hard to try to close the disparity between black and white pupils' standardized test scores at Forest Park Elementary. While scores for white students in the Little Rock district are among the highest in the state and stack up well nt^- ues to decline. Parents still speak of positive college choices. Many families like the Rudders are growing more passionately vocal in support of the Little Rock School District in the experiences at Hall High, J.A. ence Fair High and Parkview Magnet in semicircle were my son s six High, and at Mann Magnet Ju-  This nior High and Dunbar Junior teachers, East related. The Rudders worried about re- ------------------ ports of violence, and several of face of dropping enrollments  Christians classmates decided especially a dramatic loss of Hi^. donl**put\\our*dmi2it*er' hi toe to attend Catholic High. white children in the last three public schools, PennyRudder recalled. They took toe advice, fearing the public schools from ^Christian wL fine at I^laski would have had to give up Span- thT'^laskTHeightso?Hiiicrest students, teachers and parents. neighborhoods, like the Rud- ^e?pS= eo^=a\n^^\noi\ntoe'-has\".... m ever made  chose Central. Christian, now 20, increased. nnaiitv Thpv sav Heishts and she acknowledged trate on those who need it mosL ever mane. ic a snnhnmnre at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. 1 hey say tieignts, ana sne .. .Ea. nmhahiv lafcas Melissa encoimtered intoler- is a sophomore at Harvard uni frustration their children are far safer in that some may not be as safe. ant students and teachers who versi^. schools speax itn Little Rock schools than they are I know some things have failed to supervise at the school, The reason he was so well about a^^lack of omte at shoS  been handled very poorly by the SLi sx'\nisssx\"i's SiSUgjsa .k.'sskt\ns's,'?es.'^.'5n PTA i boUl Forest Part El. os.-E. sold, ret.^W to Ot. The few people we were able to meet said, Your son will be Une at Pulaski Heights, but is really strange, I thought at first. But we sat there and lis- We did check out private years. schools, and we found them to While many of L^e Rocks be academically much inferior elementary schools have active options, Rudder said. He parent ^oups would have had to give up Span-  neiKiiis duuiui ish and a year of math. was miserable. The Rudders call After companng course offer- But the most aggressive tened to a forum on our child, cheerleaders for the secondary what they each thought his schools have children at Pulaski strengths and weaknesses were. .......... Heights Junior High and Central It really bolsters the child as an pmeiii and abundant High School. They tend to be af- community support, the junior fluent white couples who five in U really ooioie.o me emm aa tioually, black studeuts gener- individual and as a student and ally score much lower than boosts communication among whites. ,-----1 \" We were just really concen- ! trating on those kids, East said. r Thats one of the reasons white is a sophomore at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. They say schools speak with frustration their children are far safer in   - - --=- Little Rock schools than they are UUiei JUIllUi uisbb ovuwio --------- - -- , , in their not have the same atmosphere people dont go to the schools, found at Pulaski because teachers really concen- I cant deny that probably takes away a little bit from my child, who could read when she got in there. Like others, the Rudders said See KIDS, Page 9AArkansas Democrat (gazette Kids We want to be a  Continued from Page 8A pOSitive VOiCO for the they feel confident the district can schools in the turn around its problems one U/a a/cn school at a time. Parents mention COmmumty. rVe aiSO two programs. Vdunteeis m Public SChoolS Schools and Partners in Education, community. We also that help. The volunteers program encourages parental participation in the schools. Schools with few active parents to the mark and help them put together ways to evmuate and report how they are doing. Its should get more financial support J _ from the district and more active business partners, Penny Rudder \\ said. The Partners in Education pro- set them. We want pMieinOCCOC with fHp t SKSpSSarmSK themtobesuccessfuL rtal-world learning experiences and mentors for children and the school has sought to suspend or expel fewer students, he said. There has been one incident involving a weapon. School officials took an ice pick from a violent student during the first period on the first day of school j Washington believes his school is safe although he acknowledges that there have been problems on buses and at bus stops this year. While Washington, parents and many other school district leaders ' and cheerleaders frequently blame the media for Little Rocks image problems, the Rudders have another idea. What all the schools need, they saii is more support from Little Rocks political and business leaders, o The city business leadership is Scott Christie behind the schools, Patt Rud- ff M\u0026amp;rtha and Scott Christie, a west ^7, , L-rttteRock couplMecengr^ to 'ai^anize another association called Parents In Public Schools. der said. I think maybe they\\e giv- I think we will go from 30 people to 100, and from 100 to several thousand, said Scott Christie, a father of four and a global sales sup- SSIS'/SSKtoS wtu.(-\"-I. ____________ I en up on the school system. Its very she predicts that parents of some of difficult to get community leaders to her sons friends will opt for private step up and say Yeah, TU serve on . schools next year.________________the school board. We have to help S Lite other families, the Christies them realize its worth their while. say they will visit all the junior The way they will do that, they i highs to select one for their son and said, is to keep talking to people  then will involve themselves at the until were blue in the face.  in Jackson, Miss., and chapters across the country use Jackins One person who plans to work hard to recruit families like the charter and bylaws as models. J^es Washh^n, p^ There are three things this or- cipal of Henderson JimiOT High, the ........ school that got the worst rap last year. Washington looks back on last year and shudders. You dont have lor me scnouis m me eeumiumu,. to tell him that was not a We also want to hold the schools to goo^ear for his schwl. the mark and heln them put togeth-  Every day when I get to work, I ganization wants to accomplish, Christie said. We want to be a positive voice for the schools in the community. the mark and help them put togeth- to evaluate and report how think about what I was doing a year ago, he said. And what was he doing? Probably busting up a fi^t Even his mother in Hot Springs er ways they are doing. Its not that we are out to get them, he said in an aside. We want them to be suc- cessftil. worried about his safety. A 10-year district veteran, Wash- T7ie third thing we would like distnet veteran^. w^- to'de is understand the federal ington started work Sept 21,1994, at courts involvement in our school Henderson, replacii^ a principal who was transferred because of her syStem and see if there is not a way to get more local participation in decision-making in our schools. highly publicized disputes with the staff. Parents reacted to the problems Early participants in the group ------------ . have mostly been white parents with by send^ their children els\" children in schools on the citys west where this year. The enrolment of side. The group wants to expand its 917 at Henderson, the distnci s membership to include more black largest junior high l^t ye^, participants and representatives of dropped by 125, mostly white schools all over the city. pupils.   This year, 17 new staff members, leave me _______-__,___ including two new assistant princi- Martha Christie, who has a masters pals, have injected new energy, md degree in education firom Columbia there is more collegiality, Washing- University in New York City. I ton said. have a child going to junior high L We do understand why people the Little Rock district, said Last year's distractions are gone,I Arkansas Democrat ^(OazcUc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright O Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. k DRAIN ON THE DISTRICT Urban fears pose problem for Little Rock schools Many parents found they couldnt love LRSD and so were happy to leave it BY CYNTHIA HOWELL, CHRIS REINOLDS AND SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Last June, the White family sold their west Little Rock house nt n los.s, packed their beloiieings and left town. I he faniily moved to Cabot, a bedroom community of about 8,3(X) people northeast of Jacksonville. Now they have five acre.s of land and a two-stoiy house with an American flag in (lie front yard. a There's no shopping mall, and they have a half-hour commute to Little Kock. But (he White.s they did the right thing. The schools were the No. 1 say reason we moved, L......... .. _ i said. \"We wanted a better. rpasor ^hite safer environment for (he kids. Scores of families, particularly whites, have fied the majorityblack Little Rock School District for suburban or private schooLs fru.strating the districts desegregation efforts, ramifies who moved out say they found better teaching, discipline, buildings and supplies in other districts. T he,v also found lower taxes and less crime (han in Little Rock. The Whites never viewed private schools a.s a good alternative. \"Were adamant about using the public schools, not just fieeing to Pulaski Academy or a parochial school, Jim White said. So, when White to a x-w. i OU, wneil vvniie became fed nn ThaVUka n. . Arkansas Democrat-GazeltaDAVID GOTTSCHALK \u0026lt;'*s\u0026lt;^ipHne problems - mwed I?\"!- Brandon (left), 11, and Colin, 6 r f Seer,tv,P.gA I Arkansas Democrat ?9\u0026gt;(Bazettr. Family put its house up for sale and got out of Dodge  Continued from Pans 1A _______ __________________ Page in Little Rocks public schools, he took his family to Cabot Brandon White, 11, was enrolled in Terry Elementary in west Little Rock after the family moved to Arkansas from California. Brandon and his younger brother, Colin, a kindergartner at the time, transferred to Fulbright Elementary the next year. At Fulbright. Brandon was moved nearly every day to sit next to a child who was misbehaving. Jim White said. The boy was used as a role model for a bad student But the concept backfired, and Brandon went home with a bad attitude and foul language. My kids are not there to be teaching other kids how to behave themselves, White said. In Cabot they expel kids. They dont sacrifice the majority for the rights of the minority. And, regardless of integration efforts. White felt a cultural gap remained between poor black inner-city children and west Little Rock middle-class white children. Brandons fourth-grade teacher at Fulbright didnt speak proper En^ish, White said The teacher didnt seem to check homework or show concern that homework was completed, and she could not control the students, he said White and other families criticized the Little Rock disWct and measuring THE DROP IN SEARCH OF SAFETY --------- ... many otn- * lu mierviews that would have paid had they reason not to go back to LitUe ers have taken the same ao- diey bailed out of the LitUe Ropk P'odjor private schools - an op- Rock.\" said Blck Lafferty, M Droach Tha diehenF . w. onihA/xic p tioD, uicy considered. In the last six years, many oth- 5 havA Pole.*.. 4.U_ . Parents said in interviews that same ap- ***'-'* UA uuB ijime nocs Si n ' has reported s'I\u0026gt;ols m the last few years rnain- eyollment losses each of those better and safer facill- yean, exc^tforagainof552stu- to , Paula Launius, for example, \"w.  lost 618 Stu- yed 15 months ago from the .U A.SP.PP'^ on student exits for school year shows that 4^ students left the LitUe Rock schools during the year 18 ner- cent of the enrollment Wlule Uie report does break dom the staUsUcs by race, ft does offer figures to 28 cate- h? po'ftding those assigned io detenUon faciliUes (28 pupils) and dropouts (68). for spending tOT much energy and 49 perreto^or 22M toto desegrogauon and n't heir eh.J.-.. VBO J ':~ luiioiosiu- AU luuuuis aeo trom thp wtoto neighborhood in South- districts west Little Rock to Cabot with her Mike, and their two ele-  steady 64 per- mentary school-age sons, Rick, 12. cem black to percent black. and Timmie, 6. They now lire to ...^^^i'n?'*t\"etis66per- walking distance of both Soth- St and Cabo?ju- ment fell by 309 students, and nior High schools. ofwh'itTwJL^^SlToSi^^^ abo\\f.r''^ a'' gam in black students to the W ^O-to six years, the schools tost 1S \"\"\"\"te' 'a. .... students, or 4 percent of enrollment But the loss of white pupils numbers 1218, or 4.7 percent Distoct officials say they cant reasons families iMve. But they are starting to track some trends, in keeping mto a promise they made IM ^y live in not Superintendent Henry Williams \"Dr. Williams is a politician ... a., sninon,. and is trying to get tilings accom- whether they moved pushed, White said. \"But theyre the schroK tor just strangling the teachers with a new job to MothTS'**  no money, no supplies. , Another i tle^R \"t ftioted but?ever shoUfui'fo? tie Rock  a young, energetic  P black woman  was excellent, class. Officials dont know why the Whites said. But she became About 6 percent, or 285 frustrated with district adminis- students, said they had switched trators and the school principal private schools. and took a job in the private sec- ask students tor e next year. The physical condition of the school also was deplorable, White said. So we decided to put our house up for sale and get the hell out of Dodge, White said. Out here, its hometown USA. school. Their son is in second grade\ntheir daughter is 4. It was a wonderftil school, Lieblong said, but it was not your standard school in Little Rock. agent with Liber^ Real Estate in Bryant He sard his company sells to many families who leave Little Rock for various reasons, includ- They dont even want to go Rick had to work a little harder at his new school, his mother said. But the family found the school more orderly, a result of more restrictions and more incentives for good behavior. And. unlike Little Rock, Cabot allows corporal punishment in schools, giving teachers an additional tool for maintaining order, she said. Parent involvement also is high in Cabot, which Launius said was different from what she saw ... ------ - The problems in the Little back to shop there, Lafferty said. Rock district stem from societal Theyre just sick of it They want problems, Lieblong said. Working a little bit of old Americana. parents, single parents and ne- In the early 1970s, the first few giectftil parents pour undisci- years of forced busing in Little plined children into Little Rock Rock, many families moved out of schools, he said. Pulaski County, but several ---------- --------- Tlie/re fighting a losing bat- Saline County school officials tie. I just think its broken, and said white flight had slowed in re- they dont know how to fix it I cent years.----------------------------------dont think they can fix it I dont 40-mtoute?ommut7,'\nhl^rf''hl'' me ao \"Bryant is not growing like Con- think they can make parents husband way and Cabot,\" said Danny care,\" he said. LitUe Rock and  wealth of volunteers leaves them Spadoni, principal of Bryant High Lieblong said he wanted to We wmiSd toT r '\"tribute. School. Eight or nine years ago, we support the Little Rock school areata bSe? *5 Rick, now a seventh-grader, had a lot coming from the metro- but his children come first Launius, a nurse. I wSi we had Sd'? htoT nnd wtoto Pit\"\" \"t\"-tt\"!so much now.\"  .7, ,,3^ people tell me that if I moved here five years ago. We love there^^e atentoges CHIUHIEN COME FIRST left I wouldnt be helpi^ the situ- It ................* -T,_____J r i.Li____ation, he said. But its the an- Launius, 39. has no regrets in Little Rock. If parents dont ifa Fka on . . sign up early in the year to do tasks at the Cabot schools, the Launius had nothing but praise for Little Rocks Mabelvale Elementary and its teachers. Thats where her son Rick attended kindergarten through fifth grade  except for second grade when he went to Washington Mae- net Elementary. But the fear of junior high, particularly of youth gangs and the need for metal detectors to scan chitoen for weapons, scared the family into leaving the ci^. Launius, a LitUe Rock native called the meUl detectors \"a wake-up call to her at a time when Rick and his friends were talking more and more about* gangs. Rick came home one day almost in tears asking, How am I going to make it with the gangs?  his mother said. scan We honestly did not move here to get away from blacks. It was for a safer community and better schools, Launius said. She described her new home as a relaxing, small, country town populated with friendly people_a town where she can send her children off to school with a minimum of worry. The familys new red-brick house has about 300 more square ^t of space and cost about 530,000 more than their Little Rock home. The monthly house payment increased by about $100  much less than the tuition the There is a lot less cussing at ...... Tom and Mary Lieblong chose this school, he said. You dont Cabot when they decided to leave have to be scared about violence. Little Rock. The property values If I went to junior high at Mabel- in Benton and Conway had skyvale. right now I would feel so rocketed because of population worried every day at school I growth. would try not to mess with some people. I just wouldnt have anything to do with some people. Tom Lieblong said the family decided to move to Cabot while land prices were still affordable. Other nearby districts have When he first moved to Cabot, seen an influx of Little Rock fam- Lieblong made a 50-minute com- Ilies over time, but ofilcials in mute to an insurance sales job in Benton and Bryant said few, if Little Rock He is now trying to any, families moved there recent- establish a client base in Cabot ly from Little Rock because of the - - -.................. The Lieblongs moved after schools. In fact Bryant and Ben- their son completed kindergarten ton enrollments declined this fall. at Little Rocks Jefferson Elemen- School principals, real estate tary in 1994. The family sold their agents and parents said they Kingwood home near Cantrell knew couples who moved before Road and Mississippi Street for a they had children or when their new country house and what they children were Infants, fearing the believed would be a better educa- schools before their children en- tion system in Cabot tered them. Others came from Like the Launius family, the other parts of Arkansas or out of Lieblongs didnt have any probstate and chose to avoid Little lems with their child's elemen- Rock altogether. tary school but worried about the We get a lot of people who, future  junior and senior high once they move out here, look for   swer for me. DISAPPOINTZD IN MSCIPUNE Little Rock lawyer John Moore moved his family out of west Little Rock a little more than a year ago, not because of the schools, but for a new house in west Puias- k County. After the move. Moore's oldest son continued to attend Little Rocks Henderson Junior High Schoolfor a while. He started this year at Arkansas Baptist School I dont want to slam the district, said Moore, who was president of the Little Rock School Board in 1992-93. But, the main reason we left was because, while I heard the administration talk about a strict discipline policy, I never saw it get down to the school. My son was tired of being in classes where teachers spent most of the time trying to maintain discipline. Im almost embarrassed to say I dont have any kids in the district, even though I dont live there anymore, Moore added. . But my boy actually made the re-  quest to change.\nHenderson lost 125 students, 14 percent, this year and more than any other school in the district The exodus followed a troubled year that included a controversial midyear change of principals and a steep increase in violent incidents. Moore said he believes Principal James Washington is working hard to improve student behavior, and he feels Henderson is a safe school. Moores niece continues to attend Henderson.-I I- - 'J Arkansas Democfat-GazettaSTcPHEN 9. THORNTON But Moore also believes teach-', ers and the principal didnt have the authority they needed last\" year to deal with the troublemak-I ers. There were students at Henderson who shouldnt have been, in a regular public school, said! Moore, who was a frequent visitor to the school and its classrooms. Moore said Washington would! beg district administrators to get. those students out of his hiiilrling, Some were removed for awhile.. but returned at the beginning\nof? the new semester to cause more problems. tziiMfr, Dale Gunter, an engineer wjth  the citys public works depMt , ment said he moved his 14-yeary old son, John, from Hendersonrto-. Robinson Junior High in the Pu-'\nu.ski County Special School Dis- People would just hit me, jump me, simply because youre white, happened all the time. The education theyre trying to sve you is good, but the fear tand of distracts you. I was so unhappy there, I didn't care about my grades anymore. Im 6-l,:.-\n'I60 pounds, and I was terrified. I doirt partcularly like to fight i\n,... At Robinson, the princip^ doesnt give you any slack no matter what color you are. The teachers have the guts to stand up to students. .At Henderson, the teachers are scared of being shot up. II UI'.' Gunter is frustrated because he wants to support the Little Rock schools. His stepdaughter is now in seventh grade at Dunbar and has had no problems so far, he said. tne: to escape the climate of fear a -. J u.  to try to stick with public scho'o'ls Both his son and stepdaughter, j-.i-   . One of the reasons we chose attended Fulbright Elementary. They had nothing but positive'^ experiences, Gunter said. When it was time to choose a' junior high, the family investigated six different schools, including, private and parochial schools.' The promise of a specialty in health sciences attracted them to. Henderson because it fit Johns.' career interest in physical thera-, py. I felt his educational opportu-. nities would be better at Header^, is that, as a public official. I feel a community is no better than its school system. Gunter said. My personal feeling was that I had an obligation to the city to try to set an example. We really tried. And there are good schools. But they have to get a grip on discipline and security. My sou will stay at Joe T. Robin- son for high school. He's theyve lost one I tri lEU-, O. I nWOII I ------- ------------ ----. --------------.  Tea^ Beisr Henderson (rigM) tells Henderson Junior High Principal James being expelled. The school lost 125 students this year after a sharp increase last private schooisi Washington of the improved attitude of a student who had returned to class after year in violence and discipline problems The first year at Henderson Moore said his advice to the school district is unchanged since the days when he was on. the board: Follow the student TUte S'- 3^\n2yjqw BUCK -153 book to the letter, and. when students continue to misbehave,4st was satisfactory, Gunter said..Buti them out of the school. Give the the school fell apart last .yasat- teachers the auonty to act to get and, though Washington stabifp those students out lized it the damage was already, Moore isnt as involved in his done. he said. sons new school as he was with the There was a distinct, dual set ...... ~ little Rock schools. But his son gOE wffiM xjom OIHER .251 of rules for discipline for white,, likes Arkansas Baptist, is doing well versus black students, he said. ., academically and participates in John said it made him mad tO\nextracurricular activities. I * kzn see blacks with drugs get ex-n We go to the football games, peiled, then return to school thert Moore said. My boy plays footnext week, while a white student^ ball. Its the way school used to go SOURCE. jOeAccx Senoo Qstci Afkartsas Oemocral-Gazene/UZ ROBBTTS caught in horseplay would get suspended for two or three wee!is,i He said black students could even,\nwear things whites couldn't be.\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_466","title":"Facilities Implementation Planning Committee","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities Implementation Planning Committee"],"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/466"],"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\nLittle Rock School District r*\" November 8, 1995 NOV 15 1995 Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Office of Oea\nDear Ms, Brown: 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has reqpiested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., November 9, 1995, in the office of Student Assignments. I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will be forwarded to you. Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours, Djpugllps C. Eaton DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invite 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District J k- f NOV I 51995 Office of Desegregdiion vudy November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ms. Guildin: The second meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. At this meeting we will be continuing our general discussion of the Facility Study and will be trying to define the scope and purpose of the committee and the general plan areas, most respectfully requested. Your attendance is A sincerely yours, D^glas'C. Eaton DI^CTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES: IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their first meeting on November 9, 1995. attached hereto. In attendance were the individuals as listed The meeting began with a general discussion of what the charge was of the committee. We considered and discussed the following areas: Committee Membership - Recommendations were solicited for additional committee members that may be able to serve and provide guidance and research in developing an Implementation Plan. 2. We discussed the draft, scope and purpose of the Committee and decided that this would be an item to be reviewed and finalized at our second meeting. There was a brief overview by Mr. Eaton of the Facility Study which prompted many questions and discussion. We discussed the Implementation Plan outline and began looking at responsibilities. We discussed the considerations. draft Implementation Plan 1. 3 . 4 . 5 . a Dr. Russ Mayo gave the group a brief overview of the Facility Study as it affects Student Assignments. He also answered many questions dealing with the general perceptions of the Study and explained to the members present how student assignment policies generally work and how children are assigned throughout the District. Our next meeting will be Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. DCE/apl/minutesDCE/apl/ic Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Facility Services, LRSD 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 570-4020 72204 Ms. Sue Strickland 19 Pear Tree Place Little Rock, AR 374-0123 Work 455-1843 Home 72209 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Skip Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Fred Smith Manager of Support Services, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2003 72201 Mr. Xanier Heard Alltel Information Services 4001 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 220-5370 72205 Mr. Sammy Mills 7 Conifer Place Little Rock, AR 568-4727 72209 Ms. Diane Vibhakar 3917 South Lookout Little Rock, AR 661-8030 72205 Ms. Suellen Vann Director of -Communications, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2020 72201Ms. Sadie Mitchell Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2007 72201 Dr. Vic Anderson Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2005 72201 Mr. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3907 American Manor Little Rock, AR 565-5715 72209 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonte Drive Maumelle, AR 372-3519 72113 Ms. Linda Young New Futures, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2112 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2006 72201 Mr. Leon Modeste Special Assistant to Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2011 72201 Dr. Russ Mayo Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2271 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Rochelle 401 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201c s Si Little Rock School District November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin O^ce HU'I 0^ - '\\ l l Oese9'eaa^'\" VlO'!^-^' ..4 ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: The third meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, Street. 810 West Markham Your attendance is most respectfully requested. Siijicerely yours. l^bgras C. Eaton ELECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000a '0 MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1995 NOV ^7 /995 OlficQ of ^ssegreg. luui t^oiwomig The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their meeting on November 17, 1995. as listed attached hereto. second In attendance were the individuals The meeting began with a general discussion of the scope and purpose as outlined in our first meeting. There were essentially no comments with regard to the scope and purpose. meantime, until is formally approved by the committee, we will work For the under the charge of the draft, scope and purposes outlined in our first meeting. The second Considerations. item discussed was Implementation Planning A significant addition will be made to the Implementation Planning Considerations to include the securing of public support or any aspect of the recommendations made by the committee. Other discussions centered around the following items: A discussion that we outline committee objectives so that everyone has a clear understanding of what is to be A. accomplished. That a Neighborhood Association list be compiled by committee members so as to insure that we are including the associations in our public meetings at our schools. B. C. Discussions ensued regarding how we structure the committee, how we divide into sub committee's in order to analyze our charge. D. How do we develop a program that clearly emphasizes and supports the strategic plan as adopted by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors? E. Suggestions were made to form a sub committee on how to market the Facility Study to the general public, addition, a list was requested identifying where various copies of the Facility Study are located. In F. Fred Smith gave a briefing and commented on the planning and budget time lines which are Dr. Mayo and Mr. presently being pursued by the District and how the recommendations of this Committee tie in with the budget procedures.Page Two Continued Copies of the District Facility Plan are located at the following locations: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. Office of Student Assignments (Full Copy) Director of Communications (Full Copy) Manager of Support Services (Full Copy) Office of the Superintendent (Full Copy) Director of Facility Services (Full Copy) Copies of Volume I, Executive Summary, and Volume II, Demographic Analysis are located in the following offices: Office of Human Resources Office of the Federal Court Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attorney for Knight Intervenors Attorney for Joshua Intervenors North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Office of the Assistant Superintendents Office of Neighborhood and Planning, City of Little 1. ( 2. ( 3. ( 4. . 5. . 6. 1 7. 8. ( 9. I Rock 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Office of Judge Susan Weber Wright Department of Education, State of Arkansas Office of Procurement Each Board Member, Little Rock School District Board of Directors Our next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 1995, Board Room. in the DCE/apl/ininutes2Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I I 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT I 4 GOALS I I 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I 6 BUDGETING I 7 LZ I I I I I I I I MONITORING A REPORTING I I I I I I I I I I I 0 REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS A ORGANIZA IION 5 Little Rock School District 1RECEIV an y SCHEDULE OF NOV 1 7 1995 PARENT MEETINGS FOR FACILITIES STUDY^**'' ^sresaticn Mon AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THOSE SCHOOLS 1. November 29, 1995 3. December 14, 1995 Pulaski Heights Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Judy Magness) Jefferson Elementary 6:30 p.m. (Judy Magness) 2. December 12, 1995 4. January 9, 1996 Mabelvale Jr. High 6:00 p.m. Woodruff Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Sue Strickland) (Michael Daugherty)/ JUL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning and Budgeting Time Line NOV 1 I 1995 \"J -nicR of Daseyreyaiiori Moruoimy AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG PROGRAM INVENTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION I I NEEDS ASSESSMENT I GOALS I I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I BUDGETING I I I I I I I I I I I I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS * ORGANIZATION I I I 3 I LHUe Rock School District I RiCEIV^n OK 2 7 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregajiofl Monitonrig December 21, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The sixth meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996 in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 1996, 810 West Markham Street. Your attendance is most respectfully requested and should you not be able to attend, it is requested that you contact the undersigned prior to the meeting. you not I wish to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to teview the scope of work and the charge of this committee. tendency to be side tracked the last two meetings Oxx j-ooxxca that parallel our charge, but which we are allowing to overshadow our real intent. We have on issues The scope and charge of the Implementation Planning Committee is to analyze the Options in the Little Rock School District Long Range Facility Study to determine whether or not they can be implemented, and if so what other steps to take for implementation. It is not our charge to determine whether or not we agree or disagree with the Options, but rather to use our knowledge to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of the various Options are so as to be prepared to make a recommendation to the Superintendent and Board Education on an Option and what other steps to take for implementing the Option. an Option steps Long Range Beginning with our January meeting, we must focus more on the Option which was determined to be studied by the committee which is Option M Modified Junior High School and determine the steps of implementing that Option. various See you at our next meeting... Sincerely yours. Dd g s C. Eaton DCE/apl/ipcmeet DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1995 - IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Office Of DesefliegtUion MoiWerii'U DECEMBER 20, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their fifth meeting on December 20, 1995. The meeting began with comments in regard to the December 13th Minutes. A typographical error was noted and references to Option M in those minutes should reflect that Option M deals with the Junior High Schools and not the High Schools. 1. Special Report Hightower and Ms. Van Light. Public Meetings, Mr. Robert A special report was given by Mr. Hightower and Ms. Light regarding the District's public meetings at Mitchell Elementary, Wakefield Elementary and Jefferson Elementary, with regard to specific comments: Mitchell Elementary comments centered around concerns of intercity schools being closed and that facilities would be allowed to decay. This was the concern around the community that this could be the circumstance with regard to Mitchell. Indications were that the Little Rock School District does not have a good tract record disposing of its intercity schools. All other concerns and statements during the Mitchell meeting were of the same general nature. With regard to Wakefield Elementary, Wakefield, as was Mitchell and Jefferson, was well attended. Members of the City Board (Ms. Adcock, Ms. Joyce and Ms. Wyrick) were present. The concerns at Wakefield centered around the recognition that Wakefield very much considers itself to be a neighborhood school that should not be touched because it was successful in attracting students from its own neighborhood and that the District needed to be more positive in managing its assets as opposed to preparing for restructuring. In addition, concerns were expressed with the possibility of expanding the school and its utilization to support community initiatives by increasing the building and possibly bringing outside entities into our school to operate and that they should be a consideration when schools are looked for possible downsizing. Jefferson Elementary School comments centered around the general building concerns and the future plans for the school in the area. There was many positive comments with regard to the retention of our Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams. There was also demographic concerns via questions asked as to where children may be reassigned. Concerns raised over the criteria used to establish schools would be considered for restructuring during downsizing and what positive steps the community and the District might take to reserve the trend of decreasing enrollment. meetings are being accepted, primarily on The public a very localized basis\nalthough, the intent is to inform thegeneral public of the overall condition of the District and its direction with regard to student enrollment and demographics. must continue to be stressed. The localized situation in each school 2. Special Report Dr. Middle Schools, Dr. Vic. Anderson. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, gave the committee a briefing on the Middle School Concept. His talk centered around the educational development throughout the nation which thrives on the concept of Middle Schools by stressing community involvement and an active learning in grade grouping as trends for academic achievement. He indicated that the committee, which has worked over a year on the Middle School Concept, appears to be gathering support from the general populace for different grade configuration within the Little Rock Schools. A definite date for implementation or recommendation to the Board has not been made. within this school year. The recommendation is expected to be made We briefly discussed the committee composition and a list of permanent committee members was distributed to all that were present. These are committee members who were requested to serve on the committee or were nominated to serve. Committee membership covers the wide breadth of experience and concerns and should give the committee a broad base on which to conduct its business. A draft Implementation Planning Sub Committee recommendation was presented so that the committee could discuss how it could subdivide to ensure that the multitude of areas necessary to be considered in studying Option M would be achieved. Committee members were asked to volunteer for the various sub committees. It is hopeful that the sub committees will be finalized by our next meeting. A draft recommendation to the Superintendent based on the desires of the committee from previous meetings was presented. In essence, the recommendation stated that the pursuit of Option M Junior High Schools for possible implementation during this school year was not possible. committee members. This draft recommendation brought much discussion from Discussions centered around public involvement in the process and whether or not the committee could solidify the support necessary for these recommendations. We voted three (3) times on whether or not we would make a recommendation to the Superintendent and ended up dead locked in that no majority could be determined as to whether or not to recommend the pursuit of Option M. Our next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 3, 1996 in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. DCE/apl/minutes5eouNnrju I T I W,. .\u0026lt; ^Utu IhM el School CompoMon Auguo(21.1M u9U3f 23. 1995 I I I August 21, 1996 I T Central HS FairHS HallHS McClellan HS Parkview HS Magnet Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann jH Magnet Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Carland Ceyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson______ King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Heights Pightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson woodruff Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total vtio Magnets u 5 899 591 565 663 411 3129  3 508 214 243 167 361 o  O 41 9 32 11 40 a .0 1448 814 840 841 812 27181 1132 14931 1331 4735 93I 3943 501 433 484 603 306 439 431 381 61 268 152 154 107 362 315 73 9 18 11 14 13 23 9 13 35781 14921 1101 571 719 647 771 426 824 755 467 5180 u m 62.09% 7260% 67.26% 78.83% 50.62% 6530% 68.93% 87.74% 6022% 74.81% 78.21% 71.83% 53.28% 57.09% 81.58% 69.07% u n 978! 508 554 654 453 3 595 116 191 111 351 e  O 45 11 25 15 34 a o 1618 635 770 780 838 u a m 60.44% 80.00% 71.95% 83.85% 54.06% o (8 o o a a a O 31391 11301 87| 43561 7206% 1531 233 236 313 243 319 338 365 187 208 40| 75 64 243 110 281 89 59 91 1 20 7 24 24 18 6 7 7 53i 10 1841 214) 12| 365 247 219 216 165 209 287 282 151 121 253l 121 2 191 68 122' 131 281 Ot 2181 141 1^ 31 1941 328 307 580 xn 618 433 431 285 271 410 392 512 240 289 300 497 519 412 78.87% 71.04% 76.87% 53.97% 64.46% 51.62% 78.06% 84.69% 65.61% 76.75% 44.88% 93.11% 48.24% 9125% 74.74% 55.00% 4205% 5530% 68.45% 2511 2131 201 305 229 132 176 190 229 218 228 94! 51 183! 01 01 71 191! 171 5i 1071 3! 17! 3541 65! 121 2771 261 411 21! 4231 2071 32! 3291 206 253' 290 154' 741 1041 7! 3! 2231 16l 74 771 91 ir 4841 51.86% 3991 76.44%, 234 322 384 198 353 295 531 416 662 410 313 492 373 239 97.86% 40.99% 45.83% 95.96% 64.87% 73.90% 42.94% 85.10% ' 63.90%  80.24% ' 65.81% ' 51.42%  77.75% ' 64.44% ' 87361 4345! 4191135001 64.71% 76861 34761 3481 115101 66.78% 154431 73301 6621 234351 65.90%, 135431 57381 5281 198091 68.37%i 31471 13641 130 26941 10131 96 46411 67.81% 38031 70.84% 4761 411 420 550 315 460 438 353 44 271 121 100 114 355 304 68 21 33 9 16 6 20 8 12 541 715 550 666 435 835 750 433 87.99% 57.48% 7656% 8258% 72.41% 55.09% 58.40% 81.52% 1891! -273 9541 -319 1291 -521 1199^ -419 10001 -162 6335! -1694 5335  -1532 868, -327 812: -97 858! -308 907! -241 614! -179 850! 745 -15 5 34231 1377| 125| 4925 | 6950% 29631 10221 1051 4090! 72.44%| 163 246 226 304 225 293 361 406 148! 1781 36 82 48 239 91 264 119 49 84 451 2081 226! 3981 21 1 19 7 26 43 20 27 10 4 7 5 9 200 347 281 569 359 577 507 465 236 81.50% 70.89% 80.43% 53.43% 6267% 50.78% 7120% 8751% 6271% 737 -304 6391 -1466 5541 -1451 257 401 390 656 -57 -54 -109 -87 467 -108 2301 77.39% 2451 230 11 234i 3 641 16 5 1571 122| 10 201 '317? 2831 282 241 9 19 96! 10 439 428 486 253 284 289 492 577 47.38% 9299% 50.41% 92.49% 75.70% 54.33% 40.85% 54.94% 265i 193! 19 263! 2231 77! 7 128i 165i oj 1 71 2331 197! 19 aef 224? 205| 4! 4 127! 22 76! 17 217! 2611 23 3651 29| 17 414| 2301 47 3571 207! 79 91 2571 221 269! 183! 52 761 11 2 22 13 8 3891 72.75% 4771 55.56% 347! 75.79% 230 i 96.96% 300! 42.67% 4491 51.89% 224 ! 96.43% 3731 60.05% 2981 68.79% 501! 43.31% 4111 88.81% 691! 59.91% 447! 79.87% 300 ! 69.00% 5001 51.40% 334! 80.54% 267! 68.54% 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 -36 -51 -27 -92 -121 40 -6 -54 45 -44 -64 ____0 -151 -126 -40 -118 -68 -51 75 -34 -96 -189 -14 -81 836. -145 492! 328! 5171 394i 324! -45 -28 -17 60 ' -S7 88341 42261 4971 13557! 65,16% 7823! 33801 4191 116221 67.31% 15717:-2160 13578 -1956 _____________________________________________ 15404! 69671 752| 231231 66.62%! 28443! -5320 134801 54151 6201 195151 fiS.OSy.l 244541 -4939 Offlca of OtMQrvgattonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Delbra Caradine P. O. Box 164229 Little Rock, AR 72216 B. J. McCoy 2417 S. Marshall Little Rock, AR 72206 Rohn Muse 822 Lewis Little Rock, AR 72204-2016 Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 w. 22nd * Little Rock, AR 72204 Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Kris Baber 2519 N. Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Joa Humphrey 5022 W. 56th St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 Gregg Stutts * 13005 Lemoncrest Lane Little Rock, AR 72209 John Walker 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Joy Springer 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Betty Mitchell CTA Office Frank Martin CTA Office * Skip Marshall, Monitor ODM - 201 E. Markham Brady Gadberry * LRSD Administration Heritage West Bldg-Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 * indicates newly nominated members of the committee(7. Z - Bloc 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0232 0240 0301 0412 0413 0420 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 8/27/96 K-3 17 26 7 26 21 60 15 25 9 48 55 3 17 4 6 2 15 24 28 19 10 7 16 31 35 48 16 7 22 17 8 13 8 54 38 31 7 22 18 12 32 35 20 G3 -6 6 14 5 13 17 30 10 19 4 29 34 1 14 2 3 2 8 11 10 16 8 5 20 19 14 23 9 7 12 16 7 4 2 36 20 24 7 18 10 10 14 24 17 G7-9 7 16 5 15 23 25 12 15 6 43 50 8 14 4 1 0 9 19 11 12 3 9 23 18 17 29 21 11 14 13 8 7 7 25 20 30 10 14 8 17 26 18 22 GlO-12 6 9 7 13 15 19 11 26 7 23 49 0 6 4 2 0 13 15 9 13 7 12 23 12 12 25 16 9 16 9 6 4 6 29 17 14 6 12 9 8 17 23 26 Litlie Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 36 65 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 143 188 12 51 14 12 4 45 69 58 60 28 33 82 80 78 125 62 34 64 55 29 28 23 144 95 99 30 66 45 47 89 100 85 Black 35 63 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 138 173 11 51 14 11 3 22 66 52 59 27 17 82 79 73 124 52 34 61 53 29 28 23 142 91 98 29 66 44 47 68 70 85 Page 1 of 8 6' hit Non-Black 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 1 1 23 3 6 1 1 16 0 1 5 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 21 30 0 B Pin 1 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0Z - Bloc 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0511 0512 0513 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0586 0537 0538 0539 8/27/96 K-3 16 35 27 25 37 22 21 7 18 28 9 29 26 21 20 29 15 65 46 55 10 24 4 2 34 26 40 39 41 0 __n 241 3 0 41 25 15 23 20 43 41 20 4 G3 -6 7 10 20 12 26 13 18 7 12 20 4 22 7 13 15 15 10 27 12 34 10 10 7 5 36 12 26 23 31 0 _____7 11 2 0 26 20 13 12 19 29 24 7 4 G7-9 12 12 16 21 21 13 20 7 18 15 5 37 16 9 16 9 11 23 11 30 10 18 4 6 32 24 ___ ___ ___ 1 7 15 1 0 24 24 13 7 12 19 26 13 4 GlO-12 13 20 10 13 11 10 15 12 16 27 10 17 13 5 7 16 14 21 19 14 6 15 3 5 33 ____ ____n 26 34 0 9 8 2 1 16 23 12 8 18 24 32 16 6 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 48 77 73 71 95 58 74 33 64 90 28 105 62 48 58 69 50 136 88 133 36 67 18 18 135 90 135 121 132 1 ___ 58 ____8 1 107 92 53 50 69 115 123 56 18 Black 48 74 69 62 91 57 73 33 64 88 28 100 61 48 57 69 50 131 84 132 36 67 13 16 129 70 121 120 126 1 ___ 56 8 1 91 85 51 41 61 105 116 55 18 Page 2 of 8 Non-Black 0 3 4 9 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 2 6 20 14 1 6 0 1 0 0 16 7 9 8 10 7 1 0 B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 0 ____2 2 0 0 4 ____3 ____2 ____2 2 4 5 ____2 1 WPins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 _____0 _____0 0 _____1 _____0 _____0 _____0 _____0 ____0 ____0 ____0 0Z - Bloc 0540 0552 0553 0554 0556 0561 0562 0563 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0591 0592 0610 0620 0630 0640 0641 0650 0651 0660 0662 0670 0710 0811 0821 0910 0920 1010 1020 1110 nil 1120 1121 8/27/96 K-3 5 40 49 31 24 31 29 32 34 19 24 34 7 28 37 32 40 42 15 18 34 5 14 25 4 23 14 9 37 55 13 59 28 18 44 37 29 8 20 24 54 6 6 G3 -6 1 20 45 17 11 26 18 19 25 17 15 15 8 18 22 15 34 25 16 13 14 1 18 16 7 3 8 3 33 40 12 49 12 18 22 33 17 4 15 14 11 3 2 G7-9 5 27 37 14 24 26 30 18 29 21 21 18 10 16 20 21 35 31 9 16 20 2 20 20 6 6 7 2 28 54 18 36 27 16 25 42 27 5 ___17 7 23 5 6 GlO-12 4 25 27 21 16 33 20 25 31 14 15 16 12 17 25 24 36 27 8 17 18 1 13 21 6 4 0 10 26 41 13 28 13 15 24 34 25 4 ____ n ____ 6 2 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 15 112 158 83 75 116 97 94 119 71 75 83 37 79 104 92 145 125 48 64 86 9 65 82 23 36 29 24 124 190 56 172 80 67 115 146 98 21 68 62 113 20 16 Black 8 105 152 80 74 116 96 93 113 71 74 83 36 76 103 92 141 102 48 62 81 5 0 10 1 3 0 13 3 148 51 90 16 0 2 12 15 10 20 0 41 4 1 Page 3 of 8 Non-Black 7 7 6 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 23 0 2 5 4 65 72 22 33 29 11 121 42 5 82 64 67 113 134 83 11 48 62 72 16 15 B Pin 0 4 6 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 0 0 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 5 2 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 0 2 2 3 1 1Z - Bloc 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 1310 1311 1312 1331 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 8/27/96 K-3 16 8 28 18 122 37 20 11 23 4 13 74 18 16 105 21 27 68 20 50 19 10 17 17 15 37 12 9 __ 8 __ 9 92 40 39 44 29 27 17 44 16 23 50 G3 -6 9 4 26 14 92 17 11 2 17 5 12 43 23 20 59 13 13 46 15 41 5 2 3 12 12 20 10 3 22 6 26 2 50 21 23 33 18 29 14 ____30j ____B ____11 29 G7-9 13 7 33 22 96 11 18 2 15 2 8 47 17 23 65 8 22 36 10 40 6 6 6 11 12 17 7 6 22 9 30 9 ___ ___ ___ 44 31 31 20 26 10 14 20 GlO-12 22 7 31 22 61 14 18 7 18 7 18 74 26 25 48 18 15 25 11 40 10 2 8 8 10 23 5 6 17 6 38 5 60 37 20 43 ___ 18 22 29 14 21 28 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 60 26 118 76 371 79 67 22 73 18 51 238 84 84 277 60 77 175 56 171 40 20 34 48 49 97 34 24 91 29 122 25 248 127 100 164 121 105 73 129 53 69 127 Black 8 0 4 1 10 41 63 0 10 0 9 32 10 10 109 7 14 49 14 11 8 12 6 28 13 18 3 5 ___ 7 110 15 239 123 80 160 108 71 71 111 50 46 118 Page 4 of 8 Non-Black 52 26 114 75 361 38 4 22 63 18 42 206 74 74 168 53 63 126 42 160 32 8 28 20 36 79 31 19 68 22 12 10 9 4 20 4 13 34 2 18 3 23 9 B Pin 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ____0 1 ____0 4 1 10 5 3 6 4 3 3 4 ____2 2 5 WPins 2 1 5 3 14 2 0 1 3 1 2 8 3 3 7 2 3 5 2 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 _____0 _____1 _____0 1 0Z - Bloc 1728 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 3201 3250 3251 3253 3301 3312 3316 3330 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 8/27/96 K-3 31 33 12 36 33 47 48 85 39 11 20 28 30 47 7 22 32 17 72 48 1 32 15 14 34 30 23 21 49 43 52 13 19 14 18 6 14 11 36 24 8 14 15 G3 -6 14 19 10 30 24 25 32 50 21 9 15 19 14 32 6 16 36 15 51 35 2 29 13 13 40 22 11 19 30 26 35 12 18 8 7 7 12 10 20 21 12 14 10 G7-9 16 12 15 19 38 26 30 66 31 10 17 18 15 38 5 12 32 15 49 36 0 24 11 9 22 13 10 18 30 28 33 8 17 2 12 4 12 8 15 23 10 10 10 GlO-12 28 15 16 44 50 30 35 59 22 14 20 19 16 40 9 17 27 16 47 23 2 24 17 14 34 16 16 16 18 34 26 6 14 5 7 3 12 5 7 11 7 9 4 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 89 79 53 129 145 128 145 260 113 44 72 84 75 157 27 67 127 63 219 142 5 109 56 50 130 81 60 74 127 131 146 39 68 29 44 20 50 34 78 79 37 47 39 Black 82 68 53 112 121 109 126 198 76 41 48 36 31 123 12 26 56 29 109 86 5 63 31 44 37 19 10 13 93 110 135 20 64 22 38 7 26 25 33 59 24 38 21 Page 5 of 8 Non-Black 11 0 17 24 19 19 62 37 3 24 48 44 34 15 41 71 34 110 56 0 46 25 6 93 62 50 61 34 21 11 19 4 7 6 13 24 9 45 20 13 9 18 B Pin 3 3 2 4 5 4 5 8 3 2 2 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 3 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 W Pins 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1Z - Bloc 3625 3630 3635 3640 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 8/27/96 K-3 15 0 39 12 25 13 26 34 18 46 12 7 40 8 13 30 5 15 7 6 11 14 6 0 37 22 14 12 __n 24 17 4 __14 ___9 6 9 __ 6 ___ ___4 15 3 13 G3 -6 13 1 37 4 19 7 9 15 12 20 11 7 23 9 4 21 6 7 14 7 15 19 9 2 29 10 9 5 13 13 7 2 13 8 6 5 19 5 11 1 13 2 5 G7-9 10 0 30 8 16 17 8 15 10 11 9 7 24 11 4 32 7 6 13 6 16 22 6 1 23 15 ___16 ____7 14 20 10 3 ___ ____8 8 10 ___ 6 2 1 21 0 7 GlO-12 18 0 24 7 9 14 12 7 8 15 5 3 12 6 7 57 4 4 22 8 17 11 7 2 26 19 8 6 11 17 7 1 3 9 2 8 18 3 6 2 10 2 8 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 56 1 130 31 69 51 55 71 48 92 37 24 99 34 28 140 22 32 56 27 59 66 28 5 115 66 47 30 69 74 41 10 40 34 22 32 86 20 28 8 ____ 7 33 Black 28 1 113 30 61 47 47 57 32 85 33 18 81 19 3 118 12 3 53 2 19 44 4 0 106 54 32 13 59 61 28 0 2 14 2 18 73 5 0 2 4 0 9 Page 6 of 8 Non-Black 0 17 1 8 4 8 14 16 4 6 18 15 25 22 10 29 3 25 40 22 24 5 9 12 15 17 10 13 13 10 38 20 20 14 13 15 28 6 55 7 24 BPin 1 0 5 1 2 2 1. 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Pins i 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 _____1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1Z - Bloc 5467 5470 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 8/27/96 K-3 2 4 30 29 19 23 19 58 30 1 12 9 13 26 59 15 11 18 37 17 54 34 14 22 17 7 15 40 5 7 38 19 5 15 45 6 40 25 67 4 28 22 98 G3 -6 0 0 22 18 18 8 10 28 16 0 6 6 10 23 45 13 5 23 19 10 40 22 19 17 6 9 13 30 6 6 26 8 5 10 25 7 20 15 27 4 20 8 48 G7-9 2 1 18 18 23 9 9 13 10 0 19 4 12 14 34 10 7 17 22 9 18 22 22 20 16 6 14 26 18 5 30 9 9 17 42 6 20 8 6 8 29 ___10 37 GlO-12 0 2 12 28 23 5 7 24 24 0 11 5 6 16 39 9 3 18 18 19 12 16 10 12 15 8 7 35 8 8 22 10 3 5 23 7 39 15 7 8 29 18 29 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 4 7 82 93 83 45 45 123 80 1 48 24 41 79 177 47 26 76 96 55 124 94 65 71 54 30 49 131 37 26 116 46 22 47 135 _______ 119 _______ 107 24 106 58 212 Black 0 3 11 31 13 4 10 12 23 0 8 3 5 17 146 36 15 57 83 45 106 79 47 35 46 19 33 115 22 24 93 46 16 36 114 ________ 108 51 102 22 86 54 199 Page 7 of 8 Non-Black 4 4 71 62 70 41 35 111 57 1 40 21 36 62 31 11 11 19 13 10 18 15 18 36 8 11 16 16 15 2 23 0 6 11 21 4 11 12 5 2 20 4 13 B Pin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 ________ 1 ____4 2 4 1 3 2 8 W Pins 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Z - Bloc 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7415 7420 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 7490 7495 Totals K-3 14 17 64 15 28 29 7 12 5 25 11 9 11 19 27 18 1 5 3 10 7718 G3 -6 9 25 24 11 25 26 13 16 9 13 10 7 4 22 21 4 0 9 4 9 5086 G7-9 14 21 28 17 26 24 17 23 13 18 2 16 12 11 18 17 1 9 4 11 5384 GlO-12 13 19 27 16 27 25 16 18 7 18 10 14 15 17 27 20 0 6 0 14 5188 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23.1996 Total 50 82 143 59 106 104 53 69 34 74 33 46 42 69 93 59 2 29 11 44 23376 Black 48 77 80 52 88 82 46 53 32 50 31 36 38 55 80 53 1 20 4 34 16331 69.86% Non-Black 2 5 63 7 18 22 7 16 2 24 2 10 4 14 13 6 1 9 7 10 7045 30.14% B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 653 WPins 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 282 8/27/96 Page 8 of 8Arkansas Democrat T3'(0azcllc  FRIDAY. MAY 10, 1996 LR panel on closing schools is reborn \u0026lt; BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer 'AyLittle Rock School District committee created to make recommendations about renovating and possibly closing schools to cut costs is back in business with new faces. -The Little Rock School Board voted, unanimously at its agenda-setting meeting Thursday to recreate the Facilities Study Committee, dis- Ijanded in February. 'The panel will consist of two res- idents from each school board zone\ntwO representatives of the Joshua intervenors, who represent the black children in the district\nand twb people from the Knight intervenors, representing the teachers. The old panels composition had drawn complaints from board member Sue Strickland, who helped disband tlie committee. She will be the new committee's chairman. Strickland said the old committee included district administrators but not residents who would actually be affected by school closings. She also said that she disagreed with what she believed was the committee's sole intent  closing Mabelvale Junior High School in Southwest Little Rock. School district officials calls for closing some schools with low enrollments have continued during the conuiiittee's absence. The old committee began meeting in November after a consulting firm from San .Antonio issued a 13- volume study of district demographics and tire condition of school buildings. The study said the schools need S77 million in repairs, renovations and modernization. The consultants recommended closing as many as 11 schools because of poor physical condition and declining student population. The distncfs 50 school buildings have as many as 5,000 vacant seats. Bob Morgan, a member of the district's financial advisory committee. has said the districts student-to- employee ratio is below average when compared with districts of similar size. Maintaining schools not filled to capacity contributes to the low ratio and extra costs, Morgan said. The board also voted Thursday to allow, but not require, individual schools to determine the dress code for students, including the use of uniforms. Board member Judy Magness said Watson and Forest Park ele- i inentaries plan to use unifoi^ next I school year. Those schools join sev- | eral other elementary schools in the district that have a voluntary or mandatory' uniform policy./ 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 7300 100LRSD plant SERyiCES TEL:501-570-4027 Nov 08,95 12:05 No.003 P.02 5?-* I I Little Rock School District I November 8, 1995 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Dear Ms. Brown: I I The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Pleuining Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. I I I I Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.m., November 9, 1995, in _ I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will ba forwarded to you. I i I Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours. ^ugl^s C. Eaton DIRECTOR :rector FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invxte I I ) iAGENDA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 NOV. 1995 1. Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions 2. Committee Membership Discussion received 3. Scope \u0026amp; Purpose of Committee NOV 9 199S Ql 4. Facility Study Overview (Optional) Discussion 5. Implementation Plan Outline, Responsibilities 6. Implementation Plan Considerations 1. Ne?d MeetingRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund  Policy Protected Escrow  Annual Incremental Funding 9 9 9 Separate from Maintenance Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program 9 9 9 9 Five Year Building Program Preferable Strategic Plan for Capital Program Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database  Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries 9 On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census  Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System  Include Magnet Information  Include Record of Private School Attendees  Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status e 9 Continuing Quality of Education Complete Capital Program Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget Reduce Burden of Bussing Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for Ali Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use 9 9 9 Establish New Attendance Zones Closure of Seven Elementary Schools Closure of One Jr. High School One to Four Elementaries out of Service Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference  Enhanced School Experience for Children  Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation  Development of Community Identities  Diminished Burden of Bussing  Comparable Cost to the District  Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities  More Student Value for the DollarRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Reviev\\/ of Options  Representative Review Team for Options  Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses  Include the Court  Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives  Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force  Support of Educational Programs \u0026amp; Achievements Support of Capita! Programs and Bond Offering Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core  Board Initiative  Community Representation Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area  Include Industry and Commerce Leadership  Commuter Assignments  Encourage Board Service (subject to election)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Recommendation No 7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership CoreBia an OPTION C JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Closed School Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Pulaski Heights Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson OPTION M JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Forest Heights Henderson Dunbar SouthwestEBfiH OPTION C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Closed Schools Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost 1. Fair Park Brady $0 Franklin $1,300,596 Forest Park $2,086,500 2. Garland RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 New School $4,190,120 3. Ish N/A 4. Stephens New School $4,190,120 5. Jefferson Badgett $938,925 RightseU $1,996,085 ML King $0 Brady $0 Mcdermott Bale $271,245 Cloverdale $549,445 Dodd $681,590 Romine $1,432,730 Western HiUs $1,571,830 6. Mitchell RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 7. Wakefield Geyer Springs $2,566,395 8. Woodruff Forest Park $2,086,500 SUBTOTAL: $16,896,916 $3,092,193Closed Schools 1. Fair Park 2. Garland 3.1sh 4. Stephens OPTION M ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost__ New School $3,778,170 New School $3,625,160 N/A Terry $1,008,475 McDermott $375,570 Bale $159,968 Cloverdale $111,280 Otter Creek $452,075 Watson $111,280 5. Jefferson New School $3,778170 Western Hills $326,885 Rockefeller $0 Rightsell $389,480 Washington $0 ML King $0 6. Mitchell New School $3,625,160 7. Wakefield Baseline $1,189,305 Geyer Springs $1,057,160 8. Woodruff Forest Park $236,470 SUBTOTAL: $11,659,790 $1,161,488 SB anBsan IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Cost (Renovation, New construction. Relocation, Equipment, Supphes, Organization) 2. Funding Considerations (Operational Budget, Multiple yr. Funding, MiUages, Bond Issues, Program impact) 3. Personnel (Reductions, Reassignments, New personnel. Organizational Changes) 4. Student Assignment Changes (Policies , Start dates, Academic Program Changes) 5. Desegregation Plan Changes (Racial balance definition. Student Assignment pohcy Changes, Multiple Areas) 6. Grade Structure Change (Middle school concept) I. Support Function Changes (Transportation, Procurement, Facihty Services) BganPURPOSE AND SCOPE FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE This document outlines the purpose and scope of the Little Rock School District Implementation Committee which is being staffed to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study completed in 1995 by 3D International Corporation. The Committee will consist of persons from the Little Rock School District staff and local community who will be charged by the Superintendent to make recommendations to him and the Little Rock School District Board of Education on the various aspects of the Facility Study. Their charge may also be extended to put together implementation plans and time lines once recommendations have been approved by the Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Committee is to devise an implementation plan and schedule based upon approved recommendations by the Little Rock School District Board of Education. The Committee will work within the frame work of the study analyzing the study recommendations for possible adaptations by the Little Rock School District. Those recommendations will comprise the final reports submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education on which aspects of the Long Range Facility Study should be implemented by the School District along with recommendations as to an implementation schedule, time line and staffing of other areas of consideration. The Committee derives its authority from the Superintendent and is to work within the confines of the purposes and scope of the Facility Study as outlined in the contractual agreement between the Little Rock School District and 3D International Corporation. SCOPE\nThe scope of this Committee is to put together recommendations for the Superintendent and Little Rock School District Board of Education based on the nine (9) recommendations as made in the Long Range Facility Study. The Committee has the authority to consider and recommend or not recommend any and all aspects of the Facility Study for implementation. The scope of this Committee will be centered around the various aspects that run parallel to the basic recommendations in the Study by drawing them together as points of consideration and present recommendations to the Superintendent and Board. The Committee has the authority to deal directly with other staff members in making requests of them for information and cooperation should sub committees be formed under this general committee. It is intended that those recommendations whether they specifically impact the financial programming of the District would be made in such a way and at such a time that implementation can possibly BBaO'Page Two Bsan Continued occur during the next budget cycle. Recommendations dealing with closures and expansions, both cost saving and cost expanding, items in the study will be included in the recommendations. The Committee will work closely with the office of Program Review and Evaluations to ensure that its time lines accurately in project and budget documents. are reflected DCE/apl/lrfsBESaO COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: LONG RANGE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Implementation Committee that is being drawn together to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study will consist of the following individuals by job title and general subject area. 1. Associate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment\nwill oversee the aspects of student assignment policies and compliance with the Desegregation Plan. 2. Director of Facilities Services: will oversee cost analysis and facility related matters dealing with expansions and closing of facilities. 3. Director of Communications: to oversee the public affairs efforts and public notifications dealing with meetings and the general public. 4. Special Assistant to the Superintendent: responsible for coordinating meetings in conjunction with the Director of Communications. 5. Manager Resources and School Support: to oversee financial planning and provide financial and fiscal guidance with regard to recommendations. 6. Assist ant Superintendent: to provide information regarding academic implementation and program changes with regard to the recommendations. 7. Human Resources Representative: to provide information regarding general knowledge of the District history and human relation aspects of the recommendations. 8. Board Members: to provide input and guidance from the Little Rock School District Board of Education. 9. Strategic Planning Committee Members: to provide input, analysis and guidance with regard to the tie in of the Long Range Facility Study to the Strategic Planning Process. 10. Representatives of the Intervenors, Knight). Desegregation parties (Joshua 11. Representatives from the office of Desegregation Monitoring. DCE/apl/crlrfsBsao FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Facility Study Review 2. Superintendents Guidance. 3. Implementation Committee Assignments, Purpose and Scope 4. Implementation Planning - Plan of Action - Analysis of Facility Study - Recommendations, Submittal - Approvals - Implementation Plan, Schedule, Time lines - Oversight Responsibility'2 '* . .. -hzt^-\nSchoolV- BADGETT S 2 124 BALE 1 221 II w MO W' ItalilaS ! 2 5 1 i 3 BASELINE 220 1 17 ! o fiH ii\" 26^ 3 BOOKER 10 15 19 ' 12 14 20 BRADY 11 i 199 CARVER 15 8 b'i I 3 5 CHICOT 5 CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK 2 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN FULBRIGH  GARLAND GEYER SP . GIBBS 2 JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL . MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL\nOTTER CR PUL HT E 2 KIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 13 ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN 5 WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 15 18 I 9 4 . 302\n13 3 18 j 1 2 i!8 30 ! 318 7 3 1 10 4 11 3 3 5 8 3 6 4 5 8 2 1 7 1 2 9 6 1 I 2 6 5 7 2 12 2 15 J I 2 6 2 2 11 2 14 7 10 10 1 i 3 ziz: 2 1 i 2 2 1 2 i 13 11 4 2 8 6 2 8 3 4 4 7 2 I 2 J------- 8 I 11 ! 2 5 2 I I 1 3 23 { 20 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 34 ' i 8 2 16 6 4 14 1 I 4 2 8 1  f 1 tS *\"1...14 12 12 38 I 11 8 6 j 3 1 1 LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 Bi ip\ni 180 1 6 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 28 7 4 2 6 9 8 ffi o 1 5 1 9 4 1 165 4 9 1 2 4 6 3 9 11 } 8 3 9 11 5 286 11 7 5 1 1 7 6 5 2 6 2 3 2 15 5 52 2 2 4 249 8 I 4 1 8 1 9 0 6 I 2 - r....... 7 1 6 1 5 1 2 2 10 30 15 6 1 6 0 4 2 10 1 4 ...i....... 3 6 ! 14 10 17 6 I 160 I 413 I 357 I 380 j 557 | 506 1 306 | 320 | 412 [ 464 ifi LsiOllaiij o U Isii 2 5 2 1 3 5 11 1 12 17 i 19 2 5 2 6 4 385 3 1 9 6 10 21 2 3 1 5 15 18 16 S 12 13 6 605 4 2 2 1 3 2 8 24 164 3 2 7 7 1 2 IS 6 2 1 4 8 5 4 1 6 1 2 6 303 3 8 7 1 4 203 9 2 3 9 4 3 4 9 9 4 3 2 310 HJ 10 19 8 41 1 1 3 17 2 6 1 5 352 6 1 4 9 25 2 3 16 1 5 3 6 551 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 2 1 1 B\n18 14 2 4 4 1 s 1 5 1 1 42 2 1 2 5 2 6 7 2 4 9 7 3 11 18 1 11 11 15 5 102 ? 210 59.05% 2 4 4 11 5 6 3 i 347 327 144 9 6 3 2 13 18 26 11 1 24 3 63.69% 67.28% ! 26 1(f Ti6~ 23 5 6 5 604 1 5 14 7 29 6 1 10 2 5 10 9 6 3 2 7 14 221 4 1 4 5 6 13 14 3 2 2 4 9 1 9 1 11 418 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 329 4 5 3 7 1 4 12 19 1 5 4 482 14 4 2 IS 1 8 6 10 2 318 2 S 4 4 3 5 4 11 11 2 14 6 519 4 2 5 2 6 4 6 7 10 12 2 2 3 173 2 11 ..b\" 2 2 3 2 8 1 4 4 9 323 105 186 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 1 4 9 5 2 1 4 2 5 8 1 13 2 1 11 3 27 2 5 3 8 3 1 4 5 5 5 45 2 35 3 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 15 3 8 8 IS 3 4 3 7 1 12 34 14 2 7 5 17 8 10 1 5 6 5 24 1 394 629 50.51% 22 19 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 3 4 3 7 4 452 453 294 270 46 67 18 5 5 1 4 8 15 62 1 3 354 6 9 4 5 140 6 25 4 2 39 2 139 2 774 7 6 2 1 6 10 3 9 161 2 1 4 15 2 3 6 1 317 1 2 3 2 4 3 \\20 2 15 4 1 5 2 285 2 1 8 2 2 4 190 26 8 10 24 19 394 2 5 1 13 6 3 1 7 6 2 1 6 2 12 5 188 4 5 3 8 13 23 2 19 3 3 6 4 392 16 18 2 6 614 2 4 1 8 2 2 2 4 1 1 340 14 5 2 495 14 11 3 6 16 13 3 2 17 2 2 295 5 2 7 9 618 2 2 17 4 6 2 1 5 1 12 16 349 12 4 3 528 5 4 1 2 9 3 2 2 2 4 17 66.81% 70.20% 61.22% 61.11% 2 8 2 2 435 431 518 255 310 307 501 531  i 460 2 487 400 257 339 11 8 406 219 406 65.75% 57.77% 74.32% 64.31% 65.48% 70.26% 41.62% 71.52% 65.30% 68.50% 67.32% 79.06% 59.11% 73.52% 41.87% 3 7 213 8 15 2 296 16 3 21 20 20 226 476 2 2 1 302 536 429 j 656 114  444 315 508 384 62.91% 73.13% 79.25% 44.97% 78.60% 67.62% 58.85% 254 ' 44.88% 162 I 14O7o\"T OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENTCLOVR JR 494 DUNBAR 38 FORST HT 23 HENDERSN 21 MABEL JR 73 MANN M/S 90 PUL HT J 21 SOUTHWST 17 JR TOTAL 777 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 62 3 4 23 1 6 1 15 609 81.12% 443 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 53 732 60.52% 45 36 50 57 21 23 737 483 50 20 72 7 59 759 63.64% 34 4 54 36 18 696 588 4 114 48 20 8 892 f 3 1 7 11 1 19 11 71 792 74.24% 333 66 15 25 508 7 3 17 491 67.82% 109 2 1 123 67 570 4 767 220 8 271 67 59 504 847 781 612 845 15623 72.98% 82.35% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENTLU ILfc HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1 Q X BZEHBi Little Rock School District receivst^ (3 JAN 1 6 1996 Office of Desegregacon fviontojn,^ January 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The Implementation Committee recently held their Enclosed please find a copy of those minutes. sixth meeting. Our next meeting has not been scheduled due to scheduling conflicts\nhowever, I hope to contact you this month to request your selection on which subcommittee that you would like to serve. Once our next meeting has been scheduled, you will be notified. Sincerely yours, V D^ DIR] I [TOR C. Eaton FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/ipcmeet 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 A 5 JAH J 6 ^9% MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 3, 1996 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their sixth meeting on January 3, 1996. At that meeting, a revised scope was presented to the Committee for consideration so as to realign the direction of the Committee. A recommended change was made by committee members in reference to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as opposed to Board of Education\nhowever, the scope was not voted upon and the committee is still not clear on what the general scope of their authority is. A Draft Implementation Planning Sub-Committee list was also prepared which initially divided LRSD employees and some members who have volunteered for specific committees to assist in drafting the various phases of an implementation plan assessment of the Facility Study. and because of The sub-committees have still not been firmed up, this the specific charge. obligations requirements of those sub-committees has not been defined. and An agenda item of a plan time line was not discussed due to lack of time. A special report was made by Ms. Lowe, who is working on the subcommittee dealing with public affairs. They have began holding sub-committee meetings and have taken a first step of holding their own public meeting on January 10, 1996. We had a long, involved discussion regarding what the aspects are of our committee and how we are to develop an implementation plan. Of many items discussed. highlights centered around how the configuration of the middle schools would be impacted or would impact the Facility Study\nhow do we secure public reaction to the various aspects of the downsizing\nand how do we involve public acceptance? We have yet to develop any kind of a firm guideline or plan as to how we should approach the public. At the direction of the Superintendent, informal meetings have begun in various communities simply to inform Little Rock School District patrons and the general public on what the study encompasses and to assure them that a group of LRSD employees and the general public are looking at how the various options in the Facility Study could be implemented if necessary, but that no decisions have been made. It is becoming obvious that specific sub-committees will have to be formed out of the realm of the general committee by securing volunteers and that specific areas of implementation will have to be examined.Page Two Continued covers. At the present time, the only thing that we are comfortable going to the public with is the general parameters of the study and what it Detailed questions regarding whether or not the District is going to implement the Study, and how it will affect the children and the education system have yet to be determined. This leaves many unanswered questions at many of these public meetings. DCE/apl/minutes6! Arkansas Demi  locrat I SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996------- \u0026lt;*\u0026lt; Ulto  Committee on LR school closings sets forum A Little Rock School District committee charged with developing a plan that could lead to some schools being closed will hold a community forum at 10 a.m today at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401W. 12th St The Facilities Committee, made up of district administrators and commimity members, has been studying the recommendations of a Texas consoling firm that evaluat- No decisions have been made by ii J.i 1 1- ujg committee although members have indicated they dont believe ed all district schools. The consultants recommended closii^ at least eight schools and redrawing attendance zones as a way to oSset a projected loss of more any schools should be closed in the 19^97 school year. than 3,000 students by the year 2005. f The facilities conunittee has been meeting with parents at each of the schools that the consultants named as candidates for closure.RECEIVED JUN  1996' FACILITIES COMMITTEE NOMINEES Zone 1 Mitchell Dr. Delbra Caradine B. J. McCoy of O' OOi! :i: i\"cni\ncrinc,^ Zone 2 Daugherty Rohn Muse Zone 3 Magness Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72207 661-8030 Kris Baber 2519 N Fllmore Little Rock, AR 72207 663-5443/682-2479 Zone 4 Riggs Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 221-9632 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-8155/569-8868 Zone 5 Pondexter Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-0876/570-4100 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9498/982-9436 Zone 6 Gee Joa Huphrey 5022 W. 56th Little Rock, AR 72209 565-4110 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 225-9035/225-5534 Zone 7 Strickland Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-4754 Phil Wyrick 11001 Alexander Rd. Alexander, AR 72103 455-4073 JOSHUA INTERVENORS: John Walker 1723 Boadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 Joy Springer KNIGHT INTERVENORS: Betty Mitchell Frank MartinVAN N. LIGHT 15 Sunset Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 663-9287 aa: c/ - mar 7 4- 1996 March 5, 1996 of Oeje\nar\nn. Ms. Sue Strickland Member, Little Rock School Board 19 Pear Tree Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: February' 22, 1996 School Board Meeting\nFacility Study Committee Dear Sue: Thank you for having lunch with me yesterday to discuss my concern regarding your failure to advise members of the Facility Study Committee of your intention to call for the suspension of the Committees work at the February 22, 1996 school board meeting. As I indicated at lunch, in my view, the community members who had volunteered so much of their time to this committees work deser'/ed prior notice of your intention out of courtesy and respect for their efforts. While you and I disagreed on whether the Committee should have been informed of your intentions prior to the meeting, I did appreciate your apology. I think your apology has the potential for healing some of the frustration felt by the community members of the Committee and plan to share it with the Committee by copy of this letter. There remains one open issue relating to the actions taken at the February 22, 1996 LRSD Board meeting with regard to the Committee having to do with a reason you expressed for wanting to suspend the Committees work. I reviewed the tape of the board meeting last week and believe you misstated the present status of the Committee when you stated: Excuse me. I am on that committee. The only thing that we are challenged to address is closing Mabelvale Junior High. As you know, the foregoing statement is simply not true. I advised you by phone on Monday, February 19 and by fax (copy enclosed) the next day that the committee leadership had been restructured and that the Committee was searching for a facilitator to assist the Committee in coming to an agreement regarding its scope, purpose, composition, subcommittee structure, decision timeline and decision framework. The information conveyed to you before the February 22nd Board Meeting clearly indicated that the Committee was no where near making a recommendation of any sort-much less a recommendation to close Mabelvale Junior High. Had you been at the February 14th Committee meeting (minutes enclosed) you would have witnessed the expression of dissatisfaction with the course of the Committee and appreciated the strong desire of theMs. Sue Strickland March 5, 1996 Page 2 community members of the Committee to set the Committee on an agreed upon course. Unfortunately, this information was not relayed to the Board and it was forced to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Of course, if I or a member of the Committee had been informed of your intention to seek suspension of the Committee at the February 22nd meeting the Board could have been informed of the current status of the Committee. The failure to portray accurately the status of the Committee is particularly puzzling in light of the concern you expressed at the February 22nd meeting about recruitment of students and families to the Little Rock School District. How can the Board expect to instill trust and involvement in the District when the efforts of people, like the volunteer members of the Committee, are summarily dismissed based on inaccurate information? Volunteers who take time away from other priorities to serve the public school system deserve more. The very least you owe the Committee members is to set the record straight regarding the work of the Facility Study Committee. The Board and the public should know that the committee members were determined to set the Committee on a correct course, had taken steps to do so and did not have the single issue agenda of closing Mabelvale Junior High. I would hope that you would make this information available to the Board. If you wont correct the record, then I will at the next available opportunity address the Board. I care very deeply about the future of the Little Rock School District and have been actively involved since my children began attending public schools. I also care about getting other parents involved in the District. I hope you will help insure that the efforts of those who do get involved will not be taken for granted or misinterpreted by accurately conveying the work of the Facility Study Committe to the Board. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. Sincerely, inht Van N. Light Co-Chair Facility Study Committee cc: Facility Study Committee MembersDELIVERED BY FAX 9 V DATE: February 20, 1996 TO. Facilities Study Committee Members OJSce ^4i-' 7 FROM: RE: Van Light, 663-9287 Co-chair, Facilities Study Committee Facilitator Selection/Critical Questions Input for Facilities Study Committee At the Facilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1996, the committee decided to restructure the committee leadership with a co-chair format, one chair from the community and one chair from the LRSD staff. I was elected as a co-chair representing the community and Doug Eaton will continue as the LRSD staff co-chair. In addition, pursuant to Committee action on February 14th, a facilitator is to be identified and selected to assist our committee in developing committee goals, scope, decision timeline and framework. Several other critical questions were compiled at this meeting. They are enclosed for your review. Please call me with additions or corrections. These questions will be given to the facilitator. Selection of Facilitator The Committee agreed to seek the assistance of a facilitator for a limited time and as a volunteer. Suggested work parameters are at most 2 committee workshops of up to four hours each. Please submit your suggestions by the end of the week. I contacted as many of you as I could by phone on Monday, February 19th in advance of this memo. Two suggestions have been made so far: Judith Foust and Max Snowden. Since we are asking candidates to volunteer his/her time, several suggestions are required. Thanks very much. If you do suggest someone, please provide a short profile. Once all suggestions have been made, then I will contact you again by letter/phone/fax with names and profiles. You will have the opportunity to rank preference and/or express concern about a candidate. Remember the facilitator will not make decisions but help us to formulate our own committee structure and framework for the committee members to make the decisions. Thank you for your time and support.DRAFT Facility Study Implementation Planning Minutes, February 14, 1996 Committee Members Present Doug Eaton, chair Nancy Acre Brady Gadberry Melissa Guildin Charles Johnson Van Light Nancy Lowe Leon Modeste Rohn Muse Fred Smith Diane Vibhakar Connie Whitfield Linda Young Members Not Present Sadie Mitchell Sue Strickland Sammy Mills Vic Anderson Russ Mayo Betty Mitchell Xavier Heard Margaret Gremillion Suellen Vann John Walker Donna Creer Robert Hightower Kathy Wells Skip Marshall Frank Martin Richard Roachell 1  ** ~ \" y,  MAR 7- 'i5?3 D Mr. Doug Eaton, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Mr. Eaton asked for a report from the Outreach Subcommittee. This report was defered to the next meeting because certain members necessary to make the full report were not present at the meeting. Nancy Lowe did state that she had presented the overview of the Facility Study to the Area School Advisory Committee on Monday, February 12, 1996 and circulated the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document (attached) compiled by the Outreach Subcommittee. Rohn Muse, who is on a Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce committee, stated that the Chamber's Executive Committee had requested through him that the Outreach Subcommittee brief the Executive Committee. After discussion the Facility committee agreed that future requests for Facility Study briefings should be requested through the Communications Office under the direction of Suellen Vann. Since the Chamber briefing had already been scheduled for the next day, February 15, the committee agreed that only the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document be circulated and that any questions or requests for more information concerning the Facility Study should be directed through the Communications Office.DRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Eaton announced that the Bi-Racial Committee had been given a Facility Study Briefing on February 6, 1996. Additional briefings are scheduled for Wilson Elementary on March 8, 1996\nFair Park Elementary on March 11, 1996\nand, Garland Elementary on March 25, 1996. Mr. Eaton circulated to members the Special Report\nFacility Study Implementation Planning Committee Memo and School Closing Timeline (attached) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. Van Light noted that Number 2 of the memo should read \"Option M\" instead of \"Option C.\" Further discussion occured concerning these documents. Van Light made a motion that written Facility Committee progress reports to the LRSD board should be reviewed, if time permitted, by all committee members prior to submission to the LRSD Board of Directors. The motion was discussed and passed. It was agreed on occasions when LRSD Boardmembers and/or the Superintendent requested information from Mr. Eaton as the Plant Services Director and required immediate response then the commmittee would be apprised after the fact. Linda Young requested that Rohn Muse's name be added on the committee membership list. Mr. Eaton agreed to do so. As Mr. Eaton was circulating a draft Revised Scope for this committee to discuss, the members discussed and agreed that the Agenda Item dealing with Committee Structure should be addressed first. Van Light then circulated a letter (attached) signed by Charles Johnson and herself requesting two agenda items for the February 14th meeting. The first item addressed committee leadership. The letter attached explains the committee situation. The community members recommended that a facilitator should be asked to run the meetings. After discussion and specifically Fred Smith noting that there was no budget to hire a facilitator, a compromise approach was reached. It was agreed that the committee should have co-chairs, one from the community who would run the meetings, and a LRSD staff member as the other co-chair. In addition, a facilitor would be asked to come on a voluntary basis for a limited time to help the committee develop an agreed uponDRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 3 scope, purpose, committee structure, composition, and other organizational needs. The members agreed that a facilitator would be more likely to help if it was a short term commitment. Fred Smith nominated Van Light to be the community co-chair. It was seconded. She was elected to the position. The members then listed serveral critical questions (attached) that are to be given to the facilitator once identified. It was noted that a committee member, instead of the chairperson, should become the official secretary for future meetings. Mr. Eaton had been taking the minutes of all the meetings previously. The second agenda item requested by the community members in the above referenced letter concerned requesting 3D1 to make a formal presentation to the committee. This would allow all questions that committee members had to be anwered and understood fully. No specific action was recommended because it was deferred for the next meeting when the facilitator would be present. The revised scope statement and subcommittee composition agenda items were tabled until the next meeting when the facilitator will be present. Mr. Eaton did state that he had asked three LRSD staff to begin forming subcommittees in order to get issues surfaced that would assist the general committee in its thought process with regard to studying the options. Mr. Eaton passed out, as general information, a document entitled \"School Closing Information Paper\" (attached) to assist committee members in trying to understand the multiple steps necessary in deciding school closings. The meeting adjourned about 6:15 pm. The next meeting would be determined once a facilitator had been identified and an agreed upon date set. Minutes prepared by Van Light with assistance from Mr. Eatons Memorandum for Record, Implementation Planning Committee Meeting - 2/14/96, dated March 1, 1996 and Nancy Lowe's recording the list of critical questions.TO: TKR! q-[jc -r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF FACILITY SERVICES 3601 S. BRYANT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 January 25, 1996 Vittle Rock School District Boar FROM : a Sat on, Director of Special Sucerintendent T ommr tie Rock School District Faci Ccmmi tee xS charged Wltl\" he various restru uring options as presenter The committee administration membership consists staff, Desegregaticr community individuals. d of Directors y Sezn-ices V o do 1 y stU\narty ers ccmmlttee has casi t this point has made the following pre iminary det ns an ions\ncommittee focus Fa will only be on -mendati rents. ty restr'ucturing to meet projected stu^ 7 T 2 . Tha ths specifi e Wi' lT 7 be Optz.cn C.as it ertains to J nior i--ab schools. 3 . a school closin reccmmen\n:s .b-e his budget year cue to the estimated time of F 4 . Tha a primary focus will be :ubli and rmation sessions to secure public t and sun 5 . That additional subcommittees will be ether aspects o school restructuring and they ecome to analyte identified. There are no set timelines to implement a school closing, but rather a backward planning process starting with the desired closing date and student assignment effective date and then prorating your time over the identified steps and procedures necessary. The following is a list of significant events and suggested dates\n1. Prior to January: - Completed all data collection and analysis - Comprise list of facilities to be considered - Conduct public information meetings 2. January: - Finalize recommended action to board(Business case) - Secure board decision on closure - Begin support planning - Tentative assignment notification to students Begin support) definitized planning(personnel, students, 3 . Febr-uary: - Request court date - Conduct pre-registration 4. March: - Complete support planning (support staff) - Complete student plans - Complete public hearings - Complete personnel plans - Court hearing 5. June: - Close school - Final notification to students on assignments 6. August: - Reassign students This is a very condensed list and does not include he multitude of specific staff considerations with regard to this type action. CLCB2HPTFebiuaiy 12, 1996 Delivered in Person by Charles Johnson and Van Liuhl Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Plant Services LRSD 3601 S Bryant Little Rock .AR 72201 RE. Aaenda Items for 2'14/96 Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee (FSIPC) Meeting Dear Doug Persuant to your most recent letter in which you offered to receive agenda item suggestions from committee members, we respectfully submit the following agenda items A) B) Committee Leadership Structure Request for Facility Study Presentation by 3D! Last Friday '9/96, five FSIPC members from the community, Charles Johnson. Van Light. Kathy Wells. Nancy Lowe. Rohn Muse, met for 1 1. hours to discuss the FSIPC and its fiiture direction. The group agreed to recommend the above agenda items We also want to recommend that Rohen S Rules of Order be followed in future meetings. A. Committee Leadership Structure Problem Statement. In its present leadership structure the committee has not been able to progress as it should due to members and committee leadership not agreeing on committee purpose and scope. Symptoms of Problem. These symptoms suggest that a change is needed. a) 2 V2 - 3 hour meetings conducted with little or.no progress made or action taken, b) Committee Chairperson forming subcommittees outside the committee structure. c) Poor attendance at last two meetings. d) Expression of frustration by all membersdeadersiiip on lack of committee progress. Discussion This group discussed several strategies to address this problem. In the discussion of all strategies it was aareed that a neutral person was needed to run the meetings. The strategies discussed were. 1. Co-chairs, one community member\none LRSD staff member. The community member tunning the meeting, , 2. One chairperson - a community member 3. One chairperson - an experienced facilitator. This group by consensus agreed to recommend Strategy ^3, to find an experienced facilitator as soon as possible who might donate his/her time.Rationale for Selection of Strategy #3 Due to the obvious public interest and sensitivity/volativity with issues concerning facility changes, it is imperative that the public perception and, indeed, the reality be that this committee be one in which a) the leadership of the committee is neutral, b) the committee membership representation is city-wide, c) the evaluation process is fair and logical and is agreed upon by the committee, and, d) decisions are based on a shared vision by the committee using the Strategic Plans beliefs, mission and objectives as a guide. Due to the various perspectives of the committee members and the complexitv of issues relating to facilitv changes, having an experienced facilitator would be a needed asset. t. B) Facilitator Recommendations. The group did brainstorm on possible facilitators. Of course, other names can and should be considered. Those mentioned were. Ken Hubbell Earl Moore Joyce Springer Williams Mary F Dillard Dr David Sink Judith Foust Cliarlev Crawford Request for Faciiit\u0026gt; Study Presentation by 3DI Problem Statement. The inability of the members to understand the reasons and iustificaiii recommendations that per to facility changes. Reasons for Inability to Understand. 1) Contradictory messages: :ueen sections of studc 2) Insufficient narrative to support and.'or explain recommendations. Discussion. The group agreed that it w before decisions impacting on for the s essential that the integrity and validity of the study had to be upheld 'acilities by the committee could be made. This group agreed it could not and did not want to move fonvard until that point was reached. Therefore, it is recommended that a one-on- one session with the consultant be arranged. Specific information requests from consultant can be determined at the Wednesday meeting. This group recognizes the seriousness of the agenda items recomm.ended in this letter. We are earnest in our desire to make informed decisions We are committed in being supportive of the LRSD and its staff as we work together to recommend changes concerning the Districts facilities We pledge our good faith efforts to make decisions based on the overall good of the District. We await your comments and would be glad to discuss further any issue With regards, Charles Johnson 565-5715   \\ Van N. Light 663-9287'\" y cc: Mr. Fred Smith FSIPC Members (at W'ednesdays meeting) FACILITIES COMMITTEE Little Rock School District Critical Questions 1. 2 3. 4. 5. What is the scope of the committee? Do we need to revisit establishing goals? How can committee set forth a planning framework for itself with goals and timelines and benchmarks? Determine committee composition and numbers. Determine best tune to meet. 6. Vanong levels of trust w ith school district within committee. 7. 8. 9. Wdiat are the specific subcommittees? Determine subcommittee composition and numbers. Wdiat are the subcommittees tasks? 10. 11. 12. 13. Are we satisfied wdth the facilities study as a piece to begin decision making\"? Do we need to have 3 DI make a presentation? Varying levels of understanding about facility study wtliin committee. How did decision to close identified schools within recommendations get done? 14. 15. How do we communicate internally within the committee and with and between subcommittees? How are we going to communicate committee decisions to the general public? 16. Others? SCHOOL CLOSING PROCEDURES INFORMATION DOCUMENT 1) INTRODUCTION: 2) RSCEJVED MAR 7 199$- Office cf Desegrajefien Monitoring School closings are generally examined using the same criteria established by planners for the location and construction of new schools. Such general areas as student populations, demographic trends, economic analysis are the same general areas of consideration to be used when the predetermined goal is consideration of closing a school. Because there are no defined guidelines for decision-makers, nor definitive brackets of cost and population against which an objective analysis can be made to lose a school, we WP can establish research data but not clearly define will fully support a closing, will be heavily subjective. WXiCil that Therefore, our final decision We must understand that School Districts must operate financially by maximizing costs on a per capita basis. Only through maximum economies of scale, by going to maximum class size and facility capability. while meeting students' individual needs for achievement can we hope to operate in an economically efficient manner. In examining a particular school as a candidate for closing. we must certainly examine the entire school system. or at least a cluster of schools which would be immediately impacted by the closing. Basic economic decisions considered in facilities planning include decisions to incrementally add to schools as student numbers go up, and the fact that we design and build for future use, and not just current needs. This leads us to consider projected student populations and current and expected costs as the two (2) main considerations in school closings. WHEN DO WE CONSIDER A SCHOOL FOR CLOSING: I've identified five (5) areas of consideration that would support a decision to examine whether or not a specific facility should be closed: A) Consideration should be given to closing a acility when the repair costs can not be amortized economically. Examples would be when emergency repair costs exceed the value of the school, such as damage due to f 1 fire, 1earthquake, etc., or when the deferred maintenance costs on any major component would exceed a certain value of the overall costs of the facility. This deferred maintenance must include replacement to include costs to upgrade to current standards of such major components of the school as the heating/ventilation system, structural repairs, roof, and grounds. B) We should consider closing the facility when the operational maintenance costs of the facility begins to exceed the norm of all other similar facilities or when it can be shown that the operational maintenance cos C) D) would far exceed the life cycle costing of a new f as compared to the remaining life of the original. This can be done through a life cycle cost analysis of a new facility of equitable size. One must consider here that a replacement facility of larger size can better capitalize on economies of scale and will tend to show a lower operational cost on a per capita basis than the ole facility. This is used as the strength of an argument for normal facility replacement simply due to age and operational costs. We should consider closing a facility when the student population decreases to the point that consolidation or redistribution of students must occur,- or when student projections show a steady decline over a determined period of time. The determined period of time should exceed the number of years of one (1) cycle of the school\nfor example, if the school encompasses K - Sth Grade, we should look, at least, at one (1) full cycle, or seven years, as the projected length and time to fully determine whether or not student projections are rising or falling. This should allow a slight increment in any given year due to a rise in birth rates but not skew the final data. We should consider closing a facility when general demographic trends of the entire area surface indicate a movement or shift in population, away from an existing 2E) 3) school. As population centers shift within the School District, it can be expected that as student populations decline in older areas. that per capita cost increase, that the closing of schools must be considered to meet the demands of the moving population. Many times, this will result in the Board of Education examining older schools. areas in more established areas, yet these established predominantly house older populations which do not tend to move with demographic trends within the city. We should consider closing a facility when the cost analysis of the school shows a disproportionate spending on a per capita basis for all other items not including operations and maintenance. We must closely examine this area. If operational costs on a per caoita basis are increasing due to decreasing student e rising operational costs of the program, be examined in support of school closing, must be cautioned that operational programs, newer technology. then nis However, osts for ust W6 new to achieve higher academic standards are not to be considered in this analysis per capita costs. RESEARCH AREAS: of The research area list is not all-inclusive, but meant to identify those key areas of consideration that will produce objective data. and those answers that will produce subjective answers. The following are areas which can be clearly defined objectively: A) A current operational cost analysis will proouce hard figures showing the operational costs on B) C) either a per school. or per capita basis. against the norm. We should consider both maintenance costs and academic costs. One time costs to bring the facility in line with current academic demands and current physical requirements such as bringing the building in line with current city codes. Examining student projections will clearly show a rise or fall in the anticipated enrollment over a 3given number of years. D) The costs associated with the transfer of students and the costs associated to adapt surrounding schools school. to incorporate students from the closed The following areas of examination will produce subjective answers: A) Trying to determine the impact on student's education if we move the student from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. a B) Examining whether or not the closing of a school is not in contravention to t Laws. Fe C) Whether or not the closing of a facility is in line with the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan, or intent thereof. A subjective analysis will raise further questions such as: A) When do we physically close the school and move children? the B) How long will it take the children to go to, or be acclimated. in their new school? C) What would be the racial balance of the schools to which the children are redistributed? 4) WHEN DO YOU CLOSE A FACILITY: As Stated before, there are no hard, fast guidelines which would produce checklists that say. if you meet four (4) or five (5) criteria, the school will be closed\". It is more a subiective evaluation based on II It subjective objective data, and as such, will allow the decision-maker the ability to determine the nrioritv of the to determine priority listing considerations, and the specific criteria which will determine that the facility will be closed. In general, if a 45) combination of any of the following factors are present, a s A) B) ) D) then chool should be considered for closing: when the operational specified amount\ncosts exceeds the norm by a when the costs to upgrade the facility to current educational and code standards is cost-prohibitive against either new construction or the facility\nthe expected life of when you are considering realigning attendance zones just support student populations, or have to transport simply to maximize the facility. to children into an area or to spend funds to support educational attract students, all of which are intended to offsec L co rograms 11 c W student population and decreasing trends\nand, if schools are examined on a regional cluster. total combined facility space and exceeds the current projected needs and redistribution economic sense, or social considerations. consideration. PLANNING FACTORS: procedure which is does not and violate then closing is The following planning steps formulate a intended to be used as a guide vzhen school closing is contemplated. The procedure is set forth in a logical manner\nhowever, uniformly as local conditions require. its sections may be used separately or uniformly as locai i\nuuuii,j.uuo It is primarily intended to identify the various kinds of information as well that should be considered before as the particular activities It is intended that this procedure will be closing a school. the _______________to provide an organized structure for decision-makers when a school closing is being contemplated. followed so as A) acili.tx Evaluations t Facility evaluations are undertaken only when it is apparent that physical condition school. will influence the decision to close the This evaluation should properly identify the 5general condition of the facility and detail any special problems relating to age, structure or utility systems. The evaluations should include an estimate of useful life be made if the facility is continued in service. expectancy and, in particular, an accounting of repairs to Some schools will need to be closed regardless of age and condition. B) Capacity of Facility: Useful capacity should be C) calculated in terms of the numbers of students the facility can accommodate using criteria as established by *  . Each either the Local or State Board of Education. administration must establish its own formula capacity calculations. Suggested methods include: Capacity as ietermined J* Itiplying pupil.'t ratio times the number of classrooms Capacity as determined by dividing square footage in an instructional area by the per pupil square a footage recommended for the purpose for which the area is being used Capacity determined by physical determination cr each academic space as compared to the Board of Education standard capacity may not exceed the class any case, non cue cj-obo size limits as established by the State Board of Education. In Student Enrollments: Present and projected student enrollments should be a necessary part of any decision uO close a school. To decrease the margin of'error, {7) years should minimum period of time of at least seven be established upon which to base population projections. This should be done for the school system as a whole, all schools included. One should be aware of two (2) factors * *  a in projecting populations: a) The relationship between increases or decreases in the general population and school enrollment\nand. 6D) E) b) The need to project enrollment in a given attendance area where it is anticipated that a school may close. would be appropriate to establish an enrollment figure such that if the school falls below this number, that the school will be closed after due process, and all pupils It and school personnel reassigned. A proposal to close Organization of the School SYStemu should consider the organizational needs of the a school including reorganization of particular school system, schools which otherwise might have been closed. examole, be subtracting grades at an elementary level For consideration might facility could be continued in service. add such that o..e Within this context, one examines the long-range programmatic ntc-s of the school system before deciding to close a s\u0026gt;_hool. In doing so, it may be appropriate to close a school for some temporary purpose, which, in the final analysis will seirve the permanent goals of the school system. Cost of operationL To be explicit in one's assessment to close a school, we must calculate the financial costs of operating the facility, and more especially, the funds to    These costs m.ay be be saved by closing the facility. compared to per capita costs of operating other similar schools in the school system. or just simply on the basis that a given amount of money will no longer be spent if the facility is closed. These financial assessments normally include, but are not restricted to the areas of: a) Personnel reassign or eliminated\nb) Utilities for a period of time such as a year\nc) Maintenance and repair costs for a period of t ime\nd) Custodial costs\n7e) Transportation costs,- and, f) Miscellaneous costs. such as insurance. If the facility is to be closed, and not replaced, then obviously a substantial capital outlay may be avoided. If the facility is to be replaced, then a comparison must be made to the expected operational costs which will be determined from a cost analysis of the new facility. Obviously, if the per capita costs decrease. or the same general operational costs remain approximately the for a larger number of students in a more modern facility, then closing would be advantageous to the District. then F) Transportation: It is not 1 T. ays possr 1 o o.a G) H) savings in transportation by closing a school since ass .sporta' ignment of students sometimes increases transportation However, one may well reduce costs in responsibilities. this area by school closing, and it is incun-ibent upon us to assess this accurately. Specifically, rerouting should be buses, plus its effect upon time and distance, A corollary is the need for additional or examined. fewer buses. distance, issue. The relationship among routing, t ime, number of buses, and concomitant costs is the Racial Balance: racial balance enrollment. which so school The administration must recognize that IS a sensitive factor in No administration should take an school action seriously affects pupil assignment as closing a without being completely aware of its ramifications on racial balance. The probability is that racial balance alone will not likely determine whether or not a school is closed. However, it is a sensitive matter that may not be overlooked, this factor carefully. We must calculate Alternative Uses: Alternative uses of the facility must be examined during the analysis process to insure that the facility may not be compatible with the education process in an alternative use. Instructional programs, as well as auxiliary services, should be in an alternative use. as 8considered. Possible alternatives include: a) Special education\nb) Special purpose schools,- c) Social and community purposes\nd) Maintenance and repair services\ne) Storage\nand, f) Office space. irrrent expense to provide the aroremer and capital outlay costs should be me 1 jded 'Vices 1 any assessment of alternative uses. i) Program Considerations.:. In considering a school closing, the administration should determine where students will be reassigned, and what effect closing will have on j) k) program opportunities which result from staff reassignments and the relocation of resources. Tentative Decision: studies school After the administration carefully the facility evaluations. facility capacity. projections. school organizations, cost operation, effect on transportation, alternative uses the facility, effect on racial balance. of for and effect on local governmental planning, the administration should make a tentative decision. If the tentative decision is to close the school, then informal meetings and hearings should be scheduled. Informal MeetinQSu The administration. in conjunction with the Board of Education, should hold public hearings prior to the closing of the school. The administration should, in order to cement good public relations. hold certain informational meetings with their various publics prior to closing. These activities are strictly for the purpose of providing information. answering questions. and most important of all. establishing in the' minds of those affected. that their reactions and opinions are 96) 1) m) being evaluated, public support. School closings are much easier with These meetings should involve, should not necessarily be restricted to: a) b) c) d) but Parents\nSchool-related groups\nLocal government officials\nand, Other local interest groups. Additionally, the administration should keep a displaced faculty-as well informed as can be. Personnel reass ignm.ent plans should prepared and given to soon as possible. Closing Decisions: d c After all essential info: ion has been obtained and evaluated by the administration, and after all essential activities have been carried out, then the administration should approach the Board of Education, in an official session, regarding closing the school. If a school closing is voted upon. then it should be as specific as to termination date, and should be accomplished in conjunction with applicable general statutes regarding property disposal. Disposition of Surplus Property.:. If the closing of the school results in the property being surplus o the District's needs, then applicable laws should be followed regarding this disposition. Final disposition is. of course, at the determination of the Board, and may include the options of demolition, sell, or leasing. SUMMARY: The following checklist summarizes the school closing procedure. EVALUATION OF FACILITY  * * Report on physical condition State useful life expectancy Identify specific maintenance or code problems 10CAPACITY OF FACILITY  Determine formula useful, pupil capacity by approved STUDENT ENROLLMENT  * Project enrollment five {5} years as a minimum Identify minimum enrollment for automatic closing Project enrollment for specific attendance area ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEM if if  if Needs of total school system Reorganization required by closing Cost of operation Current expense in capital outlay of closing S S' r.crs ?er capita costs in compari to Oti TRANSPORTATION if if Rerouting needs including additional i Cost savings, if any RACIAL BALANCE ALTERNATIVE USES  * Total school system, program needs Auxiliary uses PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS TENTATIVE DECISION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS if Parents, local government officials, local interest groups School related groups, others DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY  Other school system needs Sell Lease 11\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_446","title":"Facilities study","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities study"],"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/446"],"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  \n\nJ B PUBLIC SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! B Learn More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-57IS, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368 lUSeptember 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more Information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical in determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations: 2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Severed recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an aimual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Facilities Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd FairPark-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jetfcrson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 n 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J.A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed arc marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes arc marked with an R School Allcudancc Zone Population: % While % Black Today Today % While Option M % Black Option M % Wliite Option T % Black Option T % Wliite Option C % Black Option C Elcm. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C JefTerson-C M.L. Kmg. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Milchell-C Otter Creek 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 69 31 80 20 82 18 Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 03 21 39 41 41 59 59 42 25 96 89 92 41 97 79 61 58 68 04 23 87 02 21 47 32 96 77 13 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 43 32 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION 1 6TH-STH enroll * capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 4 #2 k.9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. if 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-B Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210-1 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 i#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features: Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities\nToilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services\nPower installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alanns-and^t.Jjghts\n_genetai.and_special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features\nadministrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development\ndrainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3O/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement. marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day. and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or construction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Schoc) Size ! I I I I I I 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.^ Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for classes of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools,\" shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses, each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate student's perception of size. A large school does not necessarily have to be a numbingly anonymous one. 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction.  Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes cf schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the4)rojected-enrQllments....Table-d-rafJects-thexurrent grade -organizations (PK-6: 7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK6\n78\nand 912), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities. 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800. and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendatiori for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include: 1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 i 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500.students.. .Even at a.large,school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones\" presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools, Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. Impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21, 1994 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 Page 1 December 19, 1995 Difference Central HS** Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS**_____ Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH** Forest Heights JH Henderson JH* * Mabelvale JH Mannjh* Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH______ Sub-Total w/o Magnets u m m 1020 o I 535, 620! 266 646\n310 671 197 re  o Ik 61 38: 13 5 o o \u0026lt;0 m 422 341. 37 3379 1649 145 1606\n63.51% 892\n69.51% 994, 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 52.75% 5173 65.32% e  5 1021 639' s I 530 222 o  0 'Tf 9 S o 2957 1308 108 4373 67.62% 5301 110 4641 204\n573[ 186| 7 11 647 i 81.92% 654! 210i 27 411  452 426 4981 613! 260) 44 741 159, 15! 444, 364! 40 3458 1535 155 1598 870 917 915 848 u w ffi 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 5148 67.17% 3014 1171 115 4300 70.09% 1 3561 21 317! 1131 6 19 679 781  891  570 829 749 630' 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% 5421 4008 1648 120 5776 69.39% 3556 1292 99 4947! 71.88% 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 1576 181 22 16' 21 ' 5| 22 10 17 131 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 5671! 69.90% 3514 1199 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker\" Brady Carver*______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs CIbbs*_______ Jefferson King-________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcllff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller Romine- Stephens* Terry vyakefield___ Washington - mtsojiyy Western Hills Wiiijam^ Wilsey Woodruff Special Schools 136' 2221 2361 48! 74 0 8 4 184! 73.91% 109 48221 72.87% 303, 235i 20i 254! 119\n14! 313^ 268\" UT 344 j 312! 189' 195' 122! 721 103i 8' 7 7 6  2051 2271 394' 244! 241 215' 158' 2151 287. 356! 247' 294 256 161 198' 224, 260 226 36 121 308 314 558 387 595 474 391 292 304 438 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 52.61% 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 2901 TiT 9, 27! 69' 129\n2801 224, 133 226' 1151 61 191 198 A 123 69 7, 13 6 21 9 Zzl 1 i 4 8\n15 31 231. 307 329 70 431' 208, 325 205 249 269 140 15 96 216 80. 84 21' 4421 89.14% 555! 43.96% 277\n87.00% 291 300 501 532 73.86% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256' 1 498! 71.49% 490! 50.41% 410[ 71.71% 266 360 411 96.24% 44.72% 48.18% 3! 2311 96.97% 74! 3971 65.49% T61 Closed 30' 15^ 27 10, 8, 10, 8 0, 311! 72.87% 5681 40.67% 414' 79.47% 666\n64.71% 431 j 75.41% 310! 66.13% 475 [ 52.42/? 358' 75.14% 232! 60.34% 36 41.67% Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 S020 670 24956 65.1S% 14354 6454 555 21363 67.19% 165 219' 289' 312' 262' 306' 250 137 209' 213' 25^ Wf 68 130' 28(r 252 123' 197' 91  5 188 207 4 126 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7' 15 7 16 11  25 6' 2' 8! 2^ 6! 83] 18| Closed 244! 265! 25I 370[ 35 23' 419 372! 2111 264 3061 159! 17! 199 38! 73' 104! 7^ 00 2^ 3, 19! 13, \"8^ 0! 2201 80.00% 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 3181 76.42% 310| 53.23% 5061 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484' 403 257 333' 432 223 402 312 534 428 656 453 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 95.52% 63.18% 67.63% 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318, 66.35% 513- 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239\n66.53% 46! 36.96% 9229 4456 488, 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651 7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 5397  628 21191 69.21% Office of Student Assignment re 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75' -1  16' -2' 21  10 -3 28' 7' 4' 2' -44' 15' 12' -6' -24' 11  -11  -6 -15' 13| 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 2 LU -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34 -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 3 14 a JC -4 3 6 2 3 3 o re m -8 -22 -77 34 48 101 -25 71 -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 -10, 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 111-105 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 0 2 1 -51 2 8 5 -2 0 1 3 8 2 -125 36 33 ___9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52 -6 -7 9 -27 21 -8 5 1 Closed -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 -5 8 11 -34 14 -10 -21 22 -5 9 4 0 0 8 38 24 7 10 350 -267 83\n166 297 -3271 56, 26 385 [-453! 104! 36 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14%  0.08%  4.12%  4.88%  5.60%  2.53%  0.56%  0.37%  -2.06%  -1.53%  3.72%  4.22% 1.04% \" -3.58%  0.20% _ -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 1.45% 3121-5571 731-172 2.02% * u n o. n O 1891 954 1291 1199! lOOOl * o n Q.  u -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 6335 -1187 5335\n-1035 868 812 858 907 614 850 745 737' 6391 5541, 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374? 258! 469 487? 515 4921 836^ 492' 328 394 [ 324 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 ___[7 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 , -3263*5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters *  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and orgariizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district.  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decisionmaking processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)DRAFT/UNOFFICIAL k Little Rock School District 1996-97 Budget Planning Worksheet as of January 17, 1996 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE(7/1/96) $ 1,270,000 REVENUES: Local Sources County Sources State Sources-Settlement Funds States Sources-other Other Sources-Bond Transfer Fd Other Sources-other $71,860,000 $ $ 70,000 683,000 $50,609,000 $ 1,000,000 1,280,000 $125,502,000 EXPENSES: Salaries Benefit Plans Materials \u0026amp; Supplies- Other Purchased Services Bus Contract Capital Outlay-Ex Buses New Special Ed. Buses Other Objects Debt Service $73,710,000 $22,250,000 $20,734,000 $ $ $ $ s. 416,000 2,000,000 375,000 5,349,000 7,574,000 ($132,408,000) NET LOSS IS. 5,636,000) DEFICIT BEFORE ADDITIONAL ITEMS Potential Additional Revenue Sources: Re-appraisal (Dec) Millage Increase Deseg Loan Settlement Draw ($ 5,636,000) $ ??? ??? 3,500,000 Potential Additional Expenses: Payroll Step Increases Payroll Structure Increase 1996-97 Business Cases (NET) Desired Ending Fund Balance NET POSITIVE BALANCE/LOSS REDUCTION Options to Balance Budget: Educational Programs Reductions School Facilities Reconfiguration Non School Level Program/Personnel Reductions Optimize Student/Staff Ratios BALANCED BUDGET (State law requires LRSD to have a balanced budget.) OVER ($ ($ ($ $ 1 1,600,000) 0 200,000) 1,000,000) 4,936,000) ??? ??? ??? ??? 0Document format prepared by Van N. Light. Data taken from 1/17/96 financial documents given to Financial Advisory Committee members and to Dr. Williams and LRSD Board. The Best Guess Scenario figures are used in this document.BUILDING INFORMATION Little Rock School District - Facilities Master Plan Study School Name Mifekiel I Street Address RECBfVBO Surveyor Site Size Date acres AUG 2 1999 Permanent Buildings Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Firs l AddiTirm OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footagei Year Constructed Year Constructed Portable Buildings Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. L7I Condition Codes: c? dlOt.^^firooryi CouPcTer i Gross Squ^e Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage 4 - good. 3 - fair, 2 - poor, I - dead Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed 'o+clI 900 195 3 59 J 30 a Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms SB Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition ConditionI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I Facility Summary I I School Address Area Site Capacity Central High School 1500 South Park Street 266,823 SF 16.5 Acres 2256 Pupil Stations I f 1 Summary: Central High School was originally constructed in 1926, with the additions of: Quigley Stadium in 1937, the field house in 1950, dressing rooms in 1965, the library in 1969, and the choral room in 1973. Central High School is listed as a National Historic Landmark Building and is a uniquely imposing structure. The interior functioning plan, however, is complex and in places lacks the quality and finesse that the exterior holds. This building does not appear to have been well maintained, particularly in the mechanical areas. \u0026lt;f Due to the magnitude of the physical plant, surveyors approached the Central High School complex in four separate categories: Main Building, Library, Gymnasium, and Quigley Stadium. The evaluation of this facility placed Central High School fifth among the five high schools surveyed. 3 fl Main Building The most urgent needs and the greatest amount money are in the main instructional building. Surveyors found general deterioration of all plaster walls and ceilings, particularly on exterior walls where through-wall moisture seepage occurs. Renovation and repair work includes: removal and replacement of windows including reflashing and sealing, repair and replacement of plaster, new acoustical ceilings, replacement of hardware, repair and replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment, replace fire alarm system, provide temperature control system. Also, an extensive replacement of fan-coil units, air handling unit bearings and pulleys, new exhaust fans and duct work, and cleaning the existing ductwork system to alleviate air quality concerns are needed. fl fl fl Page 52 I 3 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I fl fl General refurbishment of all interior surfaces is required. In addition, life safety code requirements need addressing in corridors and stairwells as well as the addition of an elevator system for handicapped access to the various levels of this building. fl fl fl 0 fl fl fl Library Renovation work in this area includes repair of plaster, painting of interior surfaces, replacement of lighting fixtures, new toilet partitions and accessories, replacement of the fire alarm system, and the addition of exit lighting. The exterior of the building needs to be spray washed, and cleaning and pointing of brick work is required. Gymnasium Renovation of the gymnasium includes: repair/replacement of hardware, replacement of toilet partitions and accessories, resealing floor drains, replacement of showers, replacement of fire alarm system. Replacement of lights in locker room, new heating^ ventilating, and air conditioning throughout, as appropriate in this structure, and a general upgrade of interior finishes is needed. Quigley Stadium Renovations include: repair of plaster walls\nnew toilet partitions and accessories: fl replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment\nreplacement and refinishing of lockers\nreplace, reflash, and reseal windows\nreplacement of overhead doors\nand general refurbishment if interior surfaces and materials in finished spaces as c appropriate, needed. Repainting brackets and replacing seat boards at stadium are also fl The exterior work associated with this building requires replacement of barbed wire fencing, replacement of running track along with new curb, and spray washing all exterior surfaces along with repairing concrete walls. Page 53 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I I I General Conditions Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the-art, faculty rooms are small and disbursed, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are not useable, and the wooden structure previously used as the Tiger Den needs to be removed. Boiler capacity, producing steam, is currently oversized to produce domestic hot water and should be reviewed for a more cost efficient method using hot water and point of source heaters. I I The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. Priority #5includes expensive retrofitting of this fine old structure with over a half-million dollars for technology updates. With the history of this building, its current outstanding academic reputation, and its landmark status, regardless of its rating, closure is not an option. For purposes of this report, a complete renovation continuing its current mission is recommended. f A unique alternate use, however, could well be the establishment of Little Rocks first community college. With this use, history would be preserved, and the building, which now requires extensive supervision could be renovated for a more mature student base and adult education programs. A second alternative would be a super magnet high school for accelerated programs and adult continuing education opportunities. I Based on these observations, renovation and improvements are recommended to update this facility to acceptable standards and architectural study is recommended to solve code and engineering problems. H II I Bitt i ran - t* \u0026lt; '\u0026lt;^91 Page 54I I I 1 I 1 I I a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I FauulLy improvements and deficiency corrections have been prioritized and are summarized in this volume under the tab Cost Factors as well as complete details in Priority summaries are as follows: Facility subsequent volumes under the school tab. Main Building Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $2,942,332 $922,092 $172,319 $ -0- $753,466 $4,790,209 Library Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $51,905 $10,158 $3,618 $ -0 - $135,580 $201,263 Gymnasium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $77,225 $172,597 $7,328 $33,467 $ -0- $290,617 Quigley Stadium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $153,017 $69,536 $162,128 $ -0- $96,948 $481,629 Total Central High School Property Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 $3,224,480 $1,174,383 $345,393 $33,467 $985,994 Total (without escalation) $5,763,718 Page 55 IOffice 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 \u0026gt;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\nHow 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) 3710100 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 recived '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 MonitorMEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa 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 1. 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.Date: 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 1. 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.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKTINSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEJVE9 FEB 2 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregaiion Monttonnjjj-jjipgRvgjjoRs NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. II ( frlej I'n /i krar 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 Christopher Helled Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller k.i K j'! h '1' C .1 02^^ 20 lO\n002 I I* \u0026lt; I i V I i! !i 'f' :! ri' DATE j TO\n) 't 't .  I FROM j REi : t 1. UJ- : i .  fi t!  i FA.X 'i:U: I  \u0026gt;1 \n :jFelirjaMy M 4916 -' .j\nblKiSWts .S?tip^Cos(taiitt^ . IVafibahu W.tZ^ l0|c|ttar, Pl^tibe ItHy Ctmv^ittae !i- H At the ^10 resthted^ oM chip^ * Emoa 4H tinuttjutho I J b 'I\ng: I: il :l\nio 'fl ylt 4:' facitilBW'  1 I Se*ac4\u0026gt;fti I i1ions Input tor Facilities Stu4\\' Cowt^e r 4s- r Li4^:|Mf^ti*.^Wedi \\ FetMiMwy 14. 1996, the cenwuittee 4ediM| t|e WsIb a to-|:feiar fttnnat, one chair from tl commulaty sn4 j : f rifloteri ah a cOChair representing the crwninurtty end EMka S*tt)) 4*9 ico-chpir: \" |1 k^ottsil vemether *li 7)..  s i :iton op P ?hruary 14th, a tacditatoT t* to be ideatiiikd aMd } UibeMeiupttig I omnuttee goais^ scope, decisitn dnwiin* and J d tpc^ons wt re compiled at this meeting \"htey ant eddoswliflp 1 WWfross or cjonoctOns. These queationi wU be giwo to du I ip: I f ' ill , l#i .':  .!i iI v-  i j\ni 1 4.  *r Hi !ill\". !}Si5 Hi, each P * i Kill .11 |o the assB^ance oi'a facilitator for a timiaed time ad aaa.\nI-cootd nude )tV. ill , ., ill\n\" 111 hi- MDsm^i^ are .at ateelRHl^hy the a fiWfcodi WMs!Mj*kddatBJjf,J!rre^^rMnf0rs^T 1199^^ ihh. : ibid ^iOwdaP tirne, i sti4gi|it0w3 wbe re^wJM T^i^M ost 2 comnuiiee workshops uf up to (br howi* j of rhe week I contacted as aruay of ypu aa t j ivatKe of this memo Two suggeatHicfi have btm :ince we are asiur^ candidates to votontm llmhi|i bees fvth|a ly \u0026lt;*ll Ifue provide a short proHk One sU sug^estimBt haste [diB by loti er/phone/fax with nwnes and jjtroffles. Vou toil ice and/or express concern about a candidate li 'll cot Ttwnk \"t^ fia!}\ni^qr MjR'hot mgotlited: IritDtui.r.^.!- -a--a---d. aa iL .  . :S . tor the tupi isBOfts but help us to formulate or \u0026gt; i w?e inenbera to make theHet isioiM \" 3 t . 111 iiil ai o* *ip0rt \ni\n! I /  1 ft I' I  I V : !:  fl- I 1 i .ihi I I . r  i . 1 t. i .1 i if ! I t i ir! i t ii:\n !i it 11.: I I i\n5 f f 1  : 1 ! S !  i I i '* I i\n) ( i : ! i' 'i t -\ni\nI '5 J' I ) I 1 r 1 i It : Tt i 10 003 ] 1 I a:  I'' I : J FACauimiESfCOMMlTTEE :j, Il tiM Diitritt {.  t 15 CritSfialjOtiestioBs i! , (' J . Ui it 1 i i\nI I. 2 3, ' 1.  ' I I -, ' IWI lit 'acqatej^o^tb# nw il^isiung i^l to (amjhsee isei fbtth a planing framework for itself with goals Ii0 i'  1' ' \u0026gt; ! i' 1 1 I 4. 5 6 7.  8 SiJ^ici and members J |ll^ ^|lg tejweb ofltnt il*M a\nbix)| district within committee. '5^ s0tt(^ autioommti 9 ! j . H\n! 10 11 i 12 15. illf 14. 15 16 i nr : \u0026lt; :es'? ti|b\u0026lt;{!9t|n4itt|e.' eeanpoqttm] and ntembers- n^0to.! iQiiiun tfcoifaosiities study as a piece to begin decision inakisig? 3iiil iitwke a  fesentaboii ') flidwidiejfc^^ a jwt iM'ihty stutfy within aonimatec. ^felsinw^-lQcliaii:' ^ntifijed schools within recoiTMTiBBdationB get  i j(io mJ cototifcuiiictlrtt interoaty witbm the committee ajd with and Oli i? I Qi W?\nH 11 i 1 ' f t j . i !  I! i !( J\nU I  t '1 I 1\nV' 1 i- ii 1 goit^ t\u0026amp; aMhbMmica^e cirnimritee decisions Io tie gca} pst#^? '' ' i I'' i J'--\n.-- 1{ I - '* I '! I ( ). 1 1 I I I J .L': I ,1 ! ! I !\u0026lt; i! 1 f 1 ill 1 i I J Il ri 'iiiT I'liirrii wiiiwii.-WJroirTtliiiM/' ' r\u0026lt;i.\\\u0026lt;^l''' \"\u0026gt;  1 ?. . uR^D RDMirL BULDING '\"J..-. J^' Fax:1-501-32^-2052 Jan 12 06 16:42 i's*  ' Little Rock School District Media Advisory P.02/02- . jlft 7, ^5 January 12,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 ^Members of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Facilities Study Committee will hold a community forum Saturday. Januan-13, 1995. The discussion will focus on the status of the LRSD facilities study and how the studys recommendations will impact local schools. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12th Street. ao' '3*1-.J ( 1 Media Note: Little Kock School Board members have been invited to this event. A special meeting situation exists if more than one Little R(x:k School Board member attends the same meeting. i7^ I- . i-' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 4*-'' .'lO .RSUR.J\u0026gt;!n 810 West Markliain Street  Little Rock.,Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 UUBt. I3IQ (p a PUBLIC Office Ft- j J 1996 I Oesegfegation f^oiiiteimg SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! a Leam More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-5715, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Suellen Varm, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment: 3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand, 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial Information were gathered and included In the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community Identities, diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Faculties Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255School Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodniff-C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 69 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 31 80 20 82 18 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 25 96 89 92 41 68 04 23 87 32 96 77 13 41 41 59 59 03 21 39 97 79 61 02 21 47 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68 42 58LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 43 32 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J,A,FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL OPTION #1 6TH-BTH * PK enroll capety delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS P1 4 #2 k-8TH.12 enroll capcty delta 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTALVTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ^ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;ta k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY \"210 i 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 396 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 f 445 - 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 I 321 I 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264  426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 1S350 35 ' 42 : 116 I 132 102 I 70 , 151 I 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools| 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features\nAir conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities: Toilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services: Power installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alarms-and-exit.Jights\n_geneEaJ-and-special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features: administrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development: drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a school's capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement, marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day, and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or constnjction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Schoci Size 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.  Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for c/asses of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools, shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses,\" each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. student's perception of size. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate numbingly anonymous one. A large school does not necessarily have to be a 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction. 2 Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes of schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the-projected_enrQllments..- Table.d jBflects-tbe-current grade -organizations {PK-6\n7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK-6\n7-8\nand 9-12), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities, 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800, and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendation for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include\n1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 I 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500 students. .Even at a.large .school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools. Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21,1994 re m 3 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 December 19,1995 Difference Page 1 Central HS\" Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS** Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH DunbarJH** Forest Heights JH Henderson jh* * Mabelvale JH MannJH* Pulaski Heights jh southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets 1Q2O[ 5351 620\n266 6461 310' 671! 197 O \"sT 6' 38' 13! a o re CD 422! 3411 37 3379! 1649 145 2957 1308 108 16061 63.51% 892 i 69.51% 9941 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 ! 52.75% Badgett Bale Baseline Booker* Brady carver* Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs Gibbs* Jefferson king- Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller* Romine ~ Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington - Watson Wes^rr^^is____ Williams* Wilson Woodruff_____ Special Schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 530 464 573 654 411 452 426 498 4008 3556 136 222 236 303 254' 313 344 312 189 195 205 394 244 241 215 I 1101 204 186' 210 152 356 317 7 11 22 27 7 21 6 HTa 19 1648 120 5173 4373 647 679 781 891 570 829 749 630 65.32% 67.62% 81.92% 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% o (B m 1021 639 613 741 444 3458 o I 530 222 260 159, 364 1535 0  6 47 9 a o 1292! 991 4947 5776! 69.39% i 44! 15 40 isT 30141 11711 115 158^ 215 287 48 78 74 235 119 2681 122 72 96 103' 227 36 290 9' 69' 129 280' 0 8 4 20 14 14 8 7 7 6 6 12 21 27 7 13 6 184 308 314 558 387 71.88% 73.91% 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 5951 52.61% 224! 21 3561 133: 2471 226i 294 256' 1^ 115! 6! 191! 198! 198 224! 226 4! 123 69, 231! 307 329! 70 9 474 391 292 304 438 442 555 277 291 300 501 532 498 490 410 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 89.14% 43.96% 87.00% 73.88% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 71.49% 50.41% 71.71% 4, 8 15 3: 16! Closed 30! 15 266! 96.24% 3601 44.72% 411 231 397 311 48.18% 96.97% 65.49% 72.67% 5421 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 3514 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 165 219 289 312 262 306 250 137 209 213 254 211 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 18 22 16 21 5 22 10 17 1598 870 917 915 848 5148 4300 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 (0 m 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 67.17% 70.09% 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 431! 208! 27 325. 205! 96! 97 249i 216 269! 140 15 80, 84, 21\" 10! 8: 10 9 8\n568! 40.67% 414! 79.47% 666! 64.71% 431 : 75.41% 3101 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 , 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 370 1576 131 1199 109 5671 69.90% 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 670 24956 1 65.1% 14354 6454 I 555,21363 67.19% 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256 1 68 130 280 252 123 197 91 5 188 207 4 126 83 265 35 199 73 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7 15 7 16 11 25 6 2 8 16 6 22 18 4822 220 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 318 310 506 72.87% 80.00% 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 76.42% 53.23% 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484 403 257 333 432 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 223 i 95.52% 402I 63.18% 312! 67.63% X o re =\u0026amp; 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75 -1 16 -2 21 10 -3 28 7 4 2 -44 15 12 -6 -24 11 -11 -6 -15 o A -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34  -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 J 14 e -4 3 6 2 3 10 a o o n m -8 -22 -77 34 48 -25 7\\ -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 11 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 ~0 2 1 -5 2 8 5 -2 0 T 3 8 2 -10 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 -105 -125 36 33 9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52, -6' -9 -27 21 -8 5 1 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14% 0.08% 4.12% 4.88% 5.60% 2.53% 0.56% 0.37% -2.06% -1.53% 3.72% 4.22% 1.04% -3.58% 0.20% -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% o \u0026lt;0 a o . 18911 954' 1291 ' 1199' 1000' * o n Q. (0 _S2. -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 63351 -1187 53351 -1035 868 812 858 w Tu 850 745, 737 6391 5541 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 Closed -51 -34 8 14 Closed 251 231 38! 8: 419' '37^ 2111 31 264, 230i 19\n3061 159! 17 104! 63! 721 2^ 13 8' 0 534 428 656 453 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318: 66.35% 513 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239! 66.53% 46! 36.96% 13 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 11 -2 -5 9 4 0 0 -10 22 8 38 24 7 10 9229 4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651,7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 ! 5897 628 21191 ! 69.21% 350!-267 83! 166 297!-327! 56! 26 385[-453!104! 36 312!-557 ! 731-172 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 3.45% 2.02% 515 492 836 492 328 517 394 324 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 -3263 Office of Student Assignment5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other commuruty agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision- making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)11/07/95 13:32 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 I k i 1 i Little Rock School District News Release SPECIAL BOARD MEETING I I November 1,1995 11\n45 a.m. For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Li t I LE ROCK ~ The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special board meeting this evening at 5:30 p.m. to review the facilities study recently prepared by 3/D International. Currently there are no other items on tonight's agenda. t The meeting will be held in the board room of the administration building at 810 W. Markham. I I I t I 1 ### I  1 ! i tRECEIVED SEP 7 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation 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 The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey. i 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:- Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (HAND DELIVERED) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Helle: 2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date\nSeptember 11, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Brown Subject: LRSD Facilities Study In both written and oral representations to the Court, the LRSD Facilities Study was scheduled for completion by August 31, 1995. Please forward a copy of the completed study to me. If the study is not yet finished, please let me know the firm completion date. Thank you very much.-  -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:28 P. 02/04 W September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District New* Release For more Information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD PaciUtles Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes in populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization: and. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study flrm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/asslgnment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkanena 73301  (501)334-3000-  LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.03/04 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. 3. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage increase. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, aU of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modlflcatlons. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C  recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more). . LRSD ADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.04/04 LRSD Facilities Stuify Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday. September 28. 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jul 24 95 9:48 P.02/02 ECEHB Little Rock School District News Release July 24, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Consultants for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are completing work on a comprehensive long-range facilities study. The firm, 3/D International, has been working for six months on the study which is designed to provide recommendations for school buildings and building locations. This fall 3/D International will present Its results to the LRSD Board of Directors. Prior to finalizing the study. 3/D International will meet with community residents on Monday, July 31, 1995. at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. This meeting wUl allow for additional community Input regarding school building needs for the district. The community is invited to attend the meeting which will be broadcast live on the LRSD cable channel 4. ### Note: School Board membere have been invited to attend the July 31 meeting. A special meeting situation exists when two or more school board members attend the same event.'WMtes Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEfW^ July 21. 1995 1995 Office of Dasegrsgabon Mo.m^ f J Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is studying its current facilities and planning its facility needs for the future. This comprehensive facilities study is critical to the future of the school district. 1 invite you to attend a community meeting on Monday, July 31, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. to leam more about this study and to provide you an opportunity to participate in this process. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Your input is vital as we finalize this comprehensive study and prepare recommendations regarding our facilities needs. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 received JUL 1 8 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Moniionngi Date: July 14, 1995 To: Interested Parties From: Henry P, , Superintendent Re: Draft Policy - Naming Facilities At the suggestion of Board Member Judy Magness, I am forwarding a copy of a policy that will be considered for first reading at the meeting of the Board on Thursday, July 20, 1995. If you would like to make any suggestions for revision of this policy, please feel free to contact me or Mrs. Magness. Thank you for your time and interest.Code: NAMING FACILITIES The Board of Education shall approve the official names of all school buildings. In selecting names for new buildings, recommendations will be considered from the superintendent of schools, interested citizens, students, or staff. Proposed names may be submitted by the superintendent to the school staff, students, and interested citizen groups for reaction. The final recommendation shall be forwarded by the superintendent to the Board of Education for approval. The following guidelines shall govern the naming of facilities: 1. 2. 3. Schools shall be named for persons identified with public education or who have rendered some other distinguished public service locally, nationally or internationally. When possible, the group making the nomination should agree to provide appropriate recognition for that school in the form of a plague, portrait, marker or in some other way. The nomination shall be presented in a brief three paragraph statement which shall contain: a. b. c. Appropriate biographical data about the person The significant contribution made by the person A statement of why the school should be named after the person The attached form shall be used by persons nominating names for facilities. Also, the Board at its discretion may name portions of a building, such as the library or auditorium. Guidelines listed above shall apply in such cases. In all cases, care should be taken to avoid similarities with the names of existing schools. Once a person's name has been proposed, written authorization shall be secured by the superintendent from the closest relative to the third degree of the descendant before any official action is taken by the Board.Following the adoption of the official naming (or renaming) of a new school building or program housed within the building, the administrative officers of the Board will be authorized to give public notice of such action and to modify existing records and other legal documents as may be necessary. Bie official names of all schools will be approved or altered only by motion of the Board. Request for renaming facilities will follow the format listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State the proposed name Identify the facility location or building location Provide biographical or historical data supporting request Describe significant\ncontribution of individual for which considered Offer a rationale for naming or renaming school naming is RENAMING FACILITIES 'P deemed unusual or appropriate, the Board may take steps to rename school fact ities, or portions thereof. Schools named for a person will retain that persons name as long as the facility is used for instructional purposes by the District. Exceptions to this may be made by the Board. In renaming the facility, or portions thereof, the provisions set forth above shall be followed. Recommendations for new names or name changes shall be received anytime during the year, and shall be referred to the administration for obtaining comments and input from the school community involved. The Board shall review all such proposals and input at Its May work session and shall vote on any recommendations to the full Board at its first June Board meeting. Proposed changes must be submitted prior to April 1 to be included in that year\"s consideration process. A school building name, other than the name of a person, may be considered in naming new school buildings. Names may be recommended using the following guidelines: 1. 2. A school name may be recommended considering its geographical location. A school name may be recommended considering its function. A distinction may be made between the building name and the official name of the program(s) housed in the building. Buildings will retain the names they were given at the time of the dedication by the Board of Education, such as, hypothetically, Instructional Resource Center at Lee School\". The superintendent shall use the same procedure as outlined for naming schools after persons in securing reactions to other suggested names.PUBLIC DEDICATION New school buildings and major additions to these facilities shall be dedicated in a public and formal ceremony. There shall be a program or open house to which the Board, citizens, parents, and students are invited. All plans for the public or formal opening of any school shall be made in cooperation with the schools principal. Detailed procedures for dedication ceremonies shall be furnished by the principal to the Superintendent.NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the (Designation of building and/or location) (Address) be named for I. Biographical Data: IL HL The Nominee's significant contribution is: I believe the facility should be named for this person because: (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the Board of Education prior to July 15, for consideration during the period between July 15 through August 1.CM. April 17, 1995 Little Rock School District il APR 2 0 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Otfise of Oesegregisiiuii ,-.-y Little Rock, AR 72201 R / Dear Melissa: Pursuant to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Facilities Study which I completed in March of 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to call. Sa^ncerely yours. al C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg Encl. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)834-2000TO: ac. COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas March 31, 1995 receive /^PR 5 1995 Memorandum OHice of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Parents FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Facilities Study Survey The Little Rock School District is studying the condition of all of the school buildings in the district. This study wiU help us determine which buildings require maintenance and which schools should be replaced with new facilities. As part of this study, we are doing a survey to get your input on the condition of the school your child attends. If you have children in more than one Little Rock public school, please fill out a survey for each school. The survey is on the back of this letter. Please fill out the survey and return it to your child's school by Friday, April 7, 1995. Thank you for helping us as we plan future improvements to our schools. cc: Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Sadie Mitchell Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Dennis Snider Leon ModesteLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SURVEY The school I will address with my responses is: Select one only (related to school listed above): Parent of child at this school ____ Employee at this school live near this school, but no children attending this school 1. This school is an asset to the community. Yes No 2. The overall appearance of this school is: Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement 3. This school needs improvement in the following areas: (Check all that apply) Site: Handicapped accessibility Playground Bus loading zone (at school) Parking Security (outside building) Drainage Traffic flow Location 4. 5. Maintenance: Building exterior Building interior Grounds Special Areas: Handicapped facilities Cafetorium Restrooms lutsnoi: ______ Floors Ceilings ______ Carpet ______ Walls Lighting Paint Equipment Telephone Equipment Furniture Security (inside building) In general, classroom/building conditions at this school are: Excellent Good Fair Poor Additional Comments: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.'t Jt. LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 5 95 7:53 P. ,02/02 f. - I' a 1 4 '2 li h'-  .  \u0026lt;'\u0026lt;'00 1 -'7 '2V 'ft'.. LrntE Rock School District ' -.a: News Release April 4,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 *4 ' . The bitle Rock School District (IRSD) is evaluating school buildings through a i }.\u0026lt; ?  r a 5=1  iff 1^:'^ B\n.1. s\u0026gt;i comprehensive fadlltles study. The study wlU cover a 10 year period and U1 assist school officials in making decisions regarding school closings, repair of existing schools, new construction, and consolidation of existing facilities. Doug Eaton. IKSD Director of Plant Services, said, \"Any prudent school district does a facilities study to project its long range needs. This study will tell us whether the district is meeting the educational needs of the city based on the way the city is expandtas.\" Eaton added. \"The study will look at the demographics of our dlsmcl, ihe and eondidon of our schools, desegregation plan obligations, snideot populations, age II city planning and zoning factors, and costs to implement recommendations.' 3/D International of San Antonio. Texas has been hired to develop the facilities study. 3/D is coordinating its efforts with an architectural and engineering firm, a demographics corapanj\nand educational specialists to develop a set of recommendations. The study should be\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":499,"next_page":500,"prev_page":498,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5976,"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}}]}}