{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1087","title":"\"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988-10-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\""],"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/1087"],"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  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nIN'l'ERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN October 3, 1988  -- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN October 3, 1988 Introduction Position of the Arkansas State Board of Education Overview Interdistrict Desegregation Plan Student Choices and Options Summer School Gifted Education Long-Term Desegregation Plan staff Development School Operations Library Media Special Education Vocational Education 12. Guidance and Counseling INTRODUCTION The goals of school desegregation planning must be clearly focused and well understood. It is insufficient to establish as a single goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines. An educational environment which encourages and provides academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents must also be a goal of any adequate desegregation plan. The parties hereto seek to ensure that the schools and learning experiences through the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her economic status, racial, cultural or geographical identification. Immediately following this introduction, the parties have included an overview which sets forth their mutual understanding of the basic tenets and bases for compromise they consider essential to an interdistrict desegregation plan. Supporting that overview, the reader will find a series of documents prepared by committees composed of representatives of the parties. The committees met over a period of weeks to discuss and come to agreement on the interdistrict desegregation aspects on assigned subjects. There were four ( 4) main committees which were devoted to the following areas: 1) student assignments\n2) programs/academics\n3) community and board development\nand, 4) school operations. The student assignment committee also had oversight responsibility for the other committees. At one time - or another all the parties had representatives present to develop and formulate areas of collaboration. The committees submitted their reports to the oversight committee (student assignment) which in turn submitted all of the reports to counsel for the various parties. Counsel have now refined and revised those reports as well as produced the following overview. The intradistrict submissions constitute the work product of representatives and counsel of the submitting party and do not necessarily represent matters upon which consensus has been formed among the parties. Indeed, it should be emphasized that all of the material has not yet been subjected to finnl review by the parties. However, such material does represent their best - joint efforts and mutual thinking to date.  Finally, this document represents the work product of the LRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua Intervenors. The NLRSD is not a signatory to the proposal or any of its parts and has not agreed to participate in any of the programs, procedures or policies set forth. The NLRSD does not, however, object to LRSD and PCSSD implementing these proposals within their districts, provided they do not negatively affect the desegregation plan of the NLRSD . The NLRSD will consider the programs, and may, subject to the - consent of the parties hereto, participate in specific programs when the NLRSD determines that such participation would be beneficial to the NLRSD and its students. --  POSITION OF THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION The Arkansas State Board of Education cannot support and must object to this plan, primarily because it expands the financial responsibility of the State Board beyond both the interdistrict and intradistrict remedies assessed against it in the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon request, the State Board will continue to cooperate and assist the other parties in an advisory capacity and will continue to negotiate with them to modify the plan so that it is brought in conformity with the earlier Eighth Circuit rulings in this case. OVERVIEW I. Objectives: The objective of the parties is to develop and implement a comprehensive desegregation plan for the three school districts in Pulaski County. Such desegregation plan shall be based upon the following principles: A. All schools (students and faculty) should be racially balanced within goals reflective of previous applicable court orders and approved desegregation plans except as otherwise provided in this Plan. B. There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50% black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. II. Interdistrict Schools: There shall be interdistrict cooperation in developing the interdistrict thematic school programs. The State Department of Education shall have ultimate responsibility for financing interdistrict thematic schools. Responsibility for operating and managing interdistrict schools shall rest primarily with the host district, subject to coordination and cooperation among the parties with respect to such matters as recruitment, theme selection, transportation, and other matters which are relevant to the interdistrict character of the facility. Four new interdistrict facilities will be constructed in 8 the near term ( 1989-90). Sites to be considered include a new Washington school\na new school near I-4 30, perhaps using the vacant Home Mart structure\na new King school\nand a new Stephens school. -- Facilities considered for construction in the future include new schools in or near Shinall Valley\nthe Outlet Mall area and the Scipio A. Jones site. Further construction and additions may be undertaken at the Oak Grove (PCSSD) schools and such other existing school sites as determined between the parties or by the court as appropriate for interdistrict school locations. The interdistrict schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and by white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. efforts designed to schools. III. Enhanced Schools: PCSSD and LRSD will engage in recruitment maximize participation in interdistrict There shall be a limited number of enhanced schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools of 50\\ black and 50\\ white with an allowable range of assignment of present LRSD students of 55\\ black and 45\\ white. The recruitment of white students to these remaining schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools.  The enhanced schools shall be identified after a determination has been made of the number of black students who elect to attend them. The enhanced schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of recruitment to the enhanced schools, and assignments from the enhanced schools to interdistrict schools, as those schools are built\nsuch recruitment and assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the enhanced schools shall be set at two times the level for regular-curriculum schools, to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. As this plan's first phase program is completed, the number racially-isolated school settings students. IV. Magnet Schools: of facilities construction of students remaining in should not exceed 15 o o The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools. Those schools shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black. They shall continue to be open to students of the three districts. PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD will engage in recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in magnet schools .  V. PCSSD Schools: The PCSSD schools shall have a black-white ratio goal in accordance with that district's proposed permanent desegregation plan. VI. NLRSD Schools: The North Little Rock schools shall have a black-white ratio goal in accordance with its present desegregation plans. That district will operate no magnet schools unless it so chooses, although it may educate pupils of the other two districts. If an interdistrict school is placed in North Little Rock, it will be racially balanced. VII. Further School Construction: All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. VIII. Transportation: The districts shall explore operating a single transportation system. The cost of any such system shall be shared in a manner agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the court. Students who need transportation in order to attend their assigned schools (including its programs and activities) shall be provided it. Nothing in the transportation process will preclude a student from voluntarily choosing an assignment which requires more than a 45 minute bus ride. IX. Building Quality: An aim of the plan shall be to ensure for all students equal educational facilities. Schools which are located in lower  socio-economic least equal districts. areas shall to those in receive attention and more affluent areas X. students Outside Pulaski County: resources at in respective The parties shall encourage assignment of students from outside Pulaski County to select interdistrict schools. Assignments shall be made under this provision only if they advance the desegregation goals of this Plan. XI. Faculty: The districts and the state department shall set recruitment and hiring goals so as to prevent imbalance and to provide highly qualified staff to all students. The racial composition of each district's faculty ratio shall be consistent with applicable law. XII. Achievement Disparities: A. The parties shall have as a high priority the elimination of educational achievement disparities between black and white students. An instrument for initial measurement of disparity will be standardized, properly approved and/or vali-dated tests. Each district or entity shall devise its own plan for eliminating disparities while at the same time continuing to maximize educational opportunity for all students. B. The parties recognize that the elimination of disparity may place greater demands upon the black students in racially identifiable schools than on others, and further that the high demand/high expectation concept will target low achievers in all schools .  c. The districts shall evaluate all programs and personnel for effectiveness in remediating achievement disparity in accordance with any applicable policies, laws or agreements. XIII. Programs and Activities: There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities in any school need not exist. Where such disparities do exist, they shall be identified\nanalyzed for cause and shared with the appropriate monitoring authorities. A recommended course of action in remediation will then be implemented. Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextra-curricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems. An objective of this appraisal shall be to eliminate negative stereotyping based upon race or socioeconomic status. XIV. Monitoring: The districts will continue to carry out their respective monitoring responsibilities as provided in their existing and proposed plans. Each District shall make a quarterly report to the Special Master. Additionally, at the end of each year a determination of the effectiveness of plan implementation shall be conducted by the parties, subject to the court's review. To accomplish this end, the parties' monitors will be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided that requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive .  xv. Housing: The parties commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. The districts recognize the force of prior court findings that governmental agencies and/or private parties helped to create racially segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. XVI. Funding: The parties recognize that most funding issues will ultimately have to be determined by the Court. The parties expressly agree that the method of funding chosen to satisfy the State's obligations under this Plan shall not result in a diminution of funds in comparison to the usual and customary Minimum Foundation Program Aid funding for a typical, non-magnet school. Moreover, where there is a commitment in this Plan to \"enhance\" a school, it is expected that more rather than less will be spent per student in State aid. The Little Rock School District does not have the necessary funds to implement this desegregation plan. Implementation must be dependent upon the receipt of additional desegregation funds by LRSD. XVII. Special Education: To the extent not addressed in other sections of this Plan, the parties are committed to ensuring that all aspects of Special Education within the three districts shall be operated and maintained by the parties with the objective that racial disparities,  including over-representations of certain groups in special classes, shall be reduced or eliminated. The parties will continue to work together toward that end. XVIII. Community Involvement: The parties are committed to ensuring a high degree of involvement by parents, business leaders, and other patrons and volunteers within each of the districts. This Plan takes positive steps to make that involvement substantive and ongoing .  -  INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN student Choices and Options The parties to this proposal believe that the recent success of the magnet schools in the Little Rock School District as well as the real potential for expansion of the tri-district Majority-to-Minority program should constitute the fundamental building blocks upon which a tri-district student assignment and transfer program should be built. These parties believe that these carefully crafted strategies should be further pursued and given a full opportunity to succeed before consideration is given to other assignment strategies. Preliminary recommendations are set forth below regarding the location of new magnet schools\nhowever, with certain exceptions, these parties do not presume to suggest final themes for new magnet schools at this time. These parties believe that such decisions can more successfully be realized by full involvement of patrons, parents, and students in theme selection. To that end, these parties propose to conduct a series of carefully drawn tri-district parent/patron surveys designed to elicit public opinion and input concerning the selection of themes, the location of themes, and the implementation of themes. The parties further propose that, following analysis of the data received from these surveys, a series of public meetings be conducted to receive further comment regarding potential themes, suggestions for thematic refinement, and further input regarding theme location. The parties believe that this process will not only promote con- - - ....  fidence in these expanded and new programs but will operate to generate curiosity about and enthusiasm for these expanded activities. The parties further propose a liberalized and expanded greater-majority to lessor-majority transfer option, which is separately presented as a proposed stipulation. Preliminary Suggested Magnet Locations The following suggestions are the best judgment of the planners in this process based upon the need for new construction and current demographics and geography. The parties suggest that within the Little Rock School District a new Stephens Elementary School operating at grades pre-K through 6 be located due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex, by 1990. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and largely operated by the state of Arkansas as both a model and experimental school which draws its black student body largely from the Little Rock School District and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have child care facilities. These parties also propose the construction of a new King Elementary School as a downtown elementary school, by 1990. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interstate 630, Chester street, 9th Street and Center Street. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work  - -- within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. To augment its attraction, and to facilitate, perhaps as a pilot program, the state of Arkansas' long-term goals for early childhood education, the school should include a four-year-old preschool program as well as childcare facilities. The parties further propose that the reconstructed Washington complex serve as an interdistrict magnet, beginning in 1989, and that, particularly because of its location, it be promoted as an option for out-of-county parents and students who work in the city of Little Rock. The parties also believe that the time has come to open all of the interdistrict magnet schools to parents and children who reside outside Pulaski County. This latter action seems particularly appropriate since many of these people work in Little Rock but live outside the county and do not presently have the option of attending magnet schools, and because the state of Arkansas will be called upon to play a significant financial role in the establishment and operation of these new magnet schools. The parties further propose that in 1989 the Oak Grove complex of schools in Pulaski County be constituted as an interdistrict school complex, with each organizational level assigned a publicly determined theme. The parties believe that the selection of themes for this school complex should be determined after the survey and public hearing process is completed. The PCSSD suggests that serious consideration be given to the implementation of a naval ROTC program for the Oak Grove high school and  --- e - -  the concomitant phas~-out of the naval ROTC program at Parkview High School. LRSD disagrees with the Parkview phase-out. The parties further propose that a facility located at the junction of Interstate 430 and Colonel Glenn Road in the western portion of the city, otherwise known as the \"Home-Mart Building\", be acquired for operation as a large elementary magnet school to be operated by the Pulaski County Special School District, beginning in 1990. The parties are in agreement that the location and physical construction of this facility offers enormous possibilities for an excellent instructional program. Among the advantages offered by this facility are its extraordinary size of 120,000 square feet, its proximity to Fair Senior High School, its unique location almost upon the boundary of PCSSD and LRSD and its proximity to Interstate 430. While final details have not yet been proposed, the parties believe that this facility could be operated in a unique way. This includes reserving for Pulaski County Special School District a significant number of seats, some of which might be available for mandatory student assignment by the PCSSD, to accommodate a future growth of student population in the western portion of the PCSSD. The parties believe that an appropriate theme or themes can be determined which would accommodate not only the traditional method of pure volunteerism for magnet schools but also the potential for number of the seats being reserved for a geographic assignment area within the PCSSD and LRSD .  -  The parties also recognize that the sheer physical size of the facility holds out the promise of a multi-theme magnet which could promote even greater interdistrict student movement. The parties further believe that its location at a major intersection on the Interstate system in the western portion of the county holds promise for the attraction of students from without the county who do not travel on the other major arteries which now bring them within proximity to the previously established Little Rock District magnet schools or the proposed Washington Elementary School. The parties further agree that serious consideration should be given to the establishment of an alternative school on the present site of Central Junior High School in North Little Rock in 1989. The parties recognize that such a facility might most appropriately be operated by the present interdistrict school cooperative. The parties will explore the possibility that funding received by LRSD as part of the Annie Casey Grant could be directed toward the operation of such a facility as a tridistrict effort. Potential M to M Enhancements The parties recognize that additional programs and strategies need to be implemented to fully promote majority-to-minority transfers. Among the options proposed by the parties are the establishment of an Air Force ROTC program, together with instructive flight simulator, at North Pulaski High School. This will require additional construction at North Pulaski. The par- ties agree that the Air Force ROTC program at Central High School  in Little Rock has been a success as well as a prime attractor for black students. Its implementation at North Pulaski High School could act as an inducement for the voluntary transfer of black students to North Pulaski. As previously mentioned, the parties propose the establishment of a naval ROTC program at Oak Grove High School in PCSSD. Again, the parties agree that these - specialized programs are an appropriate desegregation tool designed to promote the voluntary movement of LRSD black students to appropriate PCSSD schools. Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant The three school districts in Pulaski County are committed to the joint pursuit of a federal magnet grant of up to seven million dollars for the operation of the multi-district magnet schools. It is hoped that the prospect of receipt of this grant will induce the State of Arkansas to become enthusiastic about the prospect of additional magnet schools in all three districts. The school districts believe that the receipt of this grant can - work to reduce the financial obligation of the state of Arkansas with regard to schools and thus invite the State's wholehearted - cooperation and assistance in obtaining the magnet school grant award. The grant application is due this fall and a decision on the - grant is expected during the 1988-89 school year. If the districts are successful, then monies should be available in time   - -- -- - to assist in the development and implementation of the proposed new magnet schools. In any event, the districts and intervenors propose that the same funding arrangement that has previously been utilized be carried forth in the development of new magnet schools at the same time recognizing that the recommendation to develop the Home-Mart Building and Shinall Mountain School as magnet schools probably warrants a reduced expectation of participation, both student and financial, from the North Little Rock School District. However, this proposal does not constitute an acceptance by the districts and intervenors of the method utilized by the state to fund its share of the magnet school costs by using Minimum Foundation Program Aid which would have otherwise gone to the Pulaski County districts.  - -- SUMMER SCHOOL Programs for remediation and enrichment will be offerd during a six (6) week summer session. LRSD will create a special summer school for a select number of students with achievement deficiencies in reading and math. Student eligibility for this free program shall be based strictly upon deficient assessment during regular school year. LRSD expects a maximum participation of approximately 500 students in grades one through twelve. The pupil/teacher ratios and other support programs shall be similar to regular year programs which address the same concerns. Summer Learning Program (8th Grade Remediation Program) The Summer Learning Program will be implemented for those students who fail to obtain mastery on the Minimum Performance Test administered by the Arkansas Department of Education during the spring of 1988. The program will operate for six weeks and will provide remediation, in accordance with Arkansas Department of Education guidelines, in the areas of reading, English/ language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. students will receive instruction only in the identified area(s) of need, with instruction being provided in three-week modules. A student may receive extensive remediation in one area for six weeks or assistance in two areas with three weeks concentrated on each area. The Summer Learning Program will have a projected enrollment of 500 eighth grade students and a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:20.  Little Rock school District/JTPA Literacy Program Effective the summer 1987 the students (ages 14-21) certified to participate in the Summer Youth Employment Program must be assessed in the areas of reading and mathematics and provided remediation instruction. The Little Rock School District has submitted a proposal to the city of Little Rock, JTPA and Private Industry Council for approval. The proposal was developed and submitted in accordance with Little Rock School District and Job Training Partnership Act Program guidelines. Extended Year Services (Handicapped Students) The Little Rock School District recognizes that to meet the responsibility of ensuring that all handicapped students receive an appropriate public education, some handicapped students may need to receive special education and related services that extend beyond the regular school year. Most handicapped children, like their nonhandicapped peers, benefit from school vacations\nhowever, for children who have limited recoupment capacity, a break in programming may be detrimental rather than beneficial to the overall learning process. The purpose of the extended year program is to prevent regression relative to previously-learned skills which cannot be recouped in a reasonable length of time when assessed and/or demonstrated recoupment capacity is present. The extended year program provides for an extension of the programming from the regular school year, as identified in the IEP.  -  Area of Collaboration Cooperative planning for summer school with the three Pulaski County school districts should be scheduled for late 1988. students in all three districts will be better served if the Districts coordinate, with respect to summer school, the following: -locations -dates -curriculum offerings -purpose: enrichment vs. remediation -fees/funding -transportation -eligibility Since all three districts offer summer school for grades 9-12 on a tuition basis, mutual planning to determine locations, dates and curriculum offerings would be beneficial for all invovled. Principals, counselors and teachers in all area high schools should be provided with these summer school options for students. The three school districts will collaborate on summer school programs for elementary students and will coordinate and share programs where feasible. In addition to offering remediation assistance to students in grades 1-8 on a tuition basis, plans are being formulated for a tuition-free summer program for primary children to provide early intervention strategies for students recommended for grade retention. It is also anticipated that a tuition-free summer enrichment program for educationally disadvantaged students in grades 1-8 will be provided .  - - Tuition-free remediation will be provided for students who fail the eighth grade MPT. All other summer programs will continue to be self-supporting or funded through external resources. The LRSD has received and will continue to solicit the assistance of the business community in providing scholarships for elementary students who are recommended for summer school remediation. Expected outcomes By the summer of 1993, it is anticipated that a comprehensive equitable county-wide summer program will be offered for students in Pulaski County. Evaluation and Monitoring Summer school enrollment will be evaluated/monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area and race. Progress/failures will be monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area and race. Clinical supervision will be provided for teachers. Summer school staff members will complete a questionnaire at the end of each summer.  - Budget Projections 1989 summer School Printing Tuition-free summer school for early intervention for 300 primary children recommended for grade retention Tuition-free summer enrichment program for 300 educationally disadvantaged elementary students Tuition-free summer remediation for students who have failed the 8th grade MPT TOTAL $ 2,100 40,000 40,000 60,000 $142,100 All other summer programs will continue to be self-supporting or funded through external resources. The LRSD values the assistance of the business community in providing scholarships for elementary students who are recommended for summer school remediation. Budget projections should be similar for summer sessions for 1990-93. ,e INPl[H[NTATION TINELIN[ Annu,I Phn l989 (Yur) Person Rtspons,61e y1,oof Wood Goal: To 1111f\u0026gt; etllt!n 1989 slaer school Currtculuin nd Division Spec1,1 Programs Progr/Are SUlffl!Cr School STIIATEGIES/ IIElilNNIIIG CCWl.ETIOfl EVALUATION OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DATE DATE COSTS RESPOIIS 1111 LI TY 8. (Cont'd) Rttelve a}I student pplt Play 15, 1989 June, cal ton f0n15 and fees 1989 -0- local nd Suatier School Forms/fees collected fr011 local schools Adlllntstrators\nfin,n-cial Services Conduct siaaer school Hay 15, 1989 June, 1989 -0- SUlaer School AdMlni- School/course registration registration strators\nFinancial Conduct LATE regtstratloo June, 1989 Services June, 1989 -0- SIM! as above School/course registration 9. To l111prove student eva lu- Develop progr fon1 and Hay, 1989 June, 1989 -0- SIii! IS above Developed procedures Ilion procedures evaluation procedures 0. To refine s.-er school Establish grading proce- Nly 8, 1989 Hay 18, 1989 -0- S1111aer School Adnlini- Fina 1 procedures Adalnistratlve and rttord dures (recording, keeping procedures reporting) strators Establish registrar May 8, 1989 May 18, 1989 -0- Regular nd SUl!al!r Final procedures procedures for recording and averaging s.-er School Registrars\nOat, ~chool grades for pen1anen Processing rttord Deter.lne needs and May 8, 1989 May 18, 1989 -0- s.._r School Adllinl- Identified needs request JTPA siaaer 1110rkers str1tors Determine how records are Hay, 1989 June, 1989 -0- Division of Schools\nProcedures identified to be stored Financial Services I ! I I ' ' ' f I INPl(N(NTATION TIN[llN( Annuil Plin 1989 (Teir) Person ltespo11s16le Ot1nne ftod Goll: To JmJwnt 198 su...er school CurrlculUIII ind Division Special Progr1111s Pr09r/Are1 s~r School STMTEGIES/ OIJECTIYES IEGIIIUIIG CCJl'lETIOII . ACTIVITIES DATE DATE COSTS R( SIONS 11 ll I TT EVAl.UA Tl OIi . (Cont'd) Develop In wrlttn9 the Aprl I 1, 1989 N.y 31, 1989 -0- Subject Aru Supervtso, \u0026amp; Content 1re1 guides tore content for uch of 1 the course offerings Shire currlcuh expect1- lions with s.-er school June, 1989 June 20, 1989 -0- Division of Currlcul Heel Ing agenda stiff 8 . To l11prove the ldentlfl- Develops~ school N.rch l, 1989 April l, 1989 -0- Suiaer School Adillnl- final procedures ut ion \u0026lt;,f Ind notlfle1tlon fln1ncl1l procedures str1tors\nDivisions of for st..,.ts to 1ttend swaer schoo 1 Currlculua Ind Schools: fln111el1l Services Re~lew 1PPllc1tlon/notl- N.rch 20, 1989 N.rch 24, 1989 -0- Sae u above Heeling agenda ficatlOfl procedures and course offerings with principals Review appllcatton/notlfl N.rch 20, 1989 \"arch 24, 198~ -0- 1\u0026gt;.e as above Heet ing agenda c1tlon procedures ind course offerings with counselors Revise \u0026amp; distribute s.-er school 1ppllcatlon N.rch 20, 1989 \"arch 24, l 98~ ssoo Division of Schools Distribution of alicatio to the Individual schools Advertise scholarships N.rch 20, 1989 \"arch 24, 198\u0026lt; -0- Division of Schools Advertisements Revise and print student N.y 8, 1989 \"ay 25, 1989 U,000 S~r School Adalini- Revised handbook handbooks strators ( I Annual Plan 1989 (Year) Person Rspons1bl Dianne Wood licNII: To llnient '989 s--r scnool STRATCGIES/ OIJECTIYES ACTIVITIES 1 To define th@ scope of the Mill notices to super-curriculua for th el.-.n- visors requesting recoa-tary and secondary progr wndat Ions for s..aer school courses Invite proposals for suawr school enrlcllllent courses Plan cooperatively with s.-er school coordlna-tors froa II.A end PCSSD. Make each District's offerings available to principals and counselors in all three districts. Plan for Driver Educatlor Pro9r Identify and print each course to be offered for s..aer school Plan and Institute s~r school 111edia/ advert is Ing  IHPL[l1[11TAT ION T 111[LIN( BEGINNING C\u0026lt;JU'lETION DATE DATE COSTS Novl!lllber J , 198B Novl!lllber JO, -0- 1988 Novellber J, 1988 Novl!lllber JO, -0- 1988 Dec l!lllber 1, 198B Decellber 22, -0- 1988 Apri l 1, 1989 May J, 1989 -0- March 1, 9989 March 9, 1989 -0- March 15, 1989 Aprl I 1, 1989 $JOO April 1, 1989 May Jl, 1989 -0- ( Curricu 1 U111 and Division __ S..\n.p_ec_i_a_l_P_r_o_g_r.,.._s--=--- Progra/Area ____s11_ 11_111e r _ _s c=--h..o..o.. .l __ AESPOflSllll lTY EVALUATION Division of Curriculu Notices ulled Division of Curriculua Announcetnents posted Division of Curriculua Cooperative plans Division of Curriculum Lists of off~rings Division of Currlculua\nSupport Services Action plan Division of Currlculua Course offerings Division of Curriculua Publicity and Schools r ( INPLCNENTATION TIHCLINE Annv11 Plln 1989 (Ye1r) Person Responsible bf1nne Wood Goll: To t11111le111ent 1989 sunner school STIATE51ES/ HCIMING CGIPlETIOII OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DATE DATE COSTS 6 (Cont'd) Identify ,_r school April 3, 1989 Aprt I 27, 1989 -0- staff e,aluatton proced-ures Revise and print te.cher Nay 8, 1989 Nay 25, 1989 uoo handouts Provide siaaer school Nay 30, 1989 June 2, 1989 Self-support-contract to eaployees Ing e11cept for the fol- Provide tnser,lce for June, 1989 lowtng:Early s-r school staff Intervention for Pr1Nry Provide cllnlc11 super- June, 1989 August Chtlren vision 111d mnltortng of S40,000 progr Educattona111 Dlsadv1nt1gei Identify and secure tis, June, 1989 S4o,ooo texts, Ind equip. needed for Junior high and 8th Grade NPl senior high level progr~ Fatlures $60,000 COlll)lete suaaer school August, 1989 ev1lu1tlon report Provide a C011Prehensive August 15, 1989 Septetllber 28, Sl-.!r school report to 1989 the LRSD Board of Directors I I I I Curriculuin and Special Division Progras Progr1/Are1 SU11111er School AESPOIIS llll lTY EVALUATION Suiaer School Evaluation ~sign Alnistrators\nDirec-tor of Personnel Sae as above Printed inatertals Director of Personnel Sign contracts Division of Currlcul11111\nlnservlce agenca S-.-er School Adltlnistr tors s-r School Aini- Principals' notes strators Division of Schools\nReceive materials School Adltlnistrators S.-er School C0111Pleted report Adltlnlstrators\nFln1n-clal Services\nSupport Services Submitted report ? ,e . ' f r  f ( l\"Pl[HENTATION Tl\"[llNE Aftnu11 Pl111 1989 (Ye,r) Person Respon=snl6~1r:e~.:.:.----- Cioll: DlvlslOft _________ _ Progra/Are1 Sowec Scboo! ---------------------------------------------------------- STIATE61S/ 11HMIIIG C\u0026lt;IPl.T I Ofl 08JCTIYES ACTIVITIES DATE . DAT COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EYALUA Tl Ofl 4. To Identify siaaer school Coordln1te d1tes with Decew'bf!r 1, 1988 Decl!lllber 22, -0- Divisions of Curricul111 Final dates progr d1tes s.-er school coordln1- 1988 \u0026amp; Schools tors froa 11.R Ind PCSSO Subalt proposed dlles le -0- Division of Currlcul1111 Sublllission of dates (1) Pl1nt Services, (2) ind Schools Executive Stiff, 111d (l) Bo1rd of Directors for IPPl\"OVII 5. To Identify transportation EstlNte nuieer of N,rch 1, 1989 \"'rch 23, 198! -0- Director of Tr,nsporta- Est h11a led cost needs for siaaer school buses Ind cost for tion\nDirector of (Netropolllln) Netropo It tin ,_r Yoc1tional Education school site Discuss possible fun Pass with CAJ 6. To plan for quality Develop and lllll)leaent March 11, l 989 March 23, 198' -0- Director of Personnel Job announcements Instruction In siaaer su.-er school Job school announceaents ( in and out of lRSD) Interview s.-er school April 10, 1989 April 28, 198' -0- S.-er School Adlllnls- Interview schedule appllunts trators\nDirector of Personnel\nContent Noll fy teachers to be M1y 1, 1989 May 5, 1989 -0- Area Supervisors Notification letters employed I I I ... r r  r f INPUHErlTAT ION TIN[LINE AnnuI Plan 198g (Yur) Person Responsiblelanne Wood Goll: To 11111)1eaenl i989 s-r scnool STRATEGIES/ BEGINNING C(ll'l.ETION OIJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DATE DATE COSTS To identify eleaentary Work with s~r school OecellberJ,1988 Oecellber zz, -0- and secondary st-er coordinators fr Nl.R, 1988 schoo 1 s Hes PCSSO, and LR to obtain recoaaendatlon for ele11. lo secondary sites. l'eet with local building January 19, January 26, -0- adllllnistrators to discuss 1989 1989 the procedures, concerns, expectations, etc., for use of the Identified but ldlngs. 2 To advertise for, inter- Develop job announce11ent February 22, March 16. 1989 -0- view, and select su.aer for interview 1989 school adffllnistrative Conduct s~r school -0- staff job interviews J To develop proposed Obh In 1988 su.,- scmol March 1, 1989 Karch 23, 198g -0- Staaer school budget hDj!lblln-.e Project 1989 siaaer March 3, 1989 Karch 23, 1981 -0- schoo I progr  I, budge tar y needs Investigate alternate March 3, 1989 March 23, -0- funding sources for 1989 SUllrler school r f Division Curriculum and Special Prograa/Arefu-9: School RESPONSIBILITY EVAlUATION OMSICIIS a( Ctn'ia,1111 I, Records ltl'd/ar finished prob:ts Sdlools wi II be \u0026lt;JI file far Yerl icat im/ evluati\u0026lt;J1 at~ scmol t.Hchers. Division of Sdlools Plans for facilities Otvlslons of Ctn'iculua lo Distribution of job announc Sdlools inents. Interview schedules Divisions of CurriculUII Developed Budget and Schools\nSupport Services .. ' e- -  I. Gifted Education Long-Term Desegregation Plan PROGRAM/AREA OVERVIEW A. Summary of Background Information The Little Rock School District Gifted Program offers subject-based instruction in grades K-12, It operates under the standards of the Arkansas Department of Education's Gifted and Talented Program Approval Standards for 1986, The standards provide the framework for establishing equitable criteria for the iden-tification of gifted and talented students. Services are provided to these students by teachers who have completed or who are in pursuit of graduate credits in gifted education. II, AREAS OF COLLABORATION A. Program/Area Overview Gifted and Talented Programs In the Gifted and Talented Program Approval standards issued by the Arkansas Department of Education, gifted and talented children and youth are defined as \" those of high potential or ability whose learning characteristics and educational needs require quali tatively differentiated educational experience and/or services. The criteria for pupil placement into gifted and talented programs shall be superior intellectual and creative ability. To the extent that task commitment and/or motivation may be obj actively determined, they  too may be utilized as criteria for identification and placement. Neither criterion shall be used if the result is disparate impact upon either racial group within the district. Moreover, special attention shall be denoted to identification and placement of pupils from low and middle socio-economic levels. While the program models and the special needs and strengths of the gifted and talented program in each district differ, all three districts are committed to following the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification, curriculum, and program evaluation. In order to strengthen the programs in all three districts and to further desegregation, all three districts agree to collaborate in the following areas: ( 1) curriculum, ( 2) staff development, and ( 3) research and administration whenever possible and/or feasible .  STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Annual Plan: 1989-90 (Year) Division: Curriculum \u0026amp; Special Programs Person Responsible: Ken Dickson Program/Area: Gifted Education Goal: 1. To establish collaborative efforts in ter.s of research and in the aaninistration and/or operation of Gifted Programs C\u0026amp;JECTIVES 1. To share research and/or findings in the operation and/or ad inistration of gifted progra s. 2. To 1nvest1gate the feas1b111ty of 1n1t1at1ng a tr1- d1str1ct effort to estab11sh a aodel progra to 1dent1fy and ecllcate soc1o-econoa1ca11y d1s-advantaged gifted children. This 1s dependent upon funds prov1ded by the Javits G1fted and Talented Children Act of 1988. STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES 1.1 Establish a scheclJl e of regular aeetings of the tri-district g1fted coordinators 1.2 Establish a proce-cllre to 1nfor and/ or 1nvolve other ad in1strat1ve per-sonnel and/or staff of research and/or 1nnovat1ve proce\u0026lt;llres 2.1 Seek clar1f1cat1on of requ1reaents for apply1ng for Jav1ts funds fr011 NAGC and ADE. BEGINNING DATE Cc4PLETION DATE Noved\u0026gt;er 1988 Ongoing Novellber 1989 COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION -0- Ken Dickson and PCSSD/ Agendas and minutes of NLR Gifted and Talented meetings Coordinators Ken Dickson and PCSSD/ Records of Invest1gation NLR G1fted Coordinators efforts  I HI 'I 1111'11 A I It, I I Ill I I 'II llnnuI rlan 1111 'Ill (Yra,) rrnon R\"\\1'11i1\\il,lr . l.'~II U~~W\" . Gnal : 7. 1,, lollal,,,1alr _',lall _ll1 vr l.'.J\"\"''''.'.J..!..!.!.!!l~ 1n G1flril ldutal111!~.- 111 \\j I , I llfl I Ill ' I ' II I ,1111 , , , . , I I ' ' 1  l' r oqr .11n / ArP ,a 1,1111 ,I I 111  ' , .. ,, --------------- - ----------- - - ----- ------- - - - - --- ------------- -- - -- - - - -- OBJECTIYCS 1. To share the cost of nut- I . I ~idP ronsult~nts In lhl' giftrd programs whrnPver fpa~lblP and pn~~ihlP if funds are available l . To plan and lllll)l('tllf'nt l . 1 tri -dlstrlct inservlces conducted by the trl-dis trlct staff on ldent iflcatlon, currlcul11111, and proqra evaluation If funds arp available : STRAHGl(S/ ACTIVITIES Coordinators tneet to discuss individual progra,11 needs 1nd to 1leler11lne If con su lt~nts can he shared . Coordinators aeet lo plan tri-dlslrlcl In services and trl dlstrlct lnservlces are held. BEGINNING OAlE Septembl'r, 1989 SPpletllber, 1989 COMPLETION OAT[ Ongoing OngoilJg COSTS Undet1\u0026gt;n11lned (cost wi 11 vary depend Ing on con su I lanl) Undeterained RE SPOIIS I 8 IL I TY ken Dirkson ~nd PC SSO/ NLR Coordinators ken Dickson and res~/ NLR Coord inators (VALUA11011 H1nut1\u0026gt;s of lllePlinq Hinutrs of \u0026lt;nePtinq, Work ~hnp Agenda, partlclp~nl registr1 - tion, tri-dislf\"ir.l developed evaluation for . l\"Pl[HENTATION TIHELINE Annual Plan 1989-90 (Year) r 0 ,son Aespons1ble ken Dickson r.oal : J. Jo collabo~thelmplementatl011 of a Tri -District Gifted and Talented Scope and Sequence of Skills. Dlvhlon (u-,iculum/SrP( ial Projrd\\ Progra111/Area _Gi llcd Lducat inn STRATEGIES/ B[GltllllNG COHPLETION OBJECTIVES ACTIVIJIES DATE DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY [VALUATION I . In introduce, explain and I. I Conduct Gifted staff October, 1989 October, 1989 Undcter ined ken Dickson and rcSSO/ Roster or rarticiranl\\, train all te~rhers/facili - 111eetin9s in each dis - NlR Gifted Coordinators participants que\\l ionuai ,~tors In the trl-distrlct trict Pach rat I for qirted progr,1111\\ on the usp teachPrs/facllilators and l plf'tllf'otation or the new to the progra. eistlng lrl-district qiftPd srope and sequence in\\trnment. ?. lo refine and to COllll)lete 2. I llppolnt a trl-dlstrlct OctobPr, 19R9 October, 1989 kPn Dickson and PCSSD/ Roster of particiranls a the k-6 scope and sequencp curriculu c~ittee NlA Gifted Coordinators copleted document\\. i O\\lrullW'nl . to refinp and lo com-plete the docunoent. ,\\ I ~ en  IMl 'I llllll,\\111111 IIIH I 1111 (',1111Hn,u y 111 ' ,ptf I ii fli- d . 1111 11 ,11,p ,tm It I 1111 1111 1.I) f,,1rn1,tl Plt1n . J~U!J \"LI (YP,1r) 11,v1, 1,t1f111, t11l11111/  1 11  1 1 l'rt\",0'1 Rc\\pon\\tbl, \"'t~tll u~-~l-~UII . l ' Jl}IJtlm/A,,, .,t,111 1 1111 ., I' 'I r.oa 1: _ 4_1JL.Hc1Jnc/1!.c,LU1Llurr. U,c..illlLL.i.11cd..J'.uulr,1111-.iJWun.LQLJc1u i I L \"!'l J_xc1..!J._p11r '.'. _!_! _l_!!\u0026lt;'.!!_l _ i l_i_l a~. 1~ !\", ,  !' Jun . \"\"' ',I .,1 r I,\"\" \"'..I STRAT(GIES/ BEGINIIING CONPL ET ION OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DATE DATE I . To imp lelllf'nt a II ohjPr I ivt\u0026gt;s I. 1 lo i1111\u0026gt;lement all stra llugust, 1901! Sunwner 19R9 relating to lhP. LR',ll re- legies/activlttes de-linrmpnt/ restructurinq linrated in the re-implemPnlalion plAn in f i np111ent/res I rue t ur in\u0026lt; terms of identilication, plan In accordance to curriculum and statr their objectives develop111ent I COSTS RESPONSIB lll TY SSO, S00.00 Superintendent, Assoc. Supt. -f.urr ir11l11m and Special Projec~\\, Assoc. Supt. -Oi vis ion of Schools, Coordinatrrs-Gifted Progranis, National Consultants, District-wide C~iltee\u0026lt;. Principals and School Tes, C~nlcat Ions Off Ice, Arkansas Oepart111ent or [ducat Ion, College Professors -- --- EV ALUA 11011 I or Hl,1 l I 11utir,1I \u0026lt;Offllll!'l ----- ---- I/(' ,HHJ \\llff'IU,l f I Y P Ot r, PV iflrn( i111 ion ol the goAI. -  - ~ -u.- \u0026lt;_.-. ( . :..'~~h PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRIC r - - ---------------------- --- - .  -  1500 Dixon Road PO E3 , , .~.: , Little Rock . Arkans\ni~ - ~: .: 1501) J90-.: '.'  PlJL.\\SKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF DEVELOPMENT TRI-DISTRICT COLLABORATION Pl.AN The staff develcpnent departments of Pulaski County Special School District. Little Rock School District and the North Little Rock School District, c:ilu112, with a representative of the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative 1vill meet .:i minimum of four times per year, twice each semester, to discuss and consider common staff developnent concerns. This tri-district coornittee will plan and implement staff developnent strategies that will provide training thnt addresses the commonalty of staff developnent concerns that the three districts have. I . l I ''l, j I ,,' I  -, _. l , 11 t' 1,, \\'_11111~1u 11l J1j 1,l l\u0026gt;rs lu 1rnrm. L-..:.U: LiL..uL.1.LimL .. ..:.UKLirnluJ1-J1 I :1 I ion -- ------ '.' - .\" ~ : I : '.': : I , till! , 1 st.i ff devclopne11L , \u0026gt;11111 I ltee composed of ,-, 111C's' ' 11 lat i ves i 11(' LI from ,n,e school I Is l r l cts and the 1 , ii :1sk i County I, 1 tional Cooperative. I I llllfl i l tee's function I, i I I l 111d im )e to identify , 1\u0026lt; ' \\ 'C lo ll1,1l w Lliree plement staff pnent strategies ill assist the (3) districts i 11 ful filling the ,\\ jlPCt ations of ,t Lain , lt'sf'gr tli sln ing quality egated school cts. :\n,e:,:. ,:::-\n! [~i ~:,l\\'!T l:S Minimum of four (4) meetings per year will be held, two (2) each semester. ,\nJ I - . ''., I . LI . .. ~\n_ioL, [  , r: . . -   1 :- tc1U of s I 1 ff elev\" I 01mL1 ~,\u0026lt;JJ.Jrc... ,_t _.._j ,,.,_ir ~ic -\"s,.__ ___________________. ...,_,\"\"\" -' -Wp ::_\n! r\nr,: flG COllrl~TION D--~ \"- DATE :J:\nTs P.~ sror1:\nIB I LI TY E ' ,'\\LUf-TIOfl Fall of 1988 Ongoing 0 Jim !!erring, Pulaski Ongoing analys County Special Schoo from needs District assessment Mary Mosley, Little Rock School District John Moore, North Little Rock School District Martha Nelsen, Pulaski County Educational C.Ooperative  COLLABORATIVE DESEGREGATION PLAN LRSD - PCSSD - NLRSD 1989-1994 SCHOOL OPERATIONS We agree that general cooperation among the three ( 3) Pulaski County Districts is necessary. A collaborative effort is crucial to the success of this countywide desegregation plan. we commit ourselves to the following: I. Underlying Principals * * * * * * * All students will be accorded equal opportunity to participate in all academic and extracurriculurn programs and services in the districts\nAll district staff and parents will develop and model high expectations for the success of all students without regard to gender or race\nAll students, all staff and all parents will have equitable access to and input into programs, school and district activities, planning and implementation of school plans and goals\nSpecial efforts will be concentrated on increasing parental involvement in the schools\nStaffing and staff recruitment will reflect student need for contact with minority teachers and a diversity as the racial makeup of support staffs consistent with applicable law\nStaff assignments will be made on an equitable basis\nPolicies directed toward students will reflect an awareness of diversity in the student population, its background and learning styles, while also providing for an orderly, supportive learning environment\n - -L~ i Plan Ongoing 1989-1994 (Yur) Olds ion -=-Sc:c.chc.:o:..\no_l\"\"'s _____ _ ,- s : r: Res\n:,or.s10\" suoerjntendents Program/Mu _G=e~n~e~r=a~'----- :: ! I: -~'~-----------------jJ~o~e~s~t~a~biJ~isah._.,aLlolca~uuout~x~~iud~e'-MScwb~oo\"'\"J_..,lmp.,.r~o~v~eme-..ouL-.JoC~ouwo~cuiJJ _____________________ _ to address ongoing desegregation and i111provement efforts. STAAH:GiES/ BEGUIIIING COt1Pl ET I ON OBJECTl\\':S ACTiVlilES DATE DATE COSTS RESPONS:BJLITY EVALUAilON Appoint a school i111prove- Address ong~ing planning July 1, 1989 June JO, 1994 none 3 Superintendents and Appointment of council P.nt counci I of the for d~scgregation and J Associate/Assistant representatives fr0111 each plan IIIOdificatlon or Superintendents for district. i111plenientation needs, if desegregation any. 'l Appotntwient of conwittees Persons vith specific January, 1989 June JO, 1994 none Appropriate Associates/ Resolution or issues to deal vlth issue expertise viii 11eet, as Assistant Superinten-specific concerns in areas needed, in coaittees dents of schools and support and resolve ongoing services coordinatljpt\" i11 ~:S l'elated to the plan such as transportation and staff develol)lllent I I I I : I : - -l, ! i =-s:r. '.: ! l : Plan 1989-1994 (Year) Res~or.s1D1e Associate/Assjstant Superintendent/Personnel Directors II, To develop mutually supportive and eauitable recruitment and placement procedures I _ STRliltGIES/ BEG IIHIING C()IPLETION 08.!ECTI \\':S ACiiVlilES DATE DATE COSTS To develop joint recruit- Share planning, resources July 1, 1987 Ongoing ng efforts and procedures and contacts for recruit-with particular emphasis 111ent of staff, both on 111inority teacher certified and non-recruitment certified To share the applicant Use teachers in the N Ongoing pools among the districts recruit111ent process Certified and non- \" \" certified applicant pools 11i II be shared with the a~rt!elllent to assist ac~ ~ther in correction or dispro-partionate staffing To 1110nitor distribution The principals 11ill be \" \" none ,r starr across grade accountable to ensure evels and support areas equitible distribution of teachers by grade level and subject area I I Division ~S~l~h~o~u~ls~-----Program/,. rea Personnel personnel RESPONS:BILIH EVALUAilON Personnel Directors Increase in minority s ta rr i ng a111ong cer ti f i ed staff and 1110re propor  tional representation among support staffs ff \" Propor Li ona I repre~enta-lion of minority and majority employees in all staffing categories Principals Statistical data that Personnel Director minority teachers have Associate/Assistant access to teaching oppor- Superintendents tun, ties at ,11 I qr\nute lev1\u0026gt;ls, in all suhj1\u0026gt;ct areas and in all p.-04rams. AP, Honors, f./T etc. I I I  - -L! i Plan 1989-1994 (Year) -,-!:r. Res?or.s1b1e Personnel Director/Associate Superintendent : : !i: II. (continued} Di Vision __. .s.., .c. h.o. .,o...,I. .....:\n,_ ___ Program/Arta ~P~e~r~s~o~n~ne~I,_ __ _ Pr inc, pa Is I STRATEGIES/ 8GIIIIIING COHPLETION OBJECTJ VES I. ACTiVlilES DATE DATE COSTS RESPONS: Bill iY EVALUATION 4 To identify students who Establish future teachers August, 1989 Ongoing None Principals/teachers Increase the number or nay be future teachers and clubs in eleaentary, students entering the to provide support pro- junior highs and senior teaching profession gras to the111 high schools To establish a joint Hold career fairs for August , 1989 Ongoing None Associate/Assistant Increase the numher or c011111ittee to address students Superintendents minority students who district planning for Contact the business graduate frOIII the Districts support of students who c011111Unlty for support and return to them to wish to becOMe teachers teach Create \"contracts of Director of Personnel intent\" to hire future teachers upon degree and certification completion Provide internship Personnel Director opportunities for students or education Building Principals I I I I f,  - -1., : - ~ r.\n: !1 (YEar) ___........,.......,\"\"\"''-\"D_._1,._,re..,c..,t..,.ur/Associate Superintendent I SiJtAHt\nIES/ l BEGlllrllNG 08.JECTl\\'ES I. At:~ i VI ii ES DATE o establish a joint Production of a set of Spring, 1989 .onnittee for planning recruitment procedures r~cruit111ent strategies and timelines to be and procedures developed jointly to increase effectiveness and defines recruitment responsibl ities Develop a cooperative Spring, 1989 agree11ent for recrui taent of certified and non-certified staff with reservation of a nUllber of slots so that e111ployee categories will be desegregated l111prove teacher working Spring, 1989 conditions to llclintain teachers in the pro-fession ' COHPLETION DATE Fa 11, 1989 Fall, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing Division ~S~ch~o~o~l~s ____ _ Program/Arta Personnel cos-rs RE SPONS: BI LI TY I EVALUAilON - District Personnel Completion of the Directors document - District Personnel Racial ratios in all Directors staff positions commensurate with district and court approved gu1del1nes To be Support Services and Increase district deter111ined Building Principals start retention I I I : ' cci Plan 1989-1994 (Yeu) Otvision Schools ' ! ~ r. A~s\n,or.s lb le Suoeru1ten!lents To establish student disciplinary and attendance policies which address student needs as wet I dS school cliiaate concerns Program/f.rea Schoo) Po)1c1es , 1 : 11 l I STRJ.TtGIES/ BEG 111111 NG COHPLETION oe.:ECTl\\'ES I AC,iVITIES DI.TE OAiE COSTS RESPONS:BILITY EVALUAilON stablish a c~ittee to C011111ittee assessaent and July, 1989 June, 1990 - District pupil personne Completion or the task 'udy disciplinary rules COIIIJ)ar1sion or policies directors, identified .,nd regulations and to and procedures in school starrs, and work to address areas or student handbooks patrons fr001 the 3 divergence districts Disaggregation of data Develop a s~t of rules/ July, 1989 June, 1990 - . \" related to student e~pectations which is discipline cOINIIOn \\~ students in all 3 d1\ntricts. (Specific penalties aay vary-final penalties wil be enrorced in ca.110n) stablish a procedure Review of student data Ongoing Building principals ror sharing access to to address issues of disciplinary records racial disparity ~hen students transfer Policy/procedure to be July, 1989 June, 1990 - . \" designed ror c01111Unica-t1on of student dis-c1pl1nary records when students transfer or are P.xpelled/suspended ' I I I ' 4 'i f, : --l.?.\nPlan 1989-1994 (Yur) ~ =-~~r. R,s~or.Slbte ~ssoc1ate/Assjstant Superintendents ~: ?1: Ill. continued STR1'H:GIES/ OBJECT! \\'~S ACiiVlilES Review of attendance Appoint review c01111ittee policies to attempt to of patrons, staff and create a COIIIIIOn policy board llletllbers and set of procedures Appoint ongoing monitoring Appoint c011111i ttee c~ittee to keep policies on attendance and dis- Ongoing review of cipline under review and disaggregated data to to review data address disparities and student needs Develop alternative school Plan alternative school for students in need of with tri-district intervention or special cooperative to be assistance if \"at risk available to students due to teen parenthood on a contract basis etc. and contingent upon funding availability BEG 111111 NG Dt.iE July, 1989 July, 1989 Ongoing Spring, 1989  Division ~Sc~h~o~o_l~s _____ _ Program/t.r,a Pupil Personnel COHPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONS:BILliY EVALU/\\i)ON June, 1990 - Appropriate Associate/ Completion of task Assistant Superintendent fr0111 each of the 3 districts Ongoing - Superintendents tt Princirals and District Adllin, s tra tors Ongoing Approximately Appropriate Associate/ \" 350,000 per Assistant district Superintendent State Department of Education I I I I : z  : --1.. Phn 1989-1994 (Yur) Division \u0026lt;\n,hlVlh ~-~ r. Res?or.s1b1e Director or Counseling/Pupil Personnel/ Program/t.rea Guidance :: ! 1 IV. Director or onjarx Education To provide loint progras in guidance/counseling to meet stuilen needs and to ensure racial equity OBJECTl\\'E:S Hold ewiploy111ent fair ror students who would enter the world of work arter school. Provide consistent and complete infor111c1tion to students regarding colleges. testing, vocational schools, financial aid with specific and special concentration in access 1f black colleges and universities and financial aid for lnority students I I. STRATtGIES/ ACiiVIiIES Contact eaployers (local, regional and national) Hold fair with focus on ewiployers or inority Target skills needed for ewiployment as well as opportunities BEGIIIIIING O:.TE July, 1989 Yearly Yearly Hold joint counseling In Fall, annually infor111c1tion sessions for counselors Contact colleges regarding Each rail inority scholarships and financial aide Contact colleges regarding Each rail, spring adlttissions, ~inority adntissisons Provide target counseling for minority students Ongoing Notify studPnts. parPnts Ongoing and educate starr regardint all opportunities C~PLETJON DATE Yearly COSTS Minimal l,[SPONS:BllliY Directors of Guidance Vocational teachers Director or Vocational Education Journal is Departments Counselors School Principals Directors or Guidance Directors or Guidance w/c01111ittee of counselo s School Counselors Counselors/Principal Starr OevP.lopment D1rPcto.-s StatP. Oept uf r,111c,1t 10111 EVALUAilON  - .c., Plan 1989-o~oing (YHr)  ,s=r: litspors1b1tpil accounting/Guidance/Schools !li\\'ision Schools Program/~rea ~Gu~~ d~a~n~ce~----- ~ I : V  STR/.HGIES/ B:G IIIIHNG COt-lPL TI ON OBJECT l\\'ES ACTIVITIES OJ.TE DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILI ,y EVALUATION 1. Enhance minority Individual student Ongoing - Counselors/Teachers Proportunate minority ecrui traent and conferencing. Teacher representation in awareness of student for and counselor encourage- these cl asses AP, honors and elective aent of and 1110nitodng progra111s of students 4 . Provide pooling of Create c,,telogies of Ongoing District Division Develop111ent and resources and specific of available intervention Heads implementation of plans of intervention services strategies for students who are disadvantaged and/or Districts share inservice at risk and contracted services to benefit students Develop and i1111\u0026gt;lement To be developed and Ongoing - Counselors/Teachers Implementation of Plans student career guidance reviewed by students, Director of Guidance plan with individual parents, counselors and Desegregation Officer student educational plans teachers (predicated or ind connunication with potential) )arents to encourage  student access to all curricular and pro~ gra11111atic opportunities on a ratio comiensurate with school racial composition I I I I e,  - -~, Plan )989 -90 (YHr) !Ji\\'~ s ion _S\"'c~h~o~o_l~s _____ _  -- ~er P.~spors1b1e Suoecioteocteots ?ro~ram/Area ~G~u-=d~an~c~e~---- . il : _,_,IV'-!..___,.....,.L!.JL.1.11.llliiJ,1.J. ___________________________________________________ OBJ t CT l\\'E S rnhance c011111Unications 1ng divisions related to .unsel ing in the 3 Ii stricts lnifon1ity of district records regarding fll\u0026gt;T, A p cadetlic skills Oevelol)lllent Ian, P'IAT-6 In i for111 records transfer Jl ol icy creation and syste111s STRJ.TEGIES/ ACT I VlilES Regular, 1110nthly eeting a1110ng directors of guidance Periodic joint guidance 111eetings Appoint joint cc..ittee of counselors and staff to create unifor district record for s Appoint C011111ittee to develop procedure and ti elines or records transfer I I BEGI IIIIING I CONPLETION OAiE DATE COSTS RtSPONS 18 ! LI iY EVALUf.TJON July, 1989 Ongoing - Di rector of Guidance Enhanced Services Improved C011111Unication . June, 1990 - Appropriate Associate/ Completion or Task Assistant Superintendent Director of guidance \" June, 1990 - Directors of guidance, Completion of Task principals, directors Improvement in Process of pupil accounting I I I I  -.!i ?Ian 1989-94 (YHr) Ohision Schools  - scr R,spor.s1b,, Assocjate Suoer1ntendents Program/~rea (xtracurr,cular , i : ~v~.'------------------T~oc....::d~e~ve~l~o~p~eq~u~i~t~a~b~le::......:.r~e~c~ru~i~t~me:=..:.:.nt=-=s~t~r~a~te~g~i~e~sL1 ~a~c~c~e~s~s~a~n~d....::Jopupo:..::.\n__r~tu~n~t~i~e~s _____ ___________ _ for all students or extracurricular activities I STR1'TGIES/ B:GIIIIIING I . CCJlolPL ET I ON OBJtCT I \\'ES I ACTIVITIES DI.TE DATE COSTS RESPOtlS\nBl LI iY I EVALUATION I. lo study G.P .A. and Review policies and June, 1989 Ongoing - Associate Superintendents t1zenship participa- percent of student Director of Athletics ,ion require111ents of participation in each districts to address district Completion of policy acalle111ic requirements reviPw and student participation Review data on student \" . \" needs participation and achievewient over the last 5 years in each district Review racial group \" \" \" Revisions of policies representation in to address student extracurricular needs activities by district over 3 year period Appoint c011111ittee to \" \" \" evaluate results of data review and see if any areas of pol icy agreement exist. I I I I 7. -.c.i Plan 1~89-94 (Yfar) \n- ~~r. Respor.s1b1e Associate Superintendents\n: !i : V. (continued) STR/.TEGIES/ OBJtCT I \\'ES ACTIVlilES To recruit students for Teacher, ~rent and ,artlcipatlon in acadetnic counsel01 a.areness of related and athletic co- oppo\ntunities and in curricular activities turn '!:icourageaent of students Provide special support of costs, recruit11ent, and encourageaent to students Reserve slots, if necessary, to ensure student participation and access in progras on a proportional basis I I Division Schools Program/~rea [xtracurriculdr BtGIIIIIING C!J'IPL ET I ON Cl.TE DATE COSTS RESPOt:S:B!lliY EVALUATION June, 1989 Ongoing Prine ipa Is Increased student Counselors part ic ipat ion - Teachers enhanced proportionality Athletic Oi rector in student participation . . . . . . . I I  --: Plan 1989-1994 (Y~ar) !li \\\"is ion __,,S\"c''h-\"o=o~l--=-s ______ =scr P.espor.s1b1e Associate Superintendent 9   VI. To enhance testing progra111s and student preparation and access to programs Pro~ram/Area ~1~e-s_t~a~a~/ ___ _ Evaluatrnn STRATEGIES/ BLGIIIUJNG COMPLETION OBJLCT I \\'ES ACT IV IT JES DI.TE DATE COSTS R~SPOl'\u0026lt;S l 8 JLJ iY EVALU~TJON .Joint testing progra111 Coordinate testing August, 1989 Ongoing Testing/Evaluation Dept (111provPrl and 1110re rough coop regarding and scoring Tri-District Coop err,c,ent progra111 --'l-6 and joint scoring and scoring District unifor111ity in Progra111 for analysis of Spring, 1989 Ongoing Associate/Assistant Completion or task reporting test results and student test results Superintendents analyzing disparities with data disaggregation to analyze disparities and student needs by race by subject area Form bi-racial 1110nitoring, l1onit,rin1 teaas COIIIP()S - June, 1990 Ongoing \" Activation of the tea111s to ensure appropriat ed o: teacner. staff 1110nitoring c011111ittees test preparation and frOIII iesting and testing conditions for Evaluation and citizens al I students to 1110nitor test pre-paration and test conditions for students ~ddress strategies to Analysis of school by Suirmer '89 Ongoing Principa Is Development of plans rPrtuce disparities by school data and Superintendents meitns or school plans and individual student Mritsurable deae/lse inrtividual student needs 111 dispar1l1es improvement plans DevelopmP.nt or .. .. strategies to address concerns and to meet needs I I I I  -,ii Plan 1989-94 (Y~arl  ,-scr. R,spor.sibte Associate Superintendents . !l: VI lcootiooed) STRAEGIES/ OBJECT I \\'ES 1'CTiVlilES Jointly provide services Joint staff develop11ent to teachers in testing re: use of test scores Individual teacher interpretations of analysis of student repSoCrO [e1Sn g of scores needs to parents Teacher preparation of interventions to benefit students strategies to address (and address these student needs spec if ic needs) School based planning of interventions to assist students in areas of acadeaic need Teacher inservices for student learning styles, cooperative learning, and monitoring needs of youth at risk and dis-advantaged students and 111inor1ty students I I  BEG 111111 NG COHPLETION D,.T,-t DATE COSTS Ongoing Ongoing . . . . . . \" \" I I !l i\"' s ion --=S--=-c'-'-ho::-co\"--'l~sc.,--~----Program/ ~rea ~T-\"e~s-=-t~n ,...g.,_/~---[ va 1 uat 100 R[SPONS:Blll,Y EVALUATiON Directors of Testing/ Acade111ic i\"11)rovement Eva I uati on of all students Appropriate Associate/ Assistant Superintendent\u0026amp; Principals Tri-District Coop Principals State Oepart111ent of Education Coop 3 Districts Staff Oeve I op11en t Directors 2 - .a i Phn 1269-94 (YEar)  ~-!u: Rupor.s1b1e Associate Superintendents ~ ?i: V. (continued) STR/.TEGIES/ OBJECT I \\'ES ACTIV!i!ES To recruit students for Teacher, ,,rent and 1articipation in academic counse I 01 a.areness of related and athletic co- oppo, tun it ,es and in curricular activities turn ~:,couragelleflt of students Provide special supports of costs, recruit111ent, and encouragl!llll!nt to students Reserve slots, if necessary, to ensure student participation and access in prograffls on a proportional basis I I Di~ision Schools Progrim/Area Extracurricular BcGIIIIIING COl'IPL ET ION CJ.TE DATE COSTS RESPONS:B?LliY EVALUATION June, 1989 Ongoing Prine ipa ls Increased student Counselors participation - Teachers enhanced proportionality Athletic Director in student participation M M \" M M M I I  COLLABORATION BUDGET SUMMARY Sl ,050,000 - alternative school / I_ l'1 _! -1 r -T\"'~_ n ... ,~'.'-~_, , .,, '_'._, I 1/, l  I 714 f  - -- - ---- - - ----- - ---- - .. -- ---------  .,, ,, .,. , inn of mar\u0026lt;'ri ,1l s/! ,, ., ,, , ,.,, ro s r,ppnrt the 1 r,,, ,, 11/um 1n rle.c.eqrP\u0026lt;JatC\"  ,,,,.,, J ,J1 c:\ntrirts ts a tr1 - . /, 1 , , \u0026lt; r qoa l o  the 1, ,,, ., ,,, mr-d1,1 proqrams. ,-,,,, ins\u0026lt;\"cvice training of lil1 .11u merlia staff members 111 ,f, ..\nrncPqate\u0026lt;I school ,, , :t, i,r:~ i.c\na tri-district ,,,.1/ ,,r the libran1 media I j SP/,icG:ES/ ACTi\\lilcS Conr in11p hostinq Tri Di .c.rrict Hulti-cultucal Resnun:e Sl1arinq Fair . IN TIIF. F'UTURE, THE F'AIR SITE WI / ,L ROTATE AHO/VG TIIF. TIIRF.F. DISTRICTS . Regin hosting TriDistrict Resource Sharing F'air with Book and AV Haterials Vendors, rotating the site among the three districts Plan to host tri-district inservice meetings such as the one sponsored by rhe Pulaski Counti Educational Service Cooperative in April of IQ88 to explain the new national guidelines for school library media program planning BEG i I/fl! NG o\n,,E annualllJ annually on-going ,1  . . , . . . ' COM'LETION DATE nn -gni ng on-going on-going Plan to host inservice to be ,,,ab,i,J oa-ooiao traininq for tri-district librarlJ media specialist~ usinq district employees  I I I I I I COSTS Minimal Hinimal Seel\u0026lt; Funding F'rom Cooperative Minimal I I I -\n)-. L,,  '.. 1 c rt _.J.il.:\nLLU\u0026lt;.Ll.U!l,J.L ___ _ r,ocr-un,l. , r:2 LlbLrll'J Mt~~----_ --- F.cSPor:s\n8 ! LI TY LRSD-Supervisor of Educational TechnnlogLJ\nPCSSD- Director of Library Hedia Services\nl'ILRSD-Coodinator of Instructional Haterials LRSD-Supervisor of Educational Technology\nPCSSD-Director of Library Hedia Services\nNLRSD-Coordinator of Instructional Haterials EVt,LU/',TION Resources will be selected, purchased, and utilized by teachers and students as they teach the curriculum of the desegregated school districts Inservice training will develop skills for library media specialists who work in desegregated school districts  , . - .1.. ,,  I I \\'I' \\ ,, I{ , , I,//) ( ' , . L 1,, s 1 on --1.Ilfil\"..LJ.J.~u.1.1n.L.L ____ _ _ rr 1_ 111 . tr 11  r __ t'roc\nr,irr, !.re:! t.ib~.!..L 'fe\u0026lt;ji ~''---- :'(' f) f , l 11 fl VP\n------ -- - ------- -----------:----S-TR_1-._Tc_G_IE_S_/ __ -:----BE_G_1_r1-,1-i11--G--:-l--co-M-,P-L_E_T_10-N---\n------\nl---------,----------- nr-~~ -:~\n\\'ES ! ACTiV!TlES 01-.TE DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUf..TlON ' \"' i I i7,1' inn nf televisionl Implement utilization of ,,., l11udoq1.1 in desegre- cable channel 19 and/or 1.11 , ,,1 sr/100! di str icts is videotapes produced at ,, tr i -\u0026lt;listrict goal of Hetro to teach basic '''\" library media skills, etc. 11 nqr ams .  Ur,  , u i tment of Hinori ty r.i/,rary Hedia Specialists in d,-.s,.gregated school rli~tricts is a tri,/ i~trict goal of library mr-dia programs. 1 Tri -district cormtuni- , .11 inn for library media prnc1ram administrators , s ,1 goal for the 11 1,a r.1ms . Contact teachers training institutions/ Recruit teachers for training programs ln library media certification Copy memos relating staff development opportunities to other district administrators Heet informally for sharing sessions to be establ ishe, to be established on-going on-going on-going on-going Seeking LRSD-Supervisor of rederal runds Educational Technology\nunder Star PCSSD- Director of School Bill Library Media Services\n~LRSD-Coordinator of Students will gain practical voca.tional experience in cunning a television studio: students will benefit from instructional units Instructional Materials provided ovec cable system or cecocded toe later classroom use. Minimal Minimal LRSD-Supervisoc of Educational Technology\nPCSSD-Dicector of Libcacy Media Services\n~LRSD-Coordlnatoc of ~nstructional Materials LRSD-Supervisoc of Educational Technology: PCSSDDirector of Library Media Services: NLRSD-Coordinator of Instructional Materials ~iring and placement of ~inocity media specialists will oecur. Better conwnunication will be achieved .  I. TRI-DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE Special Education The three school districts in Pulaski County must employ strategies that will, over a five year period, reduce the number of minority students enrolled in special education. Special education enrollments should reflect the district's racial populations and should be comparable to national statistics in the provision of free, appropriate public education to handicapped students. Areas of Need: student Identification and Placement Staffing Instructional Methodology Materials and Supplies Monitoring and Evaluation Funding for Indirect Services II. Areas of Collaboration There have been some efforts toward collaboration among the districts over the last several years. Examples include: (1) A tri-district committee for assessment is in its fourth year of operation\n(2) Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District have a written cooperative plan to coordinate in their community based instruction (CBI) programs\npublic relations and common or shared training sites\n(3) North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District have had a written cooperative agreement (approved by both boards) to provide vocational assessment and single skill training for mildly handicapped secondary students. There is a sharing of personnel, facilities and equipment at Metropolitan High School. Other efforts toward cooperation have been less formal, such as the mutual understanding between LRSD and PCSSD on the procedure for transfer of student records from the fourteen schools transferred to Little Rock, and the mutual agreement between the directors of the three districts on the process for transferring records and attendance ( for funding purposes) of special education students from NLRSD and PCSSD attending magnet schools. Based on positive results from these and other coordination efforts, it seems that an organized and expanded collaboration plan would benefit all the districts. Several cooperative programs can be established to meet the best interests of all districts and can be added to each district's individual desegregation monitoring plan. Areas to explore and/or expand include:  1. Programs for low-incidence handicapping conditions a. Visually Impaired b. Hearing Impaired c. Multi-Handicapped d. Seriously Emotionally Disturbed 2. Staff Development a. Central Office Staff b. Principals/Other School Staff c. Teachers 3. Tri-district assessment committee a. Establish consistent screening process b. Establish evaluation instruments to be used c. Establish consistent eligibility criteria for MR and SLD 4. Establish process and coordination in area of recruitment of minority teachers and support staff. 5. Establish tri-district system ( forms and format) for documenting due process procedures. The directors plan to hold monthly scheduled meetings to address areas of concerns, share pertinent information, explore more areas of collaboration, and provide technical assistance where appropriate. The directors will also look for activities that will foster cooperation and sharing such as writing grants to secure funding for innovative programs. III. Tri-District's Expected Outcome 1. By the 1989-90 school year the tri-district will: A. Develop and implement programs for low-incidence handicapping conditions. B. Develop a system (forms/format) for documentation of due process procedures. c. Collaborate on staff development efforts in all aspects of special education. D. Support activities of the tri-district assessment committee. E. Establish a process for recruiting minority special education teachers. IV. Evaluation There is a need for a systematic approach to assessing practices and policies that yield an overrepresentation of minority students and males in special education. Greater demands have been made by parents, state, and national agencies for evidence of the effectiveness of services provided to handicapped students. There is a need for better information: ( 1) attesting to the relevance of special education (pull-out programs, self-contained classes, etc.) to meet the unique needs of handicapped students\n(2) establishing the scientific significance and validity of new/existing assessment instruments, materials/supplies and equipment\n(3) outlining the extent to which certain teacher and student behaviors are evidence\nand ( 4) certifying the actual outcomes (reduction of minority students and males) resulting from the use of prereferral interventions\n(5) providing more extensive parent educational information systems. Evaluation will be an on-going process. Central Office staff, principals, and teaching staff will be participants  in the process. The Director of Special Education will have the responsibility of ensuring the initiation and completion of the process.  ., I fl 11111 I 11,1   , ',, 1 I ,. , .,,. l''k'l - 1\"1 f , . ,, ) ' ' 1 11 ''\"\" JJr:.pon:.1Llt-- llirtL lcir '- - l1l - i11.t11tlo.. ' (III It 111  1 I I ii   0d1 _ , .~ 1al,l1shJ!!_f\n.\n,,5s :111d_u\nrd1,.,l_11111 Ill ,,rr\n, of_ n'(..ruitn11I of mi11ority_ l .l( l1f'I '. \"'\"' ~11ort _ ~l:i!! ___ ---- ' , ,. 'f ,,,,\n, f I ' l .. ,c I 'I I I It\n\\ I 'II STRAT(Gl[S/ BEGJIIIIJNG OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES OAT[ f11\"1re proporl innate rf'prf'- Recn1it Arwl Employ minorit 1989-90 ~\u0026lt;'lll.tllon or well qualified teachers in certified mimri ly special etlucation areas of: lenchers II. Hild!~ hlmdic11pped b. lleari~ iired c . Hnderately/severely d. tvmdicapped Speech ifflpll ired e. Visoolly .IJl,palred Exp1md !!laf ilevelOJJlll!nl activities: II. Partnership with state colll'ges 1111d universities for training lllld retrain-i~ of teachers. ,,, COHPLETION DATE COSTS R[SPONSIBll lTY Ongoing $7,000 Olrectors: Personnel Special ducal ion Susiervhor!I - Special ~luc.at ion $'\n,000 Professors, Special fduc Toi tion ation Deparlfflet1t Central Office Staff I I I I I ! ' I I I I -- [VAlUAll{JJI lncrea~ed pool or cn1 ,rtpn  minority special ed .. al ion teachers  I. : 1 . 1 I ,II I I \"I I \" '    II  I I' 1 ,111 1'Jlj'.J-'.JV _ ( (1 II j I' r\\on Pl ..~ 1,on~1Ll, lltrtL tor-.. - It 1-111 , trill\u0026lt;. .. ud 1. -~ sy,U,,:t.'!...ifun,,s - .,,.t i11n,.,1j ... , 11 IJC' drvcl111-.I for \u0026lt;l\u0026lt;K.IIJ'll('flt.,t ion or due I\"\"'-'\"\" )'PK.\u0026lt;l11n,\n. __ STRATEGIES/ B[GIIIIIING COHPLCTION OIIJECTI YES ACTIVITl(S DAT[ OAT COSTS I. l'Mrclop rrvlsro rol'lMl a. Srlf'Cl conrnilltt o( 1989-90 Spring, 1991 $ JO,OOIJ for for lri-district dot.unenl special education per- l'rinting ation or due pcocess. sonoel Craw all three districts. b. DevelOfl for11111t for documentation or due process c. Suunl t to ADE for review 2. 1...,1ement rPVised format a. lnservlce teachers and 1991-92 ~oh~ for tri-district doc1.a11enl - personnel, on use of at ion or due process revised forms RE SPONS re IL I TY 11,,d IU I I ' 11l1111  '\" 1. tl , ,, ,, ,r,,111/\n,,  . , ' (\"lid ld1t1  I ------- - I [VALUAl 1011 Oi r!!\u0026lt;:tors arw:1 Assoc iatr llnctlll('nlal ion wi 11 he t ,, n- Directors sistcnl scrvicrs wi 11 l,r provi\u0026lt;IP\u0026lt;I in more ti.nw,h n \\'llU f Designated Special Educ- for stu:lents ation Sta(( e ' f.,, u,il P l.1u l'IH'l - t11 ( ,, .ir ) 1,..011 ~1 \\ J,t1n,1Llt llin,. lors - lri-lrslr11l ,''11  . 111111\"1111.I i,,M I : .l1uh:vtluv jL,\n~111u11 l!~r\nwn I 11,r_ ~t-'~\"~~ w!._!_h _ I,~_ ~~Jdcnc!_ hand_~~:_ ______ _ STRATEGIES/ BEGJIIIIING COHPLET ION OBJECTI V[S ACTIVIT ICS OAT[ OAT COSTS I. iwRln plarni\"R process Conduct OHds asses5fflef'I 1989-90 ~oing !To be deter- -rrovi\u0026lt;le awopriate pro- Select II school site (!: School year 111ined. for VI, lll,HI, \u0026amp; SfD stuin I!\nUse o{ local, gr- for the following: Share speclallsts re- state, and a. Visual l\"\"'9ired quired to wet needs of I edera l fonds students VI, 111,'HI, ird SfD b. IIP11rlng i.mp,iired c. l'lJlti-handicapped Identify and cOllblne ex-d. Seriously flnotionaily istlng resources avail- Disturbed able Purchase needed re-sources and -terlals Provide speciallted training for staff Rec.ru I tM!nt and 111!1:tin: of perSOlllll and/or ser-vice providers 2. l\"l'lf'fl1l'nt pr~rmis for thf Strategies and activities 1990-91 arP11s lis ed above. to bP deter111lned by lmividual fducalion rlans (IFP's)  ,    c ,,, r ,-, ,d,r, - , .. , , ,, .,,,,, , ..  I\" l I ,t I I, 1, .. ---- ------------ - -- RESPONSIBlllTt I [l.t.LUATIOII Directors and Associate Expandt and i\"l'rovE'i ~\" IJlrectors of Tri- IJi.stric.t to low incidence hanrli\u0026lt;.a rvicr 5 pped slu:lents. Services will be more co st crfective I I I . I I I Ill /I i, ,it 1111 If 11111111 - tt1 l . f f)q I I \"\n,,,,,,,,r/f.,, I'\" i.d ld11r . it 1111 f 1  IJ . t I I' I ,111 LIJr)J-lj\\J ( (, 1,\nf' ,-.ut1 ,'e\\1mn, d,1,, UtH:.1...L~C!\u0026gt; - J1.1.-iJJ,lr1\u0026lt;.. l'- 1,,,., . lv wU1l,ornt, slall_clcvdo)'lll 1_f(o!:_l~!_l,l _aj_l ':'':l.\"\"-ls or ~ _a_l _!hk,tlirn~: __ ----------- ------- . - - .- I STRATCGl[S/ OBJCCTIYES ACTIVITIES I To sl...,re cost or arntlt..'Ylt..~ Re~rr~entative~ (rc,n three to inservlce teachers (J districts 111eet at spPCified ti.mes to deter-mine needs and select con-sultants ' 2. lnservlce central off Ice Develop lnst..-t to staff conduct needs assess-inent .Select teacher Cont- 111itlee 3 lnservice special teachrrs Develop various lnservice on special education, cur- progr,w needs, i.e. due riculum, ard reconmended process\nlsSUI!! of nanrity teaching techniques, mater overrepresentetion\nre-ials, etc. gular school/progra11 modifications\nscreening I 8CINIIING CIJ1Pl  T I ON DATE DATE 9/89 (),going 9/89 Olgoing 8/89 Olgoing i --------- COSTS RESPONS 181 ll TY $10,000 OirKtor ard Associate Directors O:insultMtS Substitutes Fulaskl County Rkatiaal Teachers Cooperative l'llterlals/ ADE 5twlles f'rinting Stipends I ----- -- ---- ['IAlVAi 1011 \\Ji 11 have a cc,mprehc1 '\" i \\ ' fl' tri-district staff d c-~eln1r:,c11t progr.rns I ,.,, e . . ''\" , ,,,,,\nr. '' ' ' \" ' ' l'l .111 l'W'l - 'ffJ ' ,  . ,, J 1,, I I f,' \"\" JI, ... ,, .. ,,\\ , 1,1,, l1ir,1 l11r - 1,,t.-1 I  Hit ll11s '  , \u0026lt;,,, , 1 J_ fu l:.11!.UCc Ciflli.Ly .u1 rcvn::.u1Laliu11 ul-1,LK,k, nlillcs .i..u ~~!.Lt:!!11L\noli1111 tl1rou1,\nli\no u11,rdK11sivc c. laJJ.1J, 11, 111111w :,t  ( !If I I JIii f\" . ' .. I   I ,I I\"\" I ' I fr\u0026lt;ll(\"\"' nnl llM lrar11111.11, \u0026lt;,11ler. STRATEGICS/ OBJECTIVES BEGINIIING ACTIYITl(S OAH I. rrovide insPrvi cf' llu,t ... l)pypfop trainil'llt centPr 1989-90 r nc u,\nes on tc..chPr l1Ph.lvio for rf'gul11r teachers ex low.1rd a di~proportion or periencing problons in minority st,dents ~y mderstanding and teach hlitek mnl es in spec i.11 ing hlack 11111ies a11d educ., ti on . other dlinori ty students Identify teachers with high referral rates of black Mies to special education Schedule lnservic.e Ar r:.nge substitutes for rrgular teachers Prov ide in\"crvice thitt rocuses on: llehav I or lllOd if i e11ti on for teacher behavior l'rO'rid oioort1.11i t lt\u0026gt;s ,or teachers to know, accl'pl and 1tili7.c nfonn:tt ion regi.rding lParnln\u0026amp; styles, lan-g .,.e/di11lec t , stu:mt ways of cettti,i:\n/bc-havinr,, ,alue systen. C~PlCTION DATE COSTS !l,goi11P, U 25, 000-Per- :::\u0026gt;iPI IJ 20.000 ~t-rrials/ 9oJl..ies --- ----- -- - - -- ll[SPOffSIBll I TY Ill rec tor - ~Jf'C i :t I Fduc. SUJiervisor!\u0026lt;\n/(11ordlnators of Special .du\u0026lt;...aliun Principals Supervisors - Spec . Emr. sos Director - Spec. fttoc . Learning C:,,ntl'r Staff I i I ('/f.L!JIIT 10 II Improve im:tn other sludrnls llrcrr.1se i11 t,:lucation re h ,rr:ils to \"1n:. J Rates of dis111i s,\nal or 1,1,,ck males/other\" tu,lr11ls 1,icr .,~, - [I crt\u0026gt;.,,\nc i 11 d i sc. i l' li 11E rrirrr, I 2 r ,.,.,,., 1 1 1 \" 101 ttJ , ,. ,, } 1 '\" '\"\"\" I\"\"\\ ol,lr UHL'\\.lVl:. kl II fl1lll11, I,,,., I I. _Co11JIIMIC'll_lu111_. ,_ - S TRATCGICS/ OBJCCTIYCS ACTIVITIES Arf,ly skills at cente, with student Retum to school H:\u0026gt;n4 tor teacher effectiveness rrovlde inte11slve intrr- - Apply appropriate disciplinary interventions pre-referral interven-for: lions StudPOts whose social and emotional bPmvior l'rovide training: 5/88 makr it difficult to Curriculuw based advance ac.-.lEJ11icalty\nIISSl'S9111!0l: I.inking Assessnient to Sturfents who show slow Classr00111 Strategies JV1tterns of develo,,ent which 111ay proctuce er- Identify regular lam- 7/89 roneous trst scores. ers for training rrovide training that 8/89 focuses on ch11nges in ln,.\ntructional tech-Ii- \u0026lt;JU('S to m.1tch student!! \u0026lt;'perienc:es h.~111,1te how rnateriol\"' r ')/89 in,\ntrur.tions 11re pee-smtcd to students 11111 , .. - - ll[GINNING COl1Pl ET I ON DATE OAr[ COSTS 5/88 $550 ~oing 25 teachers ~oir~ l~x~ Onguir~   111, ,,0(11111,11111 I\" l'ri. 1 ,,,,/\\,. 1 ct ii 1,lu, ---- R[SPOIISIBILITY Rrgular Teacher,-\nRegular Teachers Supervisors/Principals ~ular Teachers Principals Central Office Staff Psychological f.,.\nw,,iners I I I I I [ '/Al UAT\n011 ------------- Expandf'd and imtrovd te.1\u0026lt;..hi ,, skills Reduct, rrf \u0026lt;'rn.t Is for ni n-1 i t students lo SJIE--c.ial fluc.,,li,,,  11, 11111111,,\n1 1Jf, I II', I r,.,11,.,1 l'l.111 l'f~'J 1M) '' '') \"\"\\Un 1'1\\1u1n,1f,l,, IJJ.CC~lJ[ - J ,lo.II, ,L1llhi, 11, I I . I. II f Ill I 1 1  , , , ,. ' -  I'' 1'11, p,,n/Art '.-)\"'Id id1 'I 1 (,.,.,, - l~w1LJJ11J1.,j_tlwd.J\\.:L _ _ - - - ----. --------- --- - - -------------- ------ STRAHGl[S/ BEGINNING COHPI ( TI0N OBJECTIVES ACT I YIT I (S OAT[ OAT[ COSTS R[SP0NSIBILI TY ['/AlUA\nI Check for miss/1111trl-P. Ohgoi~ or student skills/ \u0026lt;IPrici ts/teaching approaches lls~s why students Ohgoing l11111rove stude nt perf ll\"\"'111Cfc are not -stering materials lt\u0026gt;nitor stwent act-ivities over long in tervals to identify breablolms in the learning process tbnitor tPacher ef- (),going rectiveness - do stu dents uroerstand the task7 l'rnvide nunerous met \u0026lt;Jngoing hods of assessing ..n,t students have I ,'l 100 P.ulc ,ut Pacl11~ion.1r O,going t\\lterials $500 a~lrs r r students not IParnl~ l.11ek of lnstructin~ wck of prerf'q1isl lrs for aa,..dsitim fa- ml 5ti.l1s I 1\\11,,11 ,tl 1'1.,n l'lk' L 'HJ r,, . ., ) 1',, .on ,,,. p.p,,n\\1l, lt I J 1rcLl ,r - l , t , llt H1lll11o.\n!,o ., 1 J , __ w11~i11\\K'\\l _Nu,~icr_ I _ - __ -- _______________ _ STRAHGIES/ BEGINNING OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DAT[ Soci~l (11Ctors - Schools allerded Allerxlance Support systf'III Pre-school instru- ~ion J. l'rovlde inservice that Provide T lnservice 10/89 focuses on teacher behirrior Review literature ..t toward a disproportion o[ research regardl~ 111inodty students epclally teacher eapectatlons black -1es in special for inorlty students educ.a tion . especially black IRlfs Provide tralnh~ Application of train-ing by lPechers ObsPrve/provide feed-liack lo teechers l'tmi tor te111:her beha, - ior on an ongoing t.,sis 1' , 1 '' , I CONPl ll I OH DATE COSTS Ongoing ~oir~ $5,400  111 JI I ' II I 111 I II 11111 , .. I',, ,.,, .. ,. 1 r.,,   ., i .d f d11 ---- ------ - - -- RESPONSIBILITY ['/Al UAT I 011 Special f.rlucation C\"mtral lncreasP studenl/ll'ac. Office St.arf lnterectlons lligher expectations r lnt'r-ovr-d instruct ion ilLhi('Vrtnelll . . , I I 1 I I hn or sll~,1~ r.,, ,,,11 1'1.tn l'J~ 1 l-f)ft ff ir) ,,,  \"\" ..... ,,,on\\ ,l,lr 11i .. -d .. , - r.- I 11, n,11111- 1,., .. I . I. y1n11.11-J __ Nunl\n., __ I - STRATCGIH/ OBJECTIY[S ACTIVITIES , .. fnsurf' the- fol lowing: a . rrovi,IP COftlll'mfflSive Assisi black \"'-\"les in assessments and \u0026lt;fuwu\n~ developing adaptive skil~ b. rrovide short-te1\"111 interwntions such 11s group flctivlties to strengthen social bur act ion skills without changing student's 1155 ig1111ents c. 1..-,ll'ffll!nt Extended Plac-nt services In s diagnostic cl11ssr00111. Pl11eement to be review ed each senester. d . Develop Parent OJ,prmt (I) lrtanat.i~ System (2) Behavior tlmaganent Ski 11 s (J) Advocacy Training for U..ildren (4) lnfonnalion Center e. ldl'nt Hy and coordinat, cm111Jni ty resources BFGINNING DATE 9/89 9/89 9/89  11 1,1 I  I 11, I' ,,,.,. ' I\" , . ' ',\" , .. , ,., ' I\" I ,.ii I ,hi I' I - ---- - -- ----- -- -------- ---- COHPLCTION DAT COSTS R(SPONSIBIL IJY I ['/t,LUAT ICII Clhgoing Regular Teachf'n\nl\"t'rove ,\ntuclent acacl\u0026lt;:: ,ic rsychol~lcal t.x.wniners per(orma11ce Socinl Worker Olgolng rsychologist lnc:reast: in student al ln...t.~, IL' 0-.going Increase parent involH:rnent advocacy Olgoing SyslA11Wide e(hct iv\u0026lt;' rnnrls-ino\nervice on ... '\"\"\"'' f'l.1n l'IJ.i' - o (f, .p) I', . 1111 r,potw, ,l,lr IJlcc1.lvr _ I . \\\u0026lt;'I I tl,l 1111, I,,,,, I 1 . ......J..oui.JJ.rut.'\\l..lurllx.t_l _ . ____ ------ OBJECTIVES S TRA HG I [ S/ ACT IVITl[S r. Haint:iin lrAnsitional services lo regular c lltssf's throu.J, liaison s~rl services g. Dl!veh./adapt uterlals aro disseminate to la:.al schools s. fnsure lncrr11sed equity Conduct the following in- In in:o\ntruc:tional method- :wrvlces: olo~y through a c....,ret-i a. Learni~ Strategies sive starr developnent program b. Laubach Reading c. n:sA d. Peer Tutoring r J. fnsure incrrased equity i, a. fohke adaptations/modi-instn.: t ional fflf'thodology ricallons o( curri-throu!( h part ic lp,,tion in cul1J11 ror regular regular classes classes b. Identify eHective in- ~tructional techniques lrarni~ styles, tea-chi11g styles - - B[GUINING CIJ4rl[ r I OH OAT[ OAfE COSTS 1/90 n.going 4/90 ~oi~ Olgoing 1990-92 $ 750 $ 500 $5,t,()() $ 200 $2,000 $ JOO ---- RESPONSIBILITY \u0026lt;:entral OH ice Starr Social Worker Special Teachers Director and Special t.iluc.ation Supervison\nI I I I  I . 'I I .. . 1. 11 1,1, I 11 ---- --- ['IALUAT 1011 OPcrf',,si~ rf'rrrral~ nr hi\n, males and othtr minnril\\ st \u0026lt;.lcnts to spcciill lU\u0026lt;.,,tion Increased applic:ition ors in regular classes \" lucrrased stU\u0026lt;knt-lca, hrr inler:1ctio11s \" kedtK.r- th\u0026lt;- mr,rllf'r or s !tli 1 ,.,11, .. 1 out or rcRular Lias  I I 9 1  11111111 ,. ,., ,,,,, 11,,11 , ..\n,,,iu.il f'l.u, l''H''  'NI {f,,ir) 111 ,1 111,1,1111111111, - I\"' f,,.~.nn Pr\na1tm!d,l,, lhr~\u0026lt;..l\u0026lt;r l :, lt II,  ~\\,ttf11c\n,,,,,,111 ,'I\\,,,  1,_4 1 d Id l,idl : Z~ ..Hcl.iite._autl_CJIW,,J Ll~: 11,.,,11L,1.i11,r. _~y~l~m l!' 6,,11!('_1\" dat\n1_J 11r _~u1d1_._li111, ., lo111\nil,.1111l __ ~l_!'l_y of ~'1\"~ i :!l_l_\u0026lt;h \"'\"\" 1 11d,111-,. _ - STRAHGlS/ BEGINNING COHPLCTION OBJCCTIYCS ACT I Vil l(S OAT[ OAT( I. Rf'fint' ~fl(' IIW\u0026gt;flitori~ and I. 1-t\u0026gt;ni toring is c\"1letw Ongoing Ongoing t'valuat1on process in the on a bi-monthly basis. Oistrict. A s1fflllllry report is pro vided to the building principals. Correctivt' act Pon fonlS are pro-vided to en\"ure con-tlnued C\u0026lt;lllpliance of due process by the District. 2. To l'11gagt\u0026gt; in data collf'C- 2. c.ar.,lle special educe- ~oh~ ()igoing t ion for a l~I tudinnl lion enrolt.nt includ-sb1~ of placm1ent prac- ing race, se, etc. 8f1d tices in the District. 1110nitor on a regular bas ls. Data ls re-viewed by the associalE superlntendl'nt. Specific schools are tar:geted if probl-ar- c identified by stafl. llulldi~ principals an their staff 11Ust deve-lop action plans to re lllf\u0026gt;diate deficienciPs identlfiet.l by Cl'ntr11I OH ice. These pain,\nnre moni tor:ed by C.ent.rn Off ice staff. - ----- COSTS A(SPONSIBILI TY l Software \u0026lt;'.ent r11 I or f ice S!,'CC i a I $1,000 Muc11tion Starr Consultants $1,000 rol\"IIIS $2,000 Professional Growth $1,000 Hilterials $3,000 Director - Special rducation --------- -- ( '/Al UA Tl 011 Rcvirw a,\nan 011-1,(oi:, all rulr~, rr ~111,,t i: pol icir,\n1 a,wt pr,ic t ,. llistrict s Spt\u0026gt;Cial  _F~ ir lfl\u0026lt; lucal i  ,\nmrl r\u0026lt;:gular educatir ,n rro ... .. , f'rert'ff'rral intervc11 : ionc\n: :t 4:-rconn~ I. ni1nl ~ I' ,,frrral utilizrd ~ schnol I- ~,ch schoo has or-r,., ~Prv il.e tt',\"WIIS. rrcr intervcnt ions .rre d~  i1,,1l('\u0026lt;i l'l prcvrnt iMpprnpriat o rrf, ,-\nrl\na,: well i'IS roc11~ \"\" ,: ilt,,rn. : a.,, instructinoal ~d,nnl's 11pil proP.r.--1 '\" I .. . 'l ~rni '- \" le ,T act ivrly ~rt iLit~,t, c:: Ill 1 i  suring appr:opr-i.rll' r t fr,r\n,I ,.  , ... ,.., ., I ,. I.,,, I '1'1'1 1)(J , ,. I, ) I',.,,,,, Pil''\"'\\,1,J., IJUlllVl  J~llU H,ttlu, (,,,,,I  J,__IJISll[UlVllY-1t ~t11.L1,,I hk.:iliu11 ~!:idtk.i11~ _ll1t \u0026lt;~'!'!:tlJ.!:C'~c-1!_1,,,t1n11 111 oni1111,j_l_y ~_lu\u0026lt;l!!'l.~_e11r-,ll11l _i_!J~n,\n :\"' \n,,, 1tH 1111 11111 l1, , ..\n, ... ,, ,  '\"' I  1 t I ti ld11 STRATCGl(S/ B(GINNING OBJECTIY(S ACTIYIJl(S DA1 I. rrovirlr 11,\nsisl:incp in re- I. Schroult\u0026gt; stafr ~velop-- Oigoing ducinR the ovc-rrepresrnta- m111t on the followi~: t ion or minority st,a.ll!nts a. Current legislation (),going in special educ:11tion. anti litigation b. Eligibility criteri1 f6r special~ and related service: c. Current trends ln asses--.t d. Non-biased _ :ut ~ing e. Translation of test data Into appco-pri11te c11rricul1J11 and instruction ~oing f. Ada1,tive Behavior A,\nses--,t ~oh~ g. Curricultn Based Asses--.t Olgoing I. llflply llfl\u0026gt;l\"opriate pre-rererral interventions Olgoing II. Rt\u0026gt;view c~ts of O.,\n:oing I it tie Rock School 0is-lrict delivt\u0026gt;ry sy~tem a. Policies and ProcP-b. dures \"PJ\u0026gt;r:aisal QJia, 0rg11niz.ttional structure c. f.urricult.111 d. Service delivery mn ~ - --- CCJ4Pl Tl ON DATE COSTS R(SPONSIBILITY 0-.going $2S,001 over-I l\u0026gt;i rec tor or Srl('C I a I all cost: Eilucat ion Suj)('rvisors Olgoing lnservice 1tver91te cost per type- llr. Al Sullivan $1,000 X 7 Slate DeJJRrlft\u0026gt;nl of sessions 7S fducatlon - Sprcial teachers F.ducation $2,000 prinl!( 1991 11111tlers\nC.onsultants $2,000 consultants 1991 $],000 1991 Olgoing Central Offict\u0026gt; Sta(( '' i I I I ----- --- --- E'/1\\lUATI0II ll\"flrovr c\nI: i I I c\nin ut rrr 1rra I pl:ic.unrnl p i Ii, in.  t. r- Nlur Decrrase in reforral students lo sprcial llr'Lrr:ic\nr in ,\n,jc\ncl:,~c\nminority c\nlulenlc\n/ls lncrr:,c\nrt) lu1owl\"'l1:r cess mI :ii,,i-opri\nitt\u0026gt; hw:r:ic\nNI k1N11.lh:c-hiu... atiun l'r0Rr\nw11,\n., or mirY~llV E\u0026lt;:lucali 11 j r i ( ,11 Ir . o,f tn, .. :ic .. ,, I' I nr \"\"\" I  pru.:r \"' r 111\n: of I ( I rrl l'rtY_\u0026lt; 1rf \u0026lt; t.,, ,,,ti f' l.tn I 1JW-'JO ( t, ,tr) I', ,.on Rl',l)On.1Ll1: - llircctoi's ::-T, i-lli~trrcts c\no,,1 . Jll....mlii.!!!~-!l'l~'rl [or llK tri-\u0026lt;li,tdLl assr,_.nl L\u0026lt; 1111 ill\u0026lt;'t\u0026gt;, OBJECTIVES I. rarticip,te In a tridlstrict asses,\nriw,nt committee vith a plallnf'd 11gen:la an:! stated dire::t.ia,. STRAHGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGlfllllNG DATE Det\u0026lt;\"rt11lne agenda llffli~ O\u0026gt;going lst11blish consistency In \u0026amp;l'eas or assessment: O\u0026gt;going -scree1d~ -evalunllon lnst1U11ents -eligibility Cl'iteria -review eKlsting assess- Olgoing ment lnst~ts -identtry .-- assessment inst~ts end purclvlse roe rteld test-ing O\u0026gt;going -exJWld i:-in:haslng based on data secured frooi field testing :111 I I  , ,.\n. , II 11'11 I 11,1 C~PLETION OATE O\u0026gt;going Oigoing O\u0026gt;goiOR Olgoing COSTS $10,000 Consultants \"'1terials/ Su(,plies Printing Cooperative Pun.haslng  11\" ( Ill I I' 1111, 11 - ' 1 , .1 ., . ,,,1111/l~.t : I\"' 1.d I. I 111  RE SPONS I BI ll TY EVAlUA IION Cllrecton - Special file. Consi~tt\u0026gt;ncy lo'ithin anti a . c,~\u0026lt; tri-district bou,r .. ,r iPs l:tH1.h-- u-iners out the assessment prOLec ''. Coordinators . .. r,.,,.,,il l'l .,n J'IH')-'ft) ff ,irJ I' , ., ,.,, r',  -..pon\\ ii, 1,, I Ju 1'(_ t,,r - L I, J Ii H11 I 111 . l,0,1 I I. (1111l 1111 \u0026lt;I _lhn~, J STRAHGIES/ OBJECT IVES ACT IVIT ICS \" rarP11t i l'lllOl vt'ffll'nt {. r\nirent t'ducat ion Seninar - Special fduc.atlon ' 2. To rf'duce by ten percf'flt Resrarch-Longitudlnal Study over II fl~ yt\u0026gt;ar period a. Pilot Progr in tar-the nunber of 111inority stu geted schools utiliz-dent~ enrolled in speci(ic ing various strategle. learning diS11bled rqulalim h. Use e(fective slrate Current Percenta~e: gies district vlde Al:tek 70% \\.'hi te JU% J. To reduce 0\\/t'r a n~ year a. Use as its base of period by twenty percent operation federal, the 1ttmlJPr of students en- M. 94-142 and State rolled in mentally retard- Arkans11s Act 102, rd llnd spec\u0026gt;eh i ,,.,a i red legisl\nitlons. Clear population. WP II wr i llen ,-oUcle\nhffve been erutli\u0026lt;lul to provide sati,fa:- tory as~urnnce thllt 1,ulicies, procedures and progr111RS ~t.llHH, l'd and idninlsla'at Iv the district shall tr an\ni.-\nt.mt with the rro-vi~ ia11 of fllkal 111I stale l!Rmtes. ,. . ,,., ...'.e ,,,,, ..- .,: . - ------- BEGIIINING C011PlT 1011 OAT( OAT COSTS 9/87 1993-94 9/87 1993-94 I I I I 1 11 4 , 11 1 11 ,d  - 1 , I I,,,,, 1, /1.r I'\"' 1 , I l,J, 11 11 - --- - ---- -- - RCSPONSIBlll lY Director or Sfll'C ia l tiluc.ation Supervisors Principals --- lnnR i tudin.\\l sturlir-\nwi 11 ii,~ithat sveci~l MlA.iltiott nment will rrflct.t distriLt' al poi,ul\nit ion. cate roll raci Special \u0026amp;tucation lbdns Division of School Personnel Supervisors Mh(, or m rrpr I rence wil I r\u0026lt;\"luc Ee the Ir rvnt i sc l:1ss H ic\n,t ion ~,.i \"\" r - e-\nr11tntio:1. , , '\"'II I' I Ill l ' IHl J- 'I( J ,., . , , 1,11 fJ ,,, 1u,f1 , 11,1 ,, IHnLllJ[ f,,,d 1 _J ._ ( AUii IHllf'd ,,,,  ,. r t OBJ[CT IV[S ( Y, ,II I L, Ldl\" tL,t thi , I I , IHI I 11111 I Ill  \"C1111 I  11 1 11. I\"' I t , . I , , I  1 1 , I I, 11 1 1, 111 --------- ---- -------- - - ---- - - - -------- ------ STRATEGICS/ ACTI VI TICS b. Rl\"ViPII the rderrnl, evnlu~l ion, 1md pl!OCf'l!lellt dl'Ci~iOfl!'\nmaclP ht the f.duca- Lion H,magernent Te11111. ~ c. . fblltor the proces! and all due proces! folders in eac.h school. BCG 111111 IIG CONl'll TION DAT[ OAT[ 9/81, 0,6oing 9/84 Olgoing COSTS R[SPOW\n18 ll I l 1 [ \"llllUA l (IJ:t ~(W'Ci.11 lihic.,,t ion f\"fTll.r.1! Pl:lloM'nl .tc-ci~ion  \"'\"' ,, , - Of[ice Start\ntiot1nl pl,,n,\n1.ill t, h,~v: \ni ovrr.1 I l caupn hcn!i ! \\ \u0026lt;' ,\"IS!-=' m.,nt s. . . , /In npprec.iable \u0026lt;lrc.lin\u0026lt;' int.orrcc. tivc action proc..lures. .... , 11 I   ,,,, 1 I Ill 1  II., ' H 1 ( , , , , 1 ,,. , .. ,,. .i.1,. lli, ,, ,.,, r ,. 11, 1111 ,,., .. ,, .,., ,, In 111111,  1 1r11ty Ill 1 .,11 1111 , .. . , . ,I f,h . ,, .... , 1,01.r,m-._._ OBJ{( fl Y( S I . lh~11rr f\"'!jr I , ... ,tr rr.,rr\u0026lt;: rnt 111 '\"\" 0 wrl l r,I j f jf'd minority \u0026lt;:prri:,I \"'hiral ion tP11\u0026lt;.1lf'rs. SlllAl((\nl(S/ A(! I Y 111 l S Rrcrui t\nnJ \"\"flloy 111inor- 7/R9 ity tr.-:ht-rs in c.rlHie, 11rP.15 of:  Hildly h11n,Ucarped b. IIP.1rl~ iirffl c. ,..r11tly/s-rI lunlita(Pd d. Sr-ch i.lllpl I red e. Vi :o\nua II y i.lllpl i rf'd F.xpw,d st11U ~lop:lfflt ..-.tivilles: a. r11rtl'll'rshlp with sl11t col lPgPS an-I unlYP.rsitles for tr11inl111t int rrtraini~ of tP..achl'rs. b. See Sttwlent lflmti fic  tion Mid rlace lnl?f'tt 1111d ln:o.truc-l ioml ~IPthodolQfty for other stnrr de-YPl,._...t IICl ivi ties. 8/89 llrGINIIINf. OAT[ (.(lf4rt f T ION DAI 19\"1-94 COSlS $7,000 $4,000 Tuition 111 , , 11,ott .,, I I 111 1 I I f ,, I' 1111/ I I  J\"' f I I I, RFSP0ll',1811111 t,lrPCtor:o.: rrr:o\nonnrl Stlf'Ci:11 f,hirnt inn s,.\"'rvl\u0026lt;:or~- ~'(.i:1f-. fducation l'rofessor:o., S(,rci11l .duc.atlon Orp\nlrlllll'fll Cenlr11l O(Cice ~tnff 1 1AIII~ Pre p1H t1on nf M1nor1ty s,,ec 1dl EduL\"at 10n TeJchcr s w1 l l mirror ropnrtion of m1nor1ty teachers d1str1ct w1,lc  , Ml I I 'I I ,,. j 1ft I 1'111 JI. f111 ,.,,1 I l'l,111 ~'1\"'  '.XI ( , ... . I J, ro,i ''''\\Jtt1n -. d1J,. 1,\nrt.1.liu - I .f, Iii t~1tllii . l,11,11 : _ J ,__ IU_!'!l'Ulr_~u1,r.,v1 d 111,1l1ly!11l f\u0026gt;Jllily i11 \"\"'l.'rl_,1l,\n__ ,1~ ..:\"~1li\u0026lt; ~ 11 n,  i_dI In li:111iL ,IJ1\"'J ~li,l\u0026lt;'lll\u0026lt;:, ____   ti f llf f H td I I , I l , 9 r 1111 / /,r  I ' ... \\ 1 , 11 I di 1 I -- . -- ------------ - . -- . .. . . - - S TIIAT(Gl[S/ BGHltllNG I C~PlTI0N I 0BJCCTIYES ACTI YI TIES OAT[ DAI[ cosrs RESP0US 18 I LI fl ['/AlUAfl'JII I. SJ\u0026gt;\u0026lt;\"Ci.11 e\u0026lt;luc11tion tt'~ln,, it. lrlmtify a Sllf'Cllll 9/87 0-.golng Notte Director - Sf\u0026gt;t'ci11I fduc. f.-\u0026gt;eh c 111:0:!Sroom ,. i 11 '...' 111 .,\n- wi 11 dmw\u0026gt;nstrate systfflt- Khcallon com,ittee 11tic11lly that hi1th Q'lllLit) represmlati~ or the r~,t\u0026lt;' a11rl ,,pf'rOf\u0026gt;r iatt r.nl( effect Ive sprr   I instruc total special educall0\u0026lt; \u0026lt;\nUJ\u0026gt;1\u0026gt;li1!\nlion is helng tovidPd starr to assist In the lhr~h the u~e or varil'd sf'lecUon or appro-innovative, and 11ppro- priate 11111lerlals and prlate IMledals and supplies supplies. b. Schedule \"Material fllir ror Starr using local, \"~oh~ $120,000 Supervisors Improve quality of in,\ntruc. l i ,,., sti1te, and nationally known vendors c . lrlmti(y 11111terials/ J/88 O\u0026gt;going Special .ducat ion supplies, etc. that mi Colr.1i l tee hlls ic lo resource, Itinerant and special clas srOOIIIS d. ldmti(y IMlerials/ 10/89 Olgoing Special fducalion Sllfllll les needed to im- Galmittee prove/enhance the quality or instruction ldrntirierl in slwent!S lf.r' S e. ~bnl tor select ion/use Olgolng O)Roing Principals o{ materials/supplies Supervisors I I I I I\\, r ,, t I I I ltl 1 't J.1 '1 1HI f,   ,,,, JJ, , 111,n ,t,1,- Utcu .. lul f,,,a I : J. WIILIJIUl:U. lluJru j ',  . , i L:,Ldl H,11hi . II 11'1' I  -------- --,---------------------- ------ -----. --------- (()11Pl CT ION _ _ I OBJ[C Tl V(S STRAHGICS/ AC TIVI Tl [S B(Gtrl!IING OAT f. Act ivitiP:\u0026lt;: to focui\n(),going 011 current trerI~ of new materials/S4l~U'! g. Schedule sharing Olgolng t~ for effectiw and imovative use of nwterlals/ rql)liec\nh. Adaptations/iaodifl- Olgoing cations of terials supplies/ equ I l,IM!l  l OAT[ ~ . RlSPOll~lllll llY (),going $J,OOO Olgoing Olgoing $2,000 Soperv i i\nor s llirKtor Teachers Teachers  C I II I I ' I ti I\" , .. I I I , . , ' I I H 1 I '1 I, I, I I I ti lnfol'1JW'\u0026lt;.I n11.artli11g n,,t i,1.11 trrnds Availahility of new materials and supplies  -- ' -- vr. Budget Summary - Little Rock School District 1989-90 Funds derived from local. state, and federal sources. STUDENT !DENT!FICATION ANO PLACEMENT Staff Development Training Sub-Total Staff Recruitment Activities Tuition Sub-Total Instructional Methodology Learning Strategies (30 teachers) Laubach Reading TESA Training (30 teachers) Peer Tutoring Modifications/Adaptations of Materials Learning Styles Test Data Sub-Total Materials and Supplies Basic Materials/Supplies New Materials Adaptations/Modifications Sub-Total Monitoring and E'valua!ion Learning Center Sub- Tota 1 G~A~ID 707 AL s 5 s s S 25,500.00 S 25,500.00 $ 7,000.00 4,000.00 $ 11 .000.00 s 750.00 500,00 5,400.00 200,00 2,000.00 300.00 3,000.00 s 12,150.00 120,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 125,000.00 10,000,00 149,000.00 159,000.00 332,650.00 VI. Budget Summary - Tri-District 1989-90  1. Recruitment Activities 2. Assessment 3. Uniform System (Due Process) 4. staff Development 5. Programs - Low Incidence TOTAL 12,000 10,000 30,000 10,000 (undetermined) $ 62,000 Plan l'J8'J - l'J94 (Yfar) Respons1bl1\u0026gt;.,....,ucac1ona, u,recto~ Annual Person Goal: To imvcu~ drc1cu1.aL1.u11.1v11t\"1 J.llllS ot l'CSSD, LRSIJ, .incl N/.1/SIJ OBJECTIVES 'l'o 1mprovf! drticulation ot VO\u0026lt;.:d t j Ulld J progrdms. Jm1Jrove rcc1uitment uf students i11to Hetropolitdll Vu-Tech STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES At tend edCh other's adviso,y couuci 1 meetings Review course utter i11gs Ot f.,, Opell J/ouscs Student Hroc:l,urcs E:mploymc11t FdiT l'J88 1988 1988 1989 1990 SEGINNING DATE - 1989 - l'J8'.I - 1989 - l'J9V IMPLEMENTATION TIMEL!NE 1 r, i -Sc/Joo! Disc, ictsJ COMPLETION DATE 011going 1989 1989 1990 l'J'JV COSTS - No11c $200 $l5V $l5V Di Vis ~r, ,.,-::~:.(,\n' I IJ\u0026lt;\"l I t\u0026gt;II Progra,~ vocar 1\u0026lt;\u0026gt;na1 RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 1-:ad, Vi.\u0026gt;CdL it111Jl Vi 1c, .. :tu1 ActuJ/ .JI I L'lldJ/h't  Vocal ,ou.il 11,,ector.s Comlt..L ioll \u0026lt;\u0026gt;I Act iVlllj Vocdl iolld I lJ1 rec:tuz .s Complt't 1011 \"' At:I ivlly Vocal ,onal 1\u0026gt;11cctoc.s Complc.t 1011 \"' Ac.t. l VI I 1J Vucdt ion\u0026lt;Jl DilL'L'tOIS Comp I t t i 011 ul A ... t J VI t l) ....... ' J / I 'e I I I I I I I  I I I I I I ,_ I I .i IMPLEMENiATION TIMEL!ttE Annual Plan l'J89 - J\u0026lt;J\u0026lt;J4 (Year) 01v1s1on /11-.,1111,1 1011 Person Responsible Vocatio11JI Oj l t..'CCUT!S Program/ Area V~H .,, IUll ,I I Goal: 1'n 1mprovc. cooperdtion amonq voc:c1tional depdrtmcut.s ill PC i, /,HS/I, .. wd NI.HSI\u0026gt;. STRATEGIES/ SEGINNING COMPLETION OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES DATE DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Conduct meetings Conduct monthly meetings September 12 - Hout H.Jc-/J J\u0026gt;j rec tor w1 l l among vucdtional director, Oc:tobcr 11 Jtte,uJ November 1~ Dcc:embt. r JJ Sl1dre I11fonnation J. Share applicant pool When new courses - None E:ac/1 d J reel or ..,\nl1 2. Consult each ot/lcz arise dtlc11\u0026lt;J concerning new course offerings Common Course Desc, iption Review course uftc1ings Ja11udry 1989 f'cbruary l'Jl/9 None !'dc:IJ /)J rt..'\u0026lt;..'lOI\" wil 1 and course descriptions 011goi11g attend for difterences I  -- GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING PROGRAM COOPERATIVE EFFORTS INVOLVING THE THREE DISTRICTS IN PULASKI COUNTY In order that minority students are better served by school counselors, the directors or coordinators of counseling services for the three districts should meet on a monthly basis to share ideas, concerns, and plans for joint activities. areas of cooperation that will be explored are: Some of the 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. employment for students entering the working world directly after high school, minority scholarships and financial aid, parent education in terms of student opportunities, college recruitment practices and their impact on minority applicants, recruitment procedures for AP classes, advanced classes, magnet schools and specialty programs, and effective intervention strategies for disadvantaged and/or at-risk students. The outcomes expected from using a joint approach by all concerned school counseling personnel in the tri-districts include: 1. increased employment for post high school minority youth, 2. more minority students attending college and/or receiving financial assistance to attend college, 3. increased enrollment of minority students in advanced and AP classes, 4. earlier targeting of at-risk and disadvantaged students resulting in a decrease in the drop-out rate, and 5. more positive parental interaction with the schools. To facilitate and insure the identification of all students requiring academic remediation, a joint testing program based on the MAT-6 will be considered. The director off the tri-district  educational cooperative, with the assistance of the directors of testing for the districts, will explore a joint test purchasing, scoring, and reporting procedure. Such a program may reduce cost and provide uniformity in test data. A bi-racial tri-district monitoring team composed of parents, teachers, administrators and other concerned citizens of the community will be formed to monitor test preparation and testing conditions. Teachers of all three districts will be instructed in methods of identifying both at-risk students and gifted and talented students, with standardized test data as a key identification cirterion. Teachers will also be shown how to use individual student reports to pin-point a student's areas of significant weakness, and how to provide appropriate interventions. Finally, a system should be devised which insures that the records of students transferring among the three districts are sent and received in a timely manner. A uniform records transfer system would decrease the number of incidents in which students are incorrectly placed because of insufficient student data. Joint cooperation in the areas of counseling and testing should result in additional education and career advantages for minority students. The responsibility for the foregoing cooperative efforts rests with the Coordinator of Counseling Services. ,. TASK Increa se communications between districts in areas of counseling and testing Employment Fair (Focus on minority employers) Joint inservices for counselors on student related information (black colleges and universities,financial aid, testing, other post secondary opportunities) Joint inservices for counselors on recruitment for AP, advanced classes, magnet schools, speciality programs, athletics and co-curricular activities Joint inservice for teachers on using test results Explore possibility of educational cooperative providing joint test service Explore probability for joint record transfer system  RESPONSI Bl LITY Coordinator of Counseling Services Director of Vocational Education Coordinator of Counseling Service Secondary Counselors Vocational Teachers Coordinator of Counseling Services Secondary Counselors Coordinator of Counseling Services Secondary Counselors Coordinator of Counseling Services Coordinator of Counseling Services Coordinator of Counseling Serv ices cm.lPLETION DATE Ongoing Yearly Ongoing Ongoing Yearly Septemb_er, 1989 September, 1989\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":"gsu_ggdp_5815","title":"Downing Musgrove oral history interview, 1988 October 2","collection_id":"gsu_ggdp","collection_title":"Georgia Government Documentation Project","dcterms_contributor":["Herndon, Jane Walker, 1939-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Musgrove, Downing, 1911-"],"dc_date":["1988-10-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Georgia State University Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Government Documentation Project","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/1508"],"dcterms_subject":["Political corruption","Politicians","Legislators","Governors","Ku Klux Klan (1915- )","Georgia. General Assembly. Committee on Schools","Little White House (Warm Springs, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Downing Musgrove oral history interview, 1988 October 2"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ggdp/id/5815"],"dcterms_temporal":["1980/1989"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Musgrove, Downing, Interviewed by Jane W. Herndon, 2 October 1988, P1988-20, Series B. Public Figures, Georgia Government Documentation Project, Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 hours, 48 minutes, 7 seconds of audio spread over 3 sides of 3 tapes, and a 123 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Musgrove, Downing, 1911-","Rivers, Eurith Dickerson, 1895-1967","Thompson, M. E. (Melvin Ernest), 1903-1980","Talmadge, Eugene, 1884-1946","Talmadge, Herman E. (Herman Eugene), 1913-2002","Carter, Jimmy, 1924-","Arnall, Ellis Gibbs, 1907-1992","Greer, John, 1909-1994","Harris, Roy Vincent, 1895-1985","George, Walter F. (Walter Franklin), 1878-1957"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"pth_bcja_metapth611458","title":"\"With Liberty and Justice for All\"","collection_id":"pth_bcja","collection_title":"Barbara C. Jordan Archives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dc_date":["1988-09-30"],"dcterms_description":["Text for a speech given by Barbara C. Jordan at the National Press Club in Washington DC, about the upcoming presidential election."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":["local-cont-no: TSOU_0463-002-004"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["ark: ark:/67531/metapth611458"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["ark: ark:/67531/metapth611458"],"dcterms_subject":["African American women politicians--Texas","Speeches, addresses, etc.","Presidents--Election","National Press Club (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["\"With Liberty and Justice for All\"","Texas Senate Papers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Texas Southern University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611458"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["speeches (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_abaker_4596","title":"Letter, 1988, Cee Cee Daley to Augusta Baker","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Daley, Cee Cee"],"dc_date":["1988-09-27"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Cee Cee Daley to Augusta Baker, thanking her for speaking to her class and stating, \"Someone once said that in order to be great one must surround themselves with greatness, I truly feel that at USC, by having people like you and Pam around, we (the students) are surrounded by greatness! And how lucky we are\"."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 2, Folder 137. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998--Correspondence","African American women librarians","Children's librarians","African American librarians","Women librarians","Daley, Cee Cee--Correspondence","University of South Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1988, Cee Cee Daley to Augusta Baker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/4596"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/2025"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","Daley, Cee Cee"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_abaker_154","title":"Biographical Essay of Augusta Baker from Winthrop Universitys 'South Carolina's Story'","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, York County, 34.97475, -81.18442","United States, South Carolina, York County, Rock Hill, 34.92487, -81.02508"],"dcterms_creator":["Chepesuik, Ron","Pettus, Louise"],"dc_date":["1988-09-23"],"dcterms_description":["A biographical esssay of Augusta Baker written by faculty and published in 'South Carolina's Story' at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 1, Folder 5. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["African American women librarians","Winthrop University"],"dcterms_title":["Biographical Essay of Augusta Baker from Winthrop Universitys 'South Carolina's Story'"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries","South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/154"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/9999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["essays"],"dcterms_extent":["1 essay","3 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"pth_bcja_metapth595284","title":"Barbara Jordan: Statement to the Press","collection_id":"pth_bcja","collection_title":"Barbara C. Jordan Archives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061"],"dcterms_creator":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996"],"dc_date":["1988-09-10"],"dcterms_description":["Text of a statement given to the press by Barbara C. Jordan endorsing the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket in the upcoming Presidential election."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":["local-cont-no: TSOU_0445-002-011","ark: ark:/67531/metapth595284"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American women politicians--Texas","Speeches, addresses, etc.","United States--Politics and government","Public relations--United States","Elections--United States","Presidents--Election","Democratic Party (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Barbara Jordan: Statement to the Press","Texas Senate Papers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Texas Southern University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth595284/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["press releases"],"dcterms_extent":["1 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","Dukakis, Michael S. (Michael Stanley), 1933-","Bentsen, Lloyd"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_abaker_4564","title":"Letter, 1988, Alice R. Bouknight to Augusta Baker","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["Bouknight, Alice R."],"dc_date":["1988-09-10"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Alice R. Bouknight, Curator of Exhibitions/State Fair Coordinator at McKissick Museum, to Augusta Baker, thanking her for agreeing to provide a story-telling at the 1988 State Fair and provides further details about the event."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 2, Folder 137. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998--Correspondence","African American women librarians","Children's librarians","African American librarians","Women librarians","Museums--South Carolina","Folklore","Tales","University of South Carolina","McKissick Museum","Bouknight, Alice R.--Correspondence"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1988, Alice R. Bouknight to Augusta Baker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/4564"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/2025"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","Bouknight, Alice R."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1104","title":"Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1988-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1104"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":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\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLong-Range Plan for  School Facilities Little Rock, Arkansas 1988 Stanton Leggett and Associates West Tisbury, Martha's Vineyard. Ma9s. 0'2575 Educatfonal Coosultants September 1988 Board of Directors Little Rock School District Joyce Kelly-Lewis Director W.D. Hamilton James L. Rutherford Robin Armstrong H.M. Faulkner Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli Superintendent of Schools Dr. George Cannon RECE~V~D JUN 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Mc,,!tc::n\ni Section 1 Demographic Changes and Future School Enrollments - A Report to the Little Rock School District The Grier Partnership 6532 EASf HALBERT ROAD BETHESDA. MARYLAND 20817 (30 1) 229-4454 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND FUTURE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS A Report to the Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Eunice and George Grier The Grier Partnership in collaboration with Stanton Leggett and Associates June 1988 I . INTRODUCTION Objectives of the Demographic Study The demographic study of the Little Rock School District is part of an overall examination of the District's existing physical facilities undertaken by Stanton Leggett and Associates. In order to help determine what types and sizes of facilities will be needed over the next decade or so, it is necessary to know how the school system's pupils are likely to change in numbers, characteristics, and location of residence. As a first step in the demographic study we reviewed recent trends in enrollments and evaluated the accuracy of some past enrollment projections. We then examined some of the external factors which could influence enrollments, such as birth rates and migration patterns, overall population growth, and the economy of the Little Rock area. Because the Little Rock School District recently enlarged its boundaries, acquiring several schools and about 7,000 additional pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, we also assessed the likely impact of this change on future enrollments. Some Special Considerations in the Little Rock Situation Racial Factors For several years the Little Rock School District has been under federal court order to maintain racial balance within its schools. While the racial composition of the schools has shifted slowly in the past several years, there has been a gradual increase both in the number of black pupils attending Little Rock schools and in their proportion of total enrollment. In 1980-81 black enrollment totalled about 13,000 or 63.6 percent of the total enrollment of 20,500. By the 1986-87 school year the number of black pupils had grown to almost 13,800 out of a total of 19,300\nthey were 71,3 percent. (See Table 1.)* TABLE 1 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1987-88 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Year Black Nonblack Total % Black 1980-81 13,009 7,446 20,455 63.6% 1981-82 13,004 6,743 19,747 65.9% 1982-83 13,238 6,064 19,302 68.6% 1983-84 13,355 5,722 19,077 70.0% 1984-85 13,466 5,450 18,916 71.2% 1985-86 13,644 5,479 19,123 71.3% 1986-87 13,769 5,536 19,305 71.3% 1987-88 16,101 10,479 26,580 60.6% Source: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollments. In both 1980-81 and 1986-87 the proportion of black pupils was highest in the early grades and lowest in the high school years. However, racial change at all grade levels has been slow. Both total enrollment and white* enrollment reached their lowest points in 1984-85 and began climbing again thereaf-ter. In order to meet the conditions of racial balance set down in the latest federal court order, Little Rock pupils are assigned to schools based on parents' expressed preferences and desegregation guidelines set by the court. *There will sometimes be small differences between enrollment numbers cited in this report for the same year. The differences occur because they have been taken from different source materials furnished by the school system and were assembled at different points in the school year. **Although there are a handful of nonblack nonwhite children in the Little Rock School District, for all practical purposes the terms \"white\" and \"nonblack\" are synonymous and are used interchangeably in this report. -2- Since the racial balance requirements are likely to remain in force for some years, the projection methodology must consider not only the size of the pupil population by race, but also its projected location within the district. Expanded Boundaries Until Fall 1987, the Little Rock School District took in only about twothirds of the land area and child population included in the city of Little Rock. The remainder of Little Rock, together with other parts of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River, was served by the Pulaski Special School District. By order of the federal court, the boundaries of both districts were changed effective in school year 1987-88. This change brought about 7,000 more pupils into the Little Rock Distric~, and made its boundaries virtually contiguous with those of the city. It also reduced the percentage of blacks in the district's population to 60.6 percent--three percentage points below their proportion in 1980. As in the earlier years, the black proportion was highest in the early grades (65.1 percent) and lowest at the high school level (50.1 percent). We could obtain almost no historical data to help judge what changes in school enrollments are likely to occur in the annexed territory. Metroplan estimates for 1986 indicate that much of the total population growth in the city of Little Rock took place in the annexed school territory, and Metroplan projects further growth in the years ahead. A comparison of 1980 census data with 1987 school data suggests that both black and nonblack pupils have increased in some parts of the annexed territory since 1980. Since we have no data for intervening years, however, .there is no way of telling whether the increases occurred in the early years of the decade but have now halted for one or both racial groups, or whether they have occurred more recently, or have taken place at a constant pace throughout the period. Nor can we obtain census data on the child population by race for census -3- tracts in which the total black population numbered fewer than 400 persons in 1980, even though they may have grown since then. Several of these tracts are in the annexed school territory. -4- II. Recent Trends in School Enrollment Trends in the System as a Whole (Old boundaries) Overall, the Little Rock School District's enrollment declined somewhat during the early years of the 1980s decade, as Table 1 indicated. From almost 20,500 in 1980-81, it dropped to about 18,900 in 1984-84--a decrease of about 1,600 pupils or 7.5 percent. In recent years, however, the trend has been reversed. Small gains were registered in 1985 and again in 1986, making up for some of the losses in the early 1980s. By 1986-87 enrollment was up to 19,300, 5.6 percent below 1980. In 1987 the enrollment again increased. This time, however, the reason was an expansion in the District's boundaries which added about 7,000 pupils from the Pulaski Special District. Some grade levels reached their lowest points earlier than others. The first to bottom out were the junior high grades (7-9), which had their lowest enrollment in the 1982-83 school year. Kindergarten was next in 1983-84, followed by the primary grades (1-3) and high school (10-12) in 1984-85. The intermediate grades (4-6) were the last to reach bottom in 1985-86. All but kindergarten and the junior high years increased their enrollments in the last year before the District was enlarged. (See Table 2 and Figure 1.) Racial Differences in Enrollments (old boundaries) Except for Grades 1 to 3, all grade levels from kindergarten to high schools had larger black enrollments in 1986-87 than in 1980-81, although the change from year to year was rarely very large. Overall, the number of black pupils increased by less than 800 in the six-year period, or by 5.8 percent. The number of white pupils, on the other hand, was smaller in 1986 than in 1980 at every level except kindergarten. The changes were also greater as -5- TABLE 2 TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY RACE 1980-81 TO 1986-87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BLACK PUPILS GRADES 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 1,120 1,072 1,141 1,059 1,142 1,211 1,160 1-3 3,800 3,842 3,815 3,768 3,754 3,728 3,729 4-6 2,879 2,987 3,136 3,264 3,243 3,237 3,267 7-9 2,712 2,679 2,735 2,871 2,960 3,099 3,086 10-12 2,498 2,424 2,411 2,393 2,367 2,369 2,527 TOTAL 13,009 13,004 13,238 13,355 13,466 13,644 13, 769 NONBLACK PUPILS GRADE 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 434 459 420 413 393 429 475 1-3 1,636 1,276 1,114 1,069 1,077 1,104 1,159 4-6 1,645 1,430 1,191 1,083 971 915 926 7-9 1,627 1,650 1,574 1,540 1,450 1,363 1,257 10-12 2,104 1,928 1,765 1,617 1,559 1,668 1,719 TOTAL 7,446 6,743 6,064 5,722 5,450 5,479 5,536 TOTAL ENROLLMENT GRADE 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 K 1,554 1,531 1,561 1,472 1,535 1,640 1,635 1-3 5,436 5,118 4,929 4,837 4,831 4,832 4,888 4-6 4,524 4,417 4,327 4,347 4,214 4,152 4,193 7-9 4,339 4,329 4,309 4,411 4,410 4,462 4,343 10-12 4,602 4,352 4,176 4,010 3,926 4,037 4,246 TOTAL 20,455 19,747 19,302 19,077 18,916 19,123 19,305 SOURCE: Little Rock School District, October 1 enrollment. (J) ..-i ...... 6600 6200 5800 25400 4- 0 ~ 5000 E :) z 4600 Figure 1 TRENDS IN TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 1 1/ /\n/ / . jl/ . I /I/ /\n'/ .1/ / l' I / ----~ - I  / ---:-------- - - - - - - - - J/1 4200 - ------- -~ ---=-=---- - ==--- -===-- - - - - - - - - f ------------ ------- -------------~-:::-:::i --- ----- - -- - --- ----------------- 3800--i----------r------.--------,------,--- - - ---,---- - -r-- ----, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 well, although still quite gradual. By Fall 1986 there were about 1,900 fewer white pupils enrolled in the Little Rock School District than in Fall 1980, for a drop of 25.7 percent or roughly 4.5 percent per year. However, all grade levels except 7-9 had begun to see their white pupil enrollments grow again by the 1986-87 school year. White students in the primary grades (1-3) reached their low point in 1983-84, and began to climb thereafter. Kindergarten and high school both saw their white pupil populations begin to grow again the following fall. White enrollment in the latter continued to grow in 1986-87, as it did in the primary grades. Whites in grades 4-6 dropped continuously through 1985-86, then gained slightly in 1986-87. (See Figures 2 and 3.) Hence the white decline appears to have leveled off, and may even have been reversed, before the court decision added pupils from the Pulaski Special District. Locational Differences (old boundaries) Historical data by geocode area of residence within the District were furnished by the school system for each individual grade. These were combined for our analysis in two ways. The first was by grade levels--kindergarten, primary (grades 1-3), intermediate (4-6), junior high (7-9), and high school (10-12). Second, in order to make the analysis more manageable, the individual geocodes were combined into subgroups--e.g. all geocodes beginning with 01 were combined under Group 01, all beginning with 02 under Group 02, and so on. We then chose Primary grades 1-3 and High School grades 10-12 for further examination and compared the changes in enrollees at these two grade levels from Fall 1979 to Fall 1987. The data for these levels have been mapped, and the results are shown in Figures 4 through 9. Within the old district boundaries, total enrollments in both grade levels declined substantially (more than 100 pupils) in some neighborhoods close to -6- 4600- 4200- Figur8 2 TRENDS IN BLACK ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 38oot--------------------------\" / / / (J) // / ~..... / / // J3400 // 4- __________________________________ ,,.,,. / 0 ------- a\n3000- -------- -- - - - _/ ~ ----- E ----- :) z 2600- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- -------- ---------- - - --- 2200- ./ /. _/  / ./ 1900-------r--------r------r-------.----..------....-------,, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 (/) ........ ...... 3400 3000 2600 t2200 4-- 0 ~ 1800 E :J z 1400 1000 Figure 3 TRENDS IN WHITE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE LEVELS - 1980-81 TO 1987-88 I / / 1 I ------- ./ I I ------- I / / I ------  I I/ ---- __\nI I -- -------- ____ _...- I ..._...__..._ - - ------------ I I/ ....... _____ -- -- /1 -....._ -- -- I .............. ..._..._ I ..... ._._ - - _/ I ._..._..._ I --- I - __::::._--:--:-_=:-.::.:-:::.:::.:===~,---------------- I I ------ I ______________________ / 600+-------.----------r-----r-------T------r-----r--------, 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 School Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 54 05   04  Figure 4 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Total: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numelical Change  :t 50 @ +51-100 @ +101 or more  -51 to 100  -101 or more 54 17 @ Figure 5 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51 to 100  - l0lor more the city's center. (See Figures 4 and 5.) These correspond to geocodes 1, 2, 3, and 4. There were also drops in enrollment in the upper northwest section of the city--substantial for the primary years and less so for the high school grades. Total enrollments changed relatively little, on the other hand, in neighborhoods west of University Avenue (Geocodes 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19) and in the areas east of University but north of West Markham (geocodes 7, 8, and 9) although here there were occasional spots of decline. There were no geocode groups where total enrollments increased by more than 50 pupils in the primary grades, and only two in which they increased this much in grades 10 to 12. One such area is south of !630 and east of University (geocode 05). The other is also south of 1630 but west of Barrow to !430\nits southern boundary is West 36th Street (geocode 17). Some of the geocode areas which remained stable did so because increases among black pupils offset white losses. (See Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9.) This was true of areas below !630 and west of University for both grade levels (geocodes 17, 18, and 19). There were also small losses among whites in some neighborhoods east of University, but blacks did not always gain sufficiently to offset these losses. Losses among black students, on the other hand, were substantial in some downtown neighborhoods for both the primary and high school grades. White enrollments in these areas, which were small to begin with, changed little between 1979 and 1987. As the maps indicate, there has been a clear movement of black pupils toward the western part of the city, but not to the higher-priced northwest. Whites have moved out of the areas where black enrollees have increased (or white graduates have not been replaced by younger whites). However, whites have contributed little to public school enrollments in the northwest despite substantial new construction. Since much of the recent construction has been of apartment units, new occupants may include relatively few school-age chil- -7- 54 17  04  Figure 6 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D 25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more 54 17 @ 04 CD Figure 7 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 1-3 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D -t-25 @ +26-75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more 54 17 @ 04  Figure 8 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes Black: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 N umeiical Change \u0026lt;D t-50 @ + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75  - 76 or more 54 04 CD Figure 9 Enrollment Change Little Rock Geocodes White: 10-12 1979-80 to 1987 -88 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D 25 @ +26 to 75 @ +76 or more  -26 to 75  -76 or more dren. These areas also include some of the city's higher-income neighborhoods, where between 30 and 50 percent of school-aged children were reported to be attending private schools at the 1980 census. Private school attendance probably remains high in these areas. Locational Changes (Expanded Boundaries) As already indicated, we were able to obtain no reliable historical data on school enrollments which could be used to make a precise assessment of recent trends in the territory added to the Little Rock District in Fall 1987. Metroplan's 1986 population estimates indicate substantial new residential construction in much of the annexed territory, and considerable increase in population as well. In fact, it is in the new territory that much of the city's new residential construction and population gain has taken place, according to Metroplan. (See Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 10.) It is likely, therefore, that school enrollments have also increased, offsetting some of the decline in neighborhoods closer to the city's center. Much of the new construction has been in multi-family units, however, and this may have tended to hold enrollments down. At the time of the 1980 census, apartments in Little Rock yielded an average of 1.9 persons, compared with 2.41 persons for single family homes. Furthermore, about 40 percent of the city's total population growth occurred in one far northwest census tract (42.03) where about a third of all children of elementary and junior high age were in private schools in 1980. More than half the units built since 1980 in this tract, according to Metroplan officials, have been apartments. In adjoining tracts (22.01, 22.03, 22.04, 22.05 and 24.01) the ratio of apartments was even higher. In the tracts in the southwest part of the city (24.02, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, and 42.04) single family units have -8- 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 10 Change in Total Population Little Rock Census Tracts 1980-86 40.01 Percentage Change \u0026lt;D + 1% @ 2-5% @ + 6% or more  - 2-5%  - 6% or more TABLE 3 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 1986 Census Change 80-86 Tract 1980 1986 No. Pct. 1 860 1,090 230 26. 7% 2 4,491 4,430 (61) -1.4% 3 2,726 2,890 164 6.0% 4 1,508 1,490 (18) -1.2% 5 4,904 4,940 36 0.7% 6 3,956 3,880 (76) -1.9% 7 2,969 2,920 (49) -1.7% 8 773 760 (13) -1.7% 9 806 790 (16) -2.0% 10 4,391 4,340 (51) -1.2% 11 4,831 4,750 (81) -1. 7% 12 2,675 2,630 (45) -1.7% 13 5,262 5,170 (92) -1.7% 14 3,417 3,420 3 0.1% 15 8,175 9,270 1,095 13.4% 16 5,258 5,350 92 1.7% 17 867 850 (17) -2.0% 18 6,406 6,350 (56) -0.9% 19 5,029 5,280 251 5.0% 20.01 5,748 5,900 152 2.6% 20.02 5,568 5,480 (88) -1.6% 21.01 8,468 8,740 272 3.2% 21.02 4,095 4,050 (45) -1.1% 22.01 5,196 5,710 514 9.9% 22.03 4,935 5,510 575 11.7% 22.04 7,938 8,830 892 11.2% 22.05 6,940 9,570 2,630 37.9% 24.01 11,100 12,170 1,070 9.6% 24.02 7,378 7,530 152 2.1% 40.01 2,705 2,860 155 5.7% 41.03 3,813 3,800 (13) -0.3% 41.04 1,154 1,490 336 29.1% 41.05 6,211 6,480 269 4.3% 41.06 6,660 6,930 270 4.1% 41.07 4,058 3,990 (68) -1.7% 41.08 6,361 6,250 (111) -1.7% 42.03 7,512 13,970 6,458 86.0% 42.04 2,615 3,460 845 32.3% Total 177,759 193,320 15,561 8.8% *Some census tracts extend into unincorporated portions of Pulaski County. Only the population of these tracts living within the city of Little Rock are included in the numbers given for both 1980 and 1987. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population, updated by Metroplan to include territory annexed by Little Rock aftei 1980. 1987 estimates from Metroplan, January 1988. predominated in new construction, but except for the extreme southwest, the number of new homes has been relatively modest. Table 4 Housing Permits Issued for New Housing Units, 1980-86 in Census Tracts with 100 or More New Homes Little Rock, Arkansas Census Tract 1 3 15 16 19 20.01 21.01 22.01 22.03 22.04 22.05 24.01 24.02 40.01 41.06 42.03 42.04 Mul ti-Familz: 152 130 727 60 204 154 243 271 372 464 1,386 439 2 122 64 2,073 110 Source: Metroplan, March 1987 Single-Familz: 0 2 31 45 6 6 18 80 29 133 227 259 135 5 137 1,462 324 Total 152 132 758 105 210 160 261 351 401 597 1,613 698 137 127 201 3,535 434 It is possible to obtain some indication of enrollment change in the annexed areas by comparing data on school-age children from the 1980 Census by census tract with data for the same tracts from 1987-88 school data. While school data are recorded for geocodes and not for census tracts, about 83 percent of all geocodes fall entirely within a single census tract. Among many of the remainder which cross tract lines, it is apparent from an examination of maps that the majority of residents live within one of the tracts. In these cases we assigned all of the children to that tract. While this procedure may result in some errors, they are probably small, and the results can be considered illustrative, if not definitive. -9- The census data are for 5-year age groups rather than by grades as are the school data. In the analysis, therefore, we used children aged 5 to 9 years in 1980 as a proxy for kindergarten to grade 4, making an adjustment to take out those attending private schools. We have data on the total population without regard to race for all census tracts. However, no 1980 racial data are available for those tracts in which the black population as a whole numbered fewer than 400 persons in that year. Several tracts within the annexed territory fell into this category, although 1987 school data now show sizeable black school populations. We also do not have separate data on private school attendance for blacks and nonblacks. The analysis of the 1980 and 1987-88 data can give us only a rough indication of changes in enrollment patterns and the direction of change in the territory recently added to the Little Rock School District. (The annexed territory includes all or part of census tracts 20.01, 20.02, 24.02, 40.01, 41.03, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, 41.07, 41.08, 42.03, and 42.04.) Nevertheless, they do indicate a clear increase in enrollments in the lower grades in much of the annexed area since 1980, primarily south of I30 and east of Heinke Road (tracts 41.05, 41.06, and 41.08). The comparison shows little change west of Heinke (tracts 41.03 and 41.04) and in the far northwest part of the school district (tract 42.03), although Metroplan reports a considerable amount of new construction of both multi-family and single-family dwellings. In one tract (42.04) there was a sizeable decline in enrollment.* (See Figure 11.) Since most census tracts in the annexed territory had relatively small black populations in 1980, it is difficult to tell much about racial change within the new area. At least a few tracts, however, appeared to have drawn increases in both black and nonblack enrollments between 1980 and 1987-88. (See Figures 12 and 13.) -10- 42.04 24.01  24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 11 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87 \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100  - 101 or more 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.01 40.03 Figure 12 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts Black: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980} Numerical Change, 1980-87 \u0026lt;D + 25  + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75 @ - 76 or more 42.04 24.01  24.02  40.03 Figure 13 Enrollment Change, 1980-87 Little Rock Census Tracts White: K-4 (tracts with 400 or more Blacks, 1980) 40.01 Numerical Change, 1980-87  + 25 @ + 26-75 @ + 76 or more  - 26-75  - 76 or more Overall, it appears that there have been few if any radical and rapid shifts in the pupil population of the Little Rock School District over the past several years. Total enrollments have declined steadily from year to year (except for the recent increase due to the annexation), but the drop has been gradual. Black enrollments have grown somewhat while white enrollments have decreased, but the pace has been quite slow in both directions. In gen-eral, change in the schools appear to be moving in concert with changes in the city as a whole--population losses in close-in older neighborhoods, growth in certain outlying areas. While much of the city's total growth has gone into the northwest and southwest, however, some of these areas have gained rela-tively few public school pupils, at least in the lower grades.* Black population and black school children have tended to move out of the older areas to the east and in the center and toward the west and southwest. In some of these areas they are clearly replaced white pupils. In other areas white enrollments appear relatively stable. *Metroplan staff expressed surprise at the drop in the K-4 enrollment in this tract (42.04) where their figures show a 1980-86 total population increase of 1,452 persons and the addition of 432 dwellings, three-fourths of which were single-family units. We have no reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. -11-  III. FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE ENROLLMENTS Expectations for Growth There are several sources of population projections for Pulaski County, two of which were consulted for this study--those made by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which produces the official projections for all counties in the State of Arkansas, and those made by Metroplan. UALR's projections are for the total population of Pulaski County by race, sex, and five-year age groups. The projections are given for intervals of five years to the year 2000. There are no separate figures for subareas of the county. Metroplan projects the total population of Pulaski County, along with the three other counties (Saline, Faulkner, and Lonoke) that make up the Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area, and also distributes the projection among census tracts in the urbanized areas. The census tract projections are only for the year 2010 with no figures for intervening years. UALR projects the population of Pulaski County to reach more than 441,000 persons by the year 2000, an increase of more than 100,500 or 29.6 percent over the 1980 population of 340,600. (This represents approximately one-fifth of the total increase projected for the entire State of Arkansas in the 20-year period.) About one-fourth of the increase is estimated to have occurred between 1980 and 1985, with about an equal increase expected every five years thereafter to the turn of the century. Metroplan has a somewhat higher projection, expecting the county to reach more than 474,000 persons by 2000 (an increase of 39.3 percent over 1980), and 530,000 by the year 2010, a gain of over 189,000 persons or 55.6 percent in just 30 years. -12- Only UALR projects the county's population for whites and blacks separately. Because of their higher rate of in-migration--during the 1970s the nonwhite rate was 19.6 percent compared to only 2.7 percent for whites-nonwhites are projected to number about 148,800 in the year 2000. They will then constitute one-third (33.7 percent) of the Pulaski County population, compared with 25.2 percent at the 1980 census. Our informant at UALR expects this in-migration to continue for the foreseeable future. Since Little Rock now has a substantial black community, he believes it will continue to be attractive to blacks now living elsewhere in Arkansas. Where the Growth Will Go Only a limited amount of the growth projected for Pulaski County in the next 20-30 years is likely to go inside the current boundaries of the city of Little Rock. Much of the central area has been losing population in recent years, and much of the rest of the city is already well developed. In 1980 the city contained almost half of the county's total population, and since then several tracts of land on the west and northwest sides of the city have begun to fill up. Described by one informant as \"the place to live in Little Rock\", the area of greatest growth in Pulaski County during the 1980s has been the northwest section of the city. To a lesser degree, the area to the south-west has also been attractive. This latter area was described by the same informant as popular for \"entry level\" housing for first-time homebuyers of more modest means. Almost everyone consulted for this study agrees that growth will continue on the city's western borders. There are still several large tracts of undeveloped land now prime for development. A number of major residential, commercial or institutional construction projects are in the planning stages or beyond. Census tract 42.03 in the northwest alone is projected by Metroplan -13- to increase its population by almost five times between 1980 and 2010. Tract 42.04 extending directly westward from the city will grow by almost three and a half times. Other tracts in the same general area will also grow, though more modestly. (See Table 5 and Figure 14.) Altogether, Metroplan has projected that the census tracts on the city's west side will gain almost 50,000 new residents by the year 2010. Only part of that growth will occur within the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District, however. While part of the growth area lies within the recently-annexed territory of the school system, most of the census tracts where growth is projected also extend well out beyond current city limits into the remainder of Pulaski County--and hence, beyond the present boundaries of the Little Rock School District. While the city of Little Rock may eventually annex some of the newly developed area, it is not axiomatic that the children living there will also be annexed by the Little Rock School District. At the same time, it is unlikely that a large segment of Little Rock's black community will participate in the westward movement to the city's borders and beyond. These areas contain some of the highest priced housing in the city, and blacks in Little Rock still have a considerably lower median incomes than do whites. Instead, the movement of blacks has tended to be on the near west side of the city and toward the southwest below 1630 where housing is more affordable. It is likely that this movement will continue unless steps are taken to re-direct it or to open up other options. Other Population Change in Little Rock As already noted, like almost all American cities, Little Rock has been losing population at its core. Between 1980 and 1986 Metroplan estimated that there were losses in almost every census tract on the eastern side of the -14- TABLE 5 CHANGES IN TOTAL POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT* LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1980 TO 2010 Census 1980 2010 Change 1980-2010 Tract Total Tract Total Tract No. Pct 1 860 1,600 740 86.0% 2 4,491 4,000 (491) -10. 9% 3 2,726 3,200 474 17.4% 4 1,508 1,000 (508) -33.7% 5 4,904 5,200 296 6.0% 6 3,956 4,000 44 1.1% 7 2,969 3,200 231 7.8% 8 773 800 27 3.5% 9 806 800 (6) -0. 7% 10 4,391 4,600 209 4.8% 11 4,831 4,600 (231) -4.8% 12 2,675 2,200 (475) -17.8% 13 5,262 4,800 (462) -8.8% 14 3,417 3,800 383 11.2% 15 8,175 10,000 1,825 22.3% 16 5,258 5,100 (158) -3.0% 17 867 850 (17) -2.0% 18 6,406 5,900 (506) -7.9% 19 5,029 4,500 (529) -10.5% 20.01 5,748 5,700 (48) -0.8% 20.02 5,568 5,600 32 0.6% 21.01 8,468 8,000 (468) -5.5% 21.02 4,095 6,000 1,905 46.5% 22.01 5,196 5,600 404 7.8% 22.03 4,935 5,300 365 7.4% 22.04 7,938 8,800 862 10.9% 22.05 6,940 9,500 2,560 36.9% 23 920 950 30 3.3% 24.01 11,100 16,800 5,700 51.4% 24.02 7,378 13,800 6,422 87.0% 40.01 5,539 4,500 (1,039) -18.8% 41.03 3,813 5,500 1,687 44.2% 41.04 1,354 6,800 5,446 402.2% 41.05 6,211 12,200 5,989 96.4% 41.06 6,660 8,400 1,740 26.1% 41.07 4,058 4,900 842 20.7% 41.08 6,361 7,200 839 13.2% 42.03 8,260 38,900 30,640 370.9% 42.04 6,614 22,000 15,386 232.6% 186,460 266,600 80,140 43.0% *Data for both 1980 and 2010 are for the entire census tract. In some cases, the tract boundaries currently extend beyond the city limits into unincor-porated portions of Pulaski County. SOURCES: 1980 data from 1980 Census of Population. 2010 projections from Metroplan, Planning Support Document, Pulaski Area Transportation Study, May 1987.  42.04 42.03  24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.03 Figure 14 Projected Change in Total Population Little Rock 40.01 Census Tracts 1980-2010 Percentage Change  t 5% @ + 6-25% @ + 26% or more  - 6-25%  - 26% or more city, in the tracts close to downtown, and in those on the near west side but east of University Avenue. Several of these tracts are projected by Metroplan to continue their population decline through the year 2010 while others, including some close to the city's center, will gain slightly. Some of the 1980-86 gainers west of University or south of 20th Street are projected to turn into losers or to stabilize by 2010. Since \"declining\" neighborhoods are usually \"aging\" neighborhoods as well, these areas will probably lose school-age as well as total population. However, some losers in the southeast are projected by Metroplan to become gainers by the year 2010. One close-in prospect for population gain is the neighborhood just to the east of the old downtown where there has been recent rehabilitation of old Victorian homes by young middle-class couples and families (Census Tract 6), However, the size of the area available for such gentrification is severely restricted not only by the number of dwellings but also by physical barriers to its extension. To date, whatever physical changes have taken place in the area's housing has had little effect on the pupil population living within the area. Future Growth of the Child Population Children are usually the most difficult group in the population to project. Unlike adults whose births are already a matter of record and whose survival from one age group to another can usually be tracked based on past experience with mortality and migration, how many children there will be in the future is subject to many more uncertainties. How will the birthrate shift? Will there be a trend toward larger families? or having babies at earlier ages? or later ages? If migration patterns for an older group changes, how will this affect the migration of children? -15- The number of children born to Pulaski County residents (we have no separate data for Little Rock) has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years. Except for a dip in 1978 (considered by several sources as an obvious error in the data), the number of births did not vary by more than a few hundred between 1977 and 1986. Births to both blacks and whites have also remained almost constant\nthe difference between the highest and lowest numbers in any one year has been little more than 300 for each race. (See Figure 15). Despite the constancy in births, the child population of Pulaski County, like the total population, is projected by UALR to gain by the year 2000. However, like child populations nationally and in most communities across the country, their growth rate will be substantially below that of the total population. According to UALR's projections, children below age 20 will increase by only 16.7 percent between 1980 and 2000, an increase of fewer than 19,000 in the 20-year period. Furthermore, the largest number will be ages 15 to 19, with smaller numbers at each descending 5-year age group. The smallest number will be children below five years of age. Thus, unless there is a substantial in-migration of young children it is likely that the seeds are present for even more slender growth of the county's child population in the future. Still, children will total almost 130,000 in Pulaski County in 2000. And they will be almost 30 percent of the county's total population. (See Table 6.) All of the gain in children and then some will be among black children who are projected to grow from under 37,200 in 1980 to almost 57,800 in 2000. They will be almost evenly distributed among the four age subgroups. White children, on the other hand, will decline slightly in number--from about 74,200 in 1980 to about 72,100 in 2000. There will be more than 2,000 more white children ages 15 to 19 than under five years. -16- 8000 7000 6000 CJ) -.5 5000 ..L... CD Figure 15 BIRTHS IN PULASKI COUNTY TOTAL AND BY RACE - 1977 TO 1986 't\n4000 -------- L a, ---- -------------- ----------------------- ........................... ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ----- -- ............ ,,,,.,.,,,,,,. .0 5 3000 ...,_,.,. :z 2000 - - - - - - -------  1000 0-+---------r-----r----~-----r-------,-----r----r------r------, 1977 1978 1979 Total births 1980 1981 1982 Year of Births White births 1983 1984 1985 1986 Nonwhite births TABLE 6 PROJECTIONS OF THE CHILD POPULATION BY RACE - PULASKI COUNTY TOTAL CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 28,291 32,599 32,649 31,923 31,370 5 to 9 years 28,117 28,074 32,385 32,496 31,848 10 to 14 years 25,870 28,358 28,404 32,804 32,981 15-19 years 29,047 26,423 29,042 29,142 33,682 TOTAL 111,325 115,454 122,480 126,365 129,881 WHITE CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 17,903 20,201 19,504 18,132 16,966 5 to 9 years 18,350 17,267 19,488 18,818 17,496 10 to 14 years 17,662 17,975 16,915 19,092 18,437 15-19 years 20,252 17,766 18,084 17,016 19,212 TOTAL 74,167 73,209 73,991 73,058 72,111 NONWHITE CHILDREN 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 CENSUS ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS Under 5 years 10,388 12,398 13,145 13,791 14,404 5 to 9 years 9,767 10,807 12,897 13,678 14,352 10 to 14 years 8,208 10,383 11,489 13,712 14,544 15-19 years 8,795 8,657 10,958 12,126 14,470 TOTAL 37,158 42,245 48,489 53,307 57,770 II SOURCE: Research and Public Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock. If there has been no rise in the number of births among Pulaski County residents, then why is the number of children in the county expected to growF? According to our informant at UALR the explanation lies in the migration patterns to the Little Rock area which have recently shown an increase in the in-migration of blacks from elsewhere in Arkansas. Blacks who might formerly have gone to Chicago, Detroit or Memphis, he states, are now drawn to Little Rock because of the size of its black community. As long as there continues to be a sizeable black population remaining in rural or small-town Arkansas, he expects that the migration to Little Rock will continue. We have found no projections below the county level for children so it is difficult to say what proportion of them are likely to end up in the Little Rock School District. Some are probably members of young families whose best prospects for starter housing may lie outside the city limits. Still, while less than half of Pulaski County's total population lived in Little Rock in 1980, almost 63 percent of its black population resided there. If this ratio- or close to it--continues into the future, a substantial proportion of the county's additional child population could go to Little Rock schools. We note that the UALR projection calls for an increase of somewhat over 1,000 black children per year in Pulaski County between 1980 and 2000, Over 600 of this increase, by the figure just cited, will occur in Little Rock. Enrollment figures so far in the 1980s, however, have shown a fairly consistent increase in black pupils averaging only about 127 per year. We have no explanation for this difference. However, we note that our projections, which will be discussed in the next chapter, indicate not a gain but a gradual decrease in overall black enrollments in future years. Because of the possibility that enrollment trends may be in the process of shifting, we recommend that they be monitored closely for the next several years and that revised projections be developed if necessary. -17- Influence of the Little Rock Economy A major shift--either up, down or dramatically different--in Little Rock's economic picture could affect migration patterns, and hence its school enrollments. This is unlikely to occur. One informant, a businessman with several decades of experience in living and working in Little Rock, described its economy as extremely stable--\"Good times, bad times, we grow about 2 percent a year. This isn't going to change\". Centers of government are often fairly recession-resistent, and Little Rock is probably no exception. When times are good, most people share in the prosperity. If times turn bad, government often steps in with new programs or expands old ones. In addition to being the State Capital, Little Rock is also a trading and distribution center for the upper south central region. It is also a major education and hospital center. It has a campus of the University of Arkansas as well as several regional medical centers. Its economy, in addition to growing steadily, has been moving in concert with the national economy. Manufacturing employment is down but not out, white collar and service industries are up. In 1985 the largest number of jobs (53,700) in the four-county Little Rock-North Little Rock metropolitan area were in wholesale and retail trade, according to the Arkansas Employment Security Division. The second largest number were service jobs (47,200). A substantial majority of these were in professional and related services, such as hospitals, other health services, and education. Service jobs had grown by 28 percent in the five years since 1980. In third place were government jobs (44,400). While manufacturing was in fourth place (33,800), the number of manufacturing jobs had declined by 10 percent since 1980. The drop, however, was more than overset by gains in other sectors so that the overall number of jobs was greater in 1985 than in 1980, by more than 9 percent. -18- IV. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Record of Prior Projections According to informants in the school system, its earlier enrollment projections have come remarkably close to the mark. In one recent year, for example, the actual enrollment was off by just a single pupil. Projections made in 1981 in an earlier study by Stanton Leggett and Associates also came close. When based on earlier enrollment trends, the Leggett figures fell just 136 pupils short of actual enrollment in fall 1985, or 0.7 percent. When based on the geographic distribution of the student population, the shortfall was only 79, or 0.4 percent. Most pupil enrollment projections are made by some variation of the \"cohort survival\" method. Basically, the method begins with data on the current school population by grade. It then \"ages\" that population, moving it up one grade for each succeeding year. At the same time, it \"survives\" the population, employing ratios developed out of school system experience which indicate what proportion of the children in one grade can usually be expected to show up in the next. The \"survival ratio'' is often a decimal fraction smaller than one\nhowever, it can be greater than one if youngsters migrating into the area from outside are added to the population in later grades. For children who are not yet old enough to be in school, the number of births in the appropriate year is used to develop the ratio. When the projection goes beyond the children already born, assumptions are made about the future fertility rate of the population. The comparative accuracy of past projections in the Little Rock School District is a tribute not just to the skill of the projectors, but also to the steadiness of past enrollment trends. In the present situation, however, one -19- II II II II II   II     II factor makes the projections particularly risky. This is the 1987 addition of a large number of pupils from the Pulaski Special School District, about whose \"survival\" almost nothing is known. Thus, we cannot develop survival ratios for almost a third of the current Little Rock pupil population based on their own trends and behavior. Projections for System-wide Planning Several sets of projections were developed and evaluated. All but one involved some variation of the \"cohort survival\" method, although they were also compared with independent data sources such as those furnished by Metroplan and UALR to determine if they were consistent both with current demographic and economic trends and future projections. Table 7 presents the final projections for each grade level which we recommend for current planning. We suggest strongly, however, that these be reviewed and updated annually as more data become available on the pupil population in the annexed territory. For the projections of black enrollment we used a three-year average of survival ratios for the old district. Past data were first projected to 1986 for the old district and compared to the actual 1986 enrollment. When the two compared quite closely, the three-year ratio was applied to the actual enrollments in the expanded district in fall 1987 and projections made to future years. White enrollments received somewhat different treatment. They had declined during the first years of the 1980s, but then began to turn up again. Some grade levels among whites began the reversal earlier than others, and the junior high years from 7th to 9th grade never did change directions. Since we could not determine whether the reversal was merely a temporary blip or presaged a change in trends, we used only one year's survival ratios--that of -20- TABLE 7 CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL AND RACE 1987-88 TO 1997-1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Current Projected 1987-88 1990-91 1995-96 1997-98 Total Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total Black Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total Nonblack Enrollment Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Total 1,846 6,449 5,820 6,064 6,401 26,580 1,184 4,196 3,819 3,695 3,207 16,101 662 2,253 2,001 2,369 3,194 10,479 1,834 6,059 5,494 5,966 5,952 25,305 1,156 3,797 3,593 3,712 3,219 15,477 678 2,264 1,900 2,253 2,732 9,827 1,797 6,072 5,180 5,297 5,605 23,951 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,167 3,128 14,490 662 2,262 1,930 2,131 2,477 9,462 1,797 6,072 5,158 5,269 5,389 23,685 1,135 3,810 3,250 3,115 2,913 14,223 662 2,262 1,908 2,154 2,477 9,463 *Ratios have been calculated on basis of enrollments within the boundaries which existed prior to the 1987-88 school year, but projections are based on enrollments in the expanded district in that year. 1986--for the white projections. These trends especially will require careful monitoring to determine their staying power. Total enrollments were arrived at by combining the black and white projections. In addition, as already noted, all of the projections assume that pupils in the annexed territory will behave in exactly the same way as those in the old territory. This is a risky assumption at best that should also be evaluated as reliable data on the new territory becomes available. Since data on births are available only for children who will be entering kindergarten through 1992, for later years we assumed that there would be the same number of both black and white births in the years thereafter as in 1986. As already noted, except for a temporary decline in 1978 (which many people attribute to an error in the figures and for'which an adjustment was made), the number of births has remained remarkably stable for the past ten years in Pulaski County. Overall, the projections indicate that total enrollment will continue to decline moderately through the 1997-98 school year. The drop will be largest at the junior and senior high school level. Both black and white enrollments will decline. Black junior and senior high school students will grow slightly by 1990, then drop off, while the number in grades 1 to 3 will be somewhat larger in 1995 and 1997 than in 1990. The number of white pupils at every grade level above 3rd grade will decline from its current level. Kindergarten and grades 1-3, on the other hand, will experience almost no change. Small-Area Projections Projections have also been made of the K-4 enrollments for individual census tracts throughout the expanded school district. They are shown in Figures 16 through 18. -21- 42.04 24.01  24.02 \u0026lt;D 41.06 @ 40.03 Figure 16 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 40.01 1987-88 lo 1990-91 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100 @ - 101 or more 42.04 24.01  24.02 @ 41.06 @ 40.03 40.01 Figure 17 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1995-96 Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ + 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100  - 101 or more 42.04 24.01 @ 24.02 @ 40.01 40.03 Figure 18 Enrollment Projections Little Rock Census Tracts Total: K-4 1987-88 to 1997-98 2 @ Numerical Change \u0026lt;D + 50 @ 51-100 @ + 101 or more  - 51-100 @ - 101 or more Section 2 Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools Stant.on Leggett and Associates  Educational Consultants West Tisbury, Mass. 02575 REPORT\nMEETING THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES NEEDS OF SEVEN RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas June 1988 RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS A school with 76% or more Black enrollment is designated as racially identifiable. These schools will have major enhancements to their programs Including the following:  Tutortng programs  Reduced teacher /pupil ratio- a ratio ofl8 children to one teacher will be used.  Extended day care will be provided with costs based on a sliding scale.  Home Instruction will be supported for preschoolers  Individual school programs will be implemented with areas of emphasis.  Renovations of buildings are proposed to put these buildings In top physical condition. RENOVATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SETTINGS FOR LEARNING In order to create in the seven racially identifiable schools the appropriate environment for learning, a series of major enhancements to these buildings have been proposed. These enhancements are detailed In the Appendix and are summarized in Table 1. To the seven racially identifiable schools has been added the Franklin School. This building is in the general area of the seven schools and can be involved In the effort to provide improved facilities for the seven schools. Table 1 shows estimated costs of enhancements. Those at Franklin are considered minor enhancements. Table 2. following, shows enrollments in the fall of the 1987-88 school year at the various schools. A map follows showing the relative locations of the schools and the major arteries. -2- Table 1 Racially Identifiable Schools and One Borderline School, with Estimated Costs of Physical Enhancement School Cost Franklin 22,350 Garland 396,890 lsh 124 ,770 King 1,1 97 ,815 Mitchell 106,470 Rockefeller 53 ,350 Stephens 964 ,720 Washington 742,730 3 ,609 ,095 Table 2 Enrollment by Grade for Selected Schools, 1987-88 Spec School K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ed Franklin 55 56 62 66 51 64 49 Garland 34 48 46 47 41 45 45 23 lsh 18 39 33 23 32 31 30 8 King 32 44 53 32 32 41 35 Mitchell 32 43 47 29 37 39 21 8 Rockefeller 50 48 42 32 33 42 42 Stephens 14 49 36 24 30 32 33 Washington 31 42 24 24 37 26 30 Total 403 329 214 269 256 289 218 214 2192 FRA~Kl I ,J 0 .STEP48\\JS 0 0 l'Si+ fv'\\t\\f S-4--\\ov.J/1-lG Rid.A:TIVE L~110NS OF ~L Bui LD/J--JGS 1r-J fd:F-ORr o,-.i RAUA LLY t,N\n,\u0026gt;Jn l=\"IABLE. ~oLS u',a I -4- Calculation of Capacity: Racially Identifiable Schools The capacity of a school is a Yariable depending upon policy decisions as to class slze and the provision of speciallzed staff that serve the student body as children are drawn out of the regular classes for this purpose. The provision of special education self-contained classes and resource rooms also affects capacity as these are withdrawn from the regular classroom supply. In this analysis kindergartens have been treated as classrooms since the program is a full-day operation. In the analysis of major enhancements of schools that are racially identifiable, the matter of providing adequate working conditions for the specialized staff assigned to the school becomes important. One measure of the school system's concerns in this area is given by the specialized (other than kindergarten and classroom) facilities provided for new schools. Table 3, following, shows the spaces provided in the three most recently constructed schools of the school system. Analysis of these data suggests that in terms of staff and programs added to the schools, the following number of rooms should be set aside for the uses indicated. These rooms do not contribute to capacity of a school as students use these in addition to the regular classroom to which they are assigned, except for self-contained special education rooms. There should be at least one self-contained special education room in each school. This number is the average required by the system, including those in its five-year plan for special education. The rooms may be assigned differently from year to year, depending upon incidence of handicapped students among those assigned and the desire to provide primary and intermediate levels in program. The special education program provides a resource room in each school as well. Children attend programs for help in such a room, leaving the regular classroom for this purpose. In addition there are needs for reading and math laboratories for the ALP program, a computer laboratory and a music space which can be either a specially designed room that will control the sound or the use of the stage, suitably separated from the dining area. In consequence. for each school, six rooms must be deducted from the classroom inventory. Further. some of the major enhancements offered in the schools require rooms outside the capacity of the school. For example, the introduction of a Write-to-Read program requires a computer laboratory outfitted with IBM computer in order to function. Such a room uses a classroom that cannot be counted as capacity. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS FOR RACIALLY IDENTIFIABLE SCHOOLS THAT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ROOMS Garland: Mass media specialty does not require special space. X ISH: A science laboratory is required to support environmental education program. X King: A program for four-year olds will require space. A greenhouse laboratory is called for. Full-time art, music and foreign language, as well as environmental education specialists, will require science. foreign language and art spaces. With so many specialists the likelihood is that a departmentalized program will be used to schedule students to special classes. It has been assumed that the addition of a science laboratory and a room for four-year-olds will be required. Mitchell: Artists in residence for drama, writing, speech, and mime will be utilized. One space should be provided. - - -6- Capacity is calculated by deducting from the number of classrooms that are available in a building the number of rooms that will be required to be used for special purposes, including special education. ALP programs, music, and special offerings related to the program of enhancement. The number of regular classrooms is multiplied by eighteen, the maximum class size in racially identifiable schools. Kindergarten is treated like a regular grade since the program is a full-day program. Since a common standard of provision of special rooms has been used for the seven racially identifiable schools equal to the best that the school system has used in its most recent schools. and since additional special rooms are allocated based upon the program enhancement of the schools, the capacities of the schools are substantially lowered. The capacity of each of the schools is shown in the following table. Desirable School Size The schools under consideration are generally small schools built at a time when only classrooms were provided in the building. When the specialized rooms required for today's educational program are deducted, the schools become very small. The capacities of the schools under consideration are grouped by size below. Less than 200 Student Capacity: King 136 student capacity Washington 172 student capacity Stephens 190 student capacity 200-300 Student Capacity Mitchell 208 student capacity Garland 226 student capacity Ish 226 student capacity 300 Student Capacity and Up Franklin 352 student capacity Rockefeller 370 student capacity It is important to note that the capacities of the eight schools under consideration total 1880 students. when an adequate number of rooms for specialized use are deducted from the total available number of classrooms. This compares to the enrollment in the fall of 1987-88 of 2192 students. Any enhancement program based upon fixing up the existing buildings will not have dealt with the matter of providing adequately the services to be offered children in the schools, including the program enhancements required by the programs. To continue the buildings without change in spaces provided will cause these buildings either to be sharply overcrowded or to fall behind the system in providing services commonly provided across all schools, as well as program enhancements to make these schools educationally attractive. Size and School Organization In looking at school size, it is important to see the numbers with respect to the classroom organization that students pass through. The schools are organized as kindergarten to six grade units. That is, in order to have one section to a grade it is necessary to have about seven times 18 students, or 126 students, as total enrollment. To have two sections to a grade requires about 14 times 18 students per class. or 252 students. While children do not come in neat packages of 18 to a grade, it takes a somewhat larger school to accommodate such changes and still maintain the grade org~nlzation. TABLE 4 Calculation of Capacity: Seven Raclally ldentlflable Schools and Franklin Elementary School Capacity No. of Assign CR's Required- Rooms Not Capacity One Self- School CR's* 6 CR's Spec. Use by Total Assigned Remaining Contained to Spec. Enhancement Special to Spec. CR's x 18 Spec. Ed. Use Function Use Use @ 10 Students CR's (1)-(4) [Incl In (2)) ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Franklin 25 6 6 19 342 10 Garland 18 6 6 12 216 10 lsh 19 6 7 12 216 10 King 15 6 2 8 7 126 10 Mitchell 16 4 5 11 198 10 Rockefeller 20 Q-** 0 0 20 360 10 Stephens 17 6 7 10 180 10 Washington 16 6 7 9 162 10 1800 includes kindergarten rooms.  Building has additional rooms suitable for ALP program. Therefore four set aside for special programs. Building has many specialized rooms in addition to classrooms and kindergarten space available to meet needs for special use rooms. Fall Total 1987-88 Capacity Enrollment (8) -'. .j ' 352 403 226 329 226 214 136 269 208 256 370 289 190 218 172 214 1880 2192 -8- When a school has a capacity well under 252 students and with more than 126 students representing one class to a grade. it is necessary for the school to organ.lze classes so that more than one grade is in a classroom. Most parents find this approach to be less desirable. It is possible to organize differently than by the chronological grade, using what is called an ungraded organization. In such a situation the children are dMded among the classrooms by some measure of maturity, or skill at reading, or some combination of devices. It can probably be said that with all the problems that the school system Is faced with, forcing a reorganization to some different kind of grade organization by maintaining small schools is unwise. It will no doubt be resisted by parents. concerned about their children, who do not see the need for such a change. Currently the schools avoid the issue by not having the special rooms that In this study are assigned to the schools in order to keep them at the level of provision of school facilities now found in the best school facilities of the system. A desirable size school that relates to the school organization ranges from 500 to 600 students with the equivalent of four sets of kindergarten to six units. or 28 rooms with 18 students each, for a total of at least 504 students. While children do not come to school In neat enrollment packages. In a moderate size school It is possible to accommodate. for the most part, dilTerences In enrollment from grade to grade without resorting to the placement of two grades in one classroom. Size and Staffing One should weigh the prudence of spending large sums of money to conserve buildings with limited enrollment and less adequate facilities as against providing larger schools with superior facilities that can be staffed so that there is room to work and the extensive specialized staff will be fully utilized. Any consideration of proposals for improvements in the seven racially identifiable schools must necessarily involve specific choices among a number of possible alternatives. For example. a decision must be reached on the question of school size. Should Little Rock continue to maintain and operate very small school units. however outdated and costly to efficiently maintain and operate they may be. because such little school units can also provide pupils a higher degree of personal attention with smaller class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios? Moreover, do not such smaller older schools often provide a sense of neighborhood identity and intergenerational stability which can give Individuals a sense of \"roots\" and belonging and continuity in a constantly changing larger community? By contrast. is it not also true that because of these very same smaller enrollments. such smaller schools often cannot provide many full-time services of such specialists as nurses, art and music teachers. counselors, and physical education Instructors, and cannot provide separate full-time specialized rooms for art, science, music, remedial reading, computer instruction. and similar costly services and facilities? How should a community choose between these competing alternatives? For example. in many small schools an art teacher may be assigned for only nine weeks per year. and for the rest of the year pupils are without this teacher's instructional services. While at the school such a teacher may do his/her work. based upon a stage, in a teachers' lounge or workroom, or may even carry needed supplies and work tools In the trunk of his/her car. These teachers may work with pupils, not In an art room but In a comer of the lunch room, or In an area of a regular classroom. and In some cases even in a stage or storage area or In a recessed part of a hallway. Moreover, if there is a reasonably useful space available, such teachers will -9- have to compete with the needs of other part-time specialists who also will be seeking space as a base of operations. We note with approbation that the established enhancement plan for stalTing proceeds for the assignment of many such specialists on a full-time basis and the consultants have therefore included necessary facilities for such specialists In their calculation of building capacities and recommended new facilities. Frequently there are also contrasting advantages which come with having larger units. With a large enough pupil base. three or four teachers can combine their skills at any given grade level, and pupils benefit. Thus one teacher may delight In teaching reading while another may have special skills and enthusiasm for teaching arithmetic. One may have a rich background in one area and another have hobby interests and competencies of a different kind. The larger school. with its larger staff. can offer many such benefits. Thus, too, because of the larger number of pupils, the cost per pupil for specialized full-time instructors In subjects such as art, music, crafts, health. computer science, and other diversified curricular offerings, become economically feasible. In addition, the costs of administration and overhead services can be reduced. One set of overhead costs in a larger building can be far less than the combined costs for similar services In two or three smaller units. Hence the decision as to what constitutes a desirable optimum size of a school involves an analysis of many factors. The consultants believe that an optimum size elementary school unit would be one having about four sections per grade level and preferably 500-600 pupils. Such a selection could provide an efficient base for personalized and specialized instructional services and at the same time provide an economical overhead and administrative cost basis also. Based upon the foregoing considerations, we believe that the enhanced instructional programs established by the policies of the Little Rock Board of Education, in conformity with the overall Court directives and decisions which have been previously established, can be well served by the recommendations herein presented. The Condition of the Building as a Criterion for Enhancement Some buildings are of a basic condition or have reached a point of wear where the enhancement of the building will not cover up the major problems that exist in the structure or the mechanical systems of the building. When schools were built as economically as possible, such buildings do not last forever, even with major repairs. The condition of the core of the building should be weighed in assigning children to these schools over long periods of time. An example is the Garland School. This building has masonry bearing walls and a wood frame inside. It is a multistoried building. A building of this type would not meet today's building codes and could not be built now. It is unwise to spend money on a building where the core is not that which should be in use today. In the case of Washington School, for example, the mechanical systems are worn out. The windows are rusting and should be replaced. The system of ventilating the rooms through the corridors by use of corridor fans represents the possibility of spreading flames in the event of fire. Washington School is not of sufficient quality to warrant substantial expenditures to patch it up. The proposed building program dealing with the seven racially identifiable schools attempts to apply current standards of quality to the buildings rather than accepting the existence of some buildings that. were the school district able to do so, would have been retired long ago. It is not wise to enhance a basically unsatisfactory structure. II II II II II II II -10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of remodeiing and rehabilitation of the schools. either as major or minor enhancements. has been estimated at $3.600,000. Such enhancement did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been provided by the school system in its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools. A series of alternative proposals have been suggested to combine four of the schools into two buildings each of about 600 student capacity. These are to add to Franklin Elementary School to bring its capacity to 600 students. requiring fourteen classrooms. The other move would be to combine Stephens and Garland Schools in one new building at the Stephens site. with a capacity of about 600 students. Add to Franklin Elementary School to Accommodate King Elementary School The estimated cost of adding to Franklin to bring the capacity to 600 students is based on the cost of 14 additional classrooms. These rooms, at 780 square feet each, the size of rooms under construction at the new Carver Magnet School. would require about 10,900 net square feet of space. Adding the necessary circulation. toilets, mechanical space to the net area would result in about 16.000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, using the basis for Carver Magnet School, the addition would cost $800,000. To this should be added the costs for upgrading Franklin School. first through the minor enhancements called for in the amount of $22.350 and, secondly, the probable need for further improvements necessary to upgrade Franklin School. These costs can be determined more accurately when architectural studies are started on the project. The amount of $100,000 has been tentatively allocated for the project. The total cost ls estimated to be $922,350. Major enhancement of King Elementary School was estimated to cost $1,187,815. With a capacity of 136 students. unchanged by the enhancement, the cost would be $8,700 per student. The new Carver Magnet School will have a cost for new construction. equipment. grounds. fees. and the like, of about $4,000 per student. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has a capacity, depending upon the use of rooms and using the same measures of capacity as the other schools in this analysis, of about 568 students. Adding two classrooms by using the stage as a music room and reducing the storage for specialized spaces would result in a capacity of approximately 600 students. Using the cost of the Carver School as a measure. the new school would cost about $2,500,000. The combined budgets for enhancement of Garland of $396.890 and for Stephens of $964,720 is $1,361,600. This does not take into account that the Garland School is constructed with brick bearing walls and wood frame. It is suggested that a new school of 600 capacity be-constructed to replace Garland and Stephens Schools. The two schools are located only about seven blocks apart in an area with small block size. By using the Stephens site expanded. as the site of the new school. the new school could be expedited. There is much vacant land and many abandoned houses that could be secured to expand the site. -11- Add to Ish Elementary School and Distribute the Students Now Attending Washington Elementary School Between Rockefeller and Ish Schools Washington Elementary School ls a building that requires substantial rehabilitation. When completed, the result will not be a building that will be as effective as either Rockefeller School, which represents the best of the elementary schools in the area, or Ish. which is a more recently constructed building, fully air conditioned and with the capability of becoming one of the finer school buildings of the system. Both Ish and Washington have 214 student enrollments as of the fall of 1987-88. The service area of Washington School lies in part across Roosevelt Road from the school. It is proposed that students living north of Roosevelt Road attend Rockefeller School. If the capacity at Rockefeller of 370 students will not accommodate its present load of 289 students plus the students from Washington living north of Roosevelt Road, new classroom construction suggested here for Ish could be transferred to Roosevelt. until an appropriate balance has been reached. Assuming that the 80 student excess capacity at Rockefeller Is used, there would be a total of 134 students now assigned to Washington who could be assigned to Ish Elementary School. The Ish School has a total of twenty classrooms. and an enrollment of 214 students. The total enrollment. including Ish and part of Washington. would be 344 students. From the number of classrooms should be deducted six specialized rooms assigned in all schools and two additional specialized rooms related to the specialty of the school. Ish as an environmental education focus needs a science room and Washington would require a Write-to-Read laboratory. A total of eight specialized rooms would be needed. With twenty classrooms. reducing the count by the specialized rooms would result in twelve rooms. A series of changes are proposed. One is to move the cafeteria from the center of the Ish building and replace this outside the walls so that the noise is moved from the building. The space should be converted to a library and its supporting services. The present kitchen can be converted to a science room, the present library can be a computer laboratory. The new construction of an all-purpose room can include a stage that can be designed for music use. Thus three of the eight special rooms required can be provided. The additional five specialized rooms are deducted from the twenty classrooms available. The fifteen rooms available as regular kindergartens and classrooms at eighteen students a room would have a capacity of 270 students. With an anticipated student load of 344 students and an existing capacity of 270 students. there is a need for four classrooms. bringing the capacity to 342 students plus ten in a special education self-contained classroom, for a total of 352 students. The new rooms could be constructed at either Rockefeller or Ish, as was noted above. They are calculated under Ish capacity at this time. New construction would involve a new all-purpose room and kitchen described as 1,000 square feet of space for kitchen and auxiliary space, 1,600 square feet for the main floor, and 1,000 square feet for a stage usable for music along with storage. Four classrooms at 780 square feet, the size in the Carver Magnet School, would require a net area of 3120 square feet. The total net area required would be 6,720 square feet or an estimated 10,000 square feet of gross area. At $50 per square foot for all costs, the estimated cost is $500,000. To the cost of new construction should be added $125,000 for enhancements to the original structure and for repair to damage at the mechanical room and the nearby exterior wall. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $625,000. The estimated cost of enhancement of Washington Elementary School is $742,730 and oflsh is $204,311 for a total of $951,041. X X X -12- Mitchell Elementary School The needs of the school, as suggested in the original program for major enhancement in the amount of $106.470. should be expended as planned. The needs for the combination of Mitchell Elementary School and Rlghtsell should be approached in the light of overall needs of this area of the city. These needs should be analyzed In connection with other schools in the area. IMPACT ON CAPACITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES The resulting capacities of the seven racially identifiable schools and Franklin are as follows . King-Franklin Garland-Stephens !sh-Washington Rockefeller-Washington Mitchell Total 600 students 600 students 342 students 370 students ~students 2120 students The fall of 1987-88 enrollment in the schools was 2192. The Mitchell School should be modified and recommendation wlll be made for this school in relation to other schools in the area. This wlll provide opportunity to change capacity further. Mitchell shows an enrollment of 256 students and a capacity of 208 students. Much of the apparent deficit ls caused by the difference at Mitchell. Summary: New Construction and Enhancements of Schools as Planned or for the Period of Time Necessary to Complete Major Changes Washington Elementary School Provide enhancements for period of time necessary to make permanent changes Rockefeller Elementary School Make planned enhancements Mitchell Elementary School Make planned major enhancements. Garland Elementary School Make enhancements to building for use until new GarlandStephens ls completed Stephens Elementary School Demolition and site work New Stephens-Garland School King School Make enhancement to the school anticipating combining the school with Franklin $75,400 $53,350 $106.470 $86,300 $50,000 $2,500,000 $80,000 X -13- Franklin Elementary School Improvements to Franklin including minor enhancements New construction. fourteen-classroom addition !sh Elementary School Make planned enhancements and correction of fault in mechanical room and exterior wall New construction of cafeteria and four classrooms with stage also usable as music room Total cost rounded to $122,350 $800,000 $125,000 $500,000 $4,498,870 $4,500,000 The diITerence between the approximately $4,500,000 for this program and the $3,600,000 budgeted probably can be resolved with closer cost estimating and with savings in operational costs that would be involved. The major improvement brought forth by the alternative suggestion would be that the new schools resulting from additions would be related to good basic buildings and that the new school proposed could be controlled in quality of educational environment. The original proposal involved encapsulation of building cores that do not represent high quality in the enhanced schools and in so doing accepting a lesser standard for the educational environment for children in these schools for years to come. The significant factor in the dUTerence in cost between the original estimates of cost of about $3,600.000 is caused by the difference in capacity between the original proposal and the alternative suggested here. There is a difference of 240 student capacity between the 1880 capacity of the original proposal and the 2120 capacity of the alternative. Using the $4,000 per pupil approximate cost of the new Carver as a gauge. the 240 student capacity involved would cost about $960,000. or close to $1,000.000, eliminating the financial advantage of the original proposal. r- CL::Ni /\u0026lt;AL fllG\"'f\u0026lt;..:YJ-\\TL 0 te/c.11 rSGLL AJ.. Tt:RJ.lAnVG ./4pp,2,DN-J-lb.5 TO tM PQO VI '-J \u0026lt;\n, Bf(Si~AL FAC! I LfT76 MAf S-1--\\o~Jnk\nRf:lAT/\\)E LoC.AnONS or= ~L BUI LD/NGS IN f.2GFbR, ON Rl.L(A LLY /Df\nNn l=\"IABLE. ~oLS ,.'.. . .p. ' Conformity with Previously Established Major Enhancements Proposals and Time Schedules -15- It should be noted that these proposals are sufficient to house all present and contemplated 1989- 90 enrollments. and do not require a declining enrollment to be feasible. Whether the Central City school-age population actually remains stable, declines, or increases, it remains true that in the final analysis the number of children attending these schools will be determined by assignment and will not be determined by local residential status. However, the consultants believe that the recommended school size range from 500 to 600 pupils is desirable for both educational and economic reasons and has therefore been the basis of these proposals. If there be completely adverse reaction to the concept of not conforming completely with he original Court-accepted plans and time schedule. the consultants suggest that every effort be made to conform with the major elements of such plans as previously approved, and that consideration be given to securing approval of certain modifications by consideration of the following . 1. We believe that the work could and should proceed immediately as previously planned at Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Ish. All such enhancements will be of continuing use and value to the pupils and staff therein. 2. We believe that such work previously planned at Garland, which will be of primary benefit and usefulness to the pupils in their final year of occupancy of this school, should go forward as planned. Work which is long-term preventative and primarily structural and mechanical in nature should be deferred and re-evaluated. It is recommended that this building become the much needed improved housing for the Instructional Resource Center, which is now located In former Lee Elementary School. The Garland School cafeteria facility should continue to function as a community center until such time as the newly constructed school achieves recognition of its own community center status. It is, of course, true that plumbing, site, heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical requirements for thirty to forty adult occupants are far less than those needed for hundreds of pupils. We earnestly suggest that public funds invested in the recommended new school would be of substantially greater benefit to pupils and taxpayers than would be the case if pumped into an eighty-year-old building. Moreover, by utilizing Garland for the Instructional Resource Center and disposing of Lee (which requires much work). the resource staff and program can function more effectively. Garland's facilities can be retained as a community center for as long as required, and substantial repair costs can be saved at both Garland and Lee. 3. We recommend that proposed work previously planned at King, and Intended primarily for pupil safety. comfort, and instructional effectiveness, be started immediately. The same considerations suggested for Garland should apply to King for the final year of pupil occupancy at this building. All savings from work that can be deferred and transferred to the King-Franklin addition should be sertously considered. A possible future use of the present King facility as an administrative unit for housing assistant superintendents and their staff could be considered, and such use would not require the major mechanical. site or structural renovations previously planned for effective occupancy by hundreds of pupils. Because the future use of King involves substantial consideration of possible future administrative reorganization policies and patterns. we believe that it would be judicious to keep current investment in this plant at a minimum consistent with short-term -16- utilization by present pupils. until final decisions are made to determine the final use of this facility . 4. To provide an effective new school to replace Garland and Stephens, the simplest procedure would be temporarily to spread Stephens' projected fall enrollment into not more than three or four nearby schools, which have the excess capacity to enroll them, and which can and will offer adequate facilities for their education. The present Stephens structure could then be demolished. and the site graded and prepared and a totally new school erected as recommended. There is much available vacant, boarded-up and low-cost property adjacent to the existing Stephens site. However, site acquisition takes substantial blocks of time, as well as funds. Other alternatives might include retaining some of the existing Stephens plant and building a part of the new school adjacent thereto, and then proceeding with final demolition and completion of the entire new plant. Still another choice could involve retaining some portions of the existing facility and building an addition thereto. In the consultants' view. this latter course could be as costly and more time consuming in the long run than the erection of an entirely new school. 5. In the case of Washington, it is recommended that the same consideration be given as previously recommended for Garland and King. Work should proceed immediately for items necessary for pupil safety and effective educational utilization for the coming school year. Those other Items beneficial to long-term plant and site use should be deferred while the addition at Ish is constructed. The community could continue to use the cafeteria facilities for as long as desired, while future use of the old building is determined. One suggestion might be to lease it for a nominal sum and required maintenance and operational expenses to the Annie Casey Foundation for their use as an administrative headquarters. IBtimate use or sale could await future developments. A simple chart illustrating the above concepts follows. While ultimate costs of this group of alternative proposals will be largely determined by how much is demanded and/or required to be done at the buildings to be given up after only one year of further pupil use. we believe that by careful selection, the entire program of new construction can be provided close to the the cost parameters previously suggested. If this is done, more than a thousand pupils. and perhaps as many as 1500, could benefit by these new and improved facilities. We further believe that these proposals for new construction can be completed within a time frame actually and realistically required for the previously proposed projects. We therefore recommend that they be given serious consideration, if our original recommendations are not acceptable. Time Frame for Facilities Improvement The consultants. based upon their combined experience of almost one hundred years of responsible leadership involving literally billions of dollars in school plant planning. construction and operational development in widely scattered geographic areas, believe that any proposed development of new or significantly improved school facilities must involve substantial amounts of time. School districts are typically enshrouded in massive amounts of regulatory procedures or \"red tape,\" which cannot be legally ignored. Boards of education and their staffs take many mandated. specifically stipulated legal actions to employ qualified engineers and architects. to procure financing, to hold public hearings, to advertise for bids, to approve architectural plans, -17- and to seek approval from various state, local and federal authorities having responsibilities for conformance with such things as fire, electrical, health, safety, zoning, and sanitary codes. labor laws, anti-discrimination regulations. and minimal education standards, etc. When finally approved, specifications and bids must be advertised for stipulated minimum periods of time, and contracts must be legally awarded within the parameters of literally thousands of Court decisions concerning such awards. Many of these statutes and regulations require time periods which are beyond the immediate control of the local board. Fortunately for Little Rock, Federal Court intervention may indeed expedite or \"short circuit\" some such procedures. Nevertheless, it is always also true that such things as shortages. procurement of critical building materials, approval of alternate components, preparation of shop drawings, selection of subcontractors, clarification of specification requirements, possible labor difficulties, delayed inspections and approval by regulatory bodies for code compliance, inclement weather. necessary change orders as work progresses. and many similar or unforeseen obstacles may delay progress of the work. In our experience. many of these delays occur, whether the total project be large or small. In general, it is our experience that such contrasting projects as a small elementary school addition or a massive new high school take a minimum of thirteen months for completed construction. In practice. larger contractors employ larger work forces and seem to have more \"clout\" in expediting necessary non-construction aspects of the projects. Consideration of all the required legal processes, adequate planning time, proper supervision and inspection of the work in progress. and final acceptance of the work typically require a year to a year and a half of elapsed time. We see no reason to believe that the time frame for Little Rock's construction procedures would be significantly different from those in other areas. While it is true that by utilizing overtime shifts. double-time labor, and paying premium prices for various components, and by using and paying for completion penalty and liquidated damages clauses in contracts. work progress can sometimes be significantly accelerated, we believe the proposed financing levels for Little Rock's school modification and construction projects leave little room for any such practices. Addendum The following material shows the original planned major enhancements for the seven racially identifiable schools. The suggested action for buildings that may be replaced or combined are shown in this compilation as alternative moves. The alternative suggestions are included In the summary of costs that appeared above. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Washington Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect\ndevelop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished Washington Elementary School Interior Toilet partitions Painting Floor tile, cafeteria Carpeting, classroom Exterior Partial re-roof Window replacement Clean and waterproof exterior Plumbing Piping and fixture replacement Heating and Ventilating All new system, HV only Air condition cafeteria Electrical All new system Other Equipment -18- New furnishing and equipment storage in classrooms, sinks in classrooms, modify chalkboard heights Subtotal Special conditions (10%), miscellaneous (5%), contingency (5%), professional services (lOOAi) Total building upi,:ade Site Development Paving and curbs Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Security Miscellaneous Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 2-1-89 3-1-89 3-1-89 Estimated Cost Orlg1na1 Alternative 10,500 9,450 9,450 2,500 2,500 40,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 25,800 12,000 40,000 167,300 10,000 10,000 154,400 18,230 13,000 500,180 54,950 150,000 12,000 650,230 66,950 30,000 5,050 32,650 8,850 4,050 4,050 4,500 3,000 Washington EL School (cont'd.) Subtotal - Site Contingency Total Grand Total Rockefeller Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strateflies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Rockefeller Elementary School Waterproof outside wall. early childhood area Roof repairs Repair HV AC units Repair carpeting Subtotal - Building Site development Play areas Grassed areas Planting Outdoor equipment Miscellaneous Subtotal - Site Total -19- 88,100 4,400 92,500 742,730 4,400 75,400 DeadHne Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 5-15-88 ~15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 6-15-88 7-15-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-15-88 E8tlmat.ed Cost Original Alternative 2,CXX\u0026gt; 2,CXX\u0026gt; 12,000 12,CXX\u0026gt; 8,CXX\u0026gt; 8,CXX\u0026gt; um 2.CXX\u0026gt; 24,CXX\u0026gt; 24,000 2,330 2,330 10,320 10,320 8,950 8,950 5,850 5,850 um um 29,350 29,350 53,350 53,350 . Garland Elementary School Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Garland Elementary School Interior Portable stage for cafeteria Stage storage Replace toilet floor tiles Repartition all toilet rooms Replace tack strips and bulletin boards Replace carpeting Paint interior Plumbing Replace all flush valves Replace sinks with vanities Electro-Mechanical Additional electrical service A/ C with window units Exterior Re-roof Clean and waterproof exterior masonry Site Development Build flammable storage Paving/ curbs Play areas Grassed area Planting Outdoor equipment Security Retaining wall construction Subtotal Miscellaneous. fees, contingency Total -20- Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 6-1-88 7-15-88 6-15-88 8-1-88 8-1-88 9-15-88 9-15-88 ~ Estimated Cost Original Alternative 1.em 7$X) 6,500 8,00'.) 2.00J 10,500 1,500 1,500 40,000 10,00'.) 13,500 13.500 3,500 3,500 l,OOJ 1,00'.) 2,00J 2,00'.) 32,700 00,00'.) 12,00'.) 2.500 18,250 30,00'.) 5,500 10,300 8.950 14,500 15.700 30.500 305,300 91.500 15,00'.) 396,890 86.300 r:---- Stephens Elementary School : Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance -21- \"The consultants view the elapsed time suggested there as insufildent. The project involves construction of a gym. total replacement of electrtcal and heating. ventilation and air conditioning system. replacing ceilings. replacing windows. and the like. In our judgment the project will take thirteen months at least to complete. Project to be accomplished. Stephens Elementary School Plumbing Replace plumbing fixtures. pipes. fountains. 1950 unit Extertor Replace all windows. 1950 unit Replace window operators Paint all trim Reroof, partial Interior Carpet all classrooms and replace asphalt tile Replace suspended ceilings. 1950 unit Install insulation. 1950 unit Refinish interior. doors. walls. paint. etc. Install new toilet partitions Electro-Mechanical All new electrical system All new HVAC system Subtotal for Building Misc. fees. special conditions. contingency@ 300Ai Total for building New Construction Multipurpose gym Fees. contingency. equipment. 20% Total new construction Deadffne CW:rent Altemative 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 1-1-89* 2-1-89* 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 9-1 to 12-1-ffi 10-1-89 to 1-1-00 Estimated Cost Orlg1nal Alternative 40,000 24,000 1.460 1,430 58,650 51.600 10,100 4.0C.O 23,100 13,650 107,250 179,000 515,150 154.550 669,700 191,750 38.350 230.100 Stephens El. School (cont'd.) Slte Development Develop plan Paving play area. walks Grass area Planting trees and shrubs Fencing Equipment Lighting Subtotal Misc. fees. contingency. 15% Total site work Grand total -22- The alternative is to build a new school replacing Stephens and Garland Demolition New construction \"The approximate cost for the Carver Magnet School. recently bid and unde::- construction. was this amount. Martin Luther Klng, Jr. Elementary School Implementation Schedule strate2:1es Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance \"The consultants view the current tJme schedule as optimistic. In the judgment of the consultants this project.will take a minimum of nine months to complete.  Projects to be accomplished, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School .s.afm:: Enclose fire stairs (south) Provide fire stairs (north end and from auditorium) Replace wood transoms with fire-rated enclosure San1tarv Replace all piping and plumbing fixtures 2.9f.O 5.5CO 19.000 9.750 11.200 4.200 rum 56,450 8.470 64.900 964.700 so.cm 2.soo.000 Deadftne Current .Alternative 4-1-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 2-1-89 3-1-89* 5-15-88 7-1-88 8-1-88 8-15-88 4-15-89 5-15-89 Fat:hnated ~..est Orig1nal Alternative 2.990 9,800 4.700 87.500 2.990 Martin Luther King (cont'd.) Stn.ictural -23-  nderpin and repair wall and floor slab. remove north sta.trs and en- 3.S:CO close are:i. Roof Re-roof 1949 and 1953 sections Exte!\"!or Repair masonry anc! repair wood w1ndows and sills Interior Install new tile ceilings. 1939 and 1949 units with Insulation Install doors. toilet panitions Replace floor.ng, all classrooms. cafeteria and audltortum Electro-Mechanical Remove present elecL-tcal service over roof. install proper equipment in new switch gear location. Including distribution Rewire for increased fi.-ctures. outlets and unit ventilators, 1937 and 1949 ur,its Install new fixtures throughout Install new heating system Subtotal. building Misc .. special conditions. fees. contingency @ 30% Total bulld!n~ Site Work Pavtng/curbing, including driveway and parking for 30 cars Curbs Walks Steps Play area basketball court Retaining wails at drive Retaining walls at west play field All grassed areas Planting and shrubbery Equipment Playground Baseball backstops Soccer goals Security lighting poles Security feIJ.cing Tree removal and clear stumps Subtotal. site work Misc .. fees. continge:::icy. 20% 12.300 2.240 14.750 2.830 45,000 40,950 75,00) 48,750 227.500 579,310 173.790 753,100 8,970 7\n3SJ 5,46) 3.250 5,00) 24,700 37,400 25,700 4,940 8,400 2,275 975 6.lCO 10.300 ~ 156,670 31.3.:0 12.300 2.240 2.830 20,36) 29.620 8.970 7::BJ s.a:o 8,45:) 2.275 975 ~ 38.820 7,7fJJ Martin Luther King (cont'd.) Total. site work Additional Upgrading Air conditioning Replace windows with aluminum Double-hung, double-glazed sash Equipment Painting and finishing Build greenhouse Build outside flammable storage building Subtotal. additional Misc .. fees. contingency, 30% Total. additional upgrading Grand total I Mitchell Elementary School , Implementation Schedule Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Mitchell Elementary School Air condition. window units Additional electric service Clean and waterproof exterior Paint interior Build outside flammable storage Replace or repair bulletin boards and tack strips Site work Subtotal Misc., fees, contingency, 30% Grand total -24- 188,000 46,500 63,375 62,400 40,000 19,200 10,000 ~ 2,500 197,475 59,240 256,715 2,500 1,197,815 78,700 rounded to 00,CfXJ Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-15-88 6-1-88 7-1-88 1-1-89 2-1-89 5-15-88 6-7-88 6-15-88 7-1-88 11-1-88 12-1-88 Estimated Cost Original Alternative 33,900 5,CfXJ 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 81,900 24,570 106,470 33,900 5,000 12,000 12,000 2,500 1,500 15,000 81,900 24.570 106,470 Ish Elementary School Implementation Schedule -25- This schedule ls for implementation of Items on current schedule and does not Include schedule for new construction. The site work planned for Ish should be scheduled after new construction Is completed. Strategies Employ architect Develop specs and bid project Award construction contracts Develop critical path schedule Complete construction Owner's acceptance Projects to be accomplished, Ish Elementary School Exterior Exterior walls. clean and waterproof Additional electrical and wiring Roof repairs Replace flush valves Interior Install glass partitions to sound-isolate cafeteria Install acoustic material on wall panels Carpet classrooms Replace louvered door with wall 1n ALP room Subtotal. building Misc .. fees. contingency. 20% Total. building Site work. Incl. fees. contingency Grand total Deadline Current Alternative 4-1-88 5-1-88 5-21-88 6-7-88 8-1-88 8-21-88 5-12-88 6-7-88 6-21-88 7-1-88 8-15-88 8-28-88 Esttmated Cost Original Alternative 12,000 12,000 15,000 15,000 1,500 1,500 3.500 3.500 3,640 3,640 1.500 1.500 25.500 25.500 2W) ~ 65,440 65.440 13.100 13.100 78,540 78,540 ~ il.2.3.Q 124,770 124,770 Section 3 The School Buildings of Little Rock The School Buildings of Little Rock It has been said that 'What the wisest and best informed parent would want for the education of his or her child. the Board of Education should seek to provide for the education of all the children of all parents.\" In conformity with this challenging axiom. the Board of Education of Little Rock and its chief administrators have sought objective information to assist them In arriving at decisions and establishing policies that will provide maximal educational opportunities for the youth of the community. One of the important ingredients of an effective educational system to provide such optimal educational opportunities for all citizens is the school plant, which works as a tool to assist the instructional staff. Students learn best when school facilities provide an effective learning environment. Eight years ago, the Little Rock School District sought the services of the present consultants to evaluate the buildings and sites, to judge how they were maintained and operated, to consider how they were used by the public they served, and to determine how their physical settings support the process of education of children attending the public schools of the district. The findings of that 1980-81 study were published in a two-part report that provided specific information as the basis for specific recommendations and specific cost estimates for implementing the changes so recommended. Because the passage of time and events have validated much of the proposals and cost estimates then made, the consultants were asked to again study the physical facilities, to review the impact of national and local demographic changes and trends, and to update their recommendations on physical facility needs and priorities and the cost estimates related thereto. Early and particular emphasis and attention was to be given to the facility needs of seven racially identifiable schools, as well as to an objective evaluation of how those needs were related to the totality of facility needs within the expanded boundaries of the enlarged Little Rock School District. In response to this multifaceted assignment, the consultants have provided preliminary and updated versions of their findings on the racially identifiable schools, have completed the demographic studies and projects, and are herewith submitting this third aspect of their report, suggesting the prioritized needs and current cost estimates of physical improvements in each of the school buildings within the system. Each school was given expert and careful examination of buildings and site conditions. Comments, suggestions and concerns of administrators and staff in each building were carefully noted. Comparative evaluations of the impact of observed conditions upon both building operational efficiency and integrity and educational effectiveness were established. Based upon these evaluations, preliminary task lists and cost estimates were established. In conferences with the Director of Plant Services and Maintenance and his two top assistants, these preliminary lists were then updated and prioritized as the most pressing needs for each facility. As each school facility was visited, the consultants checked the recommendations made in the 1980-81 study and determined which poor conditions had been corrected, which recommended -2- improvements had been carried out, and which poor conditions still existed or had been exacerbated by almost eight years of additional continued wear and deterioration. In a very real sense, the perspective given by this two-fold exposure over an extended time period gave the consultants added effectiveness In forming their judgments on priorities and projected costs. The consulting cost expert, who had compiled the initial cost estimates of the 1980-81 study. then took the task lists and updated costs of the former tasks yet remaining, and the reported new condition and proposed projects that were observed and listed at visits to the various buildings in April and May. As a further step in the process. the consultants discussed the educational impact of perceived plant needs with various administrative instructional personnel and also considered the goals sought by the desegregation and assignment programs, which are the primary determinants of actual enrollments in each individual Little Rock school. After this information had been collected and the demographic study reports had been compiled and submitted. the final parameters of the study were more clearly defined by several board policy decisions and actions related to the facilities situation. The Board acted with dispatch in authorizing work related to the major and minor enhancement programs as recommended to and accepted by the court. The Board agreed that the Washington and King Schools should be closed. It approved the recommendation for an addition to Franklin and directed that architects be assigned for designing a replacement school for Washington. It further stated that Stephens School should be replaced, but preferably not on the existing Stephens site. In addition, the work on the major and minor enhancement schools was to proceed, even though the responsibility for. and ultimate sharing of, costs for such work are yet to be determined by the courts. Under such authorization, this work has proceeded effectively and with dispatch. The Board has further authorized funding for certain major roofing projects of approximate costs of $1.5 million, plus approximately $3 million for air conditioning all the classrooms in those schools that do not now have such an important environmental improvement. as well as an additional sum of approximately $500,000 for Exxon energy grants. As a most significant and far-reaching step, the Board, supported by effective volunteer community executive, professional. and industrial leaders. has courageously decided to submit a referendum request for approval of an 8 mil tax increase. This additional levy is to apply 2.5 mils to physical plant improvement. with a minimum annual income to support an approximately $20 million program. In working with the Director of Facilities and Maintenance and his two assistants, the consultants sought final reviews of proposed work, work to be accomplished or already completed under the major and minor enhancement, air conditioning and roofing program, and ongoing maintenance. The evaluated project lists were adjusted to reflect latest costs and prioritized. Following all these steps, an adjusted program of about $18.5 million is recommended herewith. It should be noted that many prior requests for voter approval of tax increases have not been successful. However. there is a growing nationwide understanding of the importance of an effective education for all citizens for the survival of our democratic way of life. Industry has come to realize the need for an effectively educated labor force to compete successfully in the marketplace, and business understands that it is the educated consumer who provides the market for all the new and varied products and services that their enlightened customers demand. At both the state and local levels, volunteer groups of distinguished citizens from all walks of life have stepped forward and given freely of their time and talents to create an informed public 11111 II II II -3- awareness of the Importance of education and of the needed fiscal support to provide such an effective education. Their objective reviews of ongoing programs and their educational goals and results. and actual physical and fiscal realities of the local educational process can be an important motivator for significant change and improvement in the city schools. We believe that as a result of this awakened interest, the leaders of the Little Rock community can not long ignore the accelerating effects of continuous neglect of school facilities. Their informed and understanding support. plus the responsible and courageous leadership of the Board of Education and its chief administrator. can literally work wonders in producing a changed climate of public support for better education of the children who are the principal ingredient of the future of Little Rock. As a concomitant aspect of this report. we wish to point out that any program for the improvement of school facilities cannot overlook the fact that it is human beings who must operate, use. maintain, repair, preserve and protect the tremendous public investment in those facilities . As consultants. with broad knowledge of comparative educational operations elsewhere. we believe that custodial care and operation of Little Rock schools can be substantially Improved. We believe the recommendations we made in 1980-81 for the better organization, more adequate staffing, and Improved and increased supervision and training of the school custodial, maintenance and operations staff are now more important than they were eight years ago. We decry the almost impossible work load placed upon the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. and we reiterate our recommendations with respect to the importance of increasing and reorganizat!ng staff support for the supervision of this costly public service. The Little Rock School District has increased the district's school facilities by fourteen school buildings. increasing by roughly one-third the floor area to its maintenance operations and custodial work loads. It has not added any supervisory or administrative staffing in maintenance or operations to affect either the prior inadequacies or the added load of the additional facilities. We believe that continuance of such a situation is \"penny wise and pound foolish.\" These comments and recommendations for additional staff assistance are in no way intended to imply that the Director and his present limited staff are failing to produce. In fact. the work accomplished in the past semester and short summer season on the magnet schools, and in getting work done in the major enhancement and minor enhancement schools. while at the same time carrying on urgent and necessary repairs in all other buildings, is a magnificent accomplishment. The Board of Education can indeed be proud of the fact that so much has been accomplished, in so short a time and by so very few. However, it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that such a pace can continue for very long. To emphasize our concern, we also strongly recommend that if the millage for plant and facilities improvement is enacted. the district should immediately provide an assistant to the Director of Facilities and Maintenance. We further recommend that engineering and architectural services should be provided and district-wide specifications and bids be used in such a manner as to \"cluster,\" or to bring together many similar type projects in the various buildings (such as roofing, air conditioning, new intercom systems, rewiring, relighting. etc.) . By contractual services, such design people can help ensure district-wide fixed responsibility and the authority and opportunity to make on-the-Job decisions to foster prompt continuance of the work. Use of Planning Committees The best planning for adequate educational facilities should involve the input of those who, by experience, judgment, knowledge and technical skills. can contribute to the successful design of superior and effective teaching tools. Administration can foster such input by the creation of organized procedures for gathering these insights or inputs and transmitting them to the persons entrusted with the design of such facilities. Planners can be helped in such diverse -4- fields as instruction, administration. community and personnel use. maintenance, operations. and civic pride and citizenship education. as they go about their work. Who best can tell what Is necessary or desirable for effective teaching in various subject areas? Who can ensure that architects design a facility that will facilitate learning by pupils? Who can tell what facilities help an administrator to best operate a school program in harmony with student. community and staff needs? Who can tell how best to design a kitchen or lunch room layout. or to assist in designing facilities for proper custodial care and operation? The answer. seasoned by use in countless communities. lies in creating planning committees of administrators and staff experts who pool their knowledge to create educational specifications, as well as material specifications. thereby advising architects and engineers on desirable design elements. and who can screen out obvious design ''bloopers\" before they are transformed into enduring concrete and steel that forever plague their users during the life of a facility. The consultants have strongly recommended, and are pleased to observe. that such planning committees are being created to assist and strengthen the designing of future projects. In commenting upon the form of this report, we state that because we are aware of the existence and use of copies of our voluminous prior reports in various administrative offices, we have not included a reiteration of those reports here. Copies of significant aspects of such reports can be readily produced in administrative offices whenever their use is of interest. As a final comment. we wish to thank the Board. its administrative staff, and the host of its employees for the absolute cooperation, patient assistance, and supportive actions of all personnel, which have assisted in the production of this report. We trust that it will contain much useful information for the improvement of educational opportunities for the youth of Little Rock. Respectfully submitted. Stanton Leggett Frederick Hill Stanton Leggett and Associates Ill -5- An Extended Overview: Further Comments Priorities and Costs in the Preceding Listings. We have indicated those projects that the consultants believe will be most significant to improving the service life and educational utility of the present school buildings. We have intentionally leveled the total cost of these priority needs to a sum less than the proposed $20 million \"ceiling\" envisioned by an eight mil increase. There is no accurate way to determine the time frame that will pass, nor to determine the economic climate that will prevail. before specific projects are undertaken. nor can we guess what unexpected breakdown or emergencies may occur in the intermittent time period. We have consulted with top staff in establishing the estimated cost and priority of the included items, but the final responsibility of this listing rests with us alone. It is our intent that the difference between our listing and the amounts made available by an increased millage shall serve as a cushion to absorb any changes in cost, to cover emergency items, and to provide some leeway to permit the inclusion of some additional items that may be strategically or politically desirable. Administrative Facilities. We have not included any projects for the betterment of administrative facilities. Without question. much money could be spent to provide more adequate housing for those administrative and instructional services now housed at Lee and the administrative anne.'\u0026lt;:. Maintenance and Operations needs additional and more effective space and equipment. The main administration building and Board service areas could be improved. The food service function and equipment storage are poorly housed. There is need for housing an extended personnel function. The purchasing department requests more space and double decking some of its present space, etc. We have evaluated all such needs to presently be of lower priority than the needs of the individual school buildings. Moreover. lf and when the new school facilities are constructed. administrative use of old facilities then released may be carefully considered. Ultimately, also, such administrative needs may be again reconsidered each time a subsequent bond or current improvement program Is established. Failure to include any such item in our present listing may be viewed unhappily by those with genuine needs\nnevertheless, it is the consultants' recommendation that they not be included at this time. The Specter of Asbestos. The Board of Education and its staff have sought and received careful engineering evaluation of all locations of asbestos within the Little Rock schools. They have complied with all inspection and rectification and removal procedures related thereto. In those few remaining locations where it exists. it is safety encapsulated and in non-friable condition. Nevertheless. the environmental agency regulators continue to grind out increasingly tough and almost bizarre regulations. In some instances. observing all their rules can cause a $300 ceiling or floor tile repair to cost thousands of dollars. Then sometimes what starts out as replacement of a leaky pipe, obsolete lighting fixture, or broken floor tile can become a nightmare of unbudgeted (and many believe unwarranted) expenditures of scarce public funds for asbestos removal. It is not unrealistic to estimate that perhaps as much as $3 or $3.5 million could be required as an auxiliary hidden cost of some of the electrical-mechanical corrections and improvements that may become necessary in the future. Air Conditioning Program. The Board of Education has wisely provided for the air conditioning of all classrooms that do not have it now. However, there are many cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums, offices, and work rooms and conference areas that could also be so -6- equipped. This will undoubtedly be requested for future consideration. and additional funding would then be required. Portable Replacement. In June of this year. the Little Rock School District used 64 portable buildings. of which seventeen were judged to be \"below standard.\" or in poor condition. Their many problems, such as leaky roofs, deteriorated floors and structural elements, damaged siding. vandalized utilities. unsightly appearance, etc .. make it neither economically feasible nor desirable to repair them. It makes good sense to use portables to house temporary peaks in a growing school population. When capital funds for new construction are hard to come by, portables provide a way out. However. in areas of declining population or In those cases where a school's enrollment is determined not by residence but by assignment. the need for portables can be anticipated and controlled. In the case of Little Rock. where all such factors are prevalent, it is likely that portables will be needed in the foreseeable future . We believe a ten-year program of replacing about six portables per year, if all portables are to be eventually replaced. or a three-year program involving the 17 worst present ones. is called for. Replacement of these would be desirable. Staff has estimated that local costs for either program would be approximately $100,000 per year. Window Replacement. There are many inefficient and obsolete windows in various Little Rock school buildings. Windows can be a source of both light and delight to the occupants of school classrooms. We believe most teachers and most pupils prefer the airy and spacious feeling of larger, old-fashioned windows in high-ceilinged rooms, rather than the claustrophobic atmosphere that prevails in some modem school rooms with low ceilings. non-opening windows. and single-slit windows with constant need for operational. artificial means of illumination and ventilation. There is a clearly existing modem reconsideration of the many functipns of windows. as well as genuine concern that the closed recirculation of air in some modem ventilation and air conditioned systems is contributing greatly to a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses and infections. Nevertheless. despite the controversies that may be involved, it is a fact of life that spiraling energy costs have spawned the need for forced replacement of many leaky and rotten old windows and window casings in many buildings. and we believe that many of such replacements. at a cost of approximately $350 per window opening, may be anticipated. Needed New High Schools. As population changes now are indicated. the major growth of school population could possibly occur in the areas east of the airport complex where the Badgett and new Carver schools are serving. There is more opportunity for entry-level rental and purchase of homes in this area than in other sectors of the city. At some future date, these residents could demand secondary school facilities. In the area west of 430 and north of 300, there is indicated growth of expensive apartments. condominiums. and more expensive single-family dwellings. Should economic conditions change enough to decrease such construction, less expensive housing units with families likely to have older children of high school age might be erected and at some point local high school facilities could be demanded. Likewise, in the area west of Chicot and south of Baseline. the availability of land for middleincome. single-family dwellings, which would likely be purchased by older family groups having few elementary but some secondary age children. could require new high school facilities in this area. Moreover. the gradual deterioration of older existing high schools could make the replacement with new buildings economically desirable. At such time the new buildings could be relocated and could be the result of abandoning and/ or consolidating older high schools. II -7- Other Needed Schools. Current nationwide demographic data indicate that the populations of core areas of many cities are declining, as residents are moving to the outskirts of the city and into suburban areas. Despite inmigration, the total enrollment in most given areas of the inner cities has declined. In Little Rock, similar factors are at work. There is a perceived westward trend of the center of population. The older sections of the city have older school buildings and generally smaller enrollments. To ensure good educational opportunities for inner-city children, to provide more economical services with less overhead and administrative cost, and to economically replace antiquated structures, at some point it becomes feasible and desirable to replace. and in some cases to consolidate, these older, smaller units. Such trends and opportunities should be carefully monitored, and future bond issues may be required for such new construction. Instructional and Operational Equipment. Much of the instructional equipment in the Little Rock schools has been updated, and the use of computers and vartous audio-visual devices has been introduced into every building. Nevertheless. there is much in the way of antiquated and obsolescent furniture, laboratory desks. demonstration equipment. teaching stations, and 1V and VCR equipment, and limited supplies of items of such nature as musical equipment, art, science and health instructional equipment, shop equipment, and office equipment that should be updated or increased in quantity and capacity. Other costly equipment, such as truck and bus fleets. tractors, mowers. and all manner of maintenance, operation and custodial care devices, should be placed on long-term replacement cycles. Central office bookkeeping, accounting, word processing, and duplication equipment, as well as sophisticated data processing and data and record filing and retrieval equipment are all developing and changing at a rapid pace and are becoming essential purchases of modern school districts. Other kinds of costly equipment. in such areas as security controls, energy management. pupil accounting, personnel records, purchase and supply management, automated maintenance and Job controls, etc., indicate an ever increasing potential cost of equipment in Little Rock schools of the future, and much of such purchasing will likely be initially fmanced by bond funds. These various factors are highlighted together in this section merely to alert those interested in the wider concerns that may well be involved in future capital budget planning. They are not recommended or included in the initial listing of priority needs, but they are classes of recurring need that must eventually be considered for inclusion in a future listing. -8- Fiscal Capacity for Capital Improvement Programs Bonds Outstanding. Any proposals for long-term capital Improvements In the Little Rock public schools must realistically consider the existing and potential financial capacity of the district to support such programs. A study of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the district. as of June 30, 1989, indicates that there will be $43,395,081 in bonds owed, of which $3,035,529 will be due and payable as of that date. This indebtedness covers thirteen Issue dates, from December 1, 1965 through June 1, 1988, with more than one-half the total Indebtedness being from nine to over twenty years old and approximately one-fifth being less than two years old. This is a good \"spread\" and provides a stable base for any future debt service schedule. A listing of outstanding bonds is presented below in Table 1. TABLE 1 Schedule of Bonds Outstanding as of June 30, 1989, Litt le Rock School District Maturity Maturity Date Prior to After Original Interest Issued 6/30/89 6/30/89 Total Amount Rate 12-1-65 199,000 1,606,000 1,805,000 4,485,000 3.60 12-1-67 138,000 144,000 282,000 1,963,000 4.50 12-1-70 110,000 241,000 351,000 1,586,200 5.00 4-1- 73 185,000 193,000 378,000 2,410,300 4.90 6-1-73 120,000 705,000 825,000 2,051,000 5.00 6-1-77 350,000 3,565,000 3,915,000 6,482,700 5.10 3-1- 79 260,000 4,160,000 4,420,000 6,134,565 6.00 3-1-80 335,000 2,670,000 3,005,000 4,889,200 6.00 3-1-84 0 Refunded 8.30 11-1-85 0 Refunded 8.50 6-1-87 50,000 7,776,000 7,826,000 7,826,000 7.70 5-15-88 5,512,750 5,512,750 5,512,750 7.20 6-1-88 131,000 3,240,000 3,371,000 3,371,000 6.60 PCSSD* 1,157,529 10,546,802 11,704,331 3,035,529 40,359,552 43,395,081 *Please note that when various Pulaski County schools were absorbed into the Little Rock school system, the accompanying bonded indebtedness was also transferred into the total amounts shown. -9- Debt Service Requirements. Toe tax loading Imposed by outstanding bonds constitutes a mortgage upon all future revenues of the school district until the bonds are amortized. In addition to the prtnclpal cost. the district taxpayers must also provide the interest required at varying rates for the Individual issues, and such total of maturity and Interest payments constitute the debt service requirements of the district In each year until all maturities are paid. Table 2 summarizes the declining maturity value of bond prtncipal payments due In succeeding fiscal years until present debt Is paid. TABLE 2 Present Bond Maturities Payable by Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Maturities Ending June 30 Payable 1989 3 ,035,529 1990 3 ,224,798 1991 3 ,299 ,093 1992 3,377,525 1993 3,455,282 1994 3,694,616 1995 3,613,462 1996 1,930,577 1997 2 ,945,463 1998 1,335,625 1999 2 ,450,737 2000 1,750,882 2001 1,125,458 2002 1,216,882 2003 1,310,155 2004 960,000 2005 1,040,000 2006 1,120,000 2007 1,210,000 2008 1,300,000 43,396,084\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"suc_abaker_4483","title":"Letter, 1988, Sandra Euster to Augusta Baker","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["Euster, Sandra"],"dc_date":["1988-08-23"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Sandra Euster, Principal, to Augusta Baker, thanking her for her \"excellent inservice presentation\" and hoping they can work together again in the future."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 2, Folder 137. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998--Correspondence","African American women librarians","Children's librarians","African American librarians","Women librarians","Euster, Sandra--Correspondence"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1988, Sandra Euster to Augusta Baker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/4483"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/2025"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","Euster, Sandra"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_796","title":"Court filings: District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988-08-19"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","Civic leaders","School districts","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order"],"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/796"],"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  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1386","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing,'' Volume IV","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1988-08-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School administrators","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing,'' Volume IV"],"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/1386"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["297 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1351","title":"Proceedings: ''School Funding Hearing,'' Volume III","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1988-08-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School employees","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''School Funding Hearing,'' Volume III"],"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/1351"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["207 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":855,"next_page":856,"prev_page":854,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":10248,"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}}]}}